Election Day.
Oy vey.
So, now what?
Unless you have been living under a rock, you know by now that the Republican Party now controls both houses of Congress. And there is now an intense debate within the GOP about whether or not their party should work with President Obama or not. Of course, Tea Partyers like Ted Cruz want confrontation, they want 100 votes on repealing Obamacare, they want to close down the government if they don’t get their way. The new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, is really not interested in confrontations because he realizes that the GOP now has to govern if they want their polling numbers to improve (although they really only have one way to go and that is up).
But Mitch is smart and he knows he has to throw a bone or two to his right wing and recently he threw the first bone. Without much fanfare, McConnell recently told them that he will allow the pro-lifers in his party to have a few votes. Specifically, he has assured them that come January, he will let them offer a bill that would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks.
As we know, the vast majority of women obtain abortions in the first trimester. Still, there are thousands of women who feel the need to have an abortion after 20 weeks. Up until the 24th week, they can go to a clinic (if they can find one) and terminate their pregnancy without any questions asked. After that, the circumstances have to be more compelling.
This bill will pass the House of Representatives easily. The question in the Senate is if any pro-choice Senator will filibuster the measure? If they do, then the pro-lifers would have to get 60 votes to pass it. At this point, they may be close to that number but we’re not sure. Then, of course, even if they pass the bill the President gets his shot at it. If the bill is passed on its own, I’d like to think that Obama would veto it. Of course, he would not get into the reasons why women need to have access to abortions that late. He would just argue that it’s unconstitutional under Roe v Wade. Indeed, it would be interesting to see what the pro-choicers argue. Remember they had a similar rhetorical battle when it came to “partial birth abortions” and they totally missed that up because they did not know how to talk about those abortions that occurred between 20-24 weeks. Way too touchy for them. So, they came up with the “these are used in only rare circumstances” line and ultimately got caught with their pants down.
If I were a pro-life lobbyist, I wouldn’t waste my time on this bill. Instead, I would do what they’re doing (successfully) in the states – pass clinic regulations under the guise of “protecting women.” We know by now that such regulations have successfully closed a bunch of clinics in Texas and elsewhere. And I would attach this language to a “must pass” bill like the budget. Imagine the havoc that would ensue if they passed the “Abortion Clinic Regulation Act.”
In addition to passing legislation, they are going to upset the applecart even more by holding hearings on certain issues. When does life begin? Should abortion doctors be required to have admitting privileges in local hospitals? Should the Congress ban sex selection abortions? They now chair the committees, they’re getting ready to go.
So, abortion is going to be one of the issues where Mitch McConnell tries to assuage the right wing extremists. Pro-choicers are going to have their hands full.

November 9, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Yeah we are…but I still refuse to let them push me around.
LikeLike
November 10, 2014 at 9:29 am
That’s the spirit, Carrie!
LikeLike
November 10, 2014 at 10:47 am
Good column, Pat. You do zero right in.
Recently you invited me to submit something and you suggested a column about whether or not I think I’ve accomplished anything as a pro-life activist.
In a week or so when responses stop on this one, I could submit one, probably dull as I warned you, if the invitation is still open. Where do I submit it?
LikeLike
November 10, 2014 at 4:37 pm
I’m looking forward to it!
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Why don’t you send it to my email address, which I assume you still have? Great!!
LikeLike
November 10, 2014 at 11:09 am
the problem with the “pro-choice” crowd is that they are not as angry as the so-called “pro-lifers” and are willing to let things slide. Part of this has to do with the stigma the so-called “pro-lifers” have successfully attached to abortion. It’s about time people started working to attach shame to the label “pro-lifer.”
So-called “pro-lifers” are careless of human life and only are against abortion insofar as controlling it gives them evidence of their own potency in human affairs. Why they don’t seek to prove their effective agency in society through positive deeds points toward their underlying psychological problem.
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 4:55 am
I’ve edited Chuck’s first paragraph: The problem with the “pro-rape” crowd is that they are not as angry as the so-called “anti-rapers” and are willing to let things slide. Part of this has to do with the stigma the so-called “anti-rapers” have successfully attached to rape. It’s about time people started working to attach shame to the label “anti-raper.”
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 3:41 pm
C’mon, Johnny boy, do you really think that we are “pro-rape?” Where the heck did that come from?
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 4:50 am
You’re not but other societies have been. You’re anti-rape but pro-murder. All things considered I’d prefer to enter a pro-rape society rather than a pro-murder one, even if I were a woman.
I’m sure you folks don’t believe killing young people is murder but I’m also sure the ante-bellum South, for example, didn’t consider the rape of slaves rape either.
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 3:40 pm
You’re right, Charles, the pro-choicers are not as “angry” as the other side. But that’s probably because when we wake up we’re not thinking of dead babies, right? We get up and have a number of other priorities to focus on. Maybe John can chime in here?
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 4:53 am
Well, I don’t know. Just look at this blog in the old days! We had some angry pro-deathers here. I miss ’em.
LikeLike
November 11, 2014 at 6:51 pm
So John Dunkle, I would define you as an angry white man, much like the male protestors outside the clinic I escort at, you feel entitled to control us woman folk am I correct in assuming this?
Protesting outside an abortion clinic is your way of expressing your anger towards society, you can’t express your anger at society because then you might have your anger come right back at you. So you express your anger towards women, towards women who are in vulnerable position emotionally, we make for an easy target at an abortion clinic because we are not likely to stand-up to your anger. You choose the clinic as place you can express your anger and get away with. You male anti’s are really just big bullies. At least that is what my husband tells me, he knows why you there, because you are angry white men.
See that is why we have escorts because we have no problem standing up to your anger because we are not in vulnerable position.
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 2:47 pm
paragraph 1 — Change “entitled” to “obligated.” Remember “Am I my brother’s keeper?” God answered yes. And I’ll bet most of those protestors are women.
paragraph 2 — Your husband is right in a few cases. However, those angry ones save more lives than a milquetoast like me.
