Blogging for Choice IV
I’ve been checking out some of the other Blogs for Choice. Here’s a few I enjoyed:
* * * * * * * *
Blogs for Choice has a list of participants.
Blogging for Choice III
Here’s more George Carlin to finish up the day:
[…] But let’s get back to this abortion shit. Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if the fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn’t count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come if there’s a miscarriage there isn’t a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say “we have 2 children and 1 on the way” instead of saying “we have 3 children”? People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it’s a continuous process! Continuous, just keeps ~rolling~ along! ~Rolling~, ~rolling~, ~rolling~ along!
And say, you know something? Listen, you can go back further than that! What about the carbon atoms, huh? Human life could not exist without carbon! So is it just possible that maybe we shouldn’t be burning all this coal? Just looking for a little consistency here in these anti-abortion arguments. See the really hard-core people will tell you that life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Which is usually a few moments after the man says “Gee honey, I was going to pull out but the phone rang and it startled me.”
[snip]
Now. Speaking of consistency. Catholics, which I was, until I reached the age of reason, Catholics, and other Christians are against abortions and they’re against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals? Leave these fucking people alone, for Christ’s sake! Here’s an entire class of people that’s guaranteed never to have an abortion! And the Catholics and Christians are just tossing them aside! You’d think they’d make natural allies!
Go look for consistency in religion. And speaking of my friends the Catholics, when John Cardinal O’Conner came to New York, and some of these other Cardinals and Bishops have experienced their first pregnancies, and their first labor pains, and they’ve raised a couple of children on minimum wage, then I’ll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion! I’m sure it would be interesting! Enlightening too. But, in the mean time what they ought to be doing is telling these priests who took a vow of chastity to keep their hands off the alter boys. Keep your hands to yourself, Father! Ya know? When Jesus said “suffer the little children come unto me”, that’s not what he was talking about!!
[snip]
But you know, the longer you listen to this abortion debate, the more you hear this phrase, ‘ sanctity of life’. You’ve heard that, ‘Sanctity of life’. You believe in it? Personally, I think it’s a bunch of shit. Well I mean, life is sacred? Who said so, God? If you read history, you find that God is one of the leading causes of death! Has been, for thousands of years! Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Christians, all taking turns killing each other cause God told ’em it was a good idea. The sword of God, the blood of the lamb, vengeance is mine. Millions of dead mother-f*ckers. Millions of dead mother-f*ckers, all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question. “Do you believe in God?” “No” Pfft, dead! “Do you believe in God?” “Yes” “Do you believe in my god?” “No” Pfft, dead! My God has a bigger dick, than your God! That’s all it is!
Thousands of years, thousands of years, and all the best wars too, the bloodiest most brutal wars fought, all based on religious hatred. Which is fine with me, hey any time a bunch of holy people want to kill each other, I’m a happy guy! But don’t be giving me all this shit about the sanctity of life. I mean even if there were such a thing, I don’t think it’s something you can blame on God. No you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up! You know why? ‘Cause we’re alive! Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred!
Blogging for Choice II
Last year, I quoted from a post by Ampersand at Alas, a blog (3/21/2006):
A lot of people who favor forced childbirth for pregnant women say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder. Have an abortion, shoot a four-year-old in the head; morally, it’s the same. Or, anyhow, that’s what they claim to believe.
In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps an unconscious desire – to punish women for having sex.[snip]
In contrast, the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to penalize women who have sex.
And also from this one by MJS at CorrenteWire, in which the Democratic Talking Point Oracle appeared as a Schematic Drawing of a Vagina:
SDV: What strikes me as a mistake is for Democrats to allow the discussion to continue to be framed by conservatives. “Pro-Life” is only pro-life for a fetus, not the mother, and not the grown child, who can be shipped off to kill people without so-called “Pro-Life” supporters batting an eyelid. Call them “Pro-War on Women.”
[snip]
… Do not refer to those who wish the government to control women’s reproductive organs as “Right-to-Life” people. They’re not. They are something else, so call them something else, not to be didactic, but to be precise. Do you understand what I’m saying by calling legislators who are working to make abortion illegal “Pro War on Women?” Describe, in graphic detail, what is meant by those who would outlaw legal, safe abortions.
[snip]
SDV: Be graphic in your discussion of the issue, i.e. our wives’ vaginas are to be managed by the state, our daughters’ vaginas are to be run by the state, congress is taking over the role of qualified doctors when it comes to the health of females in the United States. Be graphic in your descriptions: female citizens of the United States do not have sovereignty over their uteruses, their fallopian tubes, their vaginal canals, because each one is connected to the other.
