Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Tweet

A federal judge has ruled that the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step, a.k.a. the “morning-after pill,” must be made available over the counter to everyone. The decision, issued Friday, overturns a rule that required anyone 16 years old and younger to have a prescription in order to get the pill.

In 2011, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s determination that Plan B is safe for all ages, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to block teenagers from buying the drug without a prescription. President Barack Obama endorsed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision, arguing that the government “could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.”

But Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court ruled Friday that this was not an acceptable reason to deny access, and that Sebelius’ decision “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” He wrote:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed. Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Reproductive rights groups cheered the court ruling, which came after more than a decade of legal wrangling over the issue. “Science has finally prevailed over politics, to the benefit of millions of women across the United States,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that filed suit against the FDA over the decision.

Northup and other reproductive rights group argued that the age limits harmed teenagers who required timely access to the drug, which is supposed to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But the age limit also harmed older women, too, because it meant that they had to have a government-issued ID confirming their age in order to access the pill, and its availability was restricted to the hours that pharmacies are open. The use of emergency contraception has become much more common in recent years, with 11 percent of fertile, sexually active women reporting that they have used EC. Now that Plan B will be easier to access, you can expect that number to increase.

Politics | Mother Jones

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Tweet

A federal judge has ruled that the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step, a.k.a. the “morning-after pill,” must be made available over the counter to everyone. The decision, issued Friday, overturns a rule that required anyone 16 years old and younger to have a prescription in order to get the pill.

In 2011, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s determination that Plan B is safe for all ages, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to block teenagers from buying the drug without a prescription. President Barack Obama endorsed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision, arguing that the government “could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.”

But Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court ruled Friday that this was not an acceptable reason to deny access, and that Sebelius’ decision “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” He wrote:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed. Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Reproductive rights groups cheered the court ruling, which came after more than a decade of legal wrangling over the issue. “Science has finally prevailed over politics, to the benefit of millions of women across the United States,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that filed suit against the FDA over the decision.

Northup and other reproductive rights group argued that the age limits harmed teenagers who required timely access to the drug, which is supposed to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But the age limit also harmed older women, too, because it meant that they had to have a government-issued ID confirming their age in order to access the pill, and its availability was restricted to the hours that pharmacies are open. The use of emergency contraception has become much more common in recent years, with 11 percent of fertile, sexually active women reporting that they have used EC. Now that Plan B will be easier to access, you can expect that number to increase.

Politics | Mother Jones

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Tweet

A federal judge has ruled that the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step, a.k.a. the “morning-after pill,” must be made available over the counter to everyone. The decision, issued Friday, overturns a rule that required anyone 16 years old and younger to have a prescription in order to get the pill.

In 2011, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s determination that Plan B is safe for all ages, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to block teenagers from buying the drug without a prescription. President Barack Obama endorsed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision, arguing that the government “could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.”

But Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court ruled Friday that this was not an acceptable reason to deny access, and that Sebelius’ decision “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” He wrote:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed. Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Reproductive rights groups cheered the court ruling, which came after more than a decade of legal wrangling over the issue. “Science has finally prevailed over politics, to the benefit of millions of women across the United States,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that filed suit against the FDA over the decision.

Northup and other reproductive rights group argued that the age limits harmed teenagers who required timely access to the drug, which is supposed to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But the age limit also harmed older women, too, because it meant that they had to have a government-issued ID confirming their age in order to access the pill, and its availability was restricted to the hours that pharmacies are open. The use of emergency contraception has become much more common in recent years, with 11 percent of fertile, sexually active women reporting that they have used EC. Now that Plan B will be easier to access, you can expect that number to increase.

Politics | Mother Jones

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Tweet

A federal judge has ruled that the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step, a.k.a. the “morning-after pill,” must be made available over the counter to everyone. The decision, issued Friday, overturns a rule that required anyone 16 years old and younger to have a prescription in order to get the pill.

