“PREGNANT WOMEN’S PROTECTION ACT” PASSES STATE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
By Amy Lazenby || Some South Carolina lawmakers are continuing to push back-door efforts to establish a precedent for banning abortion and other reproductive services in the Palmetto State, even though women’s right to such services was established in the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. I have written previously about two so-called “Personhood Acts” introduced by state senators. Proponents of this type of legislation believe that the the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves to the states the right to decide when life begins. Supporters equate personhood with civil rights and believe that a fertilized egg, acted upon in any way, is being denied due process of law.
Personhood bills give constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception, well before a pregnancy has even taken place. “Personhood” legislation is so broad it would outlaw emergency contraception (even for victims of rape and incest), hormonal birth control pills, and other methods of birth control because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. These bills would also ban in-vitro fertilization since fertilized eggs used in these processes would have full legal rights. If passed, this proposed legislation would impact literally thousands of laws ranging from when property rights are granted, to inheritance rights, to who can file a lawsuit.
This week, the a State Senate Judiciary Subcommittee heard more testimony on the Personhood Act companion bills (S.83 and S.457), as well as on the so-called “Pregnant Women’s Protection Act.” This latest bill (S.527) amends South Carolina’s current “stand your ground: self-defense law to include protections for unborn children. Written by Americans United for Life (AUL), a national anti-choice group, the proposed law includes language that defines an “unborn child” as “the offspring of human beings from conception until birth.” In its legislation template, AUL itself says, this “new law extends both legal recognition and legal protection to an unborn child,” illustrating that this bill, presented as a stand your ground law for pregnant women, is actually intended to erode women’s access to essential reproductive health services.
Current state statute already allows for the use of deadly force to protect oneself and others against the threat of “imminent peril of death or great bodily injury,” making an additional law specifically tailored to pregnant women unnecessary. Those women may already legally defend themselves. The only new provision this law adds to state statute is the definition of a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights. Thus, it is a back-door effort to pass the unconstitutional concept of personhood into law by including it in a self-defense bill.
While the Personhood Act companion bills were not voted on at the hearing, the subcommittee did vote 3-2 to pass the Pregnant Women’s Protection Act on to the full Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators Chip Campsen (R-Charleston), Greg Hembree (R-Horry), and Greg Gregory (R-Lancaster) voted for the bill, while Senators Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg) and Karl Allen (D-Greenville) voted against it.
By writing the concept of personhood for a fertilized egg into any law, legislators are treating women as less than adults capable of making their own healthcare decisions and are denying them access to methods of personal medical management that they have relied upon for decades. It is my hope that the full Senate Judiciary Committee will see this underhanded attempt to deny women established reproductive rights for what it is – not a self-defense law – and vote it down.
Amy Lazenby is the Associate Opinion Editor for FITSNews. Contact her at amy@fitsnews.com and follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz.
67 comments
Anti-choice = pro-life
liberal slant much?
I think what pisses off the liberal movement so much is how much they are losing the PR war over abortion. Something about killing babies because I couldn’t resist my boyfriends natty light fueled post prom advances that makes a populous feel guilty.
You sound pissed off and offensive. Liberals are pissed because the party of less government is intruding on the lives and rights of women. No one is talking about killing babies except you.
I know it must really inconvenience the hell out of some women to actually let that baby they helped conceive be born. That’s why there ought to be more focus on helping them out, as one part of a very complex issue.
I agree, Mike, it is complex. Limiting birth control just adds to the issues and men shouldn’t be allowed to just walk away, as many do. Limiting women’s rights is not the answer.
If someone can solve it in a comment box, we should elect that guy/gal!
I think what pisses off the liberal movement so much is how much they are losing the PR war over abortion.
If it was legitimate rape, the body will shut it down!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html
Aspirin between the knees!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/foster-friess-in-my-day-gals-put-aspirin-between-their-114730.html
Want access to birth control? Let me proceed to slut-shame you for hours on end for days in a row!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html
Men should be able to rape women if abortion is legal!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/lawrence-lockman-rape-_n_4874586.html
Holy Hell, Democrats need to find out whoever is in charge of GOP PR!
I think they’ve been using the same guy that came up with :
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…”
“I’m told Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up Chuck, let ’em see you. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about” (nobody knows Joe, nobody knows)
“R-S-P-E-C-T.”
“We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad.”
“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”
“…I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
None of your quotes have anything to do with abortion, and aside from the first one, were just gaffes.
I understand how humorous misspelling “respect” can be, but I don’t find publicly shaming someone as promiscuous on a nationally syndicated radio talk show repeatedly for the “egregious” offense of providing testimony to a Congressional committee to be funny at all.
