Feb 05 2011

GOP: “Let us bravely endure the deaths of impregnated women who can’t afford non-misogynist healthcare.”

Has it been 8 degrees for the past week in your little acre of paradise, causing rolling blackouts and catastrophic bunkhouse infrastructure failures? No? Then perhaps you’ve enjoyed electricity and its lovable sidekick, Internet/cable news access, allowing you to get a load of this bullshit: H.R. 358, the so-called “Protect Life Act.” This vile piece of legislation is astonishing — even for the usual suspects who hate women professionally — in its full-on, unapologetic, violently misogynist rancor. The bill contains a provision that would permit woman-hating hospital staff to withhold life-saving abortions from critically ill patients.

Let us pause for a moment to let that sink in.*

The degree to which motherhood is reviled in our culture is generally unappreciated, thanks to cloaking devices like Mother’s Day and other patronizing practices and sentimental narratives. Putting Mother on a pedestal effectively disguises society’s contempt for her. But beneath the glib and oily layer of saccharine lip-service is an abiding sense of mother’s worthlessness except as a self-sacrificing incubator of domination culture.

Mother’s sacred duty is twofold: give birth, then imbue the offspring with the mores required to replicate patriarchy. She must perform this selfless low-status duty at all costs, including, apparently, that of her own life.

Women who fail to become mothers, as well as mothers who fuck up and deviate from the impossible standards mandated by the official patriarchal narrative,** are always punished in one way or another. With this anti-abortion bill dealio, unless she is fortunate enough to be ill in a hospital that does not receive federal funding, a woman who is insufficiently robust to carry a fetus to term may be punished by death. Just like that.

Mother’s function appears to be child-centric, but in actuality it serves domination culture at the expense of her children. As feminist analysis has shown, society has only two uses for human progeny: as pawns in the ongoing effort to control women, and as drones forced to absorb patriarchal messages that mold them into the obedient adult proles necessary to further the interests of the megatheocorporatocracy.

Fetushood is romanticized by godbags and misogynists, but as we have seen time and again, no real concern for the fetus’ well-being obtains after birth. We know this because what happens after birth is childhood, a hood that can only be described as ghastly. Any personhood conferred upon the former fetus is null and void as soon as it becomes a baby. Childhood is nostalgified by adults who perhaps recollect gaps in their own oppression training, when some little spark of joy might have erupted for a moment or two. However, because children are not recognized as fully human, and are in fact routinely abused and oppressed by nearly every adult who crosses their path, actual childhood is, at best, overwhelmingly a painful period of indoctrination, and at worst, a violent nightmare.

But back to motherhood. Crap like this “Protect Life Act” — named by one of those congressional aides who majored in Doublespeak at Dickhead & Prick University — is useful in exposing mother-hate that is normally hidden. The general public may be unaware, but it is codified in the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women, in the Dutiful Mother Provisions, that a woman’s essence consists of her uterus and the contents therein. This clause allows assholes like pink-faced, woman-hating bill sponsor Joe Pitts to seek retribution when a woman exhibits reproductive nonconformity, such as getting sick. Whereupon it naturally follows that hospital personnel may, at their whim, elect to kill an impregnated human rather than disturb any genetic material attached to her personal person.

* Let us also pause to consider that, on top of every other level of wrong, this bill is just plain crazy. If an impregnated woman dies, so will the fetus, right? If the fetus is gonna die anyway, letting the woman die when an abortion will save her life is nothing but fuckin godbag politics.

** That is, all women.


1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. pheenobarbidoll

    Yes. It’s Thunderdome tactics. 2 may enter, only 1 may leave. I have no doubt extraordinary efforts will be made to rip the fetus from her lifeless womb and save it.She’s dead, why not further violate her corpse? And if the fetus does die, then it’s all that bitches fault anyway. She should have been healthier. And if she wasn’t able to survive, she should have kept her legs shut.

  2. Cortney

    This sort of legislation is so terrifying. If enough women really realized that this could happen to them I think they’d take pause before having more children. I wish I could just whip out this post whenever I feel pressured by my family or coworkers to have children.

  3. kelly

    Those sick fucks.

  4. allhellsloose

    “Whereupon it naturally follows that hospital personnel may, at their whim, elect to kill an impregnated human rather than disturb any genetic material attached to her personal person.”

