Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

How Media Mistakes Fueled the High Court Abortion Ruling

By Gloria Feldt, Women's Media Center. Posted April 21, 2007.


The federal abortion ban is the result of language bought and repeated endlessly by journalists who were sometimes uninformed and sometimes just too lazy to get it right.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

[The] partial birth abortion ban is a political scam but [also] a public relations goldmine. ... The major benefit is the debate that surrounds it. -- Randall Terry

So said the founder of Operation Rescue, a militant anti-choice group that blockaded abortion providers, in 2003.

Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision (Gonzales v. Carhart) upholding the federal abortion ban is the fruition of that public relations goldmine. It is a travesty of language bought and repeated endlessly by journalists who were sometimes uninformed and sometimes just too lazy to get it right.


Indeed, the travesty of language around abortion is so pervasive that even Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's majority, in addition to using the inaccurate term "partial birth abortion," also referred to the "abortion doctor" repeatedly in the ruling. Why did he not simply refer to doctors as "doctors," or "ob/gyns"? If another surgical procedure were under scrutiny, would he have he referred to "tonsillectomy doctor" or "hysterectomy doctor"? Of course not. But those who want to take away entirely a woman's human right to make her own childbearing decisions have used the term "abortion doctor" for so long as an epithet that they have succeeded in getting even the highest court in the land to adopt their language.

Such bias is just the tip of the iceberg in the battle over what losing plaintiff Dr. Leroy Carhart has called "partial truth abortion." There is no such thing as partial birth abortion. The term will be found in no medical book. It was coined in 1995 by Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right-to-Life Committee, and former Congressional representative and current Florida appeals court judge Charles Canady explicitly to confuse, horrify, and deceive -- to manipulate language with the intent of sensationalizing the abortion debate. In particular, they intended to take the focus away from the woman in order to place the greater value on the fetus. Leading medical associations all agreed it was a misleading term, but the media never checked their language and by 2001, 90% of articles were using the term without so much as a "so-called" attached. As I reported in my 2004 book The War on Choice, an AP managing editor admitted when challenged that "partial birth abortion" was emotionally loaded, but said they continued to use it because it was instantly recognizable. Another major daily newspaper editor admitted it wasn't correct but said it was easier to use than alternatives.

An almost identical abortion ban was found unconstitutional by a different Supreme Court in 2000. Elections have consequences. Since then, President George W. Bush has had the opportunity to appoint two new justices who are ideologically in synch with the biased language. That shift made all the difference to women today and tomorrow.

Now we have a landmark Supreme Court decision, built upon the counterfeit foundation of a made-up term that the media accepted and used uncritically, and that has propelled the highest court to issue a ruling permitting a law that at a minimum:

1. Does not provide adequate exceptions for a woman's health, which means that a fundamental legal principle of the primary importance of women's health has been overturned.

2. For the first time upholds a federal law that steps directly into the physician's exam room and tells him or her what medical technique cannot be used even if the physician's judgment is that it is the safest to protect a patient's health and future fertility.

3. Will not reduce the number of abortions but will over time, according to the doctors who know women's health best, cause an increase in medical complications, and possibly even deaths.

The public relations goldmine of those who aim for nothing less than to eliminate reproductive justice at all times from all women has paid off for them. Language, after all, has consequences too.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion ban, partial birth abortion, gonzales v. carhart

Gloria Feldt is the author of "The War on Choice" and "Behind Every Choice Is a Story." She is currently at work on a book with the actress Kathleen Turner, entitled "Take the Lead, Lady!"

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Gloria Feldt – a pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 21, 2007 2:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, having raised three daughters, I am pro-choice. At the same time, I’m against late term abortions except when the mother’s life is jeopardized. The legislation in question seems to provide that exception by stating:

"This subsection does NOT apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Yet, without offering any proof, Gloria Feldt said the statue “does not provide adequate exceptions for a woman's health, which means that a fundamental legal principle of the primary importance of women's health has been overturned.”