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Who made you obligated? God? Cause there is no god. So you feel obligated to control us women folk am I understanding you correctly? Please elaborate on how you feel obligated to control us women folk? Obligated is the same thing as entitled.
Also please elaborate as to how angry white men are saving lives at abortion clinics…thanks, I would like the details because I have yet to see any lives saved, I have seen lives lost because of your anger but none saved.
And no most of the protestors are men actually.
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 5:27 pm
Not to speak for John, but is it not possible that he or his co-horts actually have talked a woman into not aborting, thus saving a “life?” I mean you say you haven’t seen it happen but you can’t say it with authority that it’s never happened, right?
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Right, I have not seen it, because their approach at the clinics leave a lot to be desired, but if he or his co-horts have ever talked a woman out of an abortion I would like to hear about it and they went about it, did they do it at the clinic or in some other setting, what kind of support did they offer her, how did they save a “life”?
As a clinic escort I feel I save lives as well, I am saving a woman from dying from a back alley abortion, because I am ensuring she has access to her choice of a safe legal medical procedure. So I too, am saving lives.
Perhaps we need to define who is really pro-life?
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 6:26 pm
“Who made you obligated? God?” yes
“Cause there is no god.” Oh? In other words, Carrie, your god, you yourself, have decided that you do not have to help others. You agree with Camus, “Hell is other people.” You ignore the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Am I right so far, C?
“So you feel obligated to control us women folk am I understanding you correctly?” only those who pay an “abortionist,” actually a serial killer, to kill someone they don;’t want around
“Please elaborate on how you feel obligated to control us women folk? Obligated is the same thing as entitled.” See above.
And see Pat for the rest of it.
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 8:47 pm
How is it that I am not helping people? How is it you are? I ignore the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” No I live by the Golden Rule because I do not threaten, harass and intimidate women outside an abortion clinic because I would not want that done to me, I peacefully escort women into the clinic because if it was me that was needing an abortion I would want someone to be there for me.
“So you feel obligated to control us women folk am I understanding you correctly?” only those who pay an “abortionist,” actually a serial killer, to kill someone they don;’t want around”..again what gives you the right to control another person’s choices? What gives you the authority to force your choices upon someone else? You have no idea why a woman may not be able to carry the pregnancy to term, she may want the pregnancy but there may be extenuating circumstances where she can’t carry the pregnancy to term. You really have no idea you are making assumptions that she doesn’t want the pregnancy..that is not your assumption to make.
Also you never elaborated as to how you have “saved” lives? Is that because you haven’t?
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 5:09 am
Let’s just not say it. Let’s not get silly.
Ooh, an Article says that? The voice of God? Let’s at least capitalize the A.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 5:26 am
Remove the above.
“How is it that I am not helping people?” You don’t help them, Carrie, when you help kill them, duh.
“How is it you are?” I give abortion-minded women pink cards proving abortion causes breast cancer. This way I save the lives of young and older both.
“Also you never elaborated as to how you have ‘saved’ lives?” One day I was talking to abortion-minded women via an alley in PP Reading that serves an echo chamber. I had noticed a guy sitting in a car behind me. When I’d finished and turned around, I saw a woman sit up from the passenger seat. She spoke to the driver and they left.
I don’t think I save nearly as many as my forceful buddies do though.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 6:52 am
But John Dunkle abortion does not cause breast cancer, there is no scientific study that can validate that assertion, so you are helping women by lying to them? Now if you can provide a link to a scientific study that proves abortion causes breast cancer then please post it because I would love to read that study.
Our protestors as well try and give the people coming to clinic “information” most of the time the people don’t even take the information, the ones who do just throw in the trash once they get into the clinic, so hopefully you are not spending too much on those brochures?
Now I think we may need to define who is helping people? I am helping women access a choice, a choice to have a safe legal medical procedure which is what abortion is, I am ensuring that my fellow women will not die from a back alley abortion, I am saving their lives.
So how is it I am helping to kill “people” a fetus is not a person, you cannot kill something that is not a person, a fetus is not person. The already born woman is a person and I am saving her from dying. So see I save lives as well.
Just because that women left that day does not mean she didn’t come back another day or go to a different clinic where there we no protestors to harass her. So you can’t really say for sure you saved her. I have also seen women come into the clinic then turn around and leave, I have no idea if they decided to keep the pregnancy or came back a week later.
Your forceful “buddies” concern me, because again what gives you the right to control another person’s choices? What gives you the authority to force your choices upon someone else? God?
So how exactly did God make you obligated, you spoke with him recently? Next time you see him send him my way, I have few things I would like to run by him.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 9:08 am
“Now if you can provide a link to a scientific study that proves abortion causes breast cancer then please post it because I would love to read that study.”
Carrie, let’s begin with one of my favorites — “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons” 2007; 121:72-78
I’d like first to hear your comments after reading that. Then we can start on the other two hundred and thirty-six studies that prove the same thing.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 9:13 am
And Carrie, don’t think it’s personal. Matter of fact I love your style; e.g., “Next time you see him send him my way, I have few things I would like to run by him.”
I’d hate for you to get pissed off at me and leave.
LikeLike
November 12, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Let’s Just Say It: Women Matter More Than Fetuses Do
A New Republic article about women’s abortion rights trump fetuses rights
—as they should all the time, every time.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 5:11 am
Let’s just not say it. Let’s not get silly.
Ooh, an Article says that? The voice of God? Let’s at least capitalize the A.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 11:11 am
Dunkle cites a disreputable journal which is a practice in keeping with the desperate among the antiabortionists. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not indexed by mainstream scientific databases such as the Web of Science or MEDLINE.[6] The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal has been widely criticized, and many of the political and scientific viewpoints advocated by AAPS are considered extreme or dubious by mainstream scientists and medical groups.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 11:16 am
John Dunkle that thread is getting to hard to read so let’s take it down here.
I could not find that study you referenced so if can provide a better way to find that study please do.
