Special Report
Victims of Obamacare
Religious left support for abortion is imploding.
Religious Left support for abortion funding in Obamacare will maybe be remembered as one of the last, embarrassing gasps of the religious abortion rights movement. Socialized medicine has been almost a messianic dream for liberal religionists across much of the 20th century, while abortion rights emerged about 40 years ago. Focused strategic thinking would have compelled the Religious Left to swallow abortion restrictions in favor of any expansion of government directed health care. But almost until the very end, the Religious Left insisted that abortion coverage was crucial to any health care legislation. They even fired salvos at more traditional religionists who objected to abortion funding.
“Let us admit that in this debate faith leaders of various stripes have placed their ideological and financial agendas ahead of the needs of the American people,” complained United Methodist lobbyist Jim Winkler, without any apparent sense of irony, at a December press conference with Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Ben Cardin (Md.). “These faith leaders have attempted to roll back the rights of women to determine their own reproductive health. This is not acceptable.”
Winkler and other Religious Left lobbyists strongly condemned the Pitts-Stupak language in the U.S. House of Representatives version of Obamacare that prohibited abortion funding. Likewise, they opposed Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s original attempt to replicate that restriction in the Senate version. Of course, Nelson, himself United Methodist, later compromised by supporting the Senate’s final version, which would have permitted indirect funding of abortion.
At a December Obamacare rally on Capitol Hill sponsored by United Methodists, Presbyterians, the United Church of Christ, liberal Roman Catholics, plus Moveon.org, Winkler insisted: “The Senate bill should be abortion-neutral,” by which he meant it should not restrict abortion funding. “American families should have the opportunity to choose health coverage that reflects their own values and medical needs,” he added, “a principle that should not be sacrificed in service of any political agenda.”
Trying to neutralize the influence of United Methodism’s official lobbyist, a caucus of pro-lifers called Task Force for United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality this month urged Senator Nelson to adhere to his original strong pro-life stance. “The Senate’s health care bill is unacceptable — to us, to many if not most United Methodists, and to the clear majority of Americans — since it would have the effect of facilitating, and thus increasing, the incidence of abortion in our society.” The United Methodist pro-lifers also were “very concerned about the Senate bill’s failure to include the House bill’s conscience protections for health care providers who do not want to be coerced into participation in abortion.” And they noted to Nelson that “you have been the target of lobbying efforts by some United Methodist clergy and laity urging you to support the health care reform bill even if it means compromising your pro-life principles.” They concluded: “Many, if not most, United Methodists in Nebraska and in the United States share our concerns.” And they reminded him of Methodism’s first principle from founder John Wesley: “Do no harm.” (Their letter is here.)
How influenced Nelson was by his church’s official lobbyists is unclear since he would know that the lobby is far to the left of most church members. He may have gotten more encouragement from liberal evangelicals. Shortly before the Senate vote in December, a group of liberal evangelicals compromised traditional evangelical pro-life convictions by backing a compromise on abortion funding from Pennsylvania Democratic Senator Casey. This compromise was quickly denounced by the Catholic bishops and other pro-lifers. But it presaged the ultimate abortion compromise that the Senate approved. The evangelicals who backed it, many of them officers in the National Association of Evangelicals, prioritized government directed health care over protections for the unborn. Their eagerness to create a more progressive image for evangelicals by attaching themselves to Obamacare and indirect abortion funding will likely sideline their influence among most evangelicals.
Meanwhile, nearly all the Mainline Protestant denominations, despite their pro-abortion elites, have vigorous pro-life caucuses. The Task Force for United Methodists annually convenes a pro-life service in the United Methodist Building on Capitol Hill on the Roe versus Wade anniversary. The nearly 90-year-old headquarters of official United Methodist lobbying is governed by Winkler’s United Methodist Board of Church and Society, whose offices are upstairs from the chapel where the pro-lifers are permitted at least one morning of witness.