Again, nice reply but wrong – read the last one, the first few were my weak attempt at humor. The last one indicates that Obama supports a state’s right to “interfere with your ovaries”.
I think they’ve been using the same guy that came up with :
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…”
“I’m told Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up Chuck, let ’em see you. Oh, God love you. What am I talking about” (nobody knows Joe, nobody knows)
“R-S-P-E-C-T.”
“We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad.”
“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”
“…I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
I think abortion should be legal right up until the baby gets through the birth canal personally.
The term “pro-life” itself is slanted along ideological lines, so what’s your point?
Once again, I see someone on the right insisting that women/girls alone have the responsibility to resist sexual “advances”. How about not getting a girl drunk in order to fuck her, to begin with? Soon, you guys (please note the lack of women involved in voting for this farce) will legislate away rape entirely. Poor, poor young men are just slaves of their hormones and their raging boners, after all. Some daddys are like that, too, of course — and that’s what compells them to give their under-aged daughters “gifts from God” in the form of knocking them up. You people make me wanna puke!
“…please note the lack of women involved in voting for this farce.”
Isn’t this this is Shealy’s bill? Looked like it when I read it. I think she’s still a chic…
I’m actually okay with the term anti-choice, as long as we remember what the “choice” is.
One quick comment since it appears she will be a regular writer: Ms. Lazenby writes from out of state. I could not care less about her opinion on anything related to SC and do not plan to read anything she writes based on what she reads about SC online.
She needs to concentrate on her state of residence….GEORGIA.
Noticed your second comment was deleted. Gee, I wonder why.
Is Will really killing comments? You’re the second person to mention it…
To be fair, we have a governor who goes out of state to raise funds, and a number of legislators whose campaigns get funded by out of state millionaires, so out-of-state influences are pretty much par for the course as it is.
The point that you continually miss is the state of residence of the individual. You may welcome all the carpetbaggers who have solved all the problems of their state of residence but I don’t.
What the fug is this?
“…to establish a precedent for banning abortion and other reproductive services…”
Really? What other “reproductive services” are the ominous “Some South Carolina lawmakers” seeking to ban? First of all, abortion is not a “reproductive service”, by definition, it is an “elimination service”. I don’t recall any bills introduced in recent
history prohibiting any “reproductive services”.
“An Act to Restrict Sales of Contraceptives” – nope, haven’t seen that one introduced anywhere. Are some lawmakers questioning the ineffective “freebie” methods of distribution ofsome “reproductive services”, like “Condoms for Kids” the high school distribution scheme, yeah, there is some of that going on, some of it probably misguided.
Let’s speak plainly here, what the ominous “Some South Carolina lawmakers” are seeking to do is restrict abortion. Anti-abortion folks are not anti-choice, they’re
pro-life but that doesn’t fit into your “not so neat little argument”.
Section 1-1-320. (A) The right to life for each born and preborn human being vests at fertilization.
(B) The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of this State, that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws, vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human person.”
If the law considers life to begin at fertilization, then theoretically anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting or staying implanted would be considered “abortion” and therefore illegal. That includes birth control pills and emergency contraceptives.
If there is any possible way to interpret the above law differently, then please, by all means, let us know.
1) General birth control pills should NOT be considered illegal.
2) Emergency contraceptives, even if considered outright abortion, should at the very LEAST be afforded to women who have become pregnant due to rape or incest, or who may not be capable of taking a pregnancy to full term for medical reasons (i.e. the mother could die, or the pregnancy is guaranteed to fail).
Without these basic things included, the bill shouldn’t even be debated. This isn’t “pro-life” at all.
Nice reply – completely wrong scientifically, but nice reply:
Birth control pills prevent pregnancy through several mechanisms, mainly by stopping ovulation. If no egg is released, there is nothing to be fertilized by sperm, and the woman cannot get pregnant. Most birth control pills contain synthetic forms of two female hormones: estrogen and progestin. These synthetic hormones stabilize a woman’s natural hormone levels, and prevent estrogen from peaking mid-cycle. Without the estrogen bump, the pituitary gland does not release other hormones that normally cause the ovaries to release mature eggs.
Actually, birth control uses a few methods of preventing pregnancy:
1) Prevent the egg from fully developing. (No fertilization.)
2) Increase cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the egg. (No fertilization.)
3) Weakening the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg will not successfully implant. (Fertilized egg, therefore illegal.)
