naturalnews.com printable article

Originally published May 26 2013

Chemical abortion advocates wanted FDA to legalize morning-after pills for girls as young as seven

by J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) If you ever doubted the extreme left-wing radicalism of abortion advocates, their latest push to allow even pre-teen girls to have immediate, unfettered access to abortifacients - over-the-counter "morning after" medications that chemically induce abortions - should put those doubts to rest.

"Reproductive rights groups" - which is a blatant misnomer, since these groups have never been interested in reproduction, only abortion on demand - are pushing the Food and Drug Administration to comply with a previous federal court order instructing the agency to make over-the-counter abortifacients available to "women of all ages" (another misnomer, but I'll get to that in a moment).

What is wrong with this picture?

Per Reuters:

The groups, which include the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, said the FDA must remove all age limits and point-of-sale restrictions on emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after" pill...

If the agency doesn't comply, the groups said they would file a motion with a federal judge in Brooklyn that seeks to hold the FDA in contempt of an April 5 order giving the agency 30 days to make abortifacients available over the counter to girls of all ages.

"[A]s the leader of the reproductive rights organization that sought the elimination of limits on the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception, I feel it's my duty to ensure that the broader point of this effort - to expand access to a safe and reliable means of preventing unintended pregnancy for women of all ages - does not get lost," Nancy Northrup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote in a recent USA Today column.

"As the federal judge who decided this case wrote, the issue of teen sexuality is a red herring that the U.S. government has used for more than a decade to impose restrictions motivated purely by politics - not science - that have placed barriers between women of all ages and the emergency contraception of which they sometimes find themselves in urgent need."

The groups' threatened action comes on the heels of an FDA decision April 30 to lift restrictions on "women" as young as 15, a ruling with which President Obama - himself, the father of two young daughters - has no problem.

Speaking in Mexico, Obama said he was comfortable with the FDA's decision because, after all, it was based on "solid scientific evidence" - as if that has anything to do with anything.

Co-opting our language

It's unclear whether the FDA will seek an injunction against Korman's ruling, but it is an option under consideration by the Department of Justice, Reuters reported. Either way, there are underlying issues here the mainstream media - which is happy to cover a story allowing kids to buy abortifacients but which largely ignores the horrors committed by abortionist Kermit Gosnell over a 30-year period in Philadelphia - is completely ignoring:

Gee, kids, how about you try to just wait to have sex? So much for parents trying to educate their children on the pitfalls and dangers of sexual intercourse - the mental and psychological damage and feelings of regret girls often suffer later in life for having abortions; the threat of contracting an incurable disease (which is already rampant); the physical risks of taking an abortifacients; and so on.

Sex - at any age. The left-wing extremism of groups who use misleading words like "reproductive," "rights," and "justice" in their titles to push for allowing kids - not "women of any age" - unfettered access to abortifacient medications without parental consent or knowledge is appalling, and it has no place in our society.

Why? When did America begin condoning child sex? By merely advocating for "unlimited access" to abortifacients for females "of any age," these same groups are essentially condoning child sexual intercourse. Otherwise, what's the point of trying to lift the age restrictions?

Kids are kids. Left-wing extremists love to co-opt language, and they are attempting to do so again. Note to Ms. Northrup: A 15-year-old is not a "woman," she is still a child. "Woman" implies that she is an adult, and - legally and physically - that is simply not the case with teenage girls.

Further, did you notice how the friendly mainstream media isn't asking Ms. Northrup and her allies to define the phrase "at any age?" So I will ask in their absence: "Ms. Northrup, is there any age in which abortifacients should be denied to girls?"

I'll wait for her answer.

Finally, let's talk about the "science," Mr. President. Barack Obama - who, as a state senator from Illinois and since, as president, has supported even late-term and partial-birth abortions of the type Gosnell is accused of performing (he's charged with murder, by the way) - is not interested in whether the "science" does or does not support the FDA's decision to allow girls as young as 15 to buy abortifacients. His past and present positions on abortion at any stage and at any time belie his position. But let's talk about that so-called "science." What, exactly, is the science that says young girls taking abortifacients is safe? Where is the proof? Are we to simply believe the president - a known abortion advocate - without challenging him on his statement?

And what about a young child's mental health? How would that be affected by a traumatic sexual and abortifacient event? Does the president care? He hasn't said so.

Also, I notice the president has not responded to perverts like Northrup who are indicating that kids "at any age" should be able to have sex and then buy an abortifacient - all without parent consent or knowledge. Shouldn't an American president have a position on such issues?

Decades ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court, out of whole cloth, crafted a "legal justification" for killing unborn children, a number of people warned then that abortion would get out of hand, and it clearly has.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.reuters.com

http://hosted.ap.org

http://reproductiverights.org

http://www.breitbart.com





All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml