Wednesday, December 02, 2009

The Pregnancy Center Bill

I am told that fifty-three people signed up to address the Montgomery County Council last night about the new health regulation proposed by Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg. They started at seven-thirty and went on into the night. Sounds like it was about fifty-fifty for and against.

The proposal is really nothing. There are three places in the county that advertise "Pregnancy Counseling" and don't have any medical staff. These places exist to steer young pregnant women away from the option of abortion, and not to counsel anyone, not to explain their options to them but to influence them. Generally these places are backed by religious groups, but because of the way they present themselves, a young woman might think there are doctors and nurses there, people who are trained in issues regarding pregnancy.

So Trachtenberg, with six other Councilmembers co-sponsoring, has proposed requiring these places to tell the young women who go there that the place does not give medical advice, and requiring staff to counsel the pregnant woman that she should go to a doctor.

There is really nothing there to object to. Women who seek counseling might think they are seeing a health professional, and it's only truth-in-labeling to be clear to them that that's not what the place offers. And advising a girl that she should see a doctor, what could possibly be wrong with that? The mother has special needs during pregnancy, and the baby needs to be monitored, too. It's the advice her mom would give: Honey, let's get you to the OB-GYN. I'm sure these places know doctors who won't offer abortions, that's fine, make the girl an appointment with one of them. But she needs to know that she should be under a doctor's care.

The anti-abortion crazies are taking this personally, it appears. They think this new bill will somehow encourage women to get abortions.

The word "abortion" does appear in the bill, in describing the identifying features of a place that needs to present a disclaimer. This bill is directed at places that do not refer for abortion or comprehensive contraceptive services, and don't have medical personnel on hand.

Some anti-abortion pregnancy counseling places in the county, for instance the Rockville Pregnancy Center in my neighborhood, which is a licensed medical clinic and is not affected by this bill.

I see that people are trying to confuse the issue by saying that this bill requires things that it does not require. I think it will clear things up if we have the bill itself in front of us as we go forward.
Required Disclaimers for Certain Pregnancy Resource Centers

(a) Definitions
  1. "Client" means a client or potential client.
  2. "Limited Service Pregnancy Resource Center" means an organization or center that:

    • (A) has a primary purpose to provide pregnancy-related services that do not constitute the practice of medicine
    • (B) provides information about pregnancy-related services, for a fee or as a free service; and
    • (C) does not provide or refer clients for:
      • (i) abortions; or
      • (ii) nondirective and comprehensive contraceptive services.

(b) Disclaimer required.
  1. A limited service pregnancy resource center must provide a client with the disclaimer required in Section (c):

    • (a) by the staff assisting the client;
    • (b) during the first communication or first contact with a client; and
    • (c) in a written statement or oral communication that the client reasonably understands.

  2. Any written disclaimer must be provided in English and Spanish.

(c) Contents of disclaimer. Any written disclaimer must state that:

  1. the information that the limited service pregnancy resource center provides is not intended to be medical advice or to establish a doctor-patient relationship; and
  2. the client should consult with a health care provider before proceeding on a course of action regarding the client's pregnancy.

(d) Enforcement.

  1. Any violation of this regulation is a Class A civil violation. Each day a violation exists is a separate offense.
  2. The County Attorney or any affected party may file an action in a court with jurisdiction to enjoin repeated violations of this regulation.
  3. The Department of Health and Human Services must investigate each complaint alleging a violation of this regulation and take appropriate action, including issuing a civil citation when compliance cannot be obtained otherwise.

(e) Applicability. This regulation applies Countywide.

(f) Severability. If the application of this regulation or any part of it to any facts or circumstances is held invalid, the rest of the regulation and its application to all other facts and circumstances is intended to remain in effect.

(g) Effective Date. This regulation takes effect on the date on which it is adopted.

This is a correct copy of Council action.

This is my sloppy transcription from a fax copy, if I see any typos I'm going to fix them, so it could change slightly over time.

45 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a question and Dana the Dastardly could probably answer it.

If a clinic simply referred the women to the Rockville Pregnancy Center, would that meet the requirements of the wicked Duchy's bill?

btw, despite your protestations, the reason for this bill is to make sure women are given an amoral presentation of the abortion option

there is no other reason

pregnancy centers already advise women to see a doctor for prenatal care

they also try to give them the best advice they can because many of these women can't afford a doctor

December 02, 2009 9:13 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Ah yes, the old “telling-the-truth-kills-babies” soiree.

“the reason for this bill is to make sure women are given an amoral presentation”

Amoral presentation: You are in charge of your own destiny.

Moral presentation: Telling the truth kills babies!!!

You finally got me, Anon. I am a hot tin pan on a hook without a leash.

Boy howdy.

December 03, 2009 4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you didn't finish, improv

here's the complete version:

Amoral presentation: You are in charge of your own destiny. If someone is inconveniencing you, you can kill them without any consequences.

Let's say Jack the Ripper goes to a priest and confesses he's killed young women.

Let's say the priest says killing is evil and is bad for your health.

Would the wicked Duchy write a bill requiring the priest to disclose he's not a medical provider and requiring him to send Jack the Ripper to a doctor to assess the health risk of killing women?

December 03, 2009 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Abortion has taken root in this country because the liberals who are for the killing of babies have never called it "killing of babies." They knew that it would never get off the ground if they did that.

So, instead, they have spent years and years being sneaky. I've listened to lots of tapes from abortionists, and they always refer to the killing of the baby as "removing the pregnancy," or some such ridiculous language.

This legislation is simply another piece of sneaky legislation and EVERYONE knows it.

I've spent my adult life helping two of my friends, who got abortions during their teenaged years, get over the horror and guilt. I didn't even know they'd had abortions until they fell apart 15 years later.

The interesting thing -- I have two friends who got pregnant at 19 and actually kept their babies. Guess what? They don't need any help now. They raised great kids and live with no guilt.

Time for you libs to stop playing dumb.

December 03, 2009 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jack better watch out for the priest who will hit on him.

December 03, 2009 8:22 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Should not the priest recommend that Jack see someone?

December 04, 2009 7:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the wicked Duchy would probably make such a law if she thought of it, Robert

maybe the priest should be required to disclose that he's not gay and required to send Jack to the nearest MCPS high school if he wants to find one

we wouldn't want poor Jack to be duped

December 04, 2009 7:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
You said: "Abortion has taken root in this country because the liberals who are for the killing of babies have never called it "killing of babies."

Rape; incest; child abuse; murdering people by gassing, hanging, shooting, injectin of lethal poisons; starvation; leaving people bereft of any health care or insurance (after all, it's their fault, isn't it?) and other forms of debasing humanity and people who do not adhere to a narrow definition of who is really worthy of life, have taken root because conservatives, who are more concerned with the rights of a mass of protoplasm, believe in the forfeiture of life as God's punishment for not "Toeing the line".

December 04, 2009 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a mass of protoplasm"

this statement is an example of bias against the inconvenient and is also scientifically incorrect

December 04, 2009 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Eric Luedtke got it right:

"...The centers are not medical clinics, so why should it be a problem for them to make that clear to people up front? Health care consumers, regardless of gender or the topic of the counseling, deserve to be told when the information they are receiving is from medical sources or political ones. They deserve honesty. "

December 04, 2009 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric Ludacris is wrong:

"Health care consumers,"

these aren't "health care consumers"

there a recipients of a free test that isn't regulated

helping the women read the instructions on the box doesn't constitute health care

"regardless of gender or the topic of the counseling, deserve to be told when the information they are receiving is from medical sources or political ones"

advising women not to get an abortion isn't medical or political

it's moral

December 04, 2009 11:00 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Is there a greater frequency of gay priests in MCPS high schools?

rrjr

December 04, 2009 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, just gays

December 04, 2009 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

December 04, 2009 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are just too, too cute and funny, "Anonymous"

"Eric Ludicris"

Guffaw, snort, ha ha.