Foreshadowing the growing pro-life sentiment even in liberal-governed denominations, the Task Force has in recent years featured several bishops at its pro-life Capitol Hill service. This year, Kansas United Methodist Bishop Scott Jones was the preacher, and he was unequivocal in differing with his church’s official lobby on abortion funding. “We need to recognize that access to an abortion is not a right. While we believe that persons have the right to health care, abortion is not normally a health care issue. Rather it is a sinful behavior.” He added: “Proposals in the recent health-care debate to provide tax funding for abortions are very misguided. What you fund with tax dollars will increase.” (For more on Bishop Jones’ speech, go here).
Neither government-funded abortion, nor 1960s-style Big Government initiatives like Obamacare, are likely to inspire future generations of American church-goers, or even their elites. Obamacare’s seeming collapse may also ultimately foretell the eventual implosion of much of the old Religious Left and the liberal Evangelicals who oddly want to imitate them.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (143) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/28/victims-of-obamacare
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 1.28.10 @ 7:10AM
Titus 1:16. "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed."
Anyone who claims to be a Christian cannot support abortion. Even in a case of rape of incest, the unborn child is precious in the eyes of God. Indeed, God knows us before we are even formed in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5).
The unborn child, although it appears merely a "lump of cells," is a human being in its most vulnerable form. The ability to think or feel as we understand it cannot be made a criteria for a right to live, or we can easily justify the elimination of the handicapped and elderly. Reducing the unborn to such "sub-human" status is the same logic used to justify slavery. Therefore, it's not a stretch to say that anyone who support abortion also supports slavery (or at least the concept of slavery).
Thom| 1.31.10 @ 6:26PM
Beautifully said.
Jon B| 3.13.10 @ 5:56AM
Obama's restoring of funds for pregnancy prevention measures in the world's poorest countries reduced abortions by 10's of millions in the next 8 years. Republicans lie about the Mexico City Policy by falsely claiming it funds abortions, etc. It's been illegal for US $'s to fund abortions overseas since 1973, but we DO fund pregnancy prevention measures, emergency field birth kits, etc.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm
1993: Repeal of the funding ban: President Clinton felt that private, foreign organizations should be able to receive USAID funding for that part of their programs that involved pregnancy prevention, even though they used their funds raised elsewhere to finance abortions or to appeal for abortion reform. On 1993-JAN-22, his second day in office, he rescinded the executive order.
2001: Reinstatement of the funding ban: On 2001-JAN-22, during his first day in office, President George W. Bush reinstated the funding ban for family planning programs run by agencies that also provide abortion services out of their own funds. His rationale was somewhat confusing. He wrote to the U.S. Agency for International Development: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." But no such funds have ever been granted. Existing legislation prevents foreign grants from being used to fund abortions or provide abortion counseling.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0126-05.htm
January 26, 2001: Family planning research groups, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute, last year said that if US funding levels were restored to the $540 million (from $425 million), the following would happen: Nearly 12 million more couples in developing countries would gain access to modern methods of contraception.
There would be 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million fewer unintended births, 500,000 fewer miscarriages; 2.2 million fewer abortions each year; 8,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortions, 7,000 fewer deaths from other causes related to pregnancy and 92,000 fewer deaths of infants.
Bush cut funding on 1-22-2001, then cut it some more in 2002, so it was roughly 1/2 or just over $200 million. However, some of it was restored because of his 2003 Africa/Aids program, which he didn't fully fund either. Bush cut aids funding completely in early 2001, and dropped another program in Congress (around $800K more) too. then restarted the program 2 years later promising roughly the same $ amount he prevented in the first place.
Appleby| 1.28.10 @ 7:15AM
The people who are pushing the ridiculous idea that murder is health care continue to misrepresent the position -- which is that NO ONE is denied her right to murder her baby; she has the same right to dispose of her baby as she has to dispose of her handbag. In both the case of the baby and the handbag, she is required to pay for this *right* herself.
The ONLY thing that is denied to the murderer is the right to send the invoice to me.
There is NO constitutional right to have anything you want the instant you want it and send the invoice to someone else.
That is the point we are making, and that you are missing.
RT| 1.28.10 @ 7:33AM
Mark, Darin, Appleby: here, here!