If that’s true, she should have listed in her article the “adequate exceptions” not provided by the statute. By failing to so, Feldt is practicing sloppy journalism, too.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption. AlterNet readers who object to my NON-PROFIT campaign to expose President Bush as a lying crook can email me through the website rather than comment here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pot calling kettle Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Pot calling kettle Posted by: progdem
» RE: As for viability... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: As for viability... Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: As for viability... Posted by: EagleMB
Slimy
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 21, 2007 2:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-abortion movement is notorious for their language. Start with the term "pro-life"...Then look at the "life" record of the politicians they support.

The only chance of avoiding the war machine or salvaging what's left of our rights is if we all dress up like foetuses. My wife says I should cut the cord already, but I might keep it as part of the costume.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A legal term, not a medical term
Posted by: Jim on Apr 21, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Partial birth abortion" is now a term defined by a law upheld by the Supreme Court.

"...the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in
which the person performing the abortion--
``(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally
delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-
first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the
body of the mother, or, in the case of breech
presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
``(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living
fetus..." - Public Law 108-105

In news reports I see things such as a procedure called by opponents "partial birth abortion." It is time to use the legal name, whatever one's view about it.

In an Ohio bill the name was "brain suction abortion," which is more graphically descriptive of what is so delicately called the "procedure." But this law bans more than just sucking out the child's brains to crush its skull.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

there is nothing "inaccurate" about that terminology
Posted by: CouldBeeWorse on Apr 21, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This essay doesn't square with the official 1995 report of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, produced right after the introduction of the original "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act" in 1995. thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp104:FLD010:@1(hr267) The "medical" terms now used by some to refer to this abortion method didn't appear in any medical literature at that time -- they looked. The legislators came up with a legal term of art, which is something they do all the time. It is not a misleading term, since the fetus, if expelled spontaneously during the same stages of development (the fifth and sixth months, and sometimes later), will legally qualify as a "live birth" (this has nothing to do with "viability"), so this abortion method is literally a partial-live-birth. It is not "inaccurate" for journalists to use the term -- it is the legal term of art now defined by Congress and found in the U.S. Code, in a law upheld by the Supreme Court.

As to "abortion doctor," how odd that this bothers Feldt. Neither the inventor of this method (Dr. James McMahon) nor its popularizer (Dr. Martin Haskell) was an ob-gyn -- they were family practitioners who became essentially full-time abortionists. I guess that Feldt will not like "abortionist," either. Yet, at the very first congressional hearing on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on June 15, 1995, Dr. J. Courtland Robinson, professor of ob-gyn at Johns Hopkins, testified against the bill on behalf of the National Abortion Federation against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He repeatedly identified himself as an "abortionist," and even as a "Christian abortionist." [Hearing Record, 104th Congress, First Session, June 15, 1995, Serial No. 31, at pages 86-87.] Perhaps it is Feldt who is engaged in the PR exercise here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

on and on...
Posted by: OneAcre2012 on Apr 21, 2007 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One problem I find with the debate on abortion is that it seems like a pre-requisite to the debate to outline your exact feelings on the issue, like "I support abortion if the mother's life is in danger, or in case of rape or incest" or "I support a woman's right to choose, except if she waits too long to choose" or "I'm against abortion because the million or so unwanted children that are innocently killed each year would be better off being raised in a military industrial complex so we can win this war." And then most folks like to argue over particulars while ignoring the bottom line, which is that we don't dictate what other people do with their bodies. In fact, why doesn't anyone challenge the legality of men trying to legislate a part of the body that they don't even possess? I think in the 21st century it's pretty safe to say that sex is no longer just for procreation, and with 6 going on 9 billion people on the planet, it seems like we don't have a problem continuing the species even though so many of us heathens use varieties of birth control so we don't each have 12 to 18 kids like we did four or five generations ago. Sure, the media likes to give us black and white, binary scenarios because whoever's in charge up there doesn't think the average person can handle a "third" way, even though there are as many views as there are individuals. But the media serves only as a distraction, pom poms attached to marionette strings. But this is our patriarchy. This is our war machine. This is our democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: on and on... I'm next Posted by: skewitall
the word processor is mightier than the sword
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming on Apr 21, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a professional writer, it frustrates me (and sometimes earns my grudging admiration) that the far right has made such brilliant use of language when those more in touch with reality can't seem to concoct a really strong slogan or label to save our lives. We let them set the language, which we then use ourselves, and that sets the mindset.