    I agree it is sick and it is terrifying. We are humans who happen to get impregnated and that’s that. Too right motherhood is pedestalised. And always the boundaries surrounding motherhood change to make the attainment of pedestalism an impossibility.

    I’m not celebrating mother’s day this year or ever again.

  5. Yardshark

    The proposal makes so much sense too! (1) Don’t abort (2) Mother dies (3) Fetus stands up and walks away in great condition, thankful that its primacy was upheld! (4) No? Sorry kid…you were “born,” so who gives a hoot that (a) you weren’t viable at the time and/or (b) you’re a sorry-ass orphan now, good luck with that.

    I don’t think these peabrains even understand how this shit works.

    Either that, or this bill really IS about killing women. Color me unsurprised.

  6. Comrade PhysioProf

    The only bright side I can see with the GOP doubling down like mad on their woman-hating in legislation like this is that *maybe*, *hopefully* this will serve as a wake-up call to the uninformed what they are really all about.

  7. Yardshark


    I hoped that after Reagan, I hoped that after Bush I, and again after King George. It didn’t work. Their hangers-on don’t think logically, and are perfectly willing to throw us all to the dogs as long as they get to identify with a ruling class in their twisted little minds.

    The right wing knows how their mob “thinks.” The mob believes that the draconian strictures they vote for won’t apply to them, because they want to believe they are just as magically-godbagged a group of speshul snowflaykes of rich-white-boy and rich-white-boy-remora privilege as, say, the actual right-winger rich fucks that can buy whatever the law bars to the rest of us. This is how we are sacrificed over and over again, so these voters can pretend to be something they’re not. It is a true nightmare.

  8. Ayla

    Boycott childbirth.

  9. Schnee

    If ONLY there were separation of Church and State, this kind of thing would never, ever happen, because the only justification of this bizarre concept of life beginning before it can be sustained independently is religious, and fundie religious at that.

    But really, you have to sneak it in somewhere, somewhere the great opium-drugged masses can’t see.
    We see it in language, one level of sexism gets recognised and banished and another sneaks in.
    Somehow, someone decided that it was no longer reasonable to burn women at the stake, so now we have to allow them to be sacrificed some other way.

  10. J

    Yardshark, very true. According to GOP types, only “those” people would ever encounter such a situation, and “it’s their own fault” for getting themselves into it in the first place.

    Disgusting, blind privelege on display.

  11. Summerspeaker

    You provide a succinct description and critique of childhood here. I’ll have to bookmarked this one. Hopefully the bill will get voted down and/or inspire feminist revolt across the country.

  12. tinfoil hattie

    @yardstick, @Comrade Physio: I would have hoped that after Obama, too, but by then I could read the writing on the wall.

  13. phio gistic

    Did ya’ll hear about this incident in Idaho last month? “The Idaho Legislature passed a law last year that gives pharmacists and other health care providers the right to refuse to provide any health care service or dispense any drugs that violate their conscience.” One pharmacist took it to heart and decided they would rather let a woman die than fill her prescription for Methergine, because the customer -might- have had an abortion. She might also have had a baby, or some other unrelated problem, but when the pharmacist -called the clinic to demand to know if the woman had an abortion- the clinic refused to answer, so the only proper thing to do was let her die, just in case.
    Full story here http://www.idahopress.com/news/article_d6a73c14-1eea-11e0-9f44-001cc4c03286.html

  14. nakedthoughts

    separating church and state does not end the debate of when life begins. The stomach and gut have a brain the size of a cat. Surely, that means each person is two conscious beings?

    Of course, if life begins at conception that doesn’t mean that one should be forced to be an incubator. just induce “birth”. If it is a separate living thing, it will live and can be adopted out. right?

    Without a trace of irony they suggest doctors, who CHOOSE their profession, can refuse to help a woman for a few hours and it will result in her death. But women are forced, no matter what their beliefs, to endure the physical burden of pregnancy for 9 months.

  15. cardinal

    Twisty, I have been hoping you would address this abomination, and I’m sorry to hear that your silence was due to annoying weather/electricity issues. I’m having trouble parceling my outrage with the rash of insanity from congress and Egypt at the same time. Now with @phio gistic’s link I think my head is going to explode. IBTP.

  16. TwissB

    And even now another ERA silly season is in full swing as legislators in various states (e.g. Florida and Virginia) are being assured by ERA enthusiasts that a constitutional prohibition on sex discrimination against women will “NOT regulate abortion”! While they alternate these assurances on odd days with pro-choice marches on even days, one can only marvel at so much misplaced energy.

    So, it’s time to offer a radical alternative.

    Balkanizing primary sex discrimination into a swarm of separate issues as current Official Feminism does denies women a coherent way of rebelling against it. Primary sex discrimination is men’s invasive, subordinating attack on women’s reproductive organs through pregnancy regulation, prostitution, and pornography – the perfect target since nothing misogyny can do to hurt that organ unique to women can inflict the slightest pain on men. Consider any of those “but women are different so it would be discrimination if you treated them the same as men” bits of Aristotelian holy writ and sure enough the uterus or its related gotcha parts and functions are cited as the pretext for any acts of restriction or dehumanization men want tobe free to inflict on women.

    When it comes to anything men regard as “sex,” the right to treat women differently is taken for granted. Primary sex discrimination is protected by a gentlemen’s agreement. It is enough to trot out abstractions like the interest of the state, men’s natural needs, or the First Amendment to turn the cruelest attacks on women into unchallengeable institutions.

    Difference arguments are more overtly made in cases of secondary sex discrimination in employment, for example, or military service assignment, or single sex schooling. Legal practitioners know that there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit sex discrimination *against women*, but only Justice Scalia dares to say so.

    Disparate impact is tertiary sex discrimination which can be ignored by courts and legislators or remedied as men’s advantage is perceived.

    If women were to make a concerted attack on primary sex discrimination – pregnancy regulation, prostitution and pornography, I think we’d wreck the men’s game. It would tie the liberal and conservative cats’ tails together and hang them over the clothesline. But it would also challenge women on the left and the right to quit collaborating with men in reducing the most anti-women practices to political entertainment for men.

  17. TwissB

    As Jill says, the more real a baby becomes, the less men care about it – unless, let’s add, it can serve as the excuse for a mean custody battle, after which interest declines again. See “Stop Abortion – Fix Men!” at my website for discussion of the evidence of men’s indifference or downright malice in the way they make policy for women and children.

  18. Kelly

    I’m kind of a baby-blamer, but not new to feminist discussion. And hatred of mothers and children hardly is a man-only thing. I’m genuinely confused about why so many feminists despise mothers (unless they are middle class, white, het-, cis-, don’t spend much time talking about the kids, and do OTHER stuff like “career” – a mere “job” won’t count) or children. I haven’t figured it out yet.

    Any personhood conferred upon the former fetus is null and void as soon as it becomes a baby. [ … ] because children are not recognized as fully human, and are in fact routinely abused and oppressed by nearly every adult who crosses their path, actual childhood is, at best, overwhelmingly a painful period of indoctrination, and at worst, a violent nightmare.

    I’d hope my children are having a better time of it than that. I agree about adult oppression but I haven’t met many other bloggers who write about this. I work fervently against adultism, starting in our own home. Since I’m the only grownup in the neighborhood during weekly daylight hours a lot of kids end up here. It’s a heartbreak to see what their families and institutions are doing to them.

    I know your subject was also the legislation, which is horrible I agree, but thank you also for your points on motherhood and childhood and the child class.

  19. Mooska

    Kelly. As a fellow junior blamer, here’s my perspective.

    Since it’s a basic tenet of advanced blaming that the patriarchy is inescapable, we are all complicit in it to the extent that we exhibit the behaviours required of us. It’s unfair, but that doesn’t make it untrue. If you buy into the theory of femininity as a continuum, you accept that putting on make-up makes you part of that continuum even if you’re only doing it to make your life easier. None of us can avoid living within the system, we can only make limited choices about how deliberately and extensively to participate in it.

    Maybe the behaviours you teach your child to allow it to survive in the world are also, from a blaming perspective, oppressive and abusive. Does that mean you should desist? One of the reasons I like this blog is because it won’t answer that question for you. We have to choose every day how far to go along with the Man and how far it’s worth resisting, and in the end, we are accountable only to ourselves.

    For what it’s worth, I bet you do a great job with your kids, and as someone who would like to have them (despite knowing that breeding is what’s expected of me, and despite knowing that my child will benefit from the unearned privilege of being middle-class and European), it’s always good to hear how other blamers negotiate this particular minefield.