How infantile can you be? In your case there seems to be no limit. But then you are pretty typical of the GRGers who post here because they don't have a life to live.

Grow up!

December 04, 2009 4:59 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Amoral presentation: You are in charge of your own destiny. If someone is inconveniencing you, you can kill them without any consequences”

Would you settle on the minimization of abortions, for now, or are you hell-bent on making it officially illegal, no matter how many human souls are destroyed in the meantime?

(and btw, you can choose “other” on that one ^)

“Abortion has taken root in this country because the liberals who are for the killing of babies have never called it "killing of babies." They knew that it would never get off the ground if they did that.”

You need to be willing to say that you believe that life begins at conception. OUT LOUD AND PROUD.

This isn’t about “killing babies.” It’s about convincing the rest of us how unnecessary abortion is.

You can blame liberals all you want, but aren’t we supposed to be moral reprobates to begin with?

You have to be willing to say that spiritual life begins at physical conception.

You. Will. Be. Mocked. But you will also find unknown wells of compassion.

Many of we “liberals” would love to stop the need for abortions.

What can I do to help?

December 07, 2009 5:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What can I do to help?"

the best thing you could do to help is shut up

December 07, 2009 7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Many of we “liberals” would love to stop the need for abortions.

What can I do to help?"

the biggest driver for abortion is the teen pregnancy rate

this rate exploded in th early seventies when sex ed programs without moral context were pushed in America's youth through public schools

the rate began to drop dramtically when abstinence programs spread across the country

in the last couple of years as liberals gained ascendancy and abstinence education was attacked by them, the teen pregnancy rate has begun to climb again

if you're serious, work to establish abstinence programs in public schools

December 07, 2009 11:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, we can see how well abstinence education worked for Bristol Palin. She was a mother before she graduated from high school.

December 07, 2009 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

they had a comprehensive sex ed program at her high school

her parents probably wish they had sent her to a private school now

speaking of Sarah Palin, over the weekend, people slept out overnight in supposedly liberal Northern Virginia to be first in line to sign her book

then she went to a press dinner in Washington where she reflected:

"sometimes I think about what might have been

I could be in the VP mansion pushing the bailout and Joe Biden could be on tour pushing his book, 'Going Rogaine'"

December 07, 2009 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both Bristol and her mother Sarah expressed skepticism about abstinence-only programs. Sarah Palin admitted in the interview with Greta Van Susteren about abstinence: “It sounds naive. Life happens.”

Bristol said that “everyone should be abstinent but it’s not realistic."

December 07, 2009 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Life does indeed happen and no abstinence program eliminates teen pregnancy but in combination with support from parents and teachers and, banish the thought, the media and entertainment industries, a societal standard begins to develop that reinforces smart behavior

You can't undersetimate the effect of TTF-like parents and teachers getting up at school board meetings and PTA meetings and saying things like "all these teens are going to have sex anyway".

Many of the kids who have had a secular or humanist upbringing watch and think "I guess that what they all expect me to do. I must be weird if I'm not."

No one case proves anything but, overall, sex education without a moral context tends to increase teen sexual activity.

That's a fact.

December 07, 2009 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Life does indeed happen and no abstinence program eliminates teen pregnancy but in combination with support from parents and teachers and, banish the thought, the media and entertainment industries, a societal standard begins to develop that reinforces smart behavior

Oh really! And where has this little fantasy of yours happened? Which nation's or state's societal standards have developed to reinforce abstinence instruction resulting in reduced teen parenthood?

You can't undersetimate the effect of TTF-like parents and teachers getting up at school board meetings and PTA meetings and saying things like "all these teens are going to have sex anyway".

So don't stop yourself from overestimating that effect! Anyone who thinks kids with "a secular or humanist upbringing" actually attend or watch Board of Education meetings obviously has very little experience with public school kids.

