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
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?