MJS: Many people don’t like explanations that take too long.
SDV: Precisely: make them take too long. If a progressive goes on the radio suggest that he or she talk about vaginas, vaginal canals, fallopian tubes, uterine wall, eggs; talk about penises and sperm and DNA and testes and so forth. The same people who are uncomfortable with their own bodies are the ones who want to run yours: get it? Make them face what they are trying to do, make them talk about it in as unfettered, non-euphemistic fashion as possible. Make them face The Elephant in the Room.
Blogging for Choice
** Okay. WordPress keeps eating this and spitting back only chunks, so I give up. I’m posting what’s left, and if I get time later, I’ll try to clean it up again.
— Jenn
* * * * * * *
Recently, I read a paper written by some Republican on how to use specific words to attract voters, and describe Democrats and their party.
The ‘pro-life’ groups use “life” as their frame. In that framing, those who are against them are ‘against life’ or ‘for death’.
Pro-choice, on the other hand, reflects the need for abortion to be a personal and individual choice. It is those on the anti-abortion/anti-women crusades who want to force a woman to bear a child – regardless of how that child was conceived or the financial or emotional circumstances of her life.
Whether a woman chooses abortion, adoption, or raising a child, she is the only one who can make that decision based on her personal circumstances. And it is not a decision made lightly, no matter which way you turn.
I have faced this decision twice in my life. Twice. Once as a teenager just out of high school, and once as a woman with two children and a troubled marriage.
I got lucky. I had a mother who believed in factual information about sex and birth control. I had a grandmother who was pragmatic and believed “First babies come anytime. It’s the rest that take nine months.” I had support from family and friends, and a fiancee who believed in ‘doing the right thing,’ and while surprised to find himself a father, never shied away from the responsibility.
Six years later, married, the mother of two lovely little boys, I found myself pregnant again. My marriage was in trouble, and my health was precarious. During my second pregnancy, I’d been diagnosed with Addison’s Disease (adrenal insufficiency). My adrenal glands had stopped functioning. By the time it was diagnosed, I was four months pregnant and nearly comatose.
With a diagnosis came a new worry. I would have to take replacement hormones (steroids in my case) for the rest of my life and there was no research to show the effects on the unborn.
Somehow, by some miracle, I managed to make it to full-term and gave birth to a healthy son. But, I was cautioned against ever having more. My body simply could not handle the stress associated with pregnancy. And who knew if the exposure to hydrocortisone and Florinef from conception on would affect the fetus.
So there I was, 23 years old, facing that same decision. Again.
I found out I was pregnant in December, and my husband moved out in January. I hadn’t worked in years and couldn’t work now. I was the sole support of myself and two children already – and the future wasn’t too bright.
I had to decide. Do I risk my life and leave two little boys motherless? Or not? I spent hours worrying over the decision. I spoke to my endocrinologist, my obstetrician, friends, family, and in the end, I chose to continue the pregnancy.
I chose.
* * * * * * *
Why am I pro-choice? Here’s a few reasons, in no particular order:
Because I believe that the decision to have a child should be made only by the person who must carry that child to term.
Because I believe that no girl or woman should endure rape or incest and be forced to bear the result of either act.
Because I believe that sex is not a dirty word, and pregnancy is not a punishment for having sex.
Because I believe every child that comes into this world should have parents who are financially and emotionally capable of raising it.
Because I believe that women have the right to make their own medical decisions, in accordance with their own beliefs.
Because I believe there are too many children of color and too many children with special-needs who are left to languish in the foster care system.
Because I believe every woman has the right to choose how many children she will have, and when.
Because I believe I don’t need a ‘daddy’ to tell me what to do.
Because I believe there are too many women without health insurance who don’t have access to proper prenatal and perinatal care.
Because I believe that no one should force their religious beliefs on anyone else.
* * * * * * *
Jenn’s Sunday Sermon
As the anti-women/anti-sex groups are busy marching to protest the right of women to make decisions affecting themselves and their bodies, let’s take a look at the distinct irony of their position and that of their Beloved Leader:
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
America was founded on the principle that we are all endowed by our Creator with the right to life and that every individual has dignity and worth. National Sanctity of Human Life Day helps foster a culture of life and reinforces our commitment to building a compassionate society that respects the value of every human being.
Photo from www.freethefive.org
Among the most basic duties of Government is to defend the unalienable right to life, and my Administration is committed to protecting our society’s most vulnerable members.
Collage from www.geocities.com/kabuli.geoWe are vigorously promoting parental notification laws, adoption, abstinence education, crisis pregnancy programs, and the vital work of faith-based groups. Through the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002,” the “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003,” and the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004,” we are helping to make our country a more hopeful place.
Photo 1 via Peralta Colleges NewsCentre
Photo 2 by Greg Henshall, courtesy FEMA via Environment News ServiceOne of our society’s challenges today is to harness the power of science to ease human suffering without sanctioning practices that violate the dignity of human life.
Photos from The Memory Hole
With the right policies, we can continue to achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical and moral responsibilities.
Hurricane Katrina image via Union of Concerned Scientists
Michael J. Fox photo copyright: Focused Images Photography
National Sanctity of Human Life Day serves as a reminder that we must value human life in all forms, not just those considered healthy, wanted, or convenient. Together, we can work toward a day when the dignity and humanity of every person is respected.
Photo from the New York TimesNOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 21, 2007, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.
Photo from Political Nonsense
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Once again, El Pollo Loco proves he and his misAdministration’s motto is: “Hypocrisy R Us”.
I leave it to George Carlin to conclude:
From Back in Town (1996) :
Why, why, why, why, why is it, that most of the people who are against abortion, are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place? Huh? Huh? Huh? Boy these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn, but once you’re born, you’re on your own! Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, from conception to 9 months. After that they don’t want to know about you. They don’t want to hear from you, No nothin’! No neo-natal care, no day care, no HeadStart, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you’re preborn you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re fucked! You’re fucked! Conservatives don’t care about you until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine. Just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies, so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
[snip]
Pro-life. Pro-life. These people aren’t pro-life, they’re killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they’ll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to a Doctor they just might have to kill it? They aren’t pro-life, they’re anti-woman, simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don’t like women. They believe that a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood-mare for the state. Pro-life. You don’t see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? Nah, you don’t see them adopting a whole lot of crack-babies, do you? Nah, that might be something Christ would do!
And, you won’t see, you won’t see, alot of these pro-life people dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire! You know, morally religious committed people in south Vietnam, knew how to stage a god-damned demonstration, didn’t they, huh? They knew how to put on a fuckin’ protest! Light yourself on fire! Come on you moral crusaders, let’s see a little smoke, to match that fire in your belly.
Update: 1/21/07 9:31pm EDT
I had to change some images and/or links, since a couple of them didn’t show up. I also added a few images to underscore the hypocrisy of our supposed “leader”.
–Jenn
What a surprise! Not.
From the “only Republicans and morons didn’t know this” files:
Most Americans prefer comprehensive sex-education in their schools instead of abstinence-only programs. I know I’m one of those. It is not a school’s job to teach a certain set of values. Instead, our schools should be offering specific, factual information about sex and STDs and pregnancy. Especially when it’s been proven, time and time again, that abstinence-only education is next-to-useless in lowering the teen sex and teen pregnancy rates.
From MSNBC:
Most Americans, regardless of their political leanings, favor comprehensive sex education in schools over abstinence-only programs, researchers reported Monday.
Currently, the federal government champions the abstinence-only approach, giving around $170 million each year to states and community groups to teach just-say-no sex education. This funding precludes mention of birth control and condoms, unless it’s to emphasize their failure rates.
However, critics point out that studies have failed to show that abstinence-only education delays sex or lowers rates of teen pregnancy.
[snip]
Of the nearly 1,110 U.S. adults they surveyed, 82 percent supported programs that discuss abstinence as well as other methods for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Half were in outright opposition to abstinence-only education.
Even among self-described conservatives, 70 percent supported comprehensive sex ed., while 40 percent opposed the abstinence-only strategy.
The findings “highlight a gap between policy, and science and public opinion,” said Dr. Amy Bleakley of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and lead author of the new study.
[snip]
“Until we have strong evidence that particular abstinence-only programs are effective,” Kirby argues, “we certainly should relax the funding restrictions and fund programs (including comprehensive programs) that effectively delay sex among young people.”
Bleakley agreed with that conclusion. But beyond the issue of balance in funding, she said, is the fact that there is evidence comprehensive sex education can help prevent the potential consequences of teen sex — including HIV and other STDs. [emphasis mine]
In my opinion, this is about a certain group of parents wanting that our schools do their job for them. They don’t want to talk to their kids about their reasons for believing sex is taboo except in marriage. They don’t want to talk about the dangers of having sex before one is emotionally ready or in having unprotected sex. They’d rather preach and condemn and leave their kids ignorant. They deny reality, and then blame someone (anyone) else when their child becomes pregnant or contracts an STD.
