Skip to comments.Judge Orders F.D.A. to Make Morning-After Pill Available Over the Counter for All Ages
Posted on 04/05/2013 5:44:24 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
click here to read article
a Reagan appointee no less
“Life saving drugs require a prescription; life ending drugs dont.”
That sure puts things in perspective.
Yep. I said that long ago as did many of you.
I can only conclude the public schools are doing a great job of brainwashing our youth as at the rate liberals want to abort, they should be almost extinct.
The public schools are just creating more of them.
So, making love to your wife is a perversion?
Can you point to the part of the Bible where that is written?
On the bright side, at least the boys will have some say in the reproduction debate. He can just keep sneaking her these pills just in case.
Girls won't need birth control pills anymore. They can just take one pill, dump the kid, and go back to playing.
You don't war with nature and expect to win. These girls are going to take so many of these pills, something is going to go very wrong.
Eggs have been removed from under chickens for so long, most American breeds of chickens no longer know how to hatch their eggs. It's been bred out of them. If it weren't for machines hatching eggs, these chickens would be extinct today. They can no longer propagate on their own.
So many mothers have their babies and drop them off at day care centers, mothers no longer know how to be mothers. The unconditional love a mother should have for her infant has been bred out of them. Today, the "village" raises the child, and it's not turning out well at all.
Kids think sex is love. They don't know the difference, because they've never experienced love. "Mommy" was too busy at work to teach them.
Wow. It sure does.
I wish it didn’t exist. But since it exists and is legal, I actually prefer it this way, because now doctors are not involved in the process.
On the other hand, it is sad, tragic even that a kid can buy a pill that will at least remove part of her living tissue from her body forcibly and unnaturally, and in reality will kill a child, but CANNOT buy an anti-histamine because someone is afraid that child is too immature to know not to abuse the drug, or worse to make it into meth.
The question to answer is this — is there anything in the law that authorizes the FDA to determine which drugs are prescription and which aren’t, that give the DHHS secretary the authority to overrule the FDA, and then to define “prescription” based on age?
Are there any other drugs which are prescription for some ages, and non-prescription for other ages?
If not, then is the judge wrong if the law doesn’t allow this type of prescription determination? I mean, maybe we should pass a law allowing it, but I don’t know enough to say the judge is “making” a law, rather than enforcing it.
I do know that this administration regularly makes regulatory rulings that are blatant violations of current law.
The legal protection of the pregnant mother and the conceived child does not require reproductive surveillance ---- no more than the legal protection of air quality requires respiratory surveillance.
One hundred years ago, every state in the U.S. had some level of protective legislation on the books, which restrained abortionists. Most of the enforcement resulted from investigations sparked by damage done to women. A woman in the hospital suffering from lacerated cervix, punctured uterus, sepsis, etc. might well be questioned as a suspected victim of criminal abortion.
Maternal trauma, infection, or mortality caused by procured abortion, occurs in equal or greater numbers now than it did 100 year ago. If every injuiry resulted in investigaion and conviction, we could shut down 100 abortionists a year. By 2020 they'd all be gone.
Only if you are using birth control to prevent pregnancy...if you are “making love” while remaining open to life you are fulfilling the purpose for which sexuality was designed. Being open to life doesn’t demean the act if conception fails to occur naturally.
Be fruitful and multiply....
The same actions are objectionable no matter who performs them. Promiscuity and paraphilias are morally objectionable in both gays and straights.
As to the Bible: your condordance will not supply a list of all the world's known perversions. However: the Bible has a lot to say about sex. All known perversions violate either lovemaking or lifemaking, generally splitting one off from the other. There is not a single instance of marital intercourse in the procreative form in the Bible which is condemned, nor a single case of intercourse not in the procreative form, which is blessed.
We could argue about supernatural revelation--- but let's not. Instead, let's start by et's making reasonable inferences from converging streams of evidence derived from physiological design, social ecology and Natural Law.
Christ also said it is better to marry then lust after women.
Thanks Mrs. Don-o
Indeed... married sex that is open to life is indeed better than being unmarried and lustful. There is no inconsistency here.
Eggs have been removed from under chickens for so long, most American breeds of chickens no longer know how to hatch their eggs. It’s been bred out of them. If it weren’t for machines hatching eggs, these chickens would be extinct today. They can no longer propagate on their own.
So many mothers have their babies and drop them off at day care centers, mothers no longer know how to be mothers. The unconditional love a mother should have for her infant has been bred out of them. Today, the “village” raises the child, and it’s not turning out well at all.
Kids think sex is love. They don’t know the difference, because they’ve never experienced love. “Mommy” was too busy at work to teach them.
Yep — this just explains so many things on so many levels. We’re producing a new non-functional breed of human beings who fail to exhibit love for one another, compassion, morals, or the ability to sustain the species. Satan’s handiwork, for sure — the work of The State.
I am interpreting your statement of procreative form to mean without any contraception and oral or sodomite practices.... correct?
How does this make any sense whatsoever?