We each can do a small part by using our own phrases for the same subjects:
-- pro-choice and forced childbirth, and anti-abortion rather than pro-life
-- the Iraq occupation or civil war rather than the Iraq war,
-- climate change instead of global warming, and
--the wrong war rather than the long war, etc.

And c'mon, help think up some really snappy lines for all the subjects about which we care and want to see accurately portrayed. We need sound bytes, we need bumper stickers, and yes--forgive me--we need to use simplistic terms (in public at least).

"Another major daily newspaper editor admitted it wasn't correct but said it was easier to use than alternatives." Well, let's create some easy to use and punchy alternatives. The media eats what it's fed--and they like tart little nibbles. Let's start cookin'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Slogans Posted by: kepstein7777
I think the culture has changed...
Posted by: olderworker on Apr 21, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been pro-choice since having an illegal abortion in 1969 (before it was legal anywhere in this country) and have sent money to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc.

However, I do NOT feel comfortable telling people anymore than I've had an abortion. I don't usually tell people I'm pro-choice. I certainly don't press my friends to donate to the organizations that I do. Not sure from where this discomfort comes, but I think it's a new, more closed era.

Having said that, I also want to say that, in 1980, I briefly worked as an abortion counselor. The clinic was picketed constantly, and some of my co-workers there said that they had observed women FROM THE PICKET LINES coming in, having abortions, and then going right back to the picket line the next day!

So perhaps this country has always promoted hypocrisy in one way or another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(Yawn)
Posted by: H_H on Apr 21, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I admit it-- I truly find it hard to get exercised about this banned abortion procedure.

Why?

Because the single-issue groups who are the most pro-choice push for that and that alone at the expense of absolutely everything else. There have been instances in which NARAL has endorsed Republicans over Democrats simply because the former might be slightly more pro-choice, never mind the big picture and that the Republican majority has voted-in the justices who have now made this decision. Sorry, NARAL: you shouldn't have endorsed Republicans for the sake of short-term gains. It came back to bite you in the ass.

The majority of the American public favors slight restrictions on abortion while not banning it outright. The current stance of NARAL as insisting on absolutely unrestricted abortion on demand (and the mind-set that giving-up one inch of territory is no different from a ban) is anti-majoritarian and a losing issue. Until the pro-choice activist crowd realizes that the majority of the public doesn't work at an abortion clinic, they will continue to face rollbacks of this kind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: (Yawn) Posted by: MartianBachelor
Anti abortion language
Posted by: xenacat on Apr 21, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
has never been challenged adequately by the progressive community. Why has the inflamitory and inaccurate descriptors, spin and false psuedo piety involved in this big PR stunt by the religious right been allowed to get this far? It is because we have been too fearful to challenge the assumption (one that vast numbers of cultures don't share) that life begins at conception or the promotion pro-fetus "rights" over real, live people rights lunacy that passes for reason on the anti-abortion side. We haven't called operation rescue by their real names - terrorists. Progressives have also given a free ride to hypocritical "morality". In other words, if one just follows the crowd and screams that abortion is wrong, wrong and wrong, progressives give them automatic kudos for some sort of phony moral sense. There is no real thought involved in the anti-abortion movement - there is just a desire to appear holier than thou and to have some sort of "legitimate" way to impose medieval beliefs on a group of people who don't share them. We should have long ago taken the thunder away from these religious zealots and hyprocrites by firmly rejecting the underlying premises of their insane crusade against living human beings - the pre-dead, so to speak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hadashito
Posted by: hadashito on Apr 21, 2007 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any intelligent person listening to TV reporters and reading newspapers and 'net blogs should by now realize that most of the reporters and many of the commentators are not only lazy, but incompetent. They are imply not, themselves, sharp enough to realize that the scripts and instructions they receive from their bosses and the policies and tone set by the media figures who run the journalistic community nowadays are either corporate owners and managers who will not tolerate any incisive reporting or commentary and their fellow reporters are too afraid of losing their jobs to do anything but comply. The ill informed reports on abortion are only one example - - yet not even the worst. Lazy, stupid, and pliant. That's the way to get along in American journalism today. An excellent example of one "journalist" who is at the very top of the degraded game: David Broder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