In 2011, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s determination that Plan B is safe for all ages, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to block teenagers from buying the drug without a prescription. President Barack Obama endorsed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision, arguing that the government “could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.”

But Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court ruled Friday that this was not an acceptable reason to deny access, and that Sebelius’ decision “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” He wrote:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed. Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Reproductive rights groups cheered the court ruling, which came after more than a decade of legal wrangling over the issue. “Science has finally prevailed over politics, to the benefit of millions of women across the United States,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that filed suit against the FDA over the decision.

Northup and other reproductive rights group argued that the age limits harmed teenagers who required timely access to the drug, which is supposed to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But the age limit also harmed older women, too, because it meant that they had to have a government-issued ID confirming their age in order to access the pill, and its availability was restricted to the hours that pharmacies are open. The use of emergency contraception has become much more common in recent years, with 11 percent of fertile, sexually active women reporting that they have used EC. Now that Plan B will be easier to access, you can expect that number to increase.

Politics | Mother Jones

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Tweet

A federal judge has ruled that the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step, a.k.a. the “morning-after pill,” must be made available over the counter to everyone. The decision, issued Friday, overturns a rule that required anyone 16 years old and younger to have a prescription in order to get the pill.

In 2011, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s determination that Plan B is safe for all ages, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to block teenagers from buying the drug without a prescription. President Barack Obama endorsed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision, arguing that the government “could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.”

But Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court ruled Friday that this was not an acceptable reason to deny access, and that Sebelius’ decision “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” He wrote:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed. Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Reproductive rights groups cheered the court ruling, which came after more than a decade of legal wrangling over the issue. “Science has finally prevailed over politics, to the benefit of millions of women across the United States,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that filed suit against the FDA over the decision.

Northup and other reproductive rights group argued that the age limits harmed teenagers who required timely access to the drug, which is supposed to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But the age limit also harmed older women, too, because it meant that they had to have a government-issued ID confirming their age in order to access the pill, and its availability was restricted to the hours that pharmacies are open. The use of emergency contraception has become much more common in recent years, with 11 percent of fertile, sexually active women reporting that they have used EC. Now that Plan B will be easier to access, you can expect that number to increase.

Politics | Mother Jones

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Tweet

A federal judge has ruled that the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step, a.k.a. the “morning after pill,” must be made available over the counter to everyone. The decision, issued Friday, overturns a rule that required anyone 16 years old and younger to have a prescription in order to get the pill.

In 2011, despite the Food and Drug Administration’s determination that Plan B is safe for all ages, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to block teenagers from buying the drug without a prescription. President Barack Obama endorsed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision, arguing that the government “could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect.”

But Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court ruled Friday that this was not an acceptable reason to deny access, and that Sebelius’ decision “was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.” He wrote:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed. Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Reproductive rights groups cheered the court ruling, which came after more than a decade of legal wrangling over the issue. “Science has finally prevailed over politics, to the benefit of millions of women across the United States,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that filed suit against the FDA over the decision.

Northup and other reproductive rights group argued that the age limits harmed teenagers who required timely access to the drug, which is supposed to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But the age limit also harmed older women, too, because it meant that they had to have a government-issued ID confirming their age in order to access the pill, and its availability was restricted to the hours that pharmacies are open. The use of emergency contraception has become much more common in recent years, with 11 percent of fertile, sexually active women reporting that they have used EC. Now that Plan B will be easier to access, you can expect that number to increase.

Politics | Mother Jones

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Reader Asks Me to Prove "Inflation Benefits the Wealthy" (At the Expense of Everyone Else)

Tweet

In response to Top 1% Received 121% of Income Gains During the Recovery I received a couple of emails from readers that I would like to share.

Reader “Gordon” wondered how it was possible for a group to get 121% of income gains. Here is the example I sent Gordon.

