In response to my ProLifeBlogs.com post on the Miami Herald editorial blasting the FDA's decision not to approve over-the-counter status of the morning after pill (and there are now many more likewise MSM editorials), I was asked this in the comments section:

A hypothetical question: if there were a MAP as safe as, say, aspirin, should the FDA approve it?

I expect by "safe" the reader means physically safe to use. Even if the MAP were found to be so, the FDA should still not approve it.

The FDA's mission is to "promote and protect the public health" when approving food and drugs for consumption.

Over-the-counter MAPs would be harmful to the public health, particularly young rape and incest victims, whose perpetrators would be more greatly enabled and emboldened to commit their crimes courtesy of the MAP.

Additionally, OTC MAPs would be convenient for men in general to abuse. See the fascinating article, "Morning after blues," on the aftermath of MAP legality in Taiwan.

The potential for abuse must also be taken into consideration. All drugs do have that potential, but the FDA is charged with determining which are the worst possible offenders. That is why codeine isn't available over-the-counter, for instance.

In that regard, there is great risk for MAP abuse, to be used as a primary form of birth control. Again, we are talking about megadoses of female hormones - one, two, three times a month? That is assuredly going to happen, particularly with irresponsible youth.

Speaking of, having MAPs available will lessen the perceived need for condoms, and it is also a fact that STDs skyrocket in countries with MAPs available OTC.