BigFish| 1.28.10 @ 11:18AM
Er, I think it's actually: Hear, hear!
SoCon| 1.28.10 @ 4:22PM
Who cares if it's hear or here? I'm just grateful these posts have been written!
KyMouse| 1.28.10 @ 9:24AM
This past Monday, a 30-year-old mother in Queens, NY, reportedly died after a "safe and legal" abortion. The abortionist accidentally severed one of her arteries, in the process of severing her baby. The abortion mill, called A1 Medicine, is not only in the killing business, it does plastic surgery.
Every mother deserves better than abortion. Every child deserves a chance.
SoCon| 1.28.10 @ 4:26PM
Great post, KyMouse. Thank you.
Death by abortion happens more often than people know--often, the baby's life isn't the only one at risk.
What a tragedy.
Northern Rebel| 1.28.10 @ 9:33AM
This is a subject near and dear to my heart.
My wife was told that if she attempted to bring her last pregnancy to term, both she, and the baby, would die.
Everybody, including her husband at the time, begged her to abort the"fetus".
My wife, the bravest person I know, refused, and today, I have a 25 year old step-daughter, who doesn't use the word step. I have no biological children of my own, but I am Dad to her.
She is a living example of everything that is wrong with the abortion culture. She also had trouble with her pregnancy, but following in the footsteps of her mother's courage has given me an absolutely precious 4 yr old grand-daughter.
I am truly blessed to have these strong moral women love me!
Thank you God.
BigFish| 1.28.10 @ 11:20AM
But that's a choice your wife made -- not the government: a choice you want to deny to every other woman.
KyMouse| 1.28.10 @ 11:39AM
BigFish, the legal license to kill babies by abortion has resulted not only in the deaths of 52 million babies in their mothers' wombs (since 1973), but also in injury or death to many of the mothers themselves. Please Google "Lou Anne Herron" and "Synthia Dennard" to read about two mothers who died at the hands of "safe" abortionists.
Abortion is most often NOT the mother's choice (in more than six out of ten abortions it isn't, according to research by the Elliot Institute), but is instead the choice of the baby's father, the mother's parents, or other people. In cases of pregnancy through incest, killing the baby destroys the "evidence" of the crime, almost certainly ensuring that the mother's molestation will continue in secret.
When arguing for "choice," as you do, remember what is being chosen: the death of an innocent human being.
Aren't you glad your mother chose to let YOU live?
BigFish| 1.28.10 @ 12:07PM
You haven't addressed my basic premise, which is that citing a woman's decision not to have an abortion is not a convincing argument that she shouldn't have the choice. The government didn't compel this man's wife to have an abortion; why should they compel her NOT to?
And to digress from my point: what's the Eliot Institute. Where do they get their information from & how do they compile their figures?
Darin| 1.28.10 @ 1:30PM
The point is that there are 2 (or more) people involved: the mother and the unborn child (or children). The baby is never offered a choice of whether they want to live or die. "Pro-choice" is all about DENYING choice. The baby is treated as property, to be used (or desposed of) as the mother sees fit. Hence my comparison of abortion to slavery.
True, the unborn child may not be able to articulate their choice, but neither can severely handicapped people. If it's OK to "choose" to kill an unborn baby, it's OK to "choose" to kill a disabled person. Morally, there is no difference. Either way, a unique life ends.
RAMIII| 1.28.10 @ 1:49PM
The Supreme Court of the US has no constitutional authority to have enacted Roe vs. Wade as law of the land. This issue is a matter for the individual states to decide. By judicial fiat those justices prevented people who abhor abortion from being able to go to a state where it could have been against the law.
Also one question for you BigFish: Where did you come from?
One comment for you BigFish: The woman makes the choice when she has sex with a man.
Margie| 1.28.10 @ 2:44PM
Excellent post, RamIII. The Supremely Arrogant Court took it upon themselves to change the course of history, going against the U.S. Constitution and in effect promoted the deaths of millions of babies. They certainly will get their due rewards!
RAMIII| 1.28.10 @ 4:08PM
Thanks Margie.
