Plan B's Junk Science

Repeatedly we are told that "science" has concluded that the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception pills is safe for 15-year-old and younger girls because it does not increase their risky sexual behavior.

This is bunk. This assertion is based on research that says no such thing. Not even close.

Yet, the public is remorselessly fed this line, especially after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided last week to allow pharmacies to sell Plan B tablets without prescriptions to women 18 and over. The FDA sensibly declined to allow their sale without a prescription to young adolescents because the manufacturer had not provided enough evidence that they would use the drug safely and effectively without supervision.

Will the drug lead to more risky sexual behavior, such as increased unprotected intercourse and sex with multiple partners? Will it allow older men to pressure 14-year-olds into sex--protected or unprotected--because this magical pill will "take care of everything"? Common sense alone suggestions these are among the risks.

But Plan B advocates, reproductive rights ideologues, manufacturers and marketers firmly deny the existence of any such risks, because "science" tells us so, as if that shuts the door on any further discussion. But, in fact, "science" tell us nothing; the "telling" is done by people who do science.

And the "scientific claims" about the impact of Plan B on the sexual behavior of younger teens are dubious at best or, worse, outright distortions--distortions that have been picked up and endlessly repeated by the media. Without examining the "science" of the claims.

So, let's do so.

First, despite the assertions that "several" studies or the "weight of the evidence" show that emergency contraception does not endanger younger teens, I could find only one that makes that claim outright. That is the one most frequently cited, if any citation is made at all. I'm referring to "The Effect of Increased Emergency Contraception Among Young Adolescents," by Cynthia C. Harper et al, published last year in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. In it, the authors say, "Adolescents aged younger than 16 years behaved no differently in response to increased access to emergency contraception from other age groups."

Which is to say that adolescents in their study didn't behave differently. It's a key distinction, because the teens in their study already were engaged in risky behavior. And there were precious few of the girls in their study to warrant any sweeping conclusion.

The authors used data from an earlier study from four San Francisco "clinics" to determine whether the use of emergency contraceptives (EC) changed "young" women's sexual behavior. They concluded that it didn't, and that might be correct for the 2,117 women who were studied. But only 90 of them were younger than 16, less than 5 percent of the sample. In other words, conclusions about the behavior of girls younger than 16 throughout America were based upon a tiny sample of a small, unscientific sample of millions of young adolescents.

The authors themselves admit this is a "limitation," and suggest "additional studies." Indeed. But that's not a point that made into the media.

Whatever the validity of the claim that the 2,117 "young women" in the larger sample did not change their behavior, it is scientifically irresponsible to make any sort of general conclusion about a 90-person subset of the 2117.

Even more important, nothing in the study gets at the heart of the matter: Does awareness of widespread availability of EC affect the behavior of under-16s who have not engaged in risky behavior. Or of those who have not shown up at the San Francisco or other "clinics." Or of impressionable, inexperienced girls who might be easily convinced that EC is an affordable and secret way to protect themselves, repeatedly.

Without a valid, representative sample of adequate size to produce statistically significant results for the universe of the under-16 girl female population, no statement of any sort--positive or negative--about the impact of EC on them can be made.

Maybe the authors figured that we wouldn't read the study. Or that we're too stupid to grasp it.

I can understand why the media ignored this caveat. Too many are inclined to take the word of any assertions that follows the words, "studies say...." Especially if the assertions are shaded to favor preconceived "progressive" notions. In further fact, too many journalists don't have the time, inclination, experience, training or support to examine such assertions beyond their baldness.

But how do you explain the authors' irresponsible assertions? To that, I can borrow a tactic that progressives usually use to try to debunk any study (e.g. about global warming) they dispute: Follow the money. The logic is that the conclusions are flawed because the study was funded by folks who have an interest or a pre-conceived notion about the outcome.

Such logic in effect questions the validity of just about any study ever made, and I'm not ready to buy it. But just to follow the train of thought, guess who funded this study? The Compton Foundation, whose priority, among others, is "Making emergency contraception (EC) a widely accepted and available method of family planning in the U.S. and internationally." Also, the Open Society Institute, founded by the liberal extremist George Soros. (The Planned Parenthood Federation of American, hardly a disinterested party, approved the study. Since when does an independent study require the approval of such a determined advocate.)

Plan B advocates long have been bemoaning what they've labeled the politicalization of the FDA approval process, as if anyone who questions the wisdom is scientifically illiterate and hopelessly conservative. But what is to be said about researchers themselves and the media that are a party to the politicalization of science?