All the BOE Public Comments I've watched on ITV on this topic have pointed out the fact that about half of all teens are virgins when they graduate high school and the other half aren't and they have noted that public schools need to educate both groups. MCPS does just that when it provides abstinence-based comprehensive sex education, telling teens the only 100% way to avoid STDs and unplanned pregnancy is abstinence and that if you are sexually active, use condoms correctly and consistently for every sexual contact so you can keep yourself and your partner safer.

No one case proves anything but, overall, sex education without a moral context tends to increase teen sexual activity.

That's a fact.


It's been your mantra for years here, but you have never provided any data that proves it.

That means it's not a fact; it's unproven conjecture on your part.

Here's a link to the TTF-supported MCPS sex ed curriculum revisions. Show Vigilance readers where you think "moral context" is missing.

December 07, 2009 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And where has this little fantasy of yours happened?"

It happened in the magical kingdom of America.

"Anyone who thinks kids with "a secular or humanist upbringing" actually attend or watch Board of Education meetings obviously has very little experience with public school kids."

The kids who would be affected do indeed find out what their parents are saying when controversies erupt.

"It's been your mantra for years here, but you have never provided any data that proves it."

The teen pregnancy data is there for everyone to see as is the history of abstinence programs. There is a direct correlation.

btw, where is the evidence that having public school teachers lecture on condoms has any effect on student behavior?

December 07, 2009 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea asks where "moral context" is missing. Moral context is so absent from the Montgomery County curriculum that addressing the issue is a monumental task.

The Montgomery County curriculum is in the wrong car, on the wrong road, headed in the wrong direction on the wrong planet.

December 07, 2009 10:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yes, inane-B

where is it present?

December 08, 2009 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emproph,

If you don't believe that a fetus is a human being, then why in the world do you care whether the the need for abortions is reduced? With your logic, you see abortion as just another form of birth control.

December 08, 2009 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way -- even Hillary Clinton knows that abortion is infanticide. Here's a quote of Clinton's from a few months ago:

"Obviously, there's work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they'd rather have a boy. And those are deeply set attitudes."

December 08, 2009 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Anone asked "where is it [moral context] present?" in the MCPS sex ed curriculum.

Reviewing the curricular revisions on the RESOURCES page here at Vigilance, I find morals are being taught in lots of places.

Here's some of the "moral context" MCPS students get in 8th grade:

1. Students learn the components of a healthy relationship include respect for self and others, empathy, effective communication, honesty, support, and an ability to resolve conflicts in rational, peaceful ways.

2. Students learn about how respect, empathy, and tolerance counter harassment and stereotyping.

3. Students learn what they can do to prevent harassment, such as telling the harasser to stop, make it clear the harassment is hurtful and unacceptable, and report it if it continues.

4. Students will be able to explain how tolerance and empathy can lead to positive relationships and/or a positive school environment.

In tenth grade, they learn more about respecting and understanding one another and they get a little civics lessons too:

1. Students learn that learning about differences in humans promotes understanding, tolerance, and respect.

2. Students learn that discrimination hurts and they will identify challenges related to sexuality and gender identity face by adolescents.

3. Students get a civics lesson in the laws MCPS schools must follow to prevent harassment and discrimination based on individual differences.

4. Students learn why laws exist to protect individuals.

Where does Anone find "moral context" is "...so absent from the Montgomery County curriculum that addressing the issue is a monumental task"?

December 08, 2009 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

polls show that 90% of Americans believe sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral

if the curriculum supported that community standard rather than try to undermine it, there would be a decrease in teen pregnancy

to deny this is ignorant

or, in other words, very TTFish

December 08, 2009 12:54 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

"polls show that 90% of Americans believe sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral"

Surveys show that 98% of adult Americans have had sex outside of marriage. What's that make them?

December 08, 2009 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if it's true, it would make them imperfect

let's see your source

polls show 99% of people believe lying is wrong and 99% of adults have lied

should we just throw in the towel and teach kids that lying is OK?