Penny| 1.28.10 @ 3:46PM
BigFish, I used to be pro-choice. I used to believe that women have a right to choices about their own body.
Then, as I was reading something dealing with pro-choice and thinking about my belief, I was hit right between the eyes with a thought: the baby also has a right to his/her own body.
It took a second for that thought to process thru my brain. Then I realized that both are right, the woman has a right to her body and the baby has a right to his/her body.
The baby is not part of the woman’s body, he/she is just housed there for about 9 months.
I then became pro-life.
SoCon| 1.28.10 @ 4:39PM
NO ONE has the right to kill another, even a pregnant woman. The baby is a distinct life unto itself.
Please cite the passage in the Constitution that protects 'freedom of choice'? (And I don't mean that ridiculous, non-existent 'penumbra' that you crazy liberals made up).
Why don't you pro-aborts EVER address the baby's 'freedom of choice'?
Justice is a fundamental right for ALL people, and LIFE is the most fundamental right of all.
BigFish| 1.28.10 @ 10:01PM
I've seen a lot of dancing around & bobbing & weaving, but no one has addressed my original argument -- which is that citing a woman's decision to NOT have an abortion is not a good argument for preventing her from making that decision.
Humble Servant | 1.28.10 @ 11:26PM
Actually, your argument has been addressed repeatedly. One of government's primary roles is to protect the rights of every person. My rights end where yours begins. The mother's rights end where the baby's begins. Government is the guarantor and protector of those rights.
BigFish| 1.30.10 @ 1:38PM
Nice statement, but not on point. You all spout your usual dogma , but no one responds to the point I've raised. I reiterate for the umpty-umpth time: how does citing a choice that a woman made justify preventing her from making that choice?
BHG| 1.28.10 @ 4:33PM
And the choice that killed the mother of 4 and her baby in New York on Monday? The advice to Tim Tebow's mother?
Dai Alanye | 1.28.10 @ 4:35PM
I have a perfectly obnoxious neighbor who harasses me at every turn, to such an extent that my mental and physical health are both threatened. I should have the right to terminate—or at least to severely injure—him, yet our rigid and outmoded laws deny me this right.
I don't get it. Under the circumstances, shouldn't this be a simple case of post-birth abortion?
Margie| 1.28.10 @ 2:50PM
Northern Rebel,
Thank you for sharing your wonderful testimonial with us. You certainly are blessed, as you say!
Life is precious indeed, and I thank God along with you! :^)
Pingback| 1.28.10 @ 10:07AM
Victims of Obamacare « Traditional Medicine Net links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tenn Slim| 1.28.10 @ 10:42AM
Opin
bt
Over 40 million abortions, according to stats, over the 20th Century. No wonder our USA birth rate is less than our death rate. No nation can survive , killing unborn children. We are reaping exactly what we have sown.
end
Semper Fi
Northern Rebel| 1.28.10 @ 11:23AM
Conservative Christians are not the ones putting their unborn children to death. it is the "liberal progressives" that are committing idealogical suicide, by aborting future democrats.
Things have a way of balancing out in the long run.
bob | 1.28.10 @ 11:53AM
abortion is bad. government is bad too. government enforcing religion is worse.
RAMIII| 1.28.10 @ 1:56PM
Intelligent post.
Umm . . . actually the elected government representatives are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Last time I looked it involved the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, whether or not that included religious ideas.
Consider re-phrasing your argument:
Abortion is evil. Government is bad if it does not uphold the US Constitution.
darcy| 1.28.10 @ 2:52PM
By all means, Bob, let's just stop, right now, enforcing religion:
No more laws against stealing other people's property.
No more laws against murder, of any kind.
There. That takes care of two of the Ten Commandments.
Now, when can I come to your house to steal your computer???
Margie| 1.31.10 @ 3:55PM
darcy,
I had to come back to say this.. my post overlapped yours and I didn't see yours till mine posted. Only to say that I didn't mean to argue with what you were trying to say. We said the same thing, in effect.
God bless.
Margie| 1.28.10 @ 2:56PM
The Constitution of the United States of America is based on Biblical principles, not a Religion.
