The American Spectator : Birth Control for All?

Text Size

Birth Control for All?

By Lucia Rafanelli on 7.28.11 @ 6:07AM

The Institute of Medicine has some new ideas on the definition of “preventive care.”

If the federal government takes the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) advice, every American will soon be required to purchase health insurance that includes coverage for birth control.

The IOM recently recommended that the government define birth control — including the controversial “morning after pill” and the abortion-inducing pill ella — as “preventive care,” which all insurance providers must cover without copays or additional fees under the rules of Obamacare.

Some proponents of the definition of birth control as “preventive care” even say that such a definition would advance conservative goals, because easier access to the pills would prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions, particularly among low-income women. But will providing free birth control with every health insurance plan really address these problems?

A 2002 study published by the Guttmacher Institute suggests not. The study found that only 12% of women who were not using contraception and subsequently had abortions from 2000-2001 stated that lack of access to contraception was their reason for nonuse. (A much more common reason for nonuse was the belief that the women were at low risk of getting pregnant.)

Dr. Linda Rosenstock, the chairman of the committee responsible for the IOM’s recommendation, dismissed a questioner’s concern about this issue during a live Q&A on the Washington Post website, saying such considerations were beyond the scope of the committee’s charge.

The notion that free birth control for all would discourage abortions should also be doubted because distinguishing between performing a “conventional” abortion and administering the morning after pill or ella is a dubious endeavor. Even if abortion rates were to “decline” after the provision of free birth control, if the use of these pills saw a corresponding increase, the appearance of decline would be misleading: Surgical abortions would simply be replaced with drug-induced ones.

On the subject of unwed mothers’ prominence in poor communities, an article published by the Heritage Foundation reports, “Research on lower-income women who have become pregnant outside of marriage… reveals that virtually none of these out-of-wedlock pregnancies occurred because of a lack of knowledge about and access to birth control.”

Thus, the cry from Planned Parenthood’s vice president of medical affairs, Vanessa Cullins, in a recent New York Times op-ed that “health insurers continue to charge fees that make it difficult, sometimes impossible, for women to prevent unintended pregnancy” may be a little far-fetched.

Moreover, the IOM’s deliberations about birth control may not have been as neutral as they were made to appear. Although the purported reason the government consulted the IOM on this issue was to ensure “nonpartisanship,” Americans United for Life issued a press release last week reporting that Planned Parenthood — hardly a disinterested spectator in the “reproductive rights” debate — was invited to contribute to the IOM’s discussion on whether birth control should be defined as preventive care. And economist Anthony Lo Sasso, the one committee member who dissented from the IOM’s final decision, accused the organization of taking too subjective an approach to determining its recommendations.

Lo Sasso writes in his dissent that the committee did not have sufficient time to effectively review evidence about the “preventive” services in question. In fact, he states:

… the committee process for evaluation of the evidence lacked transparency and was largely subject to the preferences of the committee’s composition. Troublingly, the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.

He goes on to call the committee’s “evidence evaluation process” a “fatal flaw,” especially given the policy significance of its decision.

Lo Sasso also criticizes the committee for failing to conduct cost-benefit analysis of mandating coverage for contraceptives.

In their response to Lo Sasso’s dissent, the other committee members call his views on the committee’s conduct “inaccurate.” The response states that cost-benefit analysis was (again) beyond the scope of its charge. It goes on to emphasize that the committee members have diverse perspectives and experience, and that none of them join Lo Sasso in his indictment of the committee. The five-sentence reply, however, offers no substantive defense of the evidence evaluation process to which Lo Sasso objected.

Regardless, the responsibility now resides with the Department of Health and Human Services to determine whether it will accept IOM’s recommendation and for the first time mandate nation-wide coverage of (and taxpayer funding for, insofar as government money subsidizes those who cannot buy insurance on their own) a contraceptive.

About the Author

Lucia Rafanelli is an editorial intern at The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (62) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Brian Mc| 7.28.11 @ 6:43AM

And yet, another opportunity for us to 'compomise' with the left!

Appleby| 7.28.11 @ 6:58AM

As a Catholic I am against contraception and working for the abolition of taxpayer funding of abortion (and eventually the end of abortion at all). I have this strange idea that self-control is the answer; and a return to the days when women and girls knew the difference between random sex and love; and for that matter, when men and boys knew the difference between a cherished wife and a disposable few minutes of relief with a stranger.