I did find this information concerning breast cancer and abortion:
new study out of China, published in the journal Cancer Causes & Control, that purports to show a 44 percent increase in breast cancer risk for women who have had an abortion, with the risk increasing after each subsequent abortion. The study claims this may help explain the “alarming” rise in breast cancer in China over the past 20 years, which parallels the one-child policy introduced in 1979.
But the study’s methodology and data appear seriously flawed, with the results likely reflecting “recall bias.” This would invalidate the study’s findings. Recall bias is a common hazard in case-control studies, which use questionnaires or interviews to gather historical data from participants. Results can be skewed or inaccurate because people have a tendency to forget past events, or neglect to mention them, especially if they are uncomfortable with sharing the information with researchers. For example, underreporting occurs when people are asked about substance use, criminal offenses, family background, or school performance.
Recall bias is even more of a problem when it comes to reporting reproductive history, especially past abortions. In the United States, only 47 percent of abortions were reported in the largest and most recent fertility survey (from 2002). A 1996 analysis cited numerous studies on the topic and found that, as a likely result of abortion stigma, women reported only 20 to 80 percent of their abortions. (The wide range is due to varying interview circumstances, geographic locations, or demographic characteristics of the women.) A significant body of evidence has accumulated on abortion under reporting, going back to the early days of legal abortion in 1960s eastern Europe, as documented by Christopher Tietze and Stanley K. Henshaw:
See that is why there is no scientific study can be accurately done because to have a controlled study is darn near impossible when it comes to abortion.
So John if you can provide a more detailed way to locate that study you posted above I would still love to read it..thanks
I found this information on rhrealitycheck…
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 11:33 am
Carrie,
Refusing to believe in science and the scientific processes when it is inconvenient (meaning when scientific and medical facts get in the way) is a hallmark of neoliberals, antiabortionists and most within the GOP.
The fact is that science deniers threaten our society and the progression of humans living in balance (got irony much?). Consider such science deniers as Jenny McCarthy (anti-vaccination) and Senator James Inofe (global climate change) as exemplars.
In an article about science deniers, Minkin (2013) states, “Their allegiance to misguided beliefs, their misunderstanding of science and scientific processes, combined with their public stature, make them dangerous, as they have been shown to have convinced significant numbers of people to advocate against the science that makes life safer for all of us.”
And I would add that the media is implicated in the wholesale production and distribution of their denial and ignorance.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 11:44 am
Carrie,
Here’s the info about the article Dunkle touts. It’s full of red flags that any first year grad student would recognize as problematic.
www[dot]jpands[dot]org/vol12no3/carroll[dot]pdf
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Good. Kate came through. (Ignore her name-calling. At least she doesn’t use gutter language like some of her friends.) . Now Carrie when you’re finished reading it, let’s talk.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Then we’ll move on to “Cancer Research,” 2010; 70(2); 575-587 and Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention,” 2009; 18(4) 1157-1166.
Two-thirty-four to go.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 4:59 pm
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a small group of “conservative” quacks, cranks and fundamentalist zealots which likes to rail against such timeless evils as abortion, vaccination and the idea of universal health care coverage.[1]
Its website offers this ridiculous claim:
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country. Since 1943, AAPS has been dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine. Our motto, “omnia pro aegroto” means “all for the patient.”[2]
It is listed as a quack organization by Quackwatch[3] and is sufficiently batpoop insane to have retained Andrew Schlafly as its general counsel.
The AAPS publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPANDS), until 2003 called the Medical Sentinel. The journal is not considered a valid, peer-reviewed journal for inclusion in major scientific databases, and has been listed by Quackwatch as “Fundamentally Flawed”[24]. An article in the “journal”[25] was used in 2008 to justify a petition against global warming.[26]
Found this on RationalWiki,…I asked for a scientific study done by actual scientist’s John and you gave me a study done by a QUACK.
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 7:14 pm
See what happens.Carrie, when you ask for sources? Your guys say shoddy, my guys say brilliant.
Gotta go someplace else..
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 8:40 pm
We have gone too far down this rabbit hole anyway, so let’s say abortion causes breast cancer, ummm SO WHAT. Just about anything you do, eat or drink can cause cancer, and yet you still live your life..and women are going to have abortions despite an alleged connection to breast cancer.
So please elaborate John how you feel obligated to control women? What gives you the right to dictate what I can or cannot do with my own body? What makes you entitled to do that?
LikeLike
November 14, 2014 at 4:41 am
Good, OK. I’m a Catholic, Carrie. Better — I’m among those one-eighth of one percent of Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches. So when she says killing someone before she’s born is a horrible crime that cries out to heaven in vengeance, I’m required to do something I don’t want to do. Since I don’t have the guts to do that, I do what’s easier.
LikeLike
November 14, 2014 at 5:59 am
So your “religion” requires you to do something? Okay. But that still does not give you a right to force your religious views onto someone else, as an atheist that offends me, for you to think your views trump mine, they do not.
That’s cool you are such a devout Catholic but it’s not cool when you try and force your religious beliefs on others. Your moral code is very interesting, my moral code, the one I live by does not allow me to threaten, intimate or harass people, yours does, that is fascinating. Religion is an odd thing.
So it’s your religion’s moral code that dictates you try and save lives,well my moral code tells me the same thing, to save lives, I save women from dying from back alley abortions. So I guess we have similar moral codes in that respect.
So if your goal is to save lives John are there any other activities you are involved with where you also save lives?
LikeLike
November 14, 2014 at 6:55 am
“So if your goal is to save lives John are there any other activities you are involved with where you also save lives?”
Not at the moment. But if we made it legal to kill beautiful articulate women, I’d try to save your life.
LikeLike
November 14, 2014 at 5:46 pm
John that was a nice compliment and I would hope you would fight to save me since I am an already born person.
So then if you would fight to save me an already born person, why are you willing to let already born beautiful articulate women go back to a time when they were dying from back alley abortions? So have your morals gone haywire? A life is a life…
You do realize that if a woman wants or needs an abortion she will find a way? No woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term she does not want. It’s her body and her choice, it’s not your choice to make for her, I am pretty sure you would not want someone forcing you to do something with your body you don’t want to or are you for forced kidney donations?