December 08, 2009 1:35 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Anon, if everybody thinks something is wrong and everybody does it anyway, then what's the use of saying it's "wrong?"

December 08, 2009 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, there is still some restraint on the behavior

it provides a goal

do you think we should just teach kids that lying is fine?

still waiting for your source on the 98% number because I personally don't believe it

December 08, 2009 2:19 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

Ya got me Anon, I can't find the figures for that. The best survey I can find shows only 94 percent of women and 96 percent of men have had sex outside of marriage. This survey ignores some important situations though.

December 08, 2009 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PasserBy -- Maybe the statistic you're recalling meant that a large percentage of men and women had sex outside the marriage -- even if it took place BEFORE the marriage.

December 08, 2009 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guttmasher Institute warning:

these guys often have research come out exactly as they had wanted it to

I find it hard to believe that between those who have trouble forming relationships for whatever reason and those with religious convictions that only 5% actually succeed in abstinence

it's possible it's right but I'd like to see some replicated findings before I accept this study from an advocacy group

regardless, whether it's hypocritical or not, condom instruction doesn't seem to change behavior so as long as you're shooting for a difficult goal, why not make it abstinence?

it seems to create a societal standard that works over the long run to reduce teen pregnancy

December 08, 2009 5:14 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“if you're serious, work to establish abstinence programs in public schools”

As Aunt Bea has already said: “MCPS does just that when it provides abstinence-based comprehensive sex education, telling teens the only 100% way to avoid STDs and unplanned pregnancy is abstinence…”

Ergo, abstinence is already being taught in public school programs.

But my question was: “Would you settle on the minimization of abortions, for now, or are you hell-bent on making it officially illegal, no matter how many human souls are destroyed in the meantime?”

In response, you said: “If you don't believe that a fetus is a human being, then why in the world do you care whether the the need for abortions is reduced? With your logic, you see abortion as just another form of birth control.”

You do not know that about me and it is unfair to characterize my position as such.

This is your argument, and one of the things I am specifically asking of you, is whether or not you think eternal souls are created upon physical conception.

If you are not willing to defend such a position, then how are we to respect it as valid?
---
For the record:

“why in the world do you care whether the the need for abortions is reduced”

Practical reasons aside, I care about the trauma that people like you suffer in believing that feti are irreplaceable souls that will never again have a chance at life.

December 08, 2009 10:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emproph,

Yes, when a baby is conceived, it is an eternal soul. I lost one of those souls at 16 weeks. He was a beautiful baby boy who was removed, whole, from my uterus after he passed away. His name was Benjamin. This tiny, robust life lived inside of me and I loved him fiercely. The flowers and letters I received afterward were staggeringly beautiful. He lived and breathed on this earth and people mourned him.

Later, when I had a second son, he was with his grandmother in the garden one day when he was just two years old. He said, "I have a brother." She said, "you do?" (knowing that we had not yet told our second son about the death of our first one). He said "yes, he's there" and he pointed his chubby finger toward the sky. At that point in my life, I was agnostic, and so had never talked to my son about God.

And still, after all of this, I was pro choice. A good liberal I was.

One day, out of the blue, a musician friend sent me to a website with the cut up pieces of aborted bodies. I went stone cold and couldn't believe what I was seeing. I thought he must be insane.

I stayed on the Internet for six hours that night, until 4:00 in the morning, trying to find some evidence that babies aren't brutally killed in the womb. I could find no evidence - only more and more evidence that they are killed.

Until that day, I had allowed myself to be blind to all of the infant pain and suffering. I had allowed myself to swallow the propaganda that was so readily fed to me.

And on that evening, after six hours on the Internet, when I learned the truth about abortion, I was also no longer agnostic. It became crystal clear to me that only Godless people could allow and endorse such atrocities.

December 09, 2009 1:08 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

I am sorry for your loss. I don’t know what it means to be a mother, but from what I’ve learned, the love for one’s children surpasses all others. I take that to heart.