Millions of free condoms are flung to the masses every day, in every venue, and the abortion rate does not come down. Almost half the Black children conceived are aborted -- and its not for lack of condoms.

After all, you have made school compulsory but nobody has found a way to force children to learn. Why do you think making free contraception mandatory will force boys and men to use condoms?

Slacker| 7.28.11 @ 12:26PM

I mean no offense but, what does a good Catholic know of birth control? It is akin to asking a Mormon to recommend a good scotch or asking a Muslim how to cure ham.

Possibly us non Catholics know something you don’t. Nobody really likes using condoms and they don’t work so well when the installer is intoxicated. This is about insurance covering the pill.

And what self control are you talking about? Old Catholic families were notoriously large. I wouldn’t call it self control. I would say they accepted the consequences.

Dai Alanye | 7.28.11 @ 1:33PM

It has nothing to do with who can afford what--it's all about laziness and stupidity, not to mention gross moral weakness. No form of subsidy or education can eliminate those.

Slacker| 7.28.11 @ 3:48PM

How sad every time birth control comes up the conversation turns to moral weakness, laziness, and stupidity. Perhaps the cultural ninnies are intellectually lazy and stupid if they reflexively gag every time they hear birth control.

Cultural conservatives have such a hair trigger that upon any mention of sex they shoot themselves in the foot and some poor bystander gets hit in the nuts by the ricochet. We are only talking about who pays for a circular box of pills.

David C| 7.28.11 @ 6:16PM

No, oh commenter of the slacking mind,

this isn't about cultural conservatives having a knee-jerk reaction against the mere mention of sexual intercourse.

It's about people recoiling at the thought of the threat of legal punishment be directed at them and others for refusing to subisidize the 'we want to copulate without the consequences' mentality of others.

Because, oh stupid one, whether you like it or not, contraception is about engaging in a natural activity while using clever artificial means to avoid it's natural consequences.

You may not give a damn about this truth, but some of your fellow Americans do. And they shouldn't be forced to subsidize the contraceptive activity of others.

TrueBlue| 7.28.11 @ 7:26PM

I'm against it for 2 reasons;

1) I refuse to pay for someone else to get birth control. There are enough line items forced upon me in Obamacare without adding more.

2) If someone is going to have sex, they should accept RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. If they can't afford contraceptives and don't want to risk having a kid, they shouldn't be having sex. End of story.

Should Have Impeached| 7.29.11 @ 7:21PM

Besides which...

Preventive care is about preventing sickness... not about preventing pregnancy. Or as is the case here, mangling the language to con people with the idea that abortion is "preventive." These people have no shame!!!

Anyway, there are strong moral concerns about it, and that is enough for it to NOT BE TAXPAYER PROVIDED!

Sorry to yell, but I can't believe this is even being discussed.

Sheesh... What this country has come to...

Occam's Tool| 7.30.11 @ 11:15AM

Slacker: it isn't preventative medicine---it's birth control. As I useed to say about my women patients who wanted their boyfriends' Viagra covered: if he can't afford the money to show you a good time, date someone else.

Occam's Tool| 7.30.11 @ 11:07AM

When they encourage MDs to not balance bill poor seniors to improve access to care, when they encourage routine HGBA1c testing to screen for diabetes (much easier to do than fasting glucose, and screens over a 90 day period, covering after meal hyperglycemia as well), and encourage wellbutrin XL 450 mg daily instead of 300 daily for smoking cessation---when they do these things I'll believe they're serious about preventative care. Until then, it's all posing and Liberal Clownage.

Margie| 7.30.11 @ 4:04PM

I know about that A1c test, Occam.
Everyone should get it. It shows if you're going to get Diabetes.. far better than the old glucose test, right?

I know because I listen to Dr, Hoffman's radio show.
A colleague of yours, although he isn't a psychiatrist.
He is wonderful.

Some super markets in PA give this test for free, as well as other tests.

KyMouse| 7.28.11 @ 3:51PM

Slacker, I wonder why it's hard for you to believe that lots of couples have large families because they love and value youngsters. "Notoriously large" -- why so negative? I'm not Catholic, but I grew up next door to a Catholic family that has seven kids, and each of them has become a productive adult in his/her own chosen career. They are caring for their elderly parents as devoted children should, and often get together for great family outings.

