When a government agency makes a decision, they complete an unbiased analysis based on scientific data… right? I mean, the FDA decides whether Americans have access to various medications – so one would think that they must really be grounded in science and not be influenced by little things like politics. No?

Court documents recently released by the Center for Reproductive Rights confirm that FDA officials decided against approving Plan B for over-the-counter use WELL BEFORE the data review was finished by agency scientists. The depositions also show that FDA scientists experienced pressure to satisfy Bush's conservative base.

Sadly, the news that the FDA based its decisions about Plan B on ideology instead of facts is not shocking to most of us anymore. We are used to hearing about politics trumping science during the rule of Bush and his conservative compadres – so-called "intelligent design" replacing the study of evolution, abstinence-only education substituting for comprehensive sex-ed, and federal funding of pregnancy misinformation instead of accurate medical counseling are just a few examples.

It wasn't even that surprising last week to hear a co-host on The View compare taking Plan B in order to prevent pregnancy with "birthing a baby and leaving it out in the street", (though it was a relief to hear the other co-hosts, including Lisa Loeb, treat that point of view as extreme). Actually, it's tremendous that they discussed this important issue on network television, despite some minor inaccuracies. But it's one thing when strong beliefs influence discussion and media – it's another when they manipulate policy. That is unacceptable.

The FDA will be reopening discussion on Plan B soon; stay tuned to see if they decide to stop playing politics and base their decision on reality.