“I had allowed myself to swallow the propaganda that was so readily fed to me.”

Personally, I cringe every time I hear abortion being referred to as being simply “a woman’s right to choose.”

The problem I have with the anti-abortion movement, is that their goal is to make abortion illegal, no matter what the consequences, such as potentially lethal back-alley abortions, and the neglect and abuse that often occurs with the birthing (and keeping) of unwanted children. And what of the 30,000 kids who die everyday due to starvation and easily preventable diseases?

I realize that those may not be your personal vested interests in the matter, but a simple acknowledgment of your comprehension of these other "pro-life" matters would go miles upon miles in gaining credibility for you position.

If people like you would share your personal stories, like you just did, you would glean a much more sympathetic audience (not necessarily here, though).

But my question remains. If you truly believe what you do, then why would you not be putting all your efforts into preventing unwanted pregnancies, and/or promoting and providing links (online or in person) to charities and homes that assist and encourage pregnant mothers-to-be, to carry to term and then opt-out for adoption---or choose to keep their child, but with the resources and support that that house may provide?

“It became crystal clear to me that only Godless people could allow and endorse such atrocities.”

Why, because you used to be godless?

I have my own beliefs on the matter, which may be just as distressing as your own, but the most practical solution for this issue remains: Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and ensure places of refuge for those who wish, and/or can be persuaded, non-religiously (infertile couples, singles, etc.), to carry to term.

1 Share your story
2 Acknowledge the moral wrongness of neglected and starving children, etc.
3 Promote organizations who are willing to assist women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies

That much, I can support you on. What I cannot support is an “all or nothing” stance that doesn’t solve the real problem.

If, conception = eternal soul, then the anti-abortion movement undercuts its own cause by it’s unwillingness to AT LEAST minimize unwanted pregnancies, and provide/promote support for those who wish to carry to term.

This is why I am pro-choice. Not because I am in favor of abortion, but because I am against the need for abortion, as opposed to the mere illegalization of it.

-Patrick
____________
Again, I appreciate you sharing your story.

December 09, 2009 5:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"why would you not be putting all your efforts into preventing unwanted pregnancies, and/or promoting and providing links (online or in person) to charities and homes that assist and encourage pregnant mothers-to-be, to carry to term and then opt-out for adoption---or choose to keep their child, but with the resources and support that that house may provide?"

most pro-life people do indeed support these pregnancy centers

the wicked Duchy Trachtenberg is attacking them

"2 Acknowledge the moral wrongness of neglected and starving children, etc."

no one starves in America, Patrick, but many are neglected

nevertheless, it is morally bankrupt to hold that it is preferable to kill someone as opposed to allow them to be neglected

"3 Promote organizations who are willing to assist women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies"

these centers are strongly supported by pro-life citizens

indeed, the fact that they outnumber clinics that include abortion as an acceptable option is one reason why the wicked Duchy is out to get them

"If, conception = eternal soul, then the anti-abortion movement undercuts its own cause by it’s unwillingness to AT LEAST minimize unwanted pregnancies, and provide/promote support for those who wish to carry to term."

no such unwillingness exist

you're deluded

ab-only education, btw, reduces teen pregnancy and delays it

"This is why I am pro-choice. Not because I am in favor of abortion, but because I am against the need for abortion, as opposed to the mere illegalization of it."

why not be opposed to both?

you'll be able to sleep at night

December 09, 2009 6:11 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Me: “What I cannot support is an 'all or nothing' stance that doesn’t solve the real problem.”

Position validated.

December 10, 2009 2:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

is that how you feel about all murders, Mr Emprob, or just the murders of those too weak to fight back?

December 10, 2009 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

let's not be fanatics and try to make cannibalism illegal

let's try and work to reduce the "need" for it

that emslob, he's a genius in the evil assistant category

maybe he should get the Igor Award for 2009

December 10, 2009 1:20 PM  
Blogger mabel said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Lucy

http://maternitymotherhood.net

December 28, 2009 12:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home