More specifically:
In addition, oral contraceptives change the uterus lining just enough so that an egg will not stop in the uterus to develop.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/estrogen-and-progestin-oral-contraceptives-oral-route/description/drg-20069422
Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/birth-control-pills
#1 and #2 would be legal under such a law, and are the most likely to stop a pregnancy, but #3, regardless of how often it comes into play, would not be legal.
So you are agreeing with me that the law would not affect normal birth control.
The law would affect normal birth control. Period. And a divided cell would have equal rights as if already born. It isn’t rocket science to see how this targets women and limits their rights. The consequences of this law will be horrendous.
I’m curious, do you think that the unborn deserve protection at any point? is it okay to terminate a pregnancy at any point for any reason?
This “editor” doesn’t even live in the state of South Carolina. Sic, please find someone else.
“Personhood bills give constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception, well before a pregnancy has even taken place. ”
Is it just me or does this sentence make no sense? Isn’t an embryo a fertilized egg, meaning pregnancy has taken place?
Do I have the definition wrong?
There is a biological difference between a fertilized egg and an embryo. A zygote is the original fertilized egg (the moment of conception occurs when an egg and sperm unite to form one cell); an embryo is a more complex, multi-cellular organism that is dividing and undergoing the first stages of biological development; a fetus is a more developed organism. In the medical community, the term fetus is generally used from about 8 weeks after conception forward.
So an embryo can only exist after a pregnancy, correct?
Actually, an embryo exists before a pregnancy. A pregnancy occurs once an embryo has implanted in the uterus. This usually happens a few days after fertilization – approximately 6-12 days after a woman ovulates, depending on her cycle.
“Actually, an embryo exists before a pregnancy.”
Not by your own definition of “pregnancy” it doesn’t. Here’s wikipedia:
“5–7 days after fertilization, the blastocyst attaches to the wall of the uterus (endometrium). When it comes into contact with the endometrium it performs implantation. Implantation connections between the mother and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord.”
It seems it’s after this attachment that the term “embryo” is applied, per wiki on “blastocyst”:
“Implantation marks the end of the germinal stage and the beginning of the embryonic stage of development.”
“A pregnancy occurs once an embryo has implanted in the uterus. ”
You keep asserting this as if it is an accepted fact, when in reality a significant majority (57%) of OBGYN’s define pregnancy as beginning at conception. Only 28% accept your implantation definition.
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(11)02223-X/abstract
I say let those that want to kill their unborn children do it, they wouldn’t make good parents anyway and their kids would most likely end up on the tax payer dole. It’s a sick world and no one’s gonna fix it.
Women have to reclaim their bodies. No longer should they be the receptacle of some man’s woody and have to bear the consequences of sperm meets egg. Recently, medical science has been able to grow a vagina outside of the body that can be implanted. I submit, that woman should now have two vaginas. One for reproduction only and an implanted one, now known as the “fun one.” Also insurance should naturally pay for this technological advancement as EVERYONE should be entitled to FUN. Hospitals in the UK unfortunately will now have to find a new source of fuel for their furnaces.
“I submit, that woman should now have two vaginas. One for reproduction only and an implanted one, now known as the “fun one.”
Isn’t that why women who do anal are so popular?
Yes, maybe…perhaps… but Hepatitis B and Rectal Cancer are NOT FUN!
I read of this disturbing piece of proposed legislation on one of the mainstream sites, last week. Amy, did my Senator, Katrina Shealy, have her finger in this pie, by chance? Seems I saw reference to her in one of the articles I read, or maybe it was another piece of unnecessary legislation such as an anti-texting bill. I recall thinking, “that’s 2, Katrina” (with”1″ being voting for Jean Toal’s continued malfeasance on the bench).
Look at the bill. Shealy is the sponsor.
That’s what I was afraid of. :-(
Thank you for the clarification.
Katrina is a senator from Lexington County. She doesn’t have much choice but to sign on to these bills, lest she attract the ire of the core of the LexCo power structure also know as the local church community. As to Jean Toal she was told like everyone else involved vote for Toal or you’ll never get another thing accomplished in the legislature again. Sucks on both accounts but unfortunately it’s how the game is played. It’s starting to get late in the session at least and with the bills still in committee it is becoming very unlikely they will make it up for vote in the Senate or the House.
I understand that to to a degree Easterndumbfuckastan, but I think she may be an author of this piece of utter silliness. I wish our politicians would quit kowtowing to the religious nuts so much. Perhaps if they ignored them, they might go away, at least a little. If an individual is for or against abortion, it is their right to express their opinion to their elected representatives. I believe these churches that organize these big political agendas, rallies, and other political actions should be forced to pay taxes, same as any other business or institution. If they remain apolitical, as they should, they give them their tax free status.