Mary, Tom, and Joe work for the XYZ Corporation. They are the only three employees. Mary’s salary rose from $ 100,000 to $ 200,000. Tom and Joe were informed of hardships in the corporation and their salaries fell from $ 100,000 to $ 80,000 each.

In the above example, net salaries rose by $ 60,000. Mary’s salary rose by $ 100,000 (more than 100% of the total).

Quantifying Inequality

Reader “Z” writes … “Inequality in the US has been rising since the 80s. How do you justify your theory that inflation benefits the wealthy? Not qualitatively, quantitatively.“

First, let’s take a look at inflation as measured by the CPI (any alternative measure of inflation would suffice for this example).

CPI Percent Change From Year Ago

click on any chart for sharper image

Except for a brief period in 2009, price inflation has been positive. The question is “Who Benefited?”

I claim it is those with “first access to money” namely banks and the already wealthy. A few charts courtesy of Doug Short at Advisor Perspectives will prove my point.

Nominal US Household Incomes

From the above chart it appears the average and median households income has been growing nicely since 1967. If that’s what you believe, think again.

Real US Household Incomes

In “real” (CPI-adjusted) terms, 50% of households are no better off than they were in 1988. Let’s dig a litter deeper.

Growth in Real Household Income by Quintile

The above chart shows percentage income growth by quintile since 1967. Since 1988, the bottom, 4th and middle quintiles (a combined 60% of households) have negative real income growth.  The next chart shows the same thing in a different way.

Real Household Income by Quintile

No matter what your timeframe, only the top quintile did well. And from 1980 until 2000 the top 5% got the lion’s share of income gains.

Ponder on that for a bit, then consider the following charts on total net worth.

Nominal Total Net Worth

Real Total Net Worth

Total net worth includes stocks, bonds, real estate, pensions, etc. I cannot precise quantify quintiles but we all know (at least we should) who has the assets and who doesn’t. The top 5 or 10% have most of the assets, the next 15% or so are OK and nearly everyone else is asset poor and high in debt.

Millionaire Households

The Wall Street Journal has some interesting stats on the Millionaire Population.

According to the Chicago-based Spectrem group, there are now 8.6 million households in the U.S. with a total net worth (minus principal residence) of $ 1 million or more. There are now 1,078,000 households worth $ 5 million or more and about 107,000 people worth $ 25 million or more.

The report also broke down today’s millionaires by occupation and former occupation if retired. Managers make up the largest group, with 17%, followed by educators (12%), corporate executives (7%), entrepreneur/business owners (6%) and attorneys and accounts.

The $ 5 million-plus crowd, is dominated by senior corporate executives (17%) and entrepreneurs/owners (12%).

Household Net Worth

Chart from Spectrem Group

There are about 114 million households. Of that number 8.6 million (7.5%) have a net worth of $ 1 million or more.

37 million households have a total net worth of $ 100,000 or more. Thus, 77 million households (67.5%) have a net worth less than $ 100,000. Counting underwater houses, I suspect most of them live paycheck to paycheck and have minimal if not negative net worth.

So who did inflation benefit? The answer is those with assets and those with first access to money: the banks and the already wealthy.

The poor do not have assets, they have debt.

In spite of the often-heard mantra that “inflation wipes away debt”, I suggest otherwise. Income typically does not keep up with expenses, and most have too few assets to inflate. The poor (last on the credit totem pole) overpay for their assets with cheap credit given to them at precisely the wrong times (as happened right before the housing bust).

Inflation Clobbers Those on Fixed Income

In case you missed it, please consider Hello Ben Bernanke, Meet “Stephanie”, my response to a reader on fixed income attempting to live on Social Security plus interest on a $ 16,000 CD.

If routine price inflation did not benefit the banks and the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, we probably would not have it. The word that best describes the process is “theft”.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

“Wine Country” Economic Conference Hosted By Mish
Click on Image to Learn More

Mike “Mish” Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific.

