Connect with us

Healthcare

Sources: normalization of sex with minors is backed by the UN report

Published

on

United Nations HQ

The normalization of sex with minors is being pushed by legal experts who are backed by the United Nations according to a report published by The International Commission of Jurists, claiming that minors have the right to make decisions on sex that best benefits them.

In the report titled “The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty,” it states:

In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.

Furthermore it stated, “Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.”

The report clearly condones the right that a minor has to participate in sexual actions based on what they feel is best for them. According to the National Institute of Health, the brain continues to develop into a person’s 20’s and the fine tuning stages of the brain happen during their teen years. If this is the case, and many countries such as The United States of America have age based law due to the development and decision making of oneself and age, the UN is complicit in allowing children who are developing, to consent to decisions, un-knowingly and without the self-awareness, that could lead them to being taken advantage of and abused in a way that could scar them for the rest of their lives.

Moreover, retired Judge Edwin Cameron of the Constitutional Court of South Africa wrote in the pretext of the report,

From long years in the law, and as a proudly gay man, I know profoundly how criminal law signals which groups are deemed worthy of protection — and which of condemnation and ostracism,”  “In this way, the criminal law performs an expressive function — and it has dramatic consequences on people’s lives. It sometimes entails a harshly discriminatory impact on groups identified with the disapproved or stigmatized conduct.

According to Fox News, the group says that the report, was “developed over a five-year consultative process, following an initial expert meeting of jurists convened in 2018 by the ICJ — together with the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) — to discuss the role of jurists in addressing the detrimental human rights impact of certain criminal laws.” They continued to say,  “The process of elaboration … included expert jurists, academics, legal practitioners, human rights defenders and various civil society organizations working in diverse legal traditions.”

Follow Alexander Carter on Twitter for more stories and updates @AlexCarterDC

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Healthcare

Supreme Court rules anti-abortion doctors lack standing to sue FDA

Published

on

Supreme Court

In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-abortion doctors who challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the abortion pill mifepristone lack the standing to sue the federal agency. This ruling preserves the FDA’s existing approval of the drug.

The opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, emphasized that the plaintiffs presented “several complicated causation theories to connect FDA’s actions to the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries in fact.” However, none of these theories were sufficient to establish Article III standing, which requires a personal stake in the dispute.

National Review reports the lawsuit was filed in November 2022 by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and four pro-life doctors. The plaintiffs claimed that the FDA had no authority to approve the two-pill chemical-abortion regimen under Subpart H, a federal code section allowing expedited approval for drugs treating “serious or life-threatening illnesses.” They argued that pregnancy is not an illness but a normal physiological state.

The plaintiffs also challenged the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 decisions to relax restrictions on mifepristone, such as increasing the gestational age for its use, reducing required office visits, allowing non-doctors to prescribe the pills, and permitting mail delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abortion opponents expressed disappointment with the decision. Erin Hawley, a lawyer with ADF, criticized the FDA for allegedly endangering women by allowing the use of mifepristone without in-person medical supervision. Ingrid Skop from the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Katie Daniel from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America echoed similar sentiments, stressing their concerns about the safety of mail-order abortion drugs.

President Joe Biden, however, applauded the decision, highlighting the ongoing risks to women’s rights to necessary medical treatment in many states.

Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion stated that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a direct injury that would force them to participate in abortion procedures against their conscience. He added that concerns about the potential for increased emergency room visits did not justify legal standing.

Kavanaugh noted that doctors and citizens opposed to FDA regulations should seek changes through legislative and executive branches rather than the courts. This decision aligns with a previous lower court ruling that found the legal challenge was filed too late, beyond the statute of limitations.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, suspending the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. This decision was subsequently overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which restored access to the drug. The Supreme Court’s stay ensured that the drug remained available while legal proceedings continued.

Democratic lawmakers welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley described it as a “major relief & victory for anyone who has ever or will ever need essential medication abortion care.” Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the challenge as baseless and underscored the safety and effectiveness of chemical-abortion pills. She warned of ongoing efforts by Republicans to impose a nationwide abortion ban and called for continued protection of reproductive freedom.

 

Continue Reading

Trending