  20. speedbudget

    Who writes the names of the Republicans’ bills? Really. I’d like to know. Their grasp of irony and disinformation is just staggering.

    Yes, I heard about the conscience clause out in Idaho. This bill that is being discussed in this thread, if I remember correctly, codifies conscience clauses. I will never understand why these people are fucking fired when they refused to do their job for whatever bullshit reason they come up with. It’s like getting a job as a mechanic and refusing to work on carburetors because you have moral qualms with fossil-fuel dependence. That shit wouldn’t last very long, I tell you what.

  21. speedbudget

    Oh, dear. I should read and then re-read before I post.

    *why these people are NOT fucking fired etc.

  22. yttik

    I like the idea of taking abortion out of the hands of the system. The problem is abortion is a non negotiable right and as long as it is in the hands of the Gov, they have the power to either bless us with this right or to take it away. Back in the 70’s there was this radical idea to teach women how to safely perform abortions, just like midwives and women have been doing for centuries. The thing about abortion is that even it can become a weapon of misogyny, like forced abortions in China or that recent clinic in the US that was atrocious and dismissive of women’s health and lives.

    In the child birth industry women have been working for many years to try and take back some control over labor and delivery. When we were forced to go to hospitals and have experts attend to us, we were often strapped down, drugged, and forced to deliver children under the complete control of an authoritarian system. Things have gotten slightly better, in many places women can now see midwives and go to birthing centers and exercise some control over the process, but we still have a huge number of caesarians and a maternal death rate that is atrocious for a developed country.

  23. J

    @Kelly, but the difference is, those feminists who supposedly “hate” mothers and non-career women have no real POWER to oppress any of us. Sure, their words may sting, but power they have not.
    It’s like white people getting offended at a black comic who rips on white people and saying “If he were white ripping on black people he’d get arrested blaaaarg!” Not the same. White people are still in power and have all the money. What’s a few words gonna do, topple their whole system?
    One of the things I had to do when wading into radical feminist circles is to stop being personally offended at some feminists’ anger. Some of them rail against PIV; I’m straight. Some of them seem to look down their noses at mothers and “housewives”; I am a mother who has been a housewife.
    But it’s not about ME.
    It’s the same problem people have with Solanas’s essay. It was very angry, but her sheer anger shook the scales from some womens’ eyes. Because those women saw beyond the “cutting up men” message and tapped into that anger they themselves had been feeling for years but had been given no voice to express.
    It’s the same with these rad fems, they are angry and for good reason. So I will hold the hurt feelings and listen. They aren’t speaking out against ME, but against systems that oppress our gender.

  24. yttik

    Oh and Twisty, you call this a GOP bill, well, sadly there are Democrats on board too, Daniel Lipinski, Mike Ross, Heath Shuler, Jerry Costello and all the others who remain silent in their complicity.

  25. joy

    J — why can’t you be straight and also go without PIV? Their dicks don’t rot off if they stop sticking ’em in you.

    Kelly et al — Most feminists don’t “hate” mothers. That’s kind of ridiculous to assert.

    Many radical feminists question why women wish to become mothers, because the planet is overpopulated and children are men’s all-time favorite weapon of choice to use against women.

    Not to mention that having a child ensures that you’re either raising another potential victim or another potential perpetrator.

    It’s the same as questioning why women shave their legs or wear high heels or perform certain sex acts. There’s no “hatred” for women who shave or strut or enjoy black latex. It’s just a question of why one does those things, and could they not be problematic things, living as we do in a patriarchy?

  26. allhellsloose

    J “some of them rail against PIV” I’m straight too. However I’m not a fan of PIV-centric sex. The assumption of het sex is that it’s coitus – or that the sex will always include coitus. This is demonstrated in many straight circles by the assumption that if PIV isn’t regularly on the sexual menu then the relationship is doomed to failure. It matters not if children are involved, a partnership of many years has been forged or that economic depravity will result. So long as the PIV continues. I can understand the railing against PIV. I get it.

  27. Kelly

    I never said “most” feminists.

    What I’m hearing from @joy and @J is that feminists have not made anti-mother and anti-child comments nor held worldviews against mothers (esp. mothers who are not white, mid-class, het, straight, cis, career-oriented, or openly discuss their child- and home-work). Any anti- mother and chilld attitudes that *have* been promoted don’t matter much because there is no power behind them.