As for me, I wouldn't trade my own siblings for anything -- we love each other, are there for each other in times of need, and share a common past that we love talking about with each other.

I'm sorry that you weren't as blessed. Apparently, you see children as a burden and a problem to be avoided. Is that what your parents taught you?

TrueBlue| 7.28.11 @ 7:27PM

It's a problem with a lot of libs I've noticed. Kids are a burden until they can be used to benefit them personally.

Occam's Tool| 7.29.11 @ 6:09PM

We have a shortage of children in advanced Western Countries. Remove the phrase "notoriously large" from your vocabulary. My "Big Fat Greek Wedding"---actually the Greek Birth rate is under 1.4 children per woman, with a MEDIAN age over 40. My tiny small Greek wedding is more like it.

This is not true for our enemies, who will have more young men than we will by 2030.

Occam's Tool| 7.30.11 @ 11:13AM

KYMouse: have you thought about running for Governor of KY? You would raise the tone of the joint considerably.

David C| 7.28.11 @ 6:03PM

Good job with the logic, Slacker. Of course only someone who believes in contraception could possibly understand the moral implications of it. Just like only someone who approves of weapons of mass destruction can comprehend the moral implications of using them.

Oh, but wait. You weren't attempting logic, were you? You were just displaying your anti-Catholic sentiments.

"Nobody really likes using condoms and they don’t work so well when the installer is intoxicated. This is about insurance covering the pill."

This is one of the most stupid statements I've ever encountered on the Spectator boards (and I've read some doozies here), or anywhere else for that matter.

What this is about is the government denying to people the freedom to reject insurance plans that subsidize contraception. Your love for the pill and distaste for condoms are your problems, not Appleby's are anyone else's.

Occam's Tool| 7.30.11 @ 11:16AM

And notoriously large families could pay for notoriously Liberal safety nets. Small families can't. It's called Demographics, Slacker.

David C| 7.28.11 @ 5:58PM

Your position is the only sensible one, Appleby. Therefore it is bound to be rejected by most people in our narcisstic, self-worshipping culture.

Timothy L. Pennell| 7.28.11 @ 7:18AM

Some women find it "Impossible to get Birth Control"?
How about keeping your legs closed, til you get a ring on your finger?
How about NOT being a BIG WH*RE?
Do the LEWINSKY Lip Lock.
I understand that it's not even really SEX.

RCV| 7.28.11 @ 3:44PM

Do you hear that, Palin children?

VCR| 7.28.11 @ 5:21PM

I was thinking about your mother.

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 12:11AM

RCV~ a very, very bad swipe.
And how many Lefty Liberals get pregnant out of wedlock?
Do you have a daughter?
If you do, do you or have you locked her in a closet so you know where she is every second?
Youngsters do what they want in spite of how wonderful their parents are.
Consider King David. Consider his Son, Solomon.
Consider not taking swipes at Sarah because we all know that's what you were really doing.

RCV| 8.2.11 @ 2:37AM

It's called humor, Margie.

I do have a daughter, a bright wonderful 29 year-old with a good head on her shoulders, a strong sense of self-respect, and good values. And if she had gotten pregnant in high school, I would have offered her the same love and support the Palins gave to their daughter.

Intelligent Design| 7.28.11 @ 7:31AM

Following the ideology of Romney-Obama Care, how about a federal tax for a mother who has more than 1.75 children? How about mandating that everyone take a certain drug deemed essential for public safety by the Peoples' Deputy for Life Control?

Aces and Eights| 7.28.11 @ 12:02PM

I like it! Instead of subsidizing poor people breeding, we TAX them! Whatever you subsidize you get more of, and whatever you tax you get less of. We subsidize poor people having babies and guess what? They have more babies! Democrats tax productivity and savings and subsidize poverty and debt. So, guess what we wind up with?

KyMouse| 7.28.11 @ 7:37AM

No doubt it's true that "virtually none of those out-of-wedlock pregnancies occurred because of lack of knowledge about and access to birth control."

All of us need to realize that there are many young women who WANT to have babies without being married. An excellent book about this trend is "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," by Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas.

