OPINION:
While Gary Marx is entitled to his personal beliefs, the arguments presented in his recent op-ed, “FDA leadership should reflect pro-life values” (Web, Aug. 11), rely on ideological assumptions rather than evidence-based public health policy.
Leadership at the Food and Drug Administration must reflect science, not ideology. The FDA’s mandate is to evaluate drugs and biologics based on safety and efficacy, not religious or political beliefs. Appointing leadership based on adherence to a specific “pro-life” doctrine undermines the agency’s neutrality and risks politicizing decisions that should be guided solely by medical evidence.
Dr. Vinay Prasad’s political leanings are irrelevant to his qualifications. A scientist’s voting history or personal political identity has no bearing on their ability to uphold rigorous scientific standards. Focusing on Dr. Prasad’s past political statements rather than his expertise shifts the conversation away from substance and toward partisan gatekeeping.
Furthermore, abortion is a legal medical procedure in much of the United States. As long as it remains so under federal and state law, the FDA’s responsibility is to regulate medications used for it to ensure they are safe and accessible. The role of the agency is not to curtail access based on one faction’s moral framework, but to protect public health for all Americans.
And mifepristone safety is well-established in peer-reviewed research. Major medical bodies — including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization and the FDA itself — have found it to be safe and effective when used according to established guidelines. The risk of complications is far lower than for many common medical interventions, including childbirth itself.
Next, mail-order dispensing increases, rather than decreases, patient safety. For many in rural areas or states with restricted abortion access, mail-order mifepristone with telemedicine support ensures timely care and reduces the risks associated with delayed treatment. In-person mandates often create unnecessary barriers without improving medical outcomes.
Finally, science-based regulation protects everyone. Whether one personally supports or opposes abortion, it is dangerous to set a precedent whereby federal agencies enforce one religious or political perspective in their health policies. Such politicization ultimately harms all Americans by eroding trust in scientific institutions.
If The Washington Times truly values life, it should support policies that protect the health, autonomy and safety of people who can become pregnant — rather than advancing a narrow ideology that limits medical freedom.
KRISTIN EMLEY
Frewsburg, New York
Please read our comment policy before commenting.