At FT, Robert Miller disagrees with Charlotte Allen, basically saying the FDA really had no choice.

The decision as to whether Plan B ought to be approved for sale is a decision to be made in accordance with the law. The relevant statute is §505(d) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which provides in pertinent part that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall” (that is, has a legal obligation to) approve a drug unless he finds that one or more specifically enumerated conditions obtains. These conditions concern such things as adequacy of the information filed by the applicant seeking approval of the drug, the sufficiency of the tests undertaken to prove the drug safe, the safety of the methods and facilities used in manufacturing the drug, and the efficacy of the drug in its intended use.

Assuming that none of these conditions were met, there was no legal basis for the secretary to deny approval of Plan B. That Plan B, when used as intended, causes the death of innocent human beings in utero, while of paramount concern morally, is not legally relevant. If the FDA continued to withhold approval of Plan B, the drug’s manufacturer could have sued the FDA in federal court and, in all human probability, obtained a ruling ordering the FDA to approve the drug for sale.