This is a complex problem that has many roots. One of them is the fact that the stigma against illegitimacy is all but gone; years ago, one of the former editors of Rampart magazine, a leftist '60s publication, finally admitted that the lifting of that stigma inevitably results in more illegitimate children. The stigma was painful to children as individuals, but benefitted society and children as a whole.

Very few people take seriously God's warnings against fornication (e.g. I Thessalonians 4:3-8) -- "Hey, that's YOUR truth, not mine!". Add to that a hypersexualized culture that treats virginity as a problem that needs correcting, and the knowledge that government assistance still flows pretty freely, and it's no wonder that illegitimacy rates are rising.

But trying to rekindle the sense of shame that once accompanied illegitimate births (remember The Supremes' song "Love Child"?) might result in more abortions.

This is a problem that hurts society, especially children, who miss out on the benefits of having loving, married parents in their home, and who are likely to spend their young lives in poverty.

I wish I had answers. There was a time when "shacking up" and "being easy" were shameful, and so was "laying an egg without building a nest first," as my grandmother would have put it. Those days are gone.

Mimi| 7.28.11 @ 8:44AM

This escalated in the early 70's...mmmm ABORTION ??? That was when you were told that something that was always viewed as WRONG became RIGHT ! Many women were led down the wrong path by crossing their OWN line of conduct!....and regretted it. Even the litigant in Roe switched and became Pro-Life!
HOPE IS ETERNAL...maybe the Pendulum will
SWING!

Elgordo| 7.28.11 @ 8:02AM

EXPOSE THE RED STATES DEM SENATORS WHO SIGNED REID'S D.O.A. LETTER......
There are 11 vulnerable Dem Senate seats up for re-election in Red States or states that went Republican in 2010.......6 of these Senators are especially vulnerable: ; Ben Nelson of Nebr. Bill Nelson of FL, Claire McCaskill of MO., Jon Tester of Mont., and from the coal rich states of W.Va. and PA. respectively, Joe Manchin and Robt. Casey..... In other states such as Wisc., VA., No. Dak., New Mex., Hawaii., their Dem Senators, many sensing defeat, are retiring. Also NJ's Gov. Christie is making voting for Republicans more popular in the Garden State , so their Dem Senator in 2012, Robt. Menendez, may also be vulnerable. ......The names of these vulnerable Dem Senators should be revealed as having signed Sen. Reid's Dead on Arrival Letter.

old white guy| 7.28.11 @ 9:01AM

and they would get muslims to do this. how???

neanderthal| 7.28.11 @ 9:19AM

Quite apart from the birth control/abortion issue, the whole idea of requiring "insurance" to pay for inexpensive, routine and planned expenses turns the notion of insurance on it's head. Imagine if the federal government required that all car insurance policies pay for "free" gasoline. This is supposed to drive health care costs down? Lunacy.

MATT M.| 7.28.11 @ 10:11AM

I say the less little bastards the better.

Slacker| 7.28.11 @ 11:32AM

I agree.

Riff Raff| 7.28.11 @ 12:03PM

"Fewer" little bastards. Not "less."

Frekki| 7.28.11 @ 2:50PM

Actually no, Riff. "Who cares about one tyke the less". Is correct and in the vernacular.

Personally I think we should eat the poor. It would discourage them and lower their number. A twofer!

For our lib readers, that's called sarcasm.

Al Adab| 7.28.11 @ 3:18PM

Ala Swift and his modest proposal.

"I tremble for my country when I realize God is just, and his justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson."

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 12:13AM

Amen.

Occam's Tool| 7.30.11 @ 11:09AM

Yes, Al, but G-d would save Sodom and Gomorrah if there were 10 good people found within it. You, Margie, and Victor are 3,

David C| 7.28.11 @ 6:17PM

I say the fewer Slackers the better.

JP| 7.28.11 @ 10:17AM

The birthrates are dropping all over the world. In 1970, the global birthrate was about 4.8 live births per female. Today, it is about 2.5 per female. But the rate is falling faster now than in previous decades. Even in traditional Muslim and Catholic societies the birthrates are in free-fall. Abortions are mainly a First World phenomenon. And in Islam, it is equated with murder. Therefore, artificial contraception is the culprit. Whether we like it or not, the birth control advocates have won out.