The Founding Fathers said that a Nation would not survive unless its people were a moral people.
Here we are seeing the result of their wisdom.
Murder is against God. It is one of the laws of our land. Until the Supremely Arrogant Court decided to nullify it. THEY are in the wrong. You Leftists are also in the wrong.
The Judge of all will have His final say on Judgment Day.
RAMIII| 1.28.10 @ 4:09PM
Unless you repent while there is still time.
Margie| 1.28.10 @ 4:33PM
You betcha! And I truly hope they do, if they haven't already.
SoCon| 1.28.10 @ 4:44PM
bob, would you want the government to protect your life if someone tried to kill you? Better re-think your absurd post.
Pingback| 1.28.10 @ 1:59PM
The American Spectator : Victims of Obamacare | Health News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
danfromatlanta| 1.28.10 @ 5:41PM
BigFish, at this point, abortion is legal, only by Supreme Court fiat in a decision that found new Constitutional rights out of whole cloth. So although abortion is legal, at this point, my tax dollars cannot be used to pay for the procedure which I find morally repugnant. I agree with the Christian belief that the life which begins with the fertilization is a human being, that ought to be protected from medical abortion practitioners willing to violate their hippocratic oath to "do no harm". I also agree with the principle of personal responsibility in that I do not believe I have any moral duty to protect someone else from the consequences of their foolish actions. When the government tries to force me to, then that is simply tyranny. I value life and freedom. It is tyranny to tax me for funding against either!
BigFish| 1.30.10 @ 1:41PM
You make a lot of statements, none of which has the remotest connection to the point I've raised. Doesn't anyone on this thread know how to debate, or do you just want to make you standard points?
Yosemeti Sam| 1.28.10 @ 11:59PM
" ... Religious Left ...."
Cool oxymoron.
Northern Rebel| 1.29.10 @ 1:14AM
OK bigfish: how's this?Let's take religion right out of the picture,K?
The constitution of the United States of America, promises every American citizen, the right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.
That includes unborn American citizens, and aborting them is in effect murdering them, and taking away their constitutional right to life.
By law, a pregnant woman who has an abortion, has committed murder, PERIOD!
She has no right to decide whether this life is worth living, any more than a mugger has a right to decide whether to stab you in an alley, while taking your wallet.
They are both crimes against humanity, PERIOD!
Is that clear enough for you, fishface?
BigFish| 1.30.10 @ 1:46PM
I've avoided ad hominems, but I guess that's too much to be expected from the folks in this thread. Once again, you've ignored the point I was making in order to make points which have absolutely nothing to do with my original statement. Civilized & informed debate is apparently beyond the scope of the readership here.
Northern Rebel | 1.29.10 @ 1:16AM
Thanks Margie,
You are a rock, when it comes tovalues, and morals, and I love knowing you're out there!
Margie| 1.31.10 @ 3:52PM
No, not a rock, Rebel. A failed, ruined sinner saved by Grace out of His great mercy. If I appear like that, it isn't so.
No rock here.
Ruined sinner, yes.
noshi| 1.29.10 @ 1:44AM
An unborn child has no legal rights. Born children can't even legally sign contracts. Sure it's killing a fetus but it's not like humans are on the endangered species list. YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE ANOTHER ONE.
Not to say that kids should be having sex unprotected just because it exists. People should plan ahead. It's unfortunate that people slander the practice. It exists because it can. It's a procedure that can save lives. It can also destroy relationships or lives.
... you know what. Why should we even argue about abortion. We should be talking about obamacare and how people perceive it as the 1st step towards complete socialized medicine ala UK or French healthcare.
FTM| 1.29.10 @ 2:39AM
I've read the Bible through from cover to cover seven times. I consider myself to be a Christian.
Now, with all that said it seems to me that the objective is to make abortion a rare occurrence. If that's the case then simply follow, "The Plan." Let the boys that want to marry boys marry boys. Let the girls that want to marry girls marry girls. Let the women that want to kill their babies kill their babies. In ten or fifteen years there won't be any more Democrats. How hard can that be?
