Perhaps you are familiar with the magazine Teen Vogue—the edition of the fashion magazine targeting 12 and 13-year-old girls.

Now, this doesn’t sound possible, but it is: Teen Vogue has published an article advocating prostitution—advocating “sex work”—to young teen girls.

The title of the piece speaks for itself: “Why Sex Work is Real Work.” The author argues such work can be, “affirming for many people who need human connection, friendship, and emotional support.”

This is unimaginable: When you consider the fact that these young girls are among the key targets of sex traffickers—and the numbers of sex trafficking crimes are skyrocketing—we’re watching more than a moral revolution.

This is an explosion. This is a moral bomb going off.

Sometimes today, parents don’t know something because they don’t want to know.

That’s not an option; not for parents who care about their children

Hugh Hewitt invites Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to share about his most recent book, “The Apostles’ Creed: Discovering Authentic Christianity in an Age of Counterfeits.”

This week marked the 30th anniversary of one of the darkest days of the 20th century: On June 4, 1989 guns were fired and the tanks rolled against students who had assembled in China in historic Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

The students had begun gathering in mid-April, sensing what they thought was a cease in the political openness within China. They called for a multi-party system, rights for students, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press.

Western media were captivated by these courageous young protestors.

But in the hours between June 3 and 4, the Chinese Communist Party announced it was going to eliminate the protest.

Western estimates of the dead students range from several hundred to the far more credible several thousands.

There is one basic historical lesson of Tiananmen Square, and that is this: A Communist party in a one-party state does not give up its control without blood.

The big news coming out of the Supreme Court on abortion had as much or more to do with a decision that they let stand as much as the decision that they overturned.

The Court decided not to take up the question on appeal of an Indiana law that made abortion illegal if it were sought merely for reasons of sex selection or disability.

We should pay very close attention to the brilliant concurring opinion of Justice Thomas.

He made very clear that this issue will be back.

In his words, “The Court’s decision to allow further percolation should not be interpreted as agreement with the decisions. Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”

In other words, Justice Thomas said, “The issue will come back to the court. It must come back to the court.”

The intensity of the abortion debate in the United States has reached a new level as Alabama’s governor, Kay Ivey, has signed a bill banning virtually all abortion in the state.

The overwhelming national response indicates that we have now reached a new moment in America’s conflict between the powerful forces for abortion and powerful forces against abortion.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the map of America when you look at the question of abortion reflects an intensity and a polarization hauntingly like the map of the United States before the Civil War.

In recent decades, the pro-life movement has sought to chip away the logic of Roe v. Wade. There’s no “chipping away” here: Alabama’s move is a direct challenge to Roe.

Stay tuned.

One way or another, the issue of abortion may well be before the Supreme Court, and very soon.

The fetal heartbeat bills recently adopted in several states are strategic efforts intended to provoke the attention of the United States Supreme Court to confront the logic of the Roe v. Wade decision.

The passage of these bills has also provoked a very revealing public conversation. Notably, Christine Quinn—active in New York city politics over the years, said on CNN, “When a woman is pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her.”

Whatever the inhabitant of the womb is, according to Christine Quinn, “it’s not a human being.”

Because, if it were, pro-abortion advocates would then have to recognize the personhood of that being and recognize his or her rights.

The only significant moral agent when it comes to those who are representing the pro-choice position is the woman. The baby simply doesn’t exist.

Christine Quinn’s horrifying comment has at least achieved one thing, moral clarity, and we should at least note that.

The culture of death has gained new ground as the state Supreme Court in Kansas has now blocked a law that would have protected unborn human life.

In a decisive 6-1 decision, the majority said that, according to the Kansas state constitution, a woman there has a right to an abortion, to the procedure known as D&E—dilation and evacuation. Note: that is the dismemberment and the removal of the unborn child from the woman’s body.

The decision was breathtaking, catching both sides of the abortion argument in Kansas by surprise.

The constitution of Kansas was adopted in 1859. Abortion was not mentioned. Abortion wasn’t intended.

Once again: We’re looking at invented law and invented rights made by courts.

If we are not restrained by the meaning of words—in this case the words of the state constitution—then we are fundamentally unrestrained. And that means our government is unrestrained, and there are few more deadly dangers than a government unrestrained.