Take for instance Catholic Brazil. In 1970, its birthrate was almost 5 live births per female. Today, it is less than 1.8 per female. In Indonesia, the birth rate fell from 4.5 in 1970 to 1.9 today. In Catholic Poland, the birthrate is less than 1.5, and in Egypt it is below 2.0 live births per female.

In the US, the only reason we've maintained a birthrate near the 2.1 replacement levels is Hispanic immigration (according to the 2010 census Hispanic birthrates average 3.6 children, while all others average 1.7). But, second generation Hispanics average about 1.6 children per female. In Mexico the birth rate has fallen from near 6 children in 1970 to only 2.5 in 2010.

Let's face it, almost all couples use some form of artificial birth control -where they are rich or poor; white or black; Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim.

Al Adab| 7.28.11 @ 11:22AM

Since they define a child as an inconvenience birth control would by definition be preventive care.

In truth it is simply another way to justify the federal (taxpayer) dollars which finance this entire industry. It is another clear example why all these private organizations need to be removed from the public dole. Either they can raise their own funds and stand on their own merits or they can wither away. That is how markets work.

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 12:15AM

OK. That's it.
I'm nominating you for the Presidency of these United States!!

fmm| 7.28.11 @ 12:01PM

we are truly a lost culture

youfamissim | 7.28.11 @ 12:37PM

Any cost that abates new mouths entering the roles of public assistance is wise. Why pregnancy is not forbidden for those on assistance still leaves me breathless. NORPLANT? IUD? Take the decision out of the hands of those on assistance. IF the person on assistance agrees to sterilization - that too. The long term costs to not provide contraceptives outweigh the prevention.

Frekki| 7.28.11 @ 2:54PM

If the state cannot tell a free person what to do with their body, then the state should also not be responsible for their welfare.
If we are to be a free society, we are going to have to suffer our choices.

Al Adab| 7.28.11 @ 5:49PM

OMg Frekki, you are preaching personal responsibility. Don't forget, it's all Bush's fault. :)

fwb| 7.28.11 @ 3:09PM

Just sterilize every newborn. Once the "quality" of the person is known, those acceptable to the powers that be can have their sterilization reversed, at government expense of course.

It's for the good of society.

N.B.: This is tongue in cheek.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 7.28.11 @ 5:06PM

Sex was NOT meant to be a casual pass time, an athletic event, a game to play, or a group endeavor.

The world is fixated on sex for sex's sake. JUST DO IT! doesn't matter with whom or when or where...LET'S GET IT ON!

Young men are told the goal is to "GET IT", often, and from whom ever is available. Young women are encouraged to display themselves at all time, and in all places. The more skin showing the better and the fewer and tighter the clothes is a sure sign that she is "ready and willing".

Is there no respect for oneself? Is there no morality, or a sense of what's right, and moral, and respectful of oneself, no value of one as a human being...only something to be used and tossed aside like a broken toy?

I wonder. WHAT, as human beings, are we truly becoming????

My little sister contracted HIV from her unfaithful husband, in the prime of her life.
He died a long, painful death. She only lived as long as she did because she was determined not to leave her 2 boys alone and parentless, and only because she tried EVERY SINGLE NEW DRUG/TREATMENT that came down the road.

She lived for almost 20 years beyond her husband, got to see her boys grow into men who do not go down that road to sure destruction.

She eventually died due to the affect of HIV on her ravaged body, and colon cancer. It's been almost 3 years. I miss her............

Al Adab| 7.28.11 @ 5:30PM

My sincere sympathy on your loss. With great freedom comes great responsibility. As you note the lust for immediate gratification seems to include a loss of personal responsibility. No self respect, no morality only a hedonistic culture head who knows where. See my 3:18 above for Jefferson. Best wishes.

Nick| 7.28.11 @ 7:53PM

Naturalborn Texicanette,

Thank you for sharing such a personal and painful story. My sincere condolences for your loss.

Occam's Tool| 7.30.11 @ 11:10AM

NT---G-d Bless you, and I grieve for your loss. Your sister sounds like she was aces, and I'm sure G-d loved her.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 7.28.11 @ 5:09PM

P.S. I know my RANT has little to do with birth control..........

Personally, I believe children, no matter when they come, are a gift from God and conpletely a precious gift.