    Just for starters, as someone with small children who works at home and does not use the institution of school, I’ve experienced so much policing of where my children are allowed and when and what rules we have to submit to. In a highly child-segregationalist culture, oppression of children functions as oppression against their primary carer.

    Also, besides Twisty and a couple other sites, I have searched high and low for feminist sites that are super-inclusive of discussing children and it’s been a wasteland. I have been dismissed and personally attacked in the commentariat of many feminist sites when I’ve posted links to child oppression checklists, adultism 101, etc.

    My point isn’t to in-fight about feminists – I really meant it when I said I was confused. To be told what I and so many have experienced doesn’t exist nor matter (and that it’s “ridiculous”) – should I take this as the rad fem line on child and mother?

    Again, I loved Twisty’s post and I give her thanks for making it. I am a devoted reader of her work and look forward to every bit.

  28. J

    @allhellsloose, oh I agree. Our relationship isn’t PIV centric, because I don’t get my pleasure that way. He does, though, and I’ll do it for him on occasion. But he has to do what *I* want first. :)
    But yes I have seen that attitude in het circles, that PIV is the End All Be All. And that women are supposed to have screaming orgasms from PIV alone. Women are made to feel there’s something wrong with them if they need oral to get off or some other non PIV sex act or hevaen forbid, a vibrator. Like the Almighty Cock should be enough. I too used to be neurotic about that before I became a feminist. But not anymore. One of the best things feminism did for me is to help me realize I am not defective; it’s society’s thoughts about women that’s fucked up!
    @joy, what I meant was that because I have had PIV and didn’t hate it, I could have become all personally offended the second a feminist questioned the PIV or expressed a negative opinion about it. But I don’t, because like you said, it’s just questioning. But some people can’t separate the two. It’s hard to look back with a critical eye all the high heels you’ve worn, all the PIV with no pleasure you’ve had, and that “choice” to be a housewife.

    @Twisty, sorry for all the “I” talk and gross straight sex talk. I’ll try to keep the peen discourse to a minimum.

  29. joy

    You “let him” sometimes?!


  30. joy

    101 time. The basic argument against PIV isn’t merely that “women don’t like it.” It’s that men feel entitled to it, and it has dangerous ramifications to women.

    Birth control does not mitigate these harms. Birth control methods involve messing with your body, in potentially and demonstratably harmful ways. Meanwhile, as people have commented, we don’t really see men lining up to get vasectomies. Why is the onus on women?

    And pregnancy is dangerous, even wanted pregnancy. Jessica Valenti nearly died from her pregnancy, and she’s a rich white woman who wanted her child. Take away the money and the privilege, suppose it’s not even a child you wanted but a child you had to have, and you have the experience many more women face.

    So the question isn’t “Will Nigel use a vibrator to get you off, before, during, or after PIV?”
    The question is, “Why does Nigel demand/want/feel entitled to PIV, knowing it could harm or kill you?”

  31. J

    @joy, yes I understand this. I read and agree with a lot of rad fem sites. And I agree with you that the onus shouldn’t be on women. I don’t think I ever said otherwise.

    I didn’t say I “let him”, I said I do it for him. Sometimes. Just like he does some things for me. He does not demand it or expect it. But this is just our individual experience and does not mean other women don’t suffer under the demand for PIV. I get that and I will *never* say, “well, it’s fine for me so it must be fine for all women everywhere!” So I am all for analyzing/questioning it. In fact, it was reading those very radfem sites and critical essays about the dangerousness of and entitled attitudes surrounding PIV that made me rethink how I’d been viewing het sex and make some changes.

  32. joy

    The birth control question I asked was rhetorical. I should have stated that.

    The point remains, however, that women continue to do things that could harm or kill them, in order to please Nigel. Another rhetorical question: Why?