whats the right term then
Posted by: juniper3 on Apr 21, 2007 5:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ive heard this before but i cant remember the correct term... i dont think it was mentioned in the artice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mistakes? Not at all.
Posted by: blackshards on Apr 21, 2007 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Babies are frequently born short of term and grow up to live happy, healthy lives. Aborting a child that would otherwise live must be considered a killing by any logical thinker.

There is a point after which the parents' right to an abortion - that's both of them - ends. That hasn't been defined legally yet, although this case may be a stepping stone toward that end.

Once that point is reached there should be no turning back unless there's a real medical reason, as allowed in the law.

Given the numbers on partial birth abortions it's really a non-issue. Accept Roe v. Wade in the first trimester and count your cause lucky to have that.

The media didn't make mistakes. They are on your side. Happily, they simply weren't able to spin the truth on this issue and justice was done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mistakes? Not at all. Posted by: ReallyBearish
#3 sounds like a prediction
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Apr 22, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
3. Will not reduce the number of abortions but will over time, according to the doctors who know women's health best, cause an increase in medical complications, and possibly even deaths.

Statistically speaking it should be possible to roughly predict when the first really serious medical complication or death will occur. Anyone have an idea of when that will be, given the other data which is known?

Also, has anyone considered that this law/ruling might increase the number of earlier abortions, under a better-safe-that-sorry scenario? The unavailability of a later term abortion could cause those who think they might need it to abort sooner rather than later, i.e., while they still can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So when is it no longer ok to murder a baby?
Posted by: ateo on Apr 22, 2007 6:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the mother has only partially birthed the baby, let's say the head is sticking out, can we no longer kill the head but we can kill the body?

Or is it only ok if the doctor yanks the baby out of the womb rather than the baby coming out naturally? What if the baby exits the mother's body entirely and is breathing on its own? I guess if the doctor pulled it out for the purpose to kill him/her then that is legal, but if he pulled the baby out for the purpose of assisting the mother in giving birth that is no longer legal?

Guess I'm a little unclear on what criteria make abortion ok or not.

Frankly I don't care either way. I wasn't aborted as a child so yay for me and as a man this issue does not affect me. There are some people I know who I'd like to abort. They're in their 88th trimester or later I believe. Let me know when that becomes legal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gloria Feldt--rightwing mole?
Posted by: Salty_Dog on Apr 22, 2007 6:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does Gloria Feldt believe her own analysis? She claims that the key to rightwing success in the abortion debate and other areas is consistent use of misleading vocuabulary such as for example "partial-birth abortion" to refer to "intact dialation and extraction". Now go through this article and see how she refers to the procedure. You got it--she takes up the rightwing terms, and thereby grants them their frame.

For crying out loud, if you think that the right is manipulating the public through its choice of descriptive terms, why in the world would you help them... or do you not believe your own analysis??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro-life?
Posted by: RobNLA on Apr 22, 2007 6:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pro-life position is really about control. They want their beliefs to dominate, they want to control other people's behaviors.
They want to force their morality down other people's throats, not just against abortion, but also other things like birth control and pre-marital sex.
It's not about when a fetus might be viable, despite the current rhetoric.
Consider this, in the future fetuses will be able to survive earlier outside of the womb. Perhaps at some point, a sperm and egg might grow into a newborn completely without a womb.
Then what? Pro-lifers will argue than any conception should be preserved because they are viable immediately?

