"Dr. Crawford was confirmed by the Senate to be FDA Commissioner on July 18, 2005."
Appointed by President Bush, I might add.
Now Lester Crawford is pleading guilty to two misdemeanors for not disclosing a financial interest in companies the FDA regulated.
He ought to undergo proper consequences for breaking the law, no question. I'm not here to defend his actions in that matter. But I can't help but wonder about the wrist-slaps given to enough Democrats and Dem-appointees who also did wrong, unethically self-prospering things, some illegal things even, and who were not swept from their jobs or sent to prison.
What I find most hilariously transparent is how a Bush-appointee is tracked down--and out of office--especially one who became involved in making the right decision to more deeply investigate and slow down the fast-tracking of making oral contraceptives--and their harmful, even deadly side-effects--available over the counter to our young girls.
How coincidental.
Isn't it remarkable how pro-abortion Center For Reproductive Rights lawyers get rather frothy about the mouth when going for Crawford's jugular in this inquest?
Recall that, in CRR's internal strategy document obtained by the CFAM Institute in December 2003, the Center for Reproductive Rights made the case that highlighting the unproven number of maternal deaths from illegal abortions could help guarantee a worldwide right to abortion. "'Because unsafe abortion is responsible for 78,000 deaths each year and hundreds of thousands of disabilities, criminalization of abortion clearly harms women's life and health,' CRR's memo said."
We posted on the shredding of that myth long ago.
And CRR is also the group that believes "adolescence starts at age 10" and fights in court for adolescent "age-mates" to be allowed to have consensual sex without it being considered (or reported by abortion clinics) statutory rape. CRR filed an injunction in Kansas in 2003 to "redefine the legal meaning of sex abuse in order to reduce the legal responsibility of abortion clinics to report cases of abuse to the government."
After reading the following transcripts, you'll see how CRR would be ecstatic to have our 10 year old daughters legally able to buy Plan B "Morning After Pills" at the local drugstore as easily as they would a pack of bubblegum.
CRR lawyer Bonnie Scott Jones listens to Dr. Janet Woodcock say, repeatedly, that she
"was not really privy to that decision or who was, you know, giving opinions on that"
and that "Ordinarily, I would have been more involved [in a decision about the Plan B dual status application], but not in all cases."
and that she "didn't know" why she wasn't involved, except that Dr. Crawford "said he was, you know, going to take this decision himself."
After hearing these various rather non-inflammatory, non-damning responses by Dr. Woodcock which apparently didn't give the CRR attorney what she wanted to hear, the lawyer raised (or rather lowered) the bar, referring twice to the situation as Crawford having "cut [Woodcock] out of his decision-making process" when Woodcock herself never used the phrase and clearly indicated this may not have been unusual, admitting that she was "not [involved] in all cases."
Then a second CRR lawyer, Simon Heller, grilled FDA's Dr. Steven Galson in similar fashion. Note again the "leading-the-witness" questions and conclusions that would be objected to in a regular court. I'll highlight the CRR lawyers' provocative gadfly statements and Galson's responses which told the truth that CRR and the rest of the pro-Plan B advocates don't want the world to know:
A fine, objective witness, indeed.
Appointed by President Bush, I might add.
Now Lester Crawford is pleading guilty to two misdemeanors for not disclosing a financial interest in companies the FDA regulated.
He ought to undergo proper consequences for breaking the law, no question. I'm not here to defend his actions in that matter. But I can't help but wonder about the wrist-slaps given to enough Democrats and Dem-appointees who also did wrong, unethically self-prospering things, some illegal things even, and who were not swept from their jobs or sent to prison.
What I find most hilariously transparent is how a Bush-appointee is tracked down--and out of office--especially one who became involved in making the right decision to more deeply investigate and slow down the fast-tracking of making oral contraceptives--and their harmful, even deadly side-effects--available over the counter to our young girls.
How coincidental.
Isn't it remarkable how pro-abortion Center For Reproductive Rights lawyers get rather frothy about the mouth when going for Crawford's jugular in this inquest?
Recall that, in CRR's internal strategy document obtained by the CFAM Institute in December 2003, the Center for Reproductive Rights made the case that highlighting the unproven number of maternal deaths from illegal abortions could help guarantee a worldwide right to abortion. "'Because unsafe abortion is responsible for 78,000 deaths each year and hundreds of thousands of disabilities, criminalization of abortion clearly harms women's life and health,' CRR's memo said."
We posted on the shredding of that myth long ago.
And CRR is also the group that believes "adolescence starts at age 10" and fights in court for adolescent "age-mates" to be allowed to have consensual sex without it being considered (or reported by abortion clinics) statutory rape. CRR filed an injunction in Kansas in 2003 to "redefine the legal meaning of sex abuse in order to reduce the legal responsibility of abortion clinics to report cases of abuse to the government."