Bending to these nuts with junk legislation such as this does not in any way gain respect from me.
Agreed. The only name I see on all three bills is Lee “no so” Bright, I’d be willing to bet he’s the one responsible but you never know. I really wish they’d list who introduced the bills along with the sponsors.
The first name listed next to the bill number is the sponsor: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=527&session=120&summary=B Sen. Shealy is the sponsor of the bill and the person who wrote it (with the help of Senate staff) and introduced it. The other names listed after hers are co-sponsors. She has publicly claimed it as her bill.
Thank You for the clarification, Amy!!!!!
I appreciate your posts Amy.
Thank you, @amybrandstadterlazenby:disqus I didn’t know that but now I do. That will be helpful when deconstructing some of the crazy legislation that gets proposed in this state.
Yes, Sen. Shealy is actually the sponsor of the bill.
Why is FITS deleting comments?
I’m not even going to comment on the pro choice/life issue, but from a practical point of view these bills are nothing but wastes of time.
The self defense issue is already covered under state law, you can defend yourself or anyone else that is in immediate danger of life or limb, that would apply to a pregnant woman as much as anyone else. It would be very difficult, might near impossible to hurt the unborn child without hurting the mother.
The two person-hood bills are tickets to expensive federal lawsuits that the State of South Carolina would likely lose. These are battles that SC doesn’t need to be fighting, not to mention possible implications from the law of unintended consequences. Knowing how certain state agencies, sheriff’s offices and solicitors offices behave, I could see them bringing murder charges against someone that had a natural miscarriage.
This is simply another example of special interest legislation, only here the special interest is the Religious Right. The quid pro quo isn’t the campaign contribution on the front end. The money comes off the backend when we have to hire lawyers to fight the losing side of the inevitable lawsuit.
Some interesting questions.
Will a coroner be called and a death certificate be issued for a miscarriage or an abortion?
Will same burial and mortuary laws apply?
Does an unborn child have the same survival and inheritance rights as a born sibling? (possibly a good thing)
These laws are written so vaguely that the answer to all of that would have to be yes. They basically declare an fertilized egg to be a person with all natural rights under the law, in doing so they have applied the entire code of law of South Carolina to the preborn person.
According to national estimates, roughly 15 to 20 percent of all pregnancies in the United States end in miscarriage, defined as the loss of a fetus before the 20th week. The majority of miscarriages occur within the first seven weeks of pregnancy, and the vast majority of these are completely unknown to the mother. No matter what your stance on abortion is these type of laws set a very dangerous precedent that can and will be abused, much like corporate personhood, it’s just a bad idea no matter what your politics.
I don’t claim to have an answer..but I do KNOW that marching in the streets, to guide these women to harm themselves, like this..is the work of the Devil…. There is NOTHING good in it…Nothing but Evil.
And: It’s real easy for cushy-life, lily-white suburbanites to advocate the taking of the life of the fetuses of the poor or lost…And It’s funny how much pro-abortionist liberals can afford to enjoy motherhood, but they deem those lower than them, not worthy..
And then we see this in the news today:
Neighbors shocked after 7 dead babies found in
home http://www.cbsnews.com/news/neighbors-shocked-after-7-dead-babies-found-in-utah-home/
First Lizenby refuses to answer for abortion hero, and woman-baby killer Dr. Vermin Gosnell…
Wonder if she’ll own up to the massacre those like her fostered in Utah?
What about those little jelly babies or fecuses that you abort every time you take a dump, Tango? When a glob of sperm comes in contact with your intestinal wall from either end that could be a person you are flushing down the loo. One of the reasons given for hating us is that we don’t procreate. Maybe if enough of those jelly babies form in your intestinal tract a miracle will happen and we might have a little Tango.
There are, obviously, logistical problems with these types of bills, but I find it more interesting that our favorite Georgia housewife still retains her “SC policy expert” status in regard to just about everything legislative here. I especially like the not-so-subtle insertion of little snippets from tired old radical feminist talking points, such as categorizing the AUL as “anti-choice.” The conventional usage (used by even some mainstream outlets) is pro-life vs. pro-choice (positive vs. positive), not positive vs. negative. She also throws in the standard description of abortion as a “healthcare decision.” All religious debate aside, there are rational, fair-minded people who view the abortion debate as a basic human rights issue. Walking around with a tacky-ass “Get The Fuck Out” of my uterus sign is about as philosophical as these zealots usually get. If this was strictly a healthcare issue these decisions would be simple and easy, and they’re not.