It is hard to talk to your kids about sex. It’s even harder when you’re a mom talking to your sons, or a father talking to his daughters. But, like teaching them as toddlers not to hit or bite other people, it’s an obligation we must fulfill.
And in more “hardly surprising” news:
Poverty is moving to the suburbs. For the first time, the number of poor people living in suburbs outweighed the number of inner-city poor. It’s El Presidente’s “great economy” in action.
From the AP via MSNBC:
The suburban poor outnumbered their inner-city counterparts for the first time last year, with more than 12 million suburban residents living in poverty, according to a study of the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas released Thursday.
“Economies are regional now,” said Alan Berube, who co-wrote the report for the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “Where you see increases in city poverty, in almost every metropolitan area, you also see increases in suburban poverty.”
Nationally, the poverty rate leveled off last year at 12.6 percent after increasing every year since the decade began. It was a period when the country went through a recession and an uneven recovery that is still sputtering in parts of the Northeast and Midwest.
[snip]
Berube said several factors are contributing to an increase in suburban poverty:
- Suburbs are adding people much faster than cities, making it inevitable that the number of poor people living in suburbs would eventually surpass those living in cities.
- The poverty rate in large cities (18.8 percent) is still higher than it is in the suburbs (9.4 percent). But the overall number of people living in poverty is higher in the suburbs in part because of population growth.
- America’s suburbs are becoming more diverse, racially and economically. “There’s poverty really everywhere in metropolitan areas because there are low-wage jobs everywhere,” Berube said.
- Recent immigrants are increasingly bypassing cities and moving directly to suburbs, especially in the South and West. Those immigrants, on average, have lower incomes than people born in the United States.
[snip]
Marc H. Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, said many of the same social and economic problems that have plagued cities for years are now affecting suburbs: struggling schools, rising crime and low-paying jobs.
“I call it the urbanization of the suburbs,” Morial said.
“I hope this says to people that the way to confront poverty is not to wall it off and concentrate it,” Morial said. “You really need policies to eliminate it.”
Cleveland was the city with the highest poverty rate last year, at 32.4 percent, while San Jose had the lowest, at 9.7 percent.
NARAL and Planned Parenthood Endorse Lieberman?!
What in the hell is wrong with these people??
Like others, I begin to suspect an addiction to cocktail weenies among the national organization’s Powers-That-Be that blinds them to reality.
Nothing else could explain the dissonance between their stated goals and the actions of Joe Lieberman.
From FireDogLake, I learned that Ned Lamont wasn’t even included in the process. WTF?
What process could result in something this stupid? National must be smoking something good if they’re incapable of looking at these two particular candidates and seeing which one firmly supports their cause of women’s reproductive freedom, and which one who barely pays lip service to the cause.
I sent NARAL a little note from their feedback page and asked if they plan to endorse Rick Santorum next? At this point they’ve done so much damage to their own organization, a little more isn’t even going to be noticed.
I also told them that I’m hoping their chapters throughout Connecticut break with the nationa organization l and encourage their members to vote for Lamont.
Three cheers for NOW which is supporting the right candidate.
Send NARAL a message here.
Support Ned Lamont.
Support the National Organization of Women.
*
Much more (and better) on this topic at: FireDogLake, MyDD, and Tennessee Guerilla Women.
Right-wingers controlling CDC?
Organizers for a federal panel say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were forced by House Republican Mark Souder (R-IN) to add abstinence-only proponents to a panel to be held at the National STD Prevention Conference.
From the CentreDaily.com:
Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., who chairs the House subcommittee on drug policy, questioned the balance of the original panel, which focused on the failure of abstinence-until-marriage programs. In e-mail to Health and Human Services officials, his office asked whether the CDC was "clear about the controversial nature of this session and its obvious anti-abstinence objective."
Last week the title of the panel was changed and two members were replaced. One of them was a Penn State student who was going to talk about how abstinence programs were tied to rising STD rates.
[snip]
Scientists have complained about increasing government interference. Last year, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration officials told coordinators of a conference on suicide prevention to remove the words gay, lesbian and bisexual from its program and add a session on faith-based suicide prevention.
This was the first time, conference organizers said, that a single politician had so clearly interfered and achieved such dramatic results. The concern, they said, was that studies on sexual behavior would not be made public if they jarred with the administration's views on abstinence and other public-health issues.
