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

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


(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.

source:-
http://www.naturalnews.com/040495_morning_after_pill_plan_B_abortion.html