Why are you wanting to send beautiful articulate women back to a time when they would die, when it was legal to allow beautiful articulate women to die because they did not have access to a safe legal medical procedure, which is what abortion is.
You are kinda contradicting yourself, why are you willing to allow beautiful articulate women to die from back alley abortions?
LikeLike
November 15, 2014 at 4:33 am
“I would hope you would fight to save me since I am an already born person.” Yes, or a male person, or an Hispanic person, or a crippled person, or a pre-born person, or a tall person, or an Asian person, or a homosexual person, or an 80-year-old person, or a “primitive” person . . .
People have been killed for being all of the above. The job of the just is to protect those folks even though their killers want, even desperately want, them dead
LikeLike
November 13, 2014 at 5:00 pm
If you wish to read some recent investigative work about the shoddy science, google RH RealityCheck[dot]org and
false-witnesses
-or-
anti-choice-science-big-tobacco-time
-or-
shoddy-evidence-finds-way-state-legislatures-u-s-supreme-court/
LikeLike
November 14, 2014 at 4:43 am
Climb out of the rabbit hole, Kate, gettin’ old.
LikeLike
November 15, 2014 at 6:59 am
John that thread is getting hard to read, you didn’t answer my questions, why are you skipping around my questions. I shall ask them again.
So then if you would fight to save me an already born person, why are you willing to let already born beautiful articulate women go back to a time when they were dying from back alley abortions? So have your morals gone haywire? A life is a life…why are you willing to allow an already born person to die from a back alley abortion?
You do realize that if a woman wants or needs an abortion she will find a way? No woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term she does not want. It’s her body and her choice, it’s not your choice to make for her, I am pretty sure you would not want someone forcing you to do something with your body you don’t want to or are you for forced kidney donations?
Are you for forced kidney donations?
Why are you wanting to send beautiful articulate women back to a time when they would die, when it was legal to allow beautiful articulate women to die because they did not have access to a safe legal medical procedure, which is what abortion is.
You are kinda contradicting yourself, why are you willing to allow beautiful articulate women to die from back alley abortions? I have asked this question at least 6 times and you have not answered me. Can you at least try to answer my questions……? I believe I have asked my questions in a very clear way but if you need me to clarify them better I will..thanks
LikeLike
November 15, 2014 at 11:58 am
Carrie, like any other aborticentric, Mr. Dunkle is locked by his fear into anti-abortionism– he cannot entertain the possibility of any other viewpoint being valid, because to do so would threaten the entire edifice he has adopted as the answer to his fear.
His fear is the fear of total oblivion that death will bring to him– in fifty years, there will be nobody who remembers him, what he looked like, what he felt, what he liked; nobody who can find anything of what he left behind. He will just be a few more of the millions of bones which are all that are left of the billion people who died before he did.
As an aborticentric, he deals with this problem by engaging in an allegorical struggle which provides him a contrived reassurance that he will live forever. He would like to believe that there is a God who will grant him eternal life, and he comforts himself by enacting in the physical world the scenario he wishes would happen in another world: He (in the role of God) “rescues” John Dunkle (a fetus). There are a lot of other psychological insights involving projection associated with this– why, for example, does he claim the fetus to be “innocent” and “fully human”?– but the basic point is that by doing what he does he tries to convince himself he will transcend the death that swallows all but a few of the major figures in history.
LikeLike
November 15, 2014 at 5:22 pm
“all but a few”?
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 10:19 am
In the world we know, the only ones who transcend death are those who are remembered throughout the ages– Zoroaster, Caesar, Tommy Douglas, etc. The rest of us just disappear.
As Ernest Becker points out, because we are aware of this, we have to either repress it or else construct some way of coping despite our knowledge of it, otherwise we would be as paralyzed as a mouse cornered by a cat.
The aborticientrist copes, not with religion or philosophy, but by trying to make himself into a hero who will be remembered forever.
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 4:33 am
Hey, you’re right, Chuck! In my carelessness I read “died” rather than “transcended death.”
By far the most obvious one who transcended death is Jesus.
LikeLike
November 15, 2014 at 5:31 pm
I did respond once, Carrie — Nov. 15 above. I’m not smart enough to respond to all, at once. Here I’ll just deal with the back alley.
Very few women died from back alley abortions. The killer was doing something illegal and if he weren’t very careful, he’d get in trouble.
Planned Parenthood and other businesses that make enormous profits from killing spread this lie in order to get their killings legal.
Nowadays, many more women are injured and killed than then.
I’ll do paragraph 3 next.
LikeLike
November 15, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Okay John we will do one question at a time.
Are you for forced kidney donations?
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 4:10 am
an easy one — no
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 6:39 am
So then you believe it’s your body and should be your choice to decide what happens with your body…am I correct in assuming this is why you are against forced kidney donations, because it’s your body and your choice as to what happens to your body. Also you don’t want the government telling you what to do..right? You don’t want the government controlling your body.
Please affirm I am understanding you correctly.
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Yup.
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 10:12 am
Sorry, Mr. Dunkle, but far more women die from pregnancy than from abortion in the US. You indulge in a fantasy in order to build up your desired persona as a hero.
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 11:29 am
Mr. Dunkle, Responsible is correct, far more women die from pregnancy than from abortion in the US, so if you are concerned about women dying then perhaps you should be trying to ban pregnancy instead of abortion because abortion is far safer than pregnancy.
Perhaps since you don’t believe that that many women died from back alley abortions because the “killer” was not careful but then when the killer was careful women didn’t die even though they were doing an illegal procedure, (that is not a logical statement, but you are the one who made it), The killer was doing something illegal and if he weren’t very careful, he’d get in trouble. Nowadays, many more women are injured and killed than then…so you have a way to prove your assertions here?
Seems we have made abortion safer by making it a legal medical procedure because far fewer women die from abortions than pregnancy, so then why do you want to ban a safe legal procedure that is saving women’s lives?
www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pubmed/22270271..evidence that abortion is safer than pregnancy
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Carrie, Chuck, you’re both right: “far more women die from pregnancy than from abortion.” And far more die from cancer than from revolvers. Does that mean we may hire serial killers and hit men to do their jobs?
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 2:43 pm
We are not talking about cancer and revolvers…besides you may want to rethink that last comparison..
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 4:42 am
How ’bout this: Women die from pregnancy. Does that mean we may kill the incumbents?
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 8:12 am
Nope try again..
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Okay Mr. Dunkle you affirmed the following: So then you believe it’s your body and should be your choice to decide what happens with your body…am I correct in assuming this is why you are against forced kidney donations, because it’s your body and your choice as to what happens to your body. Also you don’t want the government telling you what to do..right? You don’t want the government controlling your body.
Please affirm I am understanding you correctly.
You just affirmed the following:
Even a body inside a body, you just said you have no rights over because it’s their body and their choice as to what happens to their body.
You just affirmed that it was your body and your choice to donate a kidney. That no one but you has a say over your body and what happens with your kidney’s, even if it would save another person’s life, it is still your body and your choice to donate or not donate….are you an organ donor John, I am and will be donating by body to science when I die as well.
By your logic you have no rights, no say, over another person’s body. You have finally agreed with me that it is my body and my choice as to what happens to my body.
Thank you!
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Carrie,
I seriously doubt that Dunkle will agree to such obvious logic when the body is a pregnant body. For nearly all antichoicers, the phenomenon of pregnant bodies requires them to use an alternate universe. This alternate universe is populated by legions of misogynistic lemmings, double talking, snake oil-pushing peddlers of abortion porn, hawkers of misinformation, lies and half-baked ideas (like the abortion cancer link, post abortion stress syndrome, etc) concocted by faux experts. Even the ubiquitous, dump of a hausfrau has her grubby little paws in the desperate attempt at distribution of tracts they euphemistically call literature—misguided handouts that attempt to shame and stigmatize while simultaneously clamor for an opportunity to help.
One prime example of this alternate universe is Dunkle’s insistence that abortion guarantees breast cancer despite legitimate evidence to the contrary. Logic be damned.
I might add that given a strep throat, a fractured tibia, a case of shingles, or, contact with Ebola, these folks would not invoke their alternate universe of quackery. No, they’d head straight for medical care based on scientific evidence. They’d demand the best practices for their care and not the type of care based on the shoddy, often fraudulent research invented to overturn Roe.
LikeLike
November 16, 2014 at 5:14 pm
drk8..oh I agree with you, the cognitive dissonance these Anti’s live with have to have their heads spinning and darn near to the point of exploding. Pretty sure Mr. Dunkle’s head is spinning around and around trying to figure out a response. I am dying to hear what he comes up with.
I am going to put all these posts into my blog, I think a good blog title for this may be: The Alternative Universe of the Angry Anti’s.
My last blog was titled: Angry Male Anti’s-If You Don’t Have an Uterus-Go Home
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 10:19 am
“the ubiquitous, dump of a hausfrau” ooooooh I hope she doesn’t see this. (And, btw, Jimmy told me something interesting about her.)
And more name-calling — misogynistic lemmings, double-talkers, snake oil–pushing peddlers, heads spinning and darn near to the point of
exploding, and so on.
Don’t you ladies realize you’re talking to the prince of reason, or should I say, the king, in emeritus.
(That’s a really good title for your new blog.)
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 4:53 am
Kate! You and Chuck do this all the time — someone asks me a question and you jump in before I even have chance to read it. That way you kill the question, my response, and your own! If I didn’t know better I’d say you do that to avoid anything resembling a reasonable discussion (because you know where that would lead). On second thought, I don’t know better.
Carrie, I’ll read your post (“Okay, Mr. Dunkle . . .”) later, and respond to it.
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 9:59 am
OK, I’ve read it. Sure, it’s your body to do with what you want.
but there are limits. You may not fill it with alcohol and drive, for example. You may not destroy it. You may not use it as an excuse to kill someone.
(And Carrie, let me tell you what happened to my sister when she donated her body to science.)
Now I’ll read Kate’s response and yours to her.
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm
I am fascinated by the amount of time you pro-choicers are spending trying to debate John. I mean, you know that you’re never gonna change his mind, right? So what are you trying to accomplish? Or is this just a good intellectual exercise?
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Of course we’ll never change his mind. Never intended to attempt to move Stonehenge. It’s still incumbent on those of us who believe in the supremacy of the women’s dignity, decision making and reproductive rights to speak up.
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 3:46 pm
That’s what I believe too and they’ll never achieve that dignity so long as they allow dirty bully-men to pressure them into killing people.
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 3:58 pm
And, by the way, Pat, if you asked me that same question about justifying the amount of time I spend talking to people like Carrie and Kate, I’d have a better answer: I love talking to women, especially if they are attractive and especially if they disagree with me. I even like talking to men who disagree with me even if I find them wholly unattractive, physically that is. Ask Jimmy.
I see Kate every week but she never talks to me then. This is the best I can do but I still like it.
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 8:34 pm
Excellent intellectual exercise for me and material for my blog. I do believe I was able to demonstrate how detached from reality John is, and how he views the world around him and the female species. He is sexist, condescending, angry and a misogynistic lemming, and has given me insight into the mind of an anti. but I kinda knew this about them anyway.
Not sure what mine or Kate’s looks have to do with anything, so if I was unattractive he wouldn’t give me the time of day? That comment says a lot about how he views the women in the world…shame on you John Dunkle
He is against forced Kidney donation and yet thinks it’s his right to force his choices upon women and sees nothing wrong with forcing them to carry a pregnancy to term, he doesn’t want the government to tell him what he can do or cannot do with his own body and yet has no problem with the government telling me as a woman. He sees women as less than 2nd class citizens, we hold no value and no meaning to him. We are expendable. If John has a wife or daughters I feel sorry for them because of his constant need to control.
LikeLike
November 18, 2014 at 5:15 am
My grandmother told me that all women under 18 are beautiful. I thought so too early on, but then I changed — 8 to 80 dumb blind or crazy.
LikeLike
November 17, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Last time I checked I could fill my body with alcohol and drive if I choose to. I can destroy my body if I choose to, I can use my body to kill someone if I choose to. I know of no laws that will prevent me from doing that, now there are laws that will deal with me after but not before. So yes I can do whatever I choose to, to my own body. The only limits on my body is what I impose on my body. I have great survival instinct that does limit what I CHOOSE to do with my own body.
Now I can’t fill your body up with alcohol and make you drive, there are laws that concern that, I cannot coerce you into using your body into killing someone because I would be an accomplish.
LikeLike
November 18, 2014 at 5:22 am
Don’t you think working as a deathscort makes you complicit, Carrie?
LikeLike
November 18, 2014 at 7:31 am
John, you obviously have a problem with comprehension, and we are back to the where we started, and of course I expected nothing more from you.
I am done having this conversation with you, I thank you for your honest and forthright viewpoints, but I am done talking in circles with you. You have truly given me a headache.
We do not engage with Anti’s on the sidewalk because we need to keep things peaceful for the patients, but I have been dying to dig in deep into the mindset of someone who had nothing else better to do than hang at an abortion clinic by having this conversation I have been.
I truly feel sorry for people like you, you all seem to have some sad lives that compel you to come the clinics where you can freely threatened intimidate and harass women and kill abortion doctors, there is no other setting that would allow you to do that to people except abortion clinics.
Like I said we women are less than 2nd class citizens because if we were 1st class citizens this crap would of never even begun.
My husband and sons are astounded by you Anti’s, they are puzzled as to why it’s your business what someone else does with their own body and what gives you the right to threaten, intimidate and harass women. Like what happened to your morals, because according to them you have no morals. No one with morals would do that to another person, nope if you had any actual morals you would support and love that person and support whatever decision they make.
My husband proudly tells people he meets that I am a clinic escort. He is and my sons are proud of me, ain’t no shame in my family. I blog under my real name, I post here with my real name.
I intend to continue being an escort for many years, I want my granddaughter to grow-up understanding what her grandma does and why. I want her to know that I am doing this because I love her and want her to always have access to a safe legal medical procedure if she ever needs that choice.
John you take care.
LikeLike
November 19, 2014 at 5:26 am
Do you think I gave you the headache, Carrie, or trying to argue the inarguable gave it to you. It’s simply impossible to support the killing of innocent people if one is open and honest as you are. That’s why most on this blog cursed me and ran.
For a while there I was sure you were Sharon Davis, a deathscort who used to go to the Allentown Women’s Center, but you’ve convinced me otherwise.
I’ll miss you, really miss you.
LikeLike
November 19, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Don’t forget, Carrie. He’s talking to you because he’s the best so-called “pro-lifer” they have. He represents the best of the whole movement….
LikeLike
November 19, 2014 at 7:03 pm
I didn’t write that but I wish I had.
LikeLike
November 20, 2014 at 9:29 am
But of course omit the fourth line.
LikeLike
November 21, 2014 at 5:56 am
Catholics for Choice and several of our Catholic partners wanted to take a moment to share some recent endeavors that we thought might be of interest. At “Why Religious Exemptions Hurt—and Why Catholics Oppose Them,” a briefing on Capitol Hill this Monday, Catholics for Choice, Call to Action, DignityUSA and Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER) released new polling of more than 1,000 American Catholic voters confirming what many Catholic leaders have known for decades—Catholic voters follow their conscience, not the dictates of the bishops. We hope you will find these results useful in your work.
Two-thirds of Catholic voters (67 percent) reject the right of employers to deny insurance coverage of birth control for employees and their dependents based on employers’ religious beliefs.
· Three-quarters (74 percent) of Catholics disapprove of a law that would allow a business to deny services to employees or customers on the basis of sexual orientation due to an owner’s religious beliefs.
In addition, Catholics spoke loud and clear about their support for access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion:
More than eight in ten Catholic voters (84%) support legal abortion in some cases. About one half (48%) of Catholic voters say that abortion should be legal in almost all or most cases.
Nearly 7 in 10 Catholics disapprove when, at the direction of the local bishop, “a Catholic hospital declines to perform an abortion that is medically necessary to protect a woman’s health.”
In October Catholics for Choice, and more than three dozen Catholic organizations and their affiliates wrote a letter to Congress decrying the bishops’ misrepresentation: “As Catholics, we are compelled to work toward justice and equality and to create a society in which women and men, young and old, poor and rich, gay and straight are treated with the same dignity and respect and granted the same opportunities. […] Catholics cannot claim that our religion gives us an excuse to discriminate against someone who is married to someone of the same sex. Catholics cannot claim our religion tells us to interfere with someone else’s decision about whether or not to be pregnant.”
After the briefing on Monday, we met with offices to ensure our champions on the Hill, both Catholic members and those who represent large Catholic constituencies hear the message that “Catholics support the rights of conscience, religious liberty and human dignity for all people.” The full poll, and more information about this educational effort can be found on our website at CatholicsForChoice[dot]org.
LikeLike
November 21, 2014 at 9:31 am
This is a step in the right direction towards separation of church and state and freedom from religion. Without those you will be cutting your nose to spite your face, glad to see the Catholics are finally understanding this.
“Catholics cannot claim that our religion gives us an excuse to discriminate against someone who is married to someone of the same sex. Catholics cannot claim our religion tells us to interfere with someone else’s decision about whether or not to be pregnant.” …no you can’t because it doesn’t.
Next you need to work on Christians cause they seem to think they can and they do.
LikeLike
November 21, 2014 at 12:16 pm
I go along with Alice. It’s why I blame Catholics like her, and, even more, Catholics like me, for this seemingly eternal Holocaust.
LikeLike
November 21, 2014 at 7:23 pm
WTF is an eternal Holocaust? Please do explain that comment.
LikeLike
November 21, 2014 at 9:04 pm
A holocaust, Carrie, is killing the innocent legally. Usually it lasts a few years, like the most recent one, the German one, four or five years. Ours began in 1973 and it’s still going on. That’s eternal.
LikeLike
November 21, 2014 at 10:02 pm
So your equating abortion with the Holocaust? That makes absolutely to no logical sense, then again ain’t nothing you have said John that makes sense.
So let me get this straight you are comparing one of the most horrific tragedies, to a blob of tissue lost in abortion? So you are elevating a blob of tissue to personhood status? Saying that we should mourn the loss of blobs of tissues the same way we mourn those we lost in the Holocaust, giving them equal importance. John Dunkle you are a disgusting person to use a tragic event like the Holocaust to promote your viewpoint.
Perhaps you need to study up some more on the Holocaust because it seems you have forgotten many details.
LikeLike
November 22, 2014 at 8:24 pm
“A blob of tissue,” Carrie, is a curse term for somebody you want to help kill. Killers and their helpers always curse their victims. “Untermenchlic” (sub-human) is not the only curse the Germans used. They did such a job on the word “Jew” that even today non-anti-Semites hesitate to use it.
LikeLike
November 22, 2014 at 10:20 pm
Of course, Dunkle is not going to tell us what he did for any of those “blobs of tissue” once he “rescued” each of them….
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 5:00 am
How ’bout this that I might start distributing tomorrow outside Reading Planned Parenthood:
Young lady, I have a friend who will pay you $25,000 if you carry the baby to term. He will then arrange for a loving woman to adopt the child. In addition to the up front payment, he will take care of all other expenses as well. John Dunkle 484-706-4375
LikeLike
November 21, 2014 at 8:21 pm
Carrie, it has to be a Holocaust or he will be working to be a lesser hero. Can you imagine the eye-rolling that would result if so-called “pro-lifers” were associated with trying to outlaw time-outs?
Even worse, they would be despised if they were known to be trying to outlaw strong bonds between competent parents and wanted children.
So, they call abortion “murder” in order to make themselves look like heroes.
But of course what they actually do is produce children they don’t care about.
LikeLike
November 21, 2014 at 9:06 pm
Carrie, could you please translate what Chuck says here.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 5:59 am
John Dunkle writes:
“How ’bout this that I might start distributing tomorrow outside Reading Planned Parenthood:
‘Young lady, I have a friend who will pay you $25,000 if you carry the baby to term. He will then arrange for a loving woman to adopt the child. In addition to the up front payment, he will take care of all other expenses as well. John Dunkle 484-706-4375’ ”
I love it! A great bluff. He doesn’t have the money or the “friend;” neither does he have the resources to live up to the terms of his offer if half a dozen women accept it. Since a fair number of women might be going into Planned Parenthood to make sure their pregnancy is coming along well, he runs the unintended risk of paying the money to someone who isn’t thinking of having an abortion. That would ruin his day.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 6:49 am
Good comment, Chuck.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 7:44 am
Carrie,
I would wholeheartedly agree with you that we need a separation of church and state to survive. You seldom hear mainstream news media address the separation of church and state. To do so would potentially offend their advertisers and stakeholders. But I would argue that we have the tentacles of two “religions” squeezing the life out of our democracy. We have now the blending of corporatism and Christianity so that they’re barely distinguishable. The worship of the might dollar sanctified by some bastardized version of religion is a frightening authoritarian reality. Hobby Lobby is a grand example of corporate Christianity sanctified by the Supreme Court.
What’s frightening is this intertwining faith in money and God, also known as neoliberal dogma, operates much like the Wizard of Oz when he said, “Pay no attention to the man behind the screen.” These wizards don’t like critical thinking citizens. They don’t want you to notice the bloated defense budget, the prison-industrial complex, environmental degradation, and the emergence of finance as a criminalized, rogue industry. The don’t want you to notice how money pays for elections. They don’t want you to notice the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor or how urban spaces are becoming armed camps (think Ferguson) or how our civil liberties in nearly every facet of public life have been torn asunder.
Case in point, these wizards have continued to deny the science of global climate change caused by humans. To accept the science, would be an admission of guilt and might cut into their profit. But they would have you believe that they’re keeping the economy humming, that the evidence isn’t convincing, and that climate change is just a theory. In the women’s health care department, we have politicians and corporate wizards chasing issues so stupid, so blindingly disconnected from the needs of women that our grandchildren will look back on this period and wonder how they got away with such lunacy. They talk about caring for women and children, some even to go so far as to proclaim that they are pro-life. But look behind the curtain and you’ll see a different reality. Here are a few examples of how anti life these folks are.
The United States in 60th in the global rankings of maternal health care. Instead of working to improve this abysmal ranking, neoliberals have enacted Jane Crow laws as the basis for arrests and detention of and forced interventions on pregnant women, including those who seek to go to term.
In the United States, one in four teens are infected with a sexually transmitted infection. Instead of working to reduce this alarming statistic, neoliberals have pushed abstinence into public schools. Often school funding is tied to the implementation of these programs. Always these programs have been developed by shoddy pedagogical practices that are sold to legislators happy to “receive” campaign donations. Too bad that abstinence, while a perfectly legitimate stance to embrace, is also perfectly ignorant to believe that teens won’t have sex. Texas Governor Rick Perry’s cozy relationship with Merck and the Gardisil debacle is a vivid example of lobbyists influence on government officials.
In the United States, anywhere between 63% and 78% of our population supports Roe v. Wade yet legislators have passed bill after bill in states across the nation to make abortion more difficult, if not impossible, to access. Claiming to be solely interested in women’s right to better health care, laws have been passed that have absolutely no impact on direct care. The requirement for clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards is one glaring example of hypocrisy. Wide hallways do not impact direct care. Further, if these wizards were so concerned with the quality of care, why not enforce the same rules on oral surgeons or plastic surgeons or dermatologists? They do surgeries in their offices that are far more hazardous than an abortion at 12 weeks.
