All officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, have as the first obligation of their sacred oath the protection of all innocent lives within their jurisdiction.
If I were elected to the office of President of the United States, I would keep my oath.
Justice Blackmun, in Roe vs. Wade, admitted that “of course” the child in the womb is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, if they are a person.
Since it is self-evident that they are a person, my first act as President, after having sworn the oath, would be to publish a presidential finding to that effect.
My second act would be to ask for the resignation of anyone in the executive branch who would not act accordingly.
My third act would be to order the closing of every abortion facility in the country, as per the explicit, imperative requirement of the Supreme Law of the Land.
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That’s the platform I ran on in 2012, and that's the platform I am running on in 2016.
Please visit: http://prolifeprofiles.com/tom-hoefling-americas-party.
by Joe Fitzgerald, Boston Herald columnist
Just when you think the issue has been decided, buffer zones are back in the news again because, to borrow a line from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., truth pressed to earth will rise again.
Granted, he was talking about civil rights, but isn’t our greatest civil right that “unalienable” right, endowed by our “Creator,” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”
Next week we’ll celebrate the 238th anniversary of that pronouncement with concerts, parades and barbecues, but as surely as there’s a time for fun and games, there’s a time for sober introspection, too, a time to take our inventory as Americans.
We long ago became a throwaway society, but should that mean it’s OK to throw away unborn babies, too, just because they’re deemed inconvenient?
That “Creator” referred to in our Declaration of Independence makes them all, the wanted and the unwanted, imbuing each with a potential already established while they’re still kicking within their mothers’ wombs.
Babies born to single mothers have long been slandered as illegitimate, but their presence is quite legitimate and the world has been enriched by such babies.
Leonardo da Vinci was one. So were Richard Wagner, the brilliant German composer, and Frederick Douglass, the legendary abolitionist, and James Smithson, founder of the Smithsonian Institute.
So were Sarah Bernhardt, Alexander Hamilton, Marilyn Monroe and Jesse Jackson.
An adage tells of how the stone the builder rejected became the cornerstone. Consider, if abortion had been tolerated then as it is now, who knows how many potential cornerstones like these, fashioned by their Creator, might have been snuffed out because their arrivals didn’t fit into someone else’s plan?
Such considerations are bad for business at abortion mills, so buffer zones were championed by practitioners who didn’t want any guilt associated with the services they offer. The idea was to muzzle those who proclaim the sanctity of life, pressing to earth the truth that an unborn baby is a baby nonetheless, endowed with those same unalienable rights the rest of us cherish.
The commonwealth can’t deny it. That’s why the murder of a pregnant woman will often result in two charges of homicide, begging a question: How can you be charged with killing a life the state says doesn’t exist?
So now the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has them all in a tizzy, outlawing this state’s 35-foot buffer zones, ruling that, even here in Massachusetts, you can’t kill free speech as easily as you can kill an unborn child.
Hey, it’s a step in the right direction, a baby step you might say.
"One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
...Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. ...A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.' It was 'illegal' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail
"To claim a right to 'decide' whether or not some individual, or class of individuals, should be protected, is to deny the unalienable, God-given nature of our rights, the basis for the American claim to liberty, the cornerstone for the rule of law, the very raison d'etre of human government, according to our founders: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...'"
-- Tom Hoefling, President and Founder, Equal Protection for Posterity
National Right to Life's immoral, unconstitutional "fetal pain" strategy meets its inevitable practical dead end
Just like we've been saying right along:
NRTL's main focus, which is "twenty week" "and then you can kill the baby" bills, are immoral, unconstitutional, and ultimately USELESS at stopping abortion on demand.
Wake up, people!
The "strategy" of the "pro-life" industry is now thoroughly discredited.
Supreme Court declines to hear Arizona abortion appeal
Dr. Patrick Johnston
I was asked to lend my support for the Texas "20-week" bill in its infancy, but once I read it I could not. Many pro-life leaders support such bills, yet haven't even read the bill. Some of these bills re-affirm Roe v. Wade, dehumanize the preborn, and justify the killing of some children. Those supporting such bills believe that the abortion any preborn child is murder, and yet their bills permit some murder. Hypocrisy is not a fruit of the Spirit. It's like an opponent to slavery in the colonial era actually owning a slave. It's like condemning the lynching of slaves UNLESS the lyncher is informed that the slave can feel pain (similar to the fetal pain awareness bills). Or UNLESS the lyncher has viewed a mandatory ultrasound of the slave's heartbeat first. Or UNLESS the slave being lynched is under a certain age.
The Texas "20-week" bill actually nullifies itself if it poses an "undue burden" on a women intent on killing her baby. The Ohio Heartbeat Bill actually nullifies itself if a judge overturns it!
Since when do godless judges and "undue burdens" on murderers trump the commandment "Do no murder"?
"Some lives will be saved," the argument is made. That remains to be seen. A federal judge recently overturned North Dakota's heartbeat bill, calling it "unconstitutional". Many oppose personhood bills because they worry that the courts will overturn them, but many of these regulatory bills get overturned, too. If we'd start trying to protect all the threatened children, instead of trying to legalize circumstances in which they may be killed, or designating an age at which they may be killed, then maybe we've have a law worth defying the feds over, a law God would bless.
Think about this: Should we "do evil that good may come"? Would you blaspheme God's name to stop an assault? Would you commit sodomy to stop a terrorist attack? Would you dismember and kill one Downs Syndrome baby in order to save others from dying?
You shouldn't, not if God's law is the standard of right and wrong. Relative morality is affront to God's sovereignty and Jesus' lordship. Situational ethics is a satanic alternative to God's rule. God is the standard of morality and justice, and "He that keeps the whole law and offends in one point is guilty of all" (James 2:10). His law says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Kill this baby, but not this baby." Thou shalt not kill!
We shouldn't be hypocrites, condemning the murder of dehumanized babies out of one side of our mouths, and justifying the murder of some dehumanized babies out of the other side of our mouths through supporting compromised bills. Read the bill before you fall prey to the advertising campaigns, and be sure that is compatible with God's Word.
The American Right to Life articles "Oppose Abortion Regulations Because..." and "Oppose Abortion Exceptions Because..." show why Christians cannot support most so-called pro-life bills that
- attempt to regulate abortion (for example, bills attempting to make child-killing clinics more sanitary, safer for the killers); or
- designate an age at which some children may be killed (like most heartbeat bills and late-term abortion bans), or
- designate circumstances, such as rape, incest, or fetal handicap, when some children may be killed.
Study these articles, and learn the biblical arguments well, for just as in the days of American slavery, when many Christians rested content with "incremental" bills regulating yet legitimizing the slave trade, so today many of God's people are comfortable with some child-killing, bringing the guilt of innocent blood on themselves.
We don't have to wander the wilderness of "abortion regulation", staining our hands with the blood of the innocent children our legislation permits to be murdered. No! We can enter the Promised Land of "liberty and justice for all." "It is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these children should perish", and "if we ask anything in His name, believing we have received it, we will have it." Will you pray and believe with us? Will you help us?
Join our cause. Don't try to regulate the killing. Be an abortion abolitionist.
United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas,
Your demeanor and plain words on many subjects have been refreshing, Senator, since your election. But your support for the so-called 'twenty week' or "fetal pain" abortion legislation that was just passed in your home state, and which is similarly being proposed in the great national legislative body in which you now serve, is a huge disappointment. Such support destroys your credibility and disqualifies you.
Do you think it would be right, or just, or moral, or constitutional, if a "law" were passed that explicitly allowed all paraplegics to be shot to death, since they cannot "feel pain"?
Would a "law" that gave "legal" permission to kill elderly family members, as long as they were given enough morphine, be acceptable to you?
Because that is exactly what these sorts of bills are predicated upon. An arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, baseless, immoral claim concerning whether or not the victim can feel anything when they are destroyed at the vicious, bloody hands of the abortionists.
The Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
The Fourteenth Amendment:
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Personhood - what you intrinsically are, a unique person, made in God's image and likeness - is the constitutional criteria, not "pain," not calendar age, not stage of maturity or human development, not location, nor anything else.
America's founders clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, our nation's charter, that the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life of EVERY PERSON, FROM THEIR CREATION, is the raison d'etre, the primary reason, for the existence of government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
And, the ultimate stated purpose of our Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Any bill that grants express permission, as this legislation does, to kill certain disfavored classes of innocent persons, violates EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE of that statement of purpose, in fact.
The equal protection of every innocent person within the United States, from the first moment of their physical creation, is NOT optional. IT IS IMPERATIVE, if you are to fulfill the obligations of the sacred oath that you swore to God Himself.
If you will not act according to that supremely important imperative, frankly, you're not fit for any office of public trust. I must say, without any reservation, that you, and every one of your colleagues who agrees with you, should, if you will not immediately change your thinking, resign in shame and disgrace and go home. Let someone who understands the basics of the obligations of the oath serve in your stead.
If you, and ALL officers of government, in EVERY branch, at EVERY level, , as per the absolute requirement of Article Six of our Constitution, will not keep your oath to defend the unalienable, God-given right to life of EVERY innocent person, FROM CREATION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH, there will soon be no America. You will have destroyed it, because a building cannot long stand without its foundations. And make no mistake, respect for the individual EQUAL right to live is that foundation.
The practices of abortion and euthanasia should not exist in a republic whose form of government, and law, and claim to liberty, is predicated on the foundation of the equal protection of unalienable, God-given natural individual rights, starting with the right to live.
"Don't worrry they won't feel a thing" is an immoral thing to say, Senator. It's wrong.
Your position is actually a giant evil step beyond Roe vs. Wade, which was a mere court opinion. After all, even Blackmun admitted in that infamous majority opinion that if the "fetus," or child, is a person, "of course" they are protected by our Constitution's explicit equal protection requirement. You, on the other hand, admit to their personhood, and, contrary to the Constitution, grant express permission for certain disfavored classes of those persons to be murdered. You are embedding, codifying, "legal" permission to kill innocent people in our laws. This is, sir, a lawless, senseless, thing to do.
One last thing:
Since "laws" such as this are not according to right reason, being clearly immoral and a gross violation of the first and most important aspect of the natural law, they are null and void in any case. The wisest men throughout the history of western civilization, right up through the generation of the founders of this great republic we call America, rightly said so.
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ..."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
"Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever."
"This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
-- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
"[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."
-- Samuel Adams
"When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void."
-- Alexander Hamilton
Please reconsider your immoral, unconstitutional position forthwith, Senator.
Chairman, America's Party
The "pro-life" "Republicans" in the U.S. House, at the behest of the National Right to Life Committee, are slated to take up a bill today that would codify permission for certain professional killers to murder paraplegics, or to kill any person for that matter, if they are first given enough morphine to make sure that they don't feel any pain.
Okay, not really.
But they are offering legislation that is just as capricious, illogical, unreasonable, unconstitutional, and immoral. They are forwarding the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" (H.R. 1797). This legislation recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb, and then specifically allows abortionists to kill them, if the child has not yet reached a certain stage of human development.
But the constitutional criteria is not whether or not someone can feel pain. It is whether or not they are a PERSON.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." - the Fifth Amendment
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - the Fourteenth Amendment
I will never support any politician who supports the codification of this sort of lawless law. I have so pledged, as has everyone I most closely associate myself with politically.
Every argument in favor of this bill is Utilitarian, not moral or constitutional, by the way. And I am not a godless Utilitarian. I am a Christian.
And Utilitarian fixes don't work anyhow. Not only are they wrong, in the long haul they always prove to be an abject defeat, not a victory. Because to buy into them, you have to first surrender all of the moral, constitutional, and legal principles that argue against the heinous practice of killing babies.
Walter Myers III
The Wall Street Journal had an insightful editorial this weekend by Sohrab Ahmari titled Leon Kass: The Meaning of the Gosnell Trial. What Kass has brilliantly put his finger on is the degradation in our culture that has become disrespectful of dignity and indifferent to degradation. Just think about what you see on the major networks these days. Do you see much that is uplifting, inspiring, and dignified? I would argue no. Most of what you see tawdry, lowbrow, and baseless, all crammed down your throat persistently in an attempt to make you believe if you aren’t with the program that the cultural elites think you should be with you’re backwards and living in the past, when all you’re trying to do is preserve what’s good and dignified about our culture. The piece makes a great point about abortion. The Democratic Party dropped the “safe, legal, and rare” language from its platform (and remember they removed the last reference to God before forcing it back in again against the wishes of the voting delegates). Democrats no longer see children as a gift, but a product of personal reproductive choice. Thus, human choice is now the basis of all value. How sad. Kass argues that even though nascent life prior to birth does not yet display grand and glorious things for which we applaud humanity, it is the dignity of human possibility that is to be found in nascent life and thus we should not treat it less well than it deserves.
When Kass was in graduate school, he spent part of the summer of 1965 doing civil rights work, and noticed that the unschooled black farmer he and his wife lived with who had no toilet or indoor plumbing had more honor, goodness, and decency than he found in his fellow graduate students at Harvard, who were so “enlightened and liberal.” The difference was that his black hosts displayed the dignity of honest work and religion, things that were not highly valued by his peers. How sad. What Kass has discovered, and as I have discovered in my studies over the past few years (which will culminate this May with a Master of Arts in Philosophy of Religion & Ethics), is that all of the high-minded pursuits in the academy that promise us better health, peace of mind, and conquest of nature, contain within them the seeds of our own degradation. The trouble is not so much with science, but with scientism, which is a quasi-religious faith that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge worthy of the name, that scientific knowledge gives you an exhaustive account of the way things are, and that science will transcend all the limitations of our human condition. In doing so, one of its primary goals is to put the final nail in the rule of revealed religion. The academy is made up of secular humanists, and their goal is to crank out secular humanists who place no importance on the special place of the human being, of the importance of the soul, or of inwardness and purposiveness. With this being the direction of our country, do you expect more or less of people with the mentality Gosnell? I would argue you will only get more. And for your consideration, the current President of the United States went out of his way as a state senator to become committee chair and kill the proposed born-alive infant act, which ends as follows: “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” This same bill went on to become federal law.
The idea that materialism, continues Kass, can cure men of the fear of God and the fear death, is at least as old as ancient Greece. And he is correct. There is nothing new under the sun. The Sophists were arguing the same thing every liberal Democrat is arguing today. Their views failed then to build strong, flourishing societies, have destroyed countless others, but even today people foolishly push these views at the peril of any society that adopts them en masse. He mentions Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, who is highly influential yet teaches ideas that are insidious to human flourishing. I wonder if he knows just how much damage he is causing because I don’t believe he lives in his own life what he teaches. Pinker questions the value of dignity as a moral guide, because he is a pure Darwinian naturalist who believes everything is physical, there is no God, and that human consciousness is just a trick of evolution. We don’t even have free will, according to Pinker and his ilk, because each and every event can be “reduced” to microphysical particulars, properties, relations and laws of physics. Everything we do is completely driven by the antecedent moment going back to the beginning of the universe. To say that the human experience, which includes such a range of love, laughter, sadness, and other great emotions is nothing more than events measured in the brain based on peptide levels in the hypothalamus completely misses what it means to be human. How sad.