After reading the following transcripts, you'll see how CRR would be ecstatic to have our 10 year old daughters legally able to buy Plan B "Morning After Pills" at the local drugstore as easily as they would a pack of bubblegum.
CRR lawyer Bonnie Scott Jones listens to Dr. Janet Woodcock say, repeatedly, that she
"was not really privy to that decision or who was, you know, giving opinions on that"
and that "Ordinarily, I would have been more involved [in a decision about the Plan B dual status application], but not in all cases."
and that she "didn't know" why she wasn't involved, except that Dr. Crawford "said he was, you know, going to take this decision himself."
After hearing these various rather non-inflammatory, non-damning responses by Dr. Woodcock which apparently didn't give the CRR attorney what she wanted to hear, the lawyer raised (or rather lowered) the bar, referring twice to the situation as Crawford having "cut [Woodcock] out of his decision-making process" when Woodcock herself never used the phrase and clearly indicated this may not have been unusual, admitting that she was "not [involved] in all cases."
Then a second CRR lawyer, Simon Heller, grilled FDA's Dr. Steven Galson in similar fashion. Note again the "leading-the-witness" questions and conclusions that would be objected to in a regular court. I'll highlight the CRR lawyers' provocative gadfly statements and Galson's responses which told the truth that CRR and the rest of the pro-Plan B advocates don't want the world to know:
Heller: In January of 2005, were you planning to issue an approval for the Barr application?[Ed.Note: Before all the documentation was together and fully reviewed?...Not the way I want my FDA to operate, oh, no].
Dr. Steven Galson: We don't make regulatory decisions until all the documentation is together, so planning to make--I don't think like that. It's--I was tending that direction.
Galson: What happened around that time frame is that Dr. Crawford, who was the Acting Commissioner then, told me that he was concerned about where we were heading because he knew that I was heading towards this recommendation, and he told me that he was going to make the decision on what to do with the application.[Ed.Note: Anytime a leading health regulation agency is prematurely "heading towards" any decision, isn't it considered wise leadership to insert or reconsult expert minds to assure that the wrong health decision is not made? Wouldn't that have helped in the VIOXX case?]
Heller: So he removed your authority to make the decision? [Ed.Note: leading the witness][Ed.Note: Heller hears that Galson thinks Crawford "had an educated view of it" yet continues to attack, now from a new angle, trying to blacken Crawford's discussions with others educated on this subject by way of responses from a person not even privy to any of those discussions. Galson's following answer is of course uninformed at best.]
Galson: Right, right.
Heller: When--maybe you answered this already, tell me if you did. When the decision was taken away from you [Ed.Note: leading the witness], at whatever point that occurred, were you given a reason why it was being taken away from you?
Galson: Yeah, Dr. Crawford was concerned about this packaging configuration, that this was something new, and despite the fact that I saw a clear path to approve it, he had those concerns.
Heller: Do you believe his concerns were valid?
Galson: I don't make--I don't second-guess the opinions of our attorneys in the Agency. That's their expertise.
Heller: I'm talking about Dr. Crawford's views.
Galson: Well--
Heller: Were they valid?
Galson: Yeah, I think he had an educated view of it, based on discussions I wasn't in, but I assume -- he's not an attorney either, so I assume that he had discussions that informed him, and so it wasn't, it wasn't really my role.
Heller: He had no scientific basis to disagree with your intended goal--intended decision?[Ed.Note: Galson just said that his role didn't include these other discussions.]
Galson: No, and he didn't, didn't attempt to bring science into the question.
Heller: Okay. And why were you not included in these other discussions that he was having about Plan B?
Galson: I don't know.So let me get this straight: an FDA official was leaning toward making a regulatory decision on a drug with known harmful side-effects, before all the documentation was even compiled, never mind reviewed, and when that gets short-circuited by his boss, he's disgruntled.
Heller: Have you ever--
Galson: I don't know for sure. I'm speculating that he had--that his concerns were informed by discussions, but since I wasn't in those discussions, I didn't hear about them, I don't, you know, I don't know, I don't know for sure that I was excluded from anything.
Heller: During the period from when your authority to take action was withdrawn [Ed.Note: withdrawn by virtue of Galson's leaning toward one conclusion without benefit of a 100% compilation and review of the documentation], or the delegation was withdrawn by the Commissioner, through when he resigned, that particular individual resigned, were you unhappy with the process that had evolved with respect to Plan B?
Galson: I think that's fair to say, yeah.
A fine, objective witness, indeed.
posted by Annie at 11:16 AM