FTM| 1.29.10 @ 3:08AM
Sorry, I had to attend to another detail.
To clarify, please consider...
People that advocate this "choice" are living their lives in a state of rebellion against God. Some will perhaps come to see the errors of their ways but most will not. Reference the 3rd chapter of Second Timothy.
Now, you can take an active short term approach such as the guy that wasted "Tiller the Killer" and all you get is the worldly, fallen, rebellious establishment all over you. You can take the long term approach, living in the light and let these people destroy themselves.
Me? I'd just as soon sit back and watch the congenitally rebellious eleminate themselves from civilized society and relevence all by themselves. I can't think of a more suitable fate for these people than the one that they make for themselves.
Jacob| 1.30.10 @ 10:04AM
Good point Darin!
Roman Catholics on the Left also ignore parts of the bible that make this point because they have other gods that are far more important to them than Christ Our Lord.
Ron Hert| 1.30.10 @ 6:59PM
I think that you-Liberal Facists-Progressives that
are hiding under the old banner of the Spectator being a conservative news media is gone. That is my ignorance showing-that you may have been worth reading-you were hiding and as usual not telling us of your true nature or platform. Now I know and want no part of your news.
Converse | 8.12.11 @ 2:51AM
is good
yaz class action | 10.22.11 @ 1:43PM
i want to share this to my friend this nice blog. thank you
yanyan | 10.10.11 @ 10:48AM
I hope to read more from you guys and continue that good work that is really inspiring to us. Keep up the good job. thanks for the sharing
mesothelioma attorney
L Tod Schlosser | 11.4.11 @ 11:30AM
This is a really good read for me. Must agree that you are one of the coolest blogger I ever saw. Thanks for posting this useful information. This was just what I was on looking for. I'll come back to this blog for sure!
malibu real estate | 10.11.11 @ 1:09AM
I think you spend numerous effort and time updating your blog. I have bookmarked it and I am taking a look ahead to reading new articles. Please keep up the good articles!
wow| 10.17.11 @ 11:17AM
I may thanks too about this blog..most of the viewers find interesting here.
actos lawsuit
yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 12:12PM
i took my friend advice and it was awesome i know its cool to be here and i should get more topic from here..cool :Dmas200
yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:16PM
designed to help them learn many of the gross and find motor skills that they are going to learn anyway.zoloft lawsuit
yanyan| 10.12.11 @ 8:26PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment.
Yaz lawyer
Rinah| 10.17.11 @ 5:16AM
If you have a blog you can share yours here. This is a good place for bloggers all around the world to share the information they have for others.
spot price of silver
ruth| 10.17.11 @ 8:34AM
the way you say about your topic thats what i like thanks for sharing...
silver spot price
fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 8:40PM
The post is written in very a good manner and it entails many useful information for me. I am happy to find your distinguished way of writing the post.
fiance visa
creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:09PM
Top notch site, thanks and also a nice day!greatI want to thank for great informations and opinions
actos lawsuit
creamer| 10.20.11 @ 5:25AM
thanks for postingIm impressed, I must say. Very rarely do I come across a site thats both informative and entertaining, and let me tell you, youve hit the nail on the head.
Actos Cancer
love| 10.20.11 @ 5:26AM
thanks for postingIm impressed, I must say. Very rarely do I come across a site thats both informative and entertaining, and let me tell you, youve hit the nail on the head.
Actos Cancer
love| 10.20.11 @ 1:22PM
thanks you for the awesome blog
accident attorney dallas
devourment| 11.4.11 @ 12:39PM
You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be actually something that I think I would never understand. I appreciate this blog.
L Tod Schlosser
PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:37AM
This is one of the good articles you can find in the net explaining everything in detail regarding the topic.
filipina girls
chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:10AM
I am extremely impressed thanks for sharing all information. It is a great post for the people to get the proper information.
zoloft lawsuit
Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 3:39AM
A great writing skill and nice way of writing things in correct flow. I am learning as much as i can from your blog. If you have some resources from where i can improve my writing skill then it would be great for me.
mesothelioma lawyer