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
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?
I take it you’ve never read Song of Songs
I take it you’ve never studied song of songs as it is generally interpreted in an allegorical sense to be descriptive of the relationship between God and the people of Israel.
Oh I’ve studied it. Sex is intended to be between a man and his wife. It is not intended to be for procreation only.
is the judge a pedophile, pervert, or just a liberal?
Sex is for procreation. That is its purpose in human beings. This does not mean that sex within a marriage that is open to procreation is not enjoyable, but when not open to new life sex ( whether within a marriage or not )is a perversion. If conception does not naturally occur that does not demean the act
“Sex is for procreation. That is its purpose in human beings”
Nope, the purpose of human beings is to worship the Lord our God.
That you get that very basic premise incorrect makes me wonder.
So an older couple who have been married for years, she is past her change in life make love, that is a perversion in your view?
Where is that written in the Bible?
Certainly not a perversion..... Even though biologically not able they are open to new life because they are naturally unable to conceive
For the third time, where is that written in the Bible?
You assume she still wants sex. Most women start closing down shop in their thirties.
Not to be nit-picky, but I think that was Paul. :o)
Right - the “marital act” which defines the marital state and consummates marriage, is the one that brings the sexual organs of male and female together. Other kinds of fun in bed (if it’s not pressured/coerced, dangerous or disgusting) are OK as long as they are foreplay or afterplay, but don’t replace normal marital intercourse. (Gay writer Richard Rodriguez notes, mockingly, “They say gay sex is a no-no because gays don’t have a kosher place to stick it.” Actually, he’s right about that.)
And “marital” also means, not intentionally impaired as to its natural procreative potential.
Which of the three, addresssed, are you directing this comment to. I not only read the Song of Songs, I set it to music!
It was the Obama administration that refused to allow this drug to be sold over the counter. The judge who reversed that decision was a Reagan appointee.
so, it is now up to congress to legislate the perameters
Korman, Edward Robert
Born 1942 in New York, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on October 2, 1985, to a new seat authorized by 98 Stat. 333. Confirmed by the Senate on November 1, 1985, and received commission on November 4, 1985. Served as chief judge, 2000-2007. Assumed senior status on October 25, 2007.
Brooklyn College, B.A., 1963
Brooklyn Law School, LL.B., 1966
New York University School of Law, LL.M., 1971
Law clerk, Hon. Kenneth Keating, New York State Court of Appeals, 1966-1968
Private practice, New York City, 1968-1970, 1982-1984
Assistant U.S. attorney, Eastern District of New York, 1970-1972, 1974-1978; chief assistant U.S. attorney, 1974-1978
Assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1972-1974
U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, 1978-1982
Commissioner, New York Temporary Commission of Investigation, 1983-1985
Professor, Brooklyn Law School, 1984-1985
I seriously doubt the judge has any medical or scientific background at all. As a medical researcher, I have serious qualms about making a strong endocrine disruptor available OTC. It may not have adverse health effects if taken once, but many women will take them several times a month. I can see some huge health issues with that--blood clotting disorders, organ damage, cancer, to name a few.
If a large number of the public are terrified of the minuscule, non-biologically relevant, quantity of the endocrine disruptor BPA that might leech into water from bottles, then the prospect of consuming large quantities of endocrine disruptors frequently should have the public absolutely petrified.
So... did the judge also agree to release drug companies from liability for any and all damages that may result from taking a large quantity of an endocrine disruptor several times a month?
It is almost certain that this Plan B will be used as a primary method of birth control, by women naively thinking that it’s perfectly safe because it’s available OTC. But there is no reason to think that a strong endocrine disruptor is safe to take multiple times or on a frequent basis. The FDA didn’t seem to think that it’s safe to use that way, or they would have approved it for that use.
Will women and/or their families be able to sue the judge for their health problems (and even deaths) resulting from taking Plan B several times a month?