And men shouldn’t have a say in the debate either.
Damn…we were doing so well! Are you just baiting me now??? ;-)
Sorry, but that logic doesn’t fly (for a couple of reasons). First, you’re assuming (as most feminists do, not that I know your stance there) that this is some kind of purely reproductive, bodily issue. It is much, much more complex than that. Can’t you see (even if you disagree) that a person could hold the position that the unborn baby is, well, a baby, and deserves at least some level of human rights? Human rights are not a male or female issue. If your reductionism worked and unborn babies were simply some random extension of the female anatomy, fathers would enjoy no parental rights morally, ethically, or legally. Or, what about a 6 or 7 month old unborn child? Why don’t we allow abortions in those instances? In the reductionist view, it’s simply a bigger (unborn) piece of the female anatomy at that point. The sliding scale and “age of viability” represent arbitrary, socio-legal constructs. Sliding scales with arbitrary delineations create much of the complexity here- I’ll leave you (in peace, I hope, because I’ve been traveling and I’m too tired to fight about it) with this old saw on arbitrary definitions applied to moralistic situations. I used Groucho, but it’s been attributed to George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, Mark Twain, etc. It actually probably belongs to British pol Max Aitken, but that’s another story…
GROUCHO (to woman seated next to him at an elegant dinner party): Would you sleep with me for ten million dollars?
WOMAN (giggles and responds): Oh, Groucho, of course I would.
GROUCHO; How about doing it for fifteen dollars?
WOMAN (indignant): Why, what do you think I am?
GROUCHO: That’s already been established. Now we’re just haggling about the price.
Namaste!
Another simplistic (and stupid) point-
This is really saying Dads shouldn’t have a say in the debate either??The relationship between parent and child is actually the most important relationship we ever have. To say a dad has ZERO rights regarding the forced killing of his yet to be born child is an indefensible position!
Nice, can we get out of the child support et cetera as well – since it has absolutley nothing to do with men???
That is one of the things I don’t get about these men who want to limit a woman’s freedom of choice with regard to abortion. If she gets knocked up and decides to keep it, YOU (we) get stuck with the child support and medical upkeep for a minimum of 19 years approximately (9 months + 18 yrs).
Since the woman will be the one who 100% has to deal with the physical and psychological stuff regarding pregnancy, whether a man is around to help or not, in some ways it behooves her to ensure that her birth control game is on top of everything. If he leaves the country, commits suicide, dies in an accident or from other mischance, her support just went out the window.
Likewise, a lot of women have trapped men by saying they were using birth control when they were not. As far as having a happy, long-term relationship this just doesn’t work. If the woman is so immature as to use such a ploy, and there are plenty out there who would, he is stuck paying for something because of trickery, for a significant part of his life. Maybe there should be a casual sex quick contract that men and women could get their prospective partner for the night to sign which says that the woman is on birth control and absolves him of any pregnancy issues occurring from mischance, or that his liability is limited to assisting with abortion expenses (to protect him) OR that he is aware she is not on birth control and he agrees to fully support her and any child(ren) occurring from such a union if such should occur (to protect her).
So, if abortions are banned, how will that affect privacy laws regarding medical information? Will every woman with a positive pregnancy have her records monitored by the pro-life zealots? I’m sorry, but the government needs to stay out womens reproductive rights, period. Passing this law will not be the end of government involvement in personal rights. If we ban abortions, then will should also ban bearing numerous children that have to raise themselves or be abused by a parent and supported by the government. Go ahead with this ridiculous law and just wait for the fall out because it will come.
“Personhood bills give constitutional rights to embryos from the moment of conception, well before a pregnancy has even taken place.”
Actually, a significant majority (57%) of OBGYN’s agree that pregnancy begins at conception. See the linked survey done by the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.Only 28% accept the implantation definition.
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(11)02223-X/abstract
This is so silly. FIrst of all, the idea that women have any reproductive rights is absurd. The only reason they even have the right to vote is because some silly Quakers in upstate New York pushed the idea. I should say Commie Quakers actually. These were the same oatmeal poster children Quakers who also pushed abolition and destroyed God’s divine wish for the true South Carolina way of life. But anyway, the idea that a woman should have some sort of “rights” about a pregnancy is insane. Once that little egg meets that little seed it’s God’s will. Which furthers the other true argument that there is no such thing as rape. God intended those parts to fit together – and to make babies. He didn’t dictate how they should be put together (nice meal and wine versus back of the convenience store) –
It’s all a farce by northern liberal Commie Quakers.
I’m not about to suggest limiting any woman’s rights, but what if the baby is a woman?