"At the CDC, they're beside themselves," said Jonathan Zenilman, president of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association and conference organizer. "These people aren't scientists; they haven't written anything. The only reason they're here is because of political pressure from the administration."
[snip]
Coburn spokesman John Hart questioned why the CDC would present data that contradict the administration's policy. [emphasis mine]
"I'm not suggesting that their views shouldn't be debated," he said, "but should federally funded tax dollars be used to do that?"
The new panel is titled "Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth."
Uh, Mr. Hart? How about because the Centers for Disease Control are supposed to be a politically-neutral agency, concerned with the public health and ways to improve said public health, not a megaphone for the administration?
Personally, I dislike abstinence-only education. It's unrealistic.
Teenagers will have sex. I'd prefer they didn't, (I'd certainly prefer mine didn't!) but the reality is – as George Michael sang when I was in high school: "Sex is natural, sex is fun."
Teenagers, like adults, enjoy doing things that are fun and make them feel good. They especially like doing things they know their parents wouldn't approve of. We have to acknowledge that while abstinence-only programs may keep some teenagers from having sex before they marry, it will not stop all, or even the majority of them.
Everyone on both sides of this issue have good intentions. We want to protect our children and other children. However, the abstinence-only crowd feels that the only way to protect them is to tout 'abstinence' while leaving them ignorant about the dangers of failing to remain abstinent.
SD Planned Parenthood moving to Pine Ridge?
Cecilia Fire Thunder is furious about the state of South Dakota’s new abortion law. So furious that she plans to open a Planned Parenthood clinic on the Pine Ridge Reservation.
From indianz.com:
The President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder, was incensed. A former nurse and healthcare giver she was very angry that a state body made up mostly of white males, would make such a stupid law against women.
‘To me, it is now a question of sovereignty,’ she said to me last week. ‘I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the State of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.‘ [emphasis mine]
From kathrynt:
I called the Office of the President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of Pine Ridge, and spoke with Ms. Fire Thunder herself. (In case you haven’t seen it, this is in reference to http://www.indianz.com/News/2006/013061.asp)
If you want to mail donations to the reservation, you may do so at: Oglala Sioux Tribe ATTN: President Fire Thunder P. O. Box 2070 Pine Ridge, SD 57770
OR: and this may be preferred, due to mail volume:
ATTN: PRESIDENT FIRE THUNDER PO BOX 990 Martin, SD 57751
Enclose a letter voicing your support and explaining the purpose of the donation. Bear in mind, the Pine Ridge Res is not exactly dripping with disposeable income, so do consider donating funds directly to the tribe as well as specifically for this effort.
ETA: Make checks out to OST Planned Parenthood Cecelia Fire Thunder. This will ensure that the funds get routed properly.
For email contact, you can contact the president at:
firethunder_president AT NOSPAM yahoo DOT com
cc:vbush AT NOSPAM oglala DOT orgThat is Ms. Fire Thunder’s personal email address; I have received permission to post it here. For the sake of record keeping, do cc: the listed address on all correspondence; that’s her official secretary.
Pro-Life or Anti-Women?
Ampersand has a great post up at Alas. With a table graph for illustration, it’s very clear that the pro-life movement’s stance against abortion, contraceptives, and the HPV vaccine (among others) are contradictory if they’re equating abortion with murder.
However, those positions line up perfectly if the reason behind them is to punish women for having sex.
A lot of people who favor forced childbirth for pregnant women say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder. Have an abortion, shoot a four-year-old in the head; morally, it’s the same. Or, anyhow, that’s what they claim to believe.
In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps an unconscious desire – to punish women for having sex. I used to reject that latter view as a pointless ad hominem attack. Nowadays, I’m not so sure.
Although I’ve met some rank-and-file “pro-lifers” whose policy preferences were consistent with a belief that a fetus is morally indistinguishable from a child, those folks usually have policy preferences which are totally out of step with the abortion criminalization movement as a whole.
In contrast, the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to penalize women who have sex. And they’ve done so with the apparent backing and blessing of the vast majority of the rank and file. [emphasis mine]
Check it out here.
You Have Spoken
-
Commenting Notice: Because spammers are getting faster in finding workarounds to my spam filter, I'm now moderating all comments containing links.
If your comment doesn't show up right away, it's caught in the filter and will be released at some point - usually within 24 hours.
-
“I don’t have an agenda, I don’t have a program. I’m not a communist or a socialist. I guess I’m a left-libertarian and a populist, and I believe in the Bill of Rights the way some folks believe in the Bible.”
– Molly Ivins, 1944-2007
Stats
The Lady Speaks 