In the United States, contraceptive use has broad economic and societal benefits for women. The Affordable Care Act designates FDA-approved contraceptives be covered without out-of-pocket costs to the consumer. Yet, many ideologues (like Hobby Lobby and Priests for Life) protest the ACA claiming it’s against their beliefs. The wizards don’t want to pay for services that might cut into their profits. They surely don’t want women to have control of their own family planning.
These examples illustrate the wizards’ love of money dressed in a drunken religiosity that harms women. Sadly, there are more examples that harm us all.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 8:44 am
Bring it Alice…(insert sound of applause here). And yet we the people continue to allow all of the above to continue to happen. Why is that? Why are our voices not louder than theirs if they are doing such harm to the citizens of the United States. Why have the citizens become so complacent and not willing to fight back? Why have we allowed ourselves to become silent to sit down and shut-up and take the beating like a good little citizen? why?
Why Alice do we the people allow that to happen. Why do we continually vote to spite ourselves, why are we voting these nut-jobs into office? Most of these nut-jobs/wizards you are talking about are from one party. The religious right, the religious right are the ones responsible for all of the above, however most of these “religious” nut-jobs are as far from being religious as you could get. They ain’t religious they just love the money they get from being fake religious or fake pro-life.
Look at the last election the Nut-jobs now have control of both Houses. How in the world did that happen? Why as American’s do we either not vote OR vote with our heads in the sand refusing to educate ourselves on the issues and the politicians that will be representing us. Why in Texas did Wendy Davis not win? Texas with some of the most restrictive abortion laws on the books, why did she not win and the male right wing nut-job did? How could the people of Texas voted so soundly against their own best interests? Then again how did the people of Texas vote that lunatic Rick Perry into office in the first place?
We are supposedly progressive nation and yet I am not seeing it, we are actually moving backwards in time, why as Nation do we refuse to pull our heads out of the sand and move forward? All of the issues you mentioned above are head in sand issues, where people refuse or are not willing to pull their heads out of sand and vote with common sense and intelligence. People of this great nation are refusing to use their critical thinking skills. WHY????
Is that religions fault? Yes, yes it is. Religion does not allow for critical thinking skills to evolve, just look at some of the conversations I have had with Mr. Dunkle, he has no critical thinking skills. Religion stops all critical thinking skills from evolving.
“The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance…logic can be happily tossed out the window.” …Stephen King.
You want to stop the lunacy Alice? Stop the Religion. You want to save the world? Stop the religion. Save the World Stop the Religion.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 9:05 am
Look at the insanity of mass incarceration as one glaring example of human rights violations worse than some of the most egregious of nation states. What began as a war on drugs with Nixon has become an empire of drug dealing industry inside the prisons with dozens of rival gangs vying for control within and outside prison for distribution and sale of illicit drugs. And yet the wizards of chicanery adopt a “Get Tough on Crime” stance just to get elected, to win lobbying dollars for their campaign coffers and to court favors with industry insiders. Corruption is too weak a word to describe just one aspect of the neoliberal’s damage to what little threads remain of our tattered democracy.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 10:30 am
Alice I am well aware of these happenings. Not sure what point you are trying to make here, you are cheering to the pep squad. But keep cheering if you would like.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Sorry, I veered off course too much.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 9:39 am
Perhaps the underlying problem is the self-feeding cycle of the bought politicians. Both the Democrats and the Republicans believe that in order to win an election, you have to have lots of money. They slant their agenda not to the voter, nor to the mass of donors but to the major donors– the billionaires and the bundlers.
While we believe “if he’s rich, he must be smart,” the major donors– and 16,000 of them contributed 40% of all campaign money in the last cycle– aren’t philosophers. If one of them believes the earth is flat, the pols he funded are going to say, “When it comes to the shape of the earth, I’m not a scientist.” And if that donor is a religious nut job, a male, or a bigot, his/ her viewpoint shapes the legislation. If that doesn’t happen, those pols are likely to be out of a job.
So they pass bills that mandate insurance coverage of Viagra but not birth control. And so the women of America lose out. Actually, all Americans do.
LikeLike
November 23, 2014 at 11:34 am
Well yeah Citizens United was a terrible ruling that has taken control away from the “people” and given it to people with money who can afford to promote their agenda. Especially when that agenda helps to put the money right back into their back pockets.
Democrats have to fight back, they have to fight money with money. they have no choice do they? It is insane how much it costs to be elected, keeps many good people out of politics, many of these people realize they may have to sell their souls in order to win, and they refuse to do that and if they don’t have to sell their soul too the highest campaign contributor then the amount they think they need to raise in order to win is daunting.
Elections should be simple and clear cut. They could be if we wanted them to be.
I enjoy seeing a highly educated politician pretend to be an idiot to appeal the base. I am thinking of Bobbie Jindel and Mark Rubio because like you said Chuck” If one of them believes the earth is flat, the pols he funded are going to say, “When it comes to the shape of the earth, I’m not a scientist.” And if that donor is a religious nut job, a male, or a bigot, his/ her viewpoint shapes the legislation.”
LikeLike
November 24, 2014 at 5:08 am
“one in four teens are infected” — one in four teens is infected
LikeLike
November 25, 2014 at 6:36 am
Thanks for the correction.
LikeLike
November 30, 2014 at 8:47 pm
[…] misogynist but since I do not know him personally I cannot say for sure he is. Here is the link to blog post where we had our discussion, I didn’t post every comment here so you may want to read them […]
LikeLike
December 1, 2014 at 4:29 am
?
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 7:34 am
[…] misogynist but since I do not know him personally I cannot say for sure he is. Here is the link to blog post where we had our discussion, I didn’t post every comment here so you may want to read them […]
LikeLike
January 3, 2015 at 1:48 pm
Now I get it! You have to hit the title up there to get to that exchange. It was fun, wasn’t it Carrie. But I don’t think anyone will go through the whole thing again other than we two.
First time I read that part at the end where you call me dysfunctional. You been talking to my wife?
LikeLike