Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a much-anticipated ruling in the case of Kirtsaeng v. Wiley Publishing. More >>

Your child is in school.' You believe your child is safe.' Your child comes home after school, hysterical and unwilling to ever go back.' The part of the world in which you thought your child would be safe just exploded in front of your eyes.What happened?' Well, if your name is Mrs. Redding, you just discovered that your child was stripped almost naked in front of more than one school official who had no legal right to do so.' You then find out that the school is perfectly fine with what happened, because they are "doing it because they feel an intense need to protect the safety of the students."' How's that for irony!This is what happened (as will be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States of America).' A 13 year old honor student in a small Arizona town was hauled down to the principal's office to strip down to her underwear, because another eighth grade student who was found with a cigarette and some pills pointed the finger at our victim.' The 13 year old denied having anything.' They searched her backpack:' nothing.' That's when the vice principal said the school nurse would conduct a strip search. "They saw everything.' It was really embarrassing.' These are people I see every day," said the victim.' The school did not call her mother, child services, or police; they just stripped her down.Believe it or not, after the school lost a lawsuit in a Federal appeals court, and the school was found liable, they have taken the case to the Supreme Court, who will hear the case tomorrow.'I agree that it's important for the school to find dangerous drugs and weapons.' Dangerous weapons can be found in a "pat-down," but even that is a kind of sexual harassment.'I believe that you parents should tell your children to always refuse to fully remove their clothes (except, perhaps, for jackets and coats), even if it is the principal who demands it .' Parents should make sure that the rules in their school district include sequestering the student, calling the parents and the police/child protective services before a child's body is touched, unless there is considerable reason to believe that the child is armed with a deadly weapon. More >>

I am relieved that the Supreme Court finally clarified that the Second Amendment permits individual gun ownership and not just for those individuals in a national militia.' However, now that there are non-lethal alternatives readily available on the market, people using their guns in self-defense are going to be under more scrutiny than before.'The states impose carefully defined limitations (known as "proportionality requirements") on the use of deadly force in self defense:' a person may use only as much force as is necessary in that immediate situation.' You can defend yourself with deadly force only to prevent death, rape, kidnapping, or bodily injury serious enough to cause long-term loss or impairment.' That gives district attorneys some potential for leeway in filing criminal charges against individuals who have used deadly force to defend themselves.Interestingly, a non -deadly weapon can be used to defend against any threat of unlawful force, which is why I've bought a Taser even though I've already taken classes and training in handgun use and safety.' The Taser fires a dart that delivers a painful electrical shock, resulting in an instant and incapacitating muscular spasm that generally gives you about 30 seconds to get out of the situation.' The Taser works anywhere on the attacker's body; bullets have to hit vulnerable spots to stop a bad guy.Advanced-model Tasers also allow you to respond from up to 35 feet away.' Using a handgun on an attacker from 35 feet away, however, raises questions as to whether "deadly force" is necessary at such a distance.My Taser is pink.....couldn't resist. More >>

I just about lost it reading Linda P. Campbell's syndicated column ( www.realcities.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/linda_campbell/17137857/17137857.htm ) about the Supreme Court's abortion decision not being simple or neat. Let me take some of her points one by one, as she explains her abhorrence of any controls over any abortion, in addition to the barbaric sucking out of a baby's brain after the head emerges from the birth canal (partial birth abortion).'First, she says " And of course, a woman who's about to undergo an abortion ought to understand the details, risks and implications just as much as she should before a tummy tuck, hip replacement, or appendectomy ."All those procedures require an office visit and an explanation of the process, and then a new appointment for the procedure.' Call any Planned Parenthood you like - or walk in, and you can get an abortion right then and there, as long as it isn't too busy.' Planned Parenthood, NOW (the National Organization of "I don't know what kind of " Women) and other "feminist" organizations have always been against the waiting period, a sonogram to show the baby's level of development, or a discussion about the benefits of giving life and finding a suitable two-parent, married mom and dad family for adoption.Second, she says, " I can't imagine the circumstances that would cause a woman to choose abortion.' But I can appreciate that each one who does has reasons that only she can reconcile with her conscience ."I have been on radio taking calls from slightly more than 50% women for 32 years.'' I know why women have abortions, because they've called.' It is rarely because of severe anomalies or life-threatening circumstances.' It is generally because of "circumstances," usually meaning the one-night stand, casual boyfriend, fianc', or sometimes husband doesn't want a child or else dumps them.Ms. Campbell continues: "It's all too tempting to make judgments about which motives we consider justified and which we don't.' But then we risk wandering into scary territory.' How far do we want to let lawmakers and zealots reach into our most personal and private decisions when they haven't a clue about what's best for us?" What?? We should make no judgments about motivations to kill another human being?' Self-defense in an armed robbery deserves the same respect as the intentional murder of innocents by a suicide-bombing?' A woman who keeps having casual sex and uses abortion as birth control can't be judged differently from a pregnant woman with a serious heart problem who might die if the pregnancy goes to term?I, for one, am sick and tired with the "nothing should be judged" nonsense.' Of course we judge - that's how we make decisions and choices every day.' To judge is to discern good from evil, right from wrong, and selfish from selfless.' Without that, we are just lower animals.Abortions out of shame, embarrassment, or inconvenience are a horrible, despicable disaster.' An Abortion to save the life of the mother is self-defense.'There.' I dared to judge. More >>