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

Reader Asks Me to Prove "Inflation Benefits the Wealthy" (At the Expense of Everyone Else)

Wealthy French Eye Belgian Tax Breaks (Everyone in France Should Do the Same)

Tweet

The inheritance tax in France is 45%, in Belgium it’s 3%. France has a wealth tax, Belgium doesn’t.

Wealthy French have known and used these loopholes for quite some time, but appeal of such schemes is on the rise following massive tax hikes of president Francois Hollande.

Please consider Wealthy French eye Belgian tax perks.

For decades, Thierry Afschrift’s boutique tax law practice was among the best-kept secrets of Belgium’s wealthy elite, his name passed discreetly between the landed gentry and industrialists in Brussels’ leafy suburbs seeking shelter from the kingdom’s Byzantine tax laws.

But in the past five months, Mr Afschrift’s phones have been ringing off the hook from another clientele altogether – wealthy Frenchmen seeking to set up private foundations in Belgium to protect their family fortunes from onerous taxes imposed by President François Hollande.

“We have loads of people coming every day asking us questions about setting up foundations,” Mr Afschrift said from his office on Brussels’ upmarket Avenue Louise. Other Belgian tax lawyers say they have been receiving around 10 calls a day from France inquiring about private family foundations.

The key to Belgian foundation law is that it permits the patron to hand over all assets to children as a gift, taxed at only 3 per cent instead of France’s 45 per cent inheritance tax. It also avoids France’s annual wealth tax, a levy that does not exist in Belgium. To top it off, the foundation’s benefactor retains full control of the assets while alive and can set disbursement terms for after their death.

“It is a very good tool to transfer assets gradually and assure the children don’t squander that family’s accumulated wealth,” says Manoël Dekeyser, one of Belgium’s most prominent tax attorneys.

“If the children want the money to play at the casino, the foundation’s manager can block them from doing so, if he has been instructed to do so by the parents.”

Said one lawyer, who asked not to be named to protect his firm: “Unfortunately, Arnault brought greater attention to the foundations system than we would have hoped.

“I would have preferred to keep it very discreet. Rich people know how to find us. They don’t need to read it in the Financial Times.”

Arnault Effect

Bernard Arnault is the owner of fashion and champagne house LVMH and reputedly Europe’s richest man.

French actor Gérard Depardieu stirred up tax debate with a threat to seek Belgian citizenship to avoid Hollande’s new top tax rate of 75% on millionaires.

Depardieu, who has been in around 200 films, says he’s moving to Belgium to avoid paying a new 75 percent tax on the superwealthy. The move has divided the country and has focused attention on the Socialist government’s controversial new tax policy.

The uproar began just before Christmas, when it came to light that Depardieu bought a home in Nechin, a drab Belgian village less than a mile over the French border. Depardieu admitted to establishing a foreign residence to escape new French tax rates.

“It’s pathetic really,” Prime Minister Jean Marc Ayrault said earlier this month. “Paying taxes is an act of patriotism and we’re asking the rich to make a special effort here for the country.”

Depardieu shot back at Ayrault in an open letter published in a major Sunday newspaper, Le Journal du Dimanche.

“I am leaving because you consider success, creativity and talent grounds for sanction,” the actor wrote. Depardieu said he has paid more than $ 190 million in taxes over the last four decades. He said he no longer recognized his country and offered to surrender his passport if he was, indeed, so pathetic.

Hollande’s Tax Hikes Backfire

Based on the Financial Times article as well as actual moves by the super-wealthy, it appears Hollande’s tax policies have already backfired.

For every dime collected, a flood of middle-class and wealthy French are setting up foundations to avoid inheritance taxes and shelter current income as well.

Indeed, any French citizen with an estate to pass on should investigate setting up a private foundation in Belgium to avoid onerous inheritance taxes.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Mike “Mish” Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific.

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

Wealthy French Eye Belgian Tax Breaks (Everyone in France Should Do the Same)