  33. J

    (I’m just theorizing here, not proclaiming any Truth, just thinking out loud. Not lecturing either; I’m sure I am preaching to the choir.)
    Why do women do it? They are trained from day 1 to be the sex class. Women are “for” sex and men have decided that sex=PIV.
    Why is it PIV? I blame equal parts religion and just a plain desire to control women, from which religion was born. The Bible says that any sex except PIV is a sin, and that a man shall not “spill his seed”, so masturbation is out. And it’s her wifely duty to submit to sex. And before birth control, PIV was almost guaranteed to saddle women with pregnancy and unwanted babies, after which she was much easier to control, by her husband and the Church, who states that he is her lord and master. Now she and her children are dependent on him for material needs and if she should dare to leave, she will be punished by her Church and community.
    (This is why I am an atheist. Religion is the worst thing to ever happen to women.)
    It’s insidious, and has persisted so long that modern secular het women have no real idea WHY sex=PIV in so many minds. It’s just been repeated so long and gone unquestioned. I know it was for me; I honestly never thought about it until I read radfem writing. It was like a lightbulb went off in my head.
    The advent of birth control (from pills to abortion*) makes those religious types freak out. They will lose their #1 way to control women, even with PIV. I have a very Catholic family member who has bought the whole “contraception is a sin” line. She is a young, college-educated, priveleged woman and fails to realize she’s buying the woman-hating rhetoric hook line and sinker. She is also quick to blame feminists for questioning her “choice” to be a godbag submissive wife, despite the fact that she’d not be college-educated or as priveleged as she is without their efforts.
    And she’s not even considered extreme by American standards, just to the right side of normal! Extreme would be things like Quiverfull or polygamist cults, but her views logically lead one to that place.

    *Never liked condoms as a BC option, because then you have to convince some asshole to agree to wear one. If he is manipulative or abusive, he will not and then he will rape her anyway.

  34. K.C.

    “… Because children are not recognized as fully human, and are in fact routinely abused and oppressed by nearly every adult who crosses their path, actual childhood is, at best, overwhelmingly a painful period of indoctrination, and at worst, a violent nightmare.”

    Yep. That’s how I remember it.

    As for this bill, I really couldn’t add any more to the discussion. They don’t even have to pretend that our opinions matter anymore, do they?

  35. Antoinette Niebieszczanski

    Perhaps I am being overly simplistic, but I read their theory here as “Let the ones who can’t afford to pay for the procedure die, and their misbegotten spawn along with ’em.”

  36. joy

    Well, yes, I’m a radical feminist. I know why. This was, again, a rhetorical question.

    If we know we are the sex class, and we understand the mechanisms of patriarchy, then why do many women continue giving in to the demands of the oppressor?

    What I’m saying is, revolt, sisters. Revolt.

  37. iamlegs

    @Kelly, child oppression checklists, adultism 101, etc. would be deeply appreciated, if you would post some sort of link!

  38. speedbudget


    It’s because so many women have been indoctrinated for so long. I was talking to a friend of mine, mentioning how much I want to take a trip to Greece. She was absolutely floored and SHOCKED that I would consider going outside of my house without a man in attendance. Seriously. Her exact words:

    “You can’t do that.”
    Me: “Why not?”
    “You don’t have a boyfriend.”

    I started laughing at her. She had absolutely no clue. I was like, wait. They won’t sell me a ticket without checking my dating status first? I can’t book a hotel room? What do you mean? At least it got her thinking, but it’s just THERE all the time, and many women can’t see past it. Until it’s pointed out.

  39. joy

    Yes, I know. Having been raised a woman in patriarchy, and having been a radical feminist for some time, I know why women live under the thumb.

    Radical feminist women know about it. And many still live under the thumb anyway.

    I am encouraging all of us here to revolt. And to encourage other women elsewhere to revolt as well.

    Suggested reading for anyone who hasn’t read it yet: Sheila Jeffreys’ “Anti Climax”.

    Also: it is possible to both like and respect children while not wishing to have any.

  40. Vanessa

    Just in case the sisterhood hasn’t seen this blog post before, I thought I’d direct you to it, specifically for the pithy table the author provides — a run down of how fiercely illogical the idea that abortion is murder remains. “Almost none of their policies make sense if they really see no difference between the death of a fetus and the death of a four-year-old. However, nearly all their policies make sense if they’re seeking to make sure that women who have sex “face the consequences” (are punished).” http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/

  1. Spinster aunt too lazy to write essay, posts blamer comment instead « I Blame The Patriarchy

    […] Banner « GOP: “Let us bravely endure the deaths of impregnated women who can’t afford non… […]

Comments have been disabled.