The Kansas House has approved "Alexa’s Law," which would make it a crime to kill or harm a fetus. It excludes abortion, but many pro-choice supporters believe that the bill — which defines a person as an "unborn child" at "any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth" — is really about laying the legal groundwork for eventually outlawing abortion (though this has yet to occur in other states that have similar laws).
Julie Burkhart, director of the pro-choice ProKanDo political action committee, made the best argument against the bill in a commentary in today’s Eagle: It’s unnecessary. As she noted, the Legislature debated the same issue in 1995 and decided that the best approach was to create separate crimes for harming a pregnant woman, rather than to define a fetus as a separate person, which might have other legal consequences. If the goal is to punish a criminal for harming a fetus, the state already has a law that can do that.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
77 Comments
The only people who “need” this law are the lawless operation rescue types.
South Dakota anyone?
Cue the OR whining….
“If the goal is to punish a criminal for harming a fetus, the state already has a law that can do that.”
Change the word “fetus” to gay or Black and this could be about the Hate Crime laws. What’s the diff?
“If the goal is to punish a criminal for harming a fetus, the state already has a law that can do that.”
What is this law? And why is the family so concerned with this law going through if there is already a law that does the same thing?
This law is terrible — well meant, I’m sure, but poorly written. The verbage should have been limited to “viable fetus”.
AFN,
Basically, the premise behind this law is that if a pregnant woman is killed, has a miscarriage due to the perpetration of a felony (ie an assault), or if she otherwise loses her child due to the act of a crime, then they could prosecute the criminal for a second charge of murder, for that of the child. The current law does not allow for this – what it allows for is a seperate prosecution under special charges ONLY for the crime committed against the woman – that’s why the Brooks family is pushing this so hard – Alexa, the baby this law is named for, was not born at the time of Chelsea Brooks’ murder – however, Chelsea Brooks was full term in her pregnancy, and Alexa would have been able to live outside the womb (special medical circumstances notwithstanding) but prosecutors cannot charge the perpetrators with murder for BOTH chelsea and Alexa – and that is what the family wants…
rm, then how is “viable fetus” defined? I read today of the survival, due to modern medical technology, of an infant <23 weeks at ‘birth’. Is that a “viable fetus”? Or is a viable fetus one that, if born, stands a reasonable medical probability of survival if only normal nourishment and hydration is provided, without artificially lengthening gestation in a neonatal ICU? Is it somewhere in between? I don’t know.
It seems to me that the 1995 legislation achieves the goal, that is, providing another crime for charging and sentencing enhancement; surely we could let it stand at that.
And, while we use existing laws instead of wasting time on unnecessary new ones, let’s also make sure someone sentenced for murder is punished adequately whether they killed one or two or…
Can our state legislators only tackle topics that may bring lots of publicity? Are they as ignorant as they appear?
Ok, I see the difference, thanks Wendy. I was supportive of Alexa’s law before but I didn’t know that there was a similar law on the books. I think these people are just afraid that this will later affect abortions, which I don’t really think is an issue (I have my own opinions about that which I won’t get into right now).
“And, while we use existing laws instead of wasting time on unnecessary new ones,…”
“And why is the family so concerned with this law going through if there is already a law that does the same thing?”
Are you debating the Hate Crime laws?
Too many variables exist whereby simple negligence that resulted in the accidental loss of a pregnancy could be charged as a murder.
I’m with Linda on this one. Let’s just prosecute the original crime full-force.
And, yes, linda – our state legislators ARE as ignorant as they appear. :)
Agree with linda and gs – prosecute existing laws. While in many ways I am very sympathetic with the family I just see this as opening a horrible can of worms.
I seem to recall something like “bad cases make bad laws” from one of my law classes. I think that is what we are seeing here.
I agree with linda, gs and ben.Prosecute Hate Crimes with the existing laws, full force.
Fleetwood – No, I’m not debating the Hate Crime Laws – I don’t even know what those are in KS. I was simply trying to figure out the difference between Alexa’s Law and this previous law that supposedly covers the same thing. I did even know anything like that existed in KS.
“And why is the family so concerned with this law going through if there is already a law that does the same thing?”
Easy. That poor family has had the tragic loss of their daughter turned into a political cause for the radical right. The RR’s have manipulated those grieving people to get what they want: Another legislative wedge-issue. They should be ashamed.
This issue could be easily solved by simply doubling the sentence for crimes against a pregnant woman. In the case of murder, pregnancy would be an aggravating factor to allow seeking the death penalty. This way we don’t need questions of viability or fetal death to punish violent criminals.
Ditto most of you above. This new law is at best unnecessary, at worst leads to a legal minefield where neither side in the abortion battle knows what the outcome may be.
If we want to debate abortion, and change that law, debate it. But don’t use the criminal code as a back door opening on that issue.
To my mind, GMC70 gets it exactly right. The proposed law is being used to define a new class of persons into existence without openly debating the definition of personhood, and whether or not it applies to fetuses, viable or not.
Once again, GMC, we