If you don't want one, it's easy...USE BIRTH CONTROL OR HAVE YOURSELF FIXED. Period. Easy.

Naturalborn Texicanette| 7.28.11 @ 9:07PM

Thank you Al and Nick for your kind and thoughtful words.

Guess I'm getting jaded. Just fed up with our STUPID society and the idea that sex is some kind of competition or a sick game to play.

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 12:20AM

Texicanette,

That was no rant, and thank you for sharing. I'm so sorry for your lovely sister and what she had to suffer because of her unfaithful husband.

May God bless and comfort you, and your sister's sons as well.

Nick| 7.29.11 @ 1:52AM

Naturalborn Texicanette,

Your are very welcome. Don't let it get you down.

But, birth control is not the answer, even within wedlock. Birth control is evil. And, it has lead to more abortions, not fewer. As Pope Paul VI prophesied, over 40 years ago, in his encyclical Humanae Vitae.

Until 1930, ALL mainline Protestant denominations, along with the Catholic Church, forbade the use of contraceptives. Now, only the Catholic Church condemns their use. (Although, I'm not sure about the Eastern Orthodox, they still might.)

Birth control makes one look at their spouse as just a means of pleasure. It rejects the reason God gave us the marital act in the first place, to "be fruitful and multiply."
God Bless!

Margie| 7.29.11 @ 12:24AM

The answer to all this~ the Liberals, the young girls getting pregnant and having abortions, the lack of morality~
Is Christ. He is the answer. apart from Him we are all sin-aholics.
We need to go out to the highways and byways introducing the young girls and boys to the Saviour.
It's the only way! (Lk. 14:23).

POST American| 7.30.11 @ 1:13AM

------------BOTTOM LINE--------------

----Of course, always revelatory surveying
such Rockefeller 'managed' debates as 'Birth
Control' --how sensible, simple reponses are
utterly 'overlooked'.

Simply make it law the father of the child,
wed or unwed, be held responsible for
the child's support ---or even , in good Rockefeller
'exterminate the unwanted' fashion, responsible
for their 'fave' 'other options'.

Via DNA this policy is now cheap
and easy to implement. Surely overnight you
would see the irresponsible rogue male disappear
from our franchise slum and porno landscape.

Seems the EUGENICS crazed psychopaths
of our 'benny violent' TAX FREE foundations
never take any account of this.

$$$$$$trange, don't you think?

Margie| 7.30.11 @ 4:11PM

Catholicism teaches that using any type method for birth control is sin.
But that's wrong. They are not the authority and have absolutely no right claiming this.

As to government sponsored any-type-of method-birth-control including abortion~ NO!!

Nick| 7.31.11 @ 10:36AM

Margie,

I assume you were directing this comment at me. Did you read mine?

All Protestant denominations, i.e., all Christians, condemned the use of birth-control for 400 years, until 1930.

What changed? The Word of God? The Word of God does not change. So, it had to be man who changed, right?

Have you not heard of the sin of Onan?

"Judah got a wife named Tamar for his firstborn, Er. But Er, Judah's firstborn, greatly offended the Lord, so the Lord took his life. Then Judah said to Onan, 'Unite with your brother's widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother's line.'
"Onan, however, knew that the descendents would not be counted as his; so, whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too." - Genesis 38:6-10

Margie| 7.31.11 @ 8:46PM

It was for general consumption.

And the thing that offended the Lord was that the man didn't obey Judah.

It had nothing to do with "birth control."
Nice try, though.

Nick| 8.1.11 @ 1:34AM

Margie,

It had everything to do with birth control, because it is evil. God commands, many times, to be "fruitful and multiply."

Also, increases in birth control lead to increases in abortion. Because they are both evil.
God Bless!

POST American| 8.2.11 @ 1:18AM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

STILL haven't had enough?

Consider this:

Even as we write the FAKE 'Left'/'Right'
Congress now joining with the Executive
in a 'Super Congress' ---a Council of 13.

SO, its now official:
America's NOW under its very first SOVIET.

---------------HUAC meets NUREMBERG------------

Spread the word.

supra | 10.18.11 @ 1:42AM

I like this your post very much, would you write more and more about this.

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 4:19PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 10:45AM

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats