The Hager Reappointment: God & the FDA |

The Hager Reappointment: God & the FDA

W. David Hager, physician and author, is conspicuously anti-abortion. He promotes a Christian perspective within the context of teaching and practicing reproductive medicine.

As a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory panel on reproductive drugs, he was one of four out of 28 to oppose the over-the-counter sale of morning-after contraceptives. The minority view carried the day. FDA officials denied the application, citing the lack of evidence that the so-called “Plan B” is safe for girls under 16.

According to the overwhelming weight of medical opinion, over-the-counter sales of Plan B would be safe. Period.

The government’s interest ends there. After that, the churches are welcome to assert their rights to free speech, freedom of association and freedom from government intrusion to persuade others to Christian living.

Dr. Hager is a lightning rod for the fury of women’s-rights advocates because he sticks up with purpose so high from the crowd. We welcome his opinions on abortion and contraception as part of the debate on what people should freely choose as social norms.

But the FDA is asking Hager to stay on at least one more year — striking against science and for the religious reinterpretation of the FDA’s role.

With God on their side, why do folks so often court the relatively petty powers of government as their enforcer?

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.