Indeed, what I want to demonstrate is that life is rich, thick, and robust because that is reality. It is not materialistic, and cannot be reduced to physics. The physical is not all that exists, and when you have studied philosophy and science as I have, you see over time that science cannot and never will explain human experience because it is beyond what science is capable of discovering. There is more to life than the physical. Our feelings, emotions, and particularly love for others is not physical, and we are not slaves to antecedent events as cognizing agents with the ability to choose right from wrong, or to choose dignity over degradation. If we keep listening to the Sophists at the universities, and their enablers in the Democratic Party, we will surely come to ruin, sooner than later. What they sell you is a utopia. What they deliver is misery because they do not understand human nature. They don’t understand that the reason people are religious is because the divine has been placed inside the heart of every man and woman, and it is their responsibility to respond to the divine or reject it and rebel against it. Like Gosnell and the Brothers Tsarnaev, we see that people do have free will, and that they will be held accountable for their actions because we are still a people who believe in right and wrong, good and bad, and it is not cultural conditioning, but simply a natural condition of the heart. God has placed all of the complexity between our ears that are needed to know that he is real, and you don’t need a Masters degree or a Ph.D. to figure that out. In all my learning, that was the most important thing that I have learned.
Exclusive: Stephen Baskerville advocates using 'masculine courage' to confront divorce
The fight to save marriage, as current being waged, is largely pointless. It simply cannot be won on these terms. If defenders of marriage can let go of their own politically correct fixations and squarely face some harsh but incontrovertible facts, it is still possible to stop the impending destruction of marriage by the courts.
First: Marriage exists to attach the father to the family. It is not a gender-neutral institution. Marriage breakdown produces widespread fatherlessness, not motherlessness. (Motherlessness often follows, but fatherlessness begins the process.) The father is the weakest link in the family chain, and without enforceable marriage bonds, he is easily discarded. This is glaringly obvious: American inner cities, native American reservations, northern England, Parisian banlieues, Africa – all are impoverished, crime-ridden and drug-infested matriarchies. Fatherlessness – not poverty or race – predicts social pathology among the young. Without paternal authority, adolescents run wild, and society descends into chaos.
Once this principle is recognized, same-sex marriage makes no sense. Judge Vaughn Walker’s finding of “fact” in the Proposition 8 case that “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage” is rendered preposterous. Same-sex marriage simply mocks true marriage. Homosexual parenting marginalizes children still further from their fathers (and sometimes mothers), who lose their children to homosexuals usually through divorce.
Thus the second unpleasant fact: Homosexuals did not destroy marriage; heterosexuals did. The demand for same-sex marriage is a symptom, not a cause, of marriage deterioration. The major threat is obviously divorce. As Mike McManus of Marriage Savers writes, “Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.”
Same-sex marriage would not be an issue if marriage had not already been debased by heterosexuals. Though gay activists cite their very desire to marry as evidence that their lifestyle is not inherently promiscuous, they also acknowledge that that desire arises only by the promiscuity permitted in modern marriage. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” Andrew Sullivan observes. “All homosexuals are saying … is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality.” Homosexuals are correct that heterosexuals first devalued marriage, though they then use that to rationalize devaluing it further.
Thus the third undeniable truth: To save marriage divorce must be confronted. It is not a private matter. We cannot wash our hands of it by (so to speak) wagging our fingers at immoral people and cultural decay. A lucrative government machine forcibly imposes divorce upon unwilling and innocent people, who are then evicted from their homes, separated from their children, expropriated of everything they possess and incarcerated without trial. It is the greatest violator of constitutional rights in America today. It generates the social ills that rationalize almost all domestic spending and are bankrupting our economies. And it is promoted ideologically by the same sexual radicals who are now promoting same-sex marriage.
Read this story at wnd.com ...
Stephen Baskerville is professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of “Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family.” He is writing a book on sexual politics.
New York Times
A federal judge has ruled that the United States government must make the most common morning-after pill available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and under.
The decision, on a fraught and politically controversial subject, comes after a decade-long fight over who should have access to the pill and under what circumstances, and it counteracts an unprecedented move by the Obama administration's Health and Human Services secretary who in 2011 overruled a recommendation by the Food and Drug Administration to make the pill available for all ages without a prescription.
Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
"We the People
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom...”
-- Abraham Lincoln