No, pro-lifers use whatever excuse that may sound reasonable to impose their morality on others. It's not really about when a fetus is viable or when life begins...it's about when they believe those things are true. What you might believe doesn't matter, what the pregnant women might believe doesn't matter either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same problem in the UK
Posted by: Cruella on Apr 23, 2007 3:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The BBC - which most people think of as the "good guys" of the media recently published an article with the title "One in 30 abortied babies lives".

In fact the article said the one in 30 FOETUSES aborted FOR MEDICAL REASONS was alive WHEN REMOVED but died WITHIN AN HOUR OR TWO. It also went on to say that this was a result of doctors not following recommended practice during the proceedure.

I complained and in fairness to them they changed "babies" to "foetuses" but left the other glaring erors in.

We have this problem a lot over here too but I think we're still a smidgen ahead of the US situation. See:

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com under "Bullsh!t headline alert!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Complicated issue
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 23, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a complicated issue.

I'm a vegan and think it's wrong to kill animals for food but I'm pro choice and believe in a woman's right to choose an abortion. I have had abortions and finally a tubal ligation.
But I don't give a hoot when some obviously guilty as hell mass murderer gets the death penalty. In theory, we should stop the death penalty because innocent persons are on death row. But when a guilty one gets killed by the state, it doesn't hurt my heart. But killings in acts of war affect me greatly. The 32 kids at VT, that was a tragedy. But nothing compared to the hundreds of Iraqi's killed this week during the war.
It's all a contradiction.

I'm pro choice but I'm also grossed out by photos of late term abortions where it's obvious there was a BABY and not just a cluster of cells extracted. And although it grosses me out to see a dead baby, it grosses me out even more that humans are breeding ourselves into extinction spewing out more of "God's little miracles." Ugh. Vomit.

The religious hypocrites who are anti-abortion/pro-life in the case of fetuses who are pro-hunting, pro-war and pro-death penalty probably also feel the same about of conflict in their values.

Although I despise the pro-life movement, I also understand their conflict because as a vegan animal rights person, it's hard to justify being pro-life for animals but not pro-life for humans.

Hmmmm. More to think about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Language Mistakes Are NARAL's, More Than The Media
Posted by: edmenken on Apr 25, 2007 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although Gloria Feldt makes a good point, she ignores the more guilty parties in the language matter. While the media has been lazy about this issue, the major culprits responsible for the continuing loss of ground to the right-wing in their war against a woman't right to choose are all those pro-choice supporters -- and especially NARAL -- who have consistently refused to adopt their own effective language.

For example, they have been too timid and fearful to charge the GOP and religious extremists with, "Wanting to turn women's bodies into procreation factories for the sate", or "Turning American women into brood mares for theofascists." These pro-choice advocates have never grasped that the fight for a woman's right to choose can only be won in a "street fight" against zealots who call us "muderers", and the only way to win is to have a muscular, no-holds-barred battle, led by the kind of language I've described. NARAL's continuous failure to absolutely protect the right to choose is a reflection of the same kind of weakness that has infected the Democratic Party for too long, and that's why I no longer contribute to NARAL, and will wait to see who the candidate is before I extend any meaningful support to the Democratic Party. And I am by no means a "radical", except in the sense that to oppose the right-wing extremism that has controlled this country for too long might be considered "radical."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Much like all the negtive press coming out of Iraq.
Posted by: Glasser on Apr 27, 2007 11:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very few mainstream journalists ever venture out of their motel, much less the green zone. Many use terrorist linked sources without independently verifying, if the report is to their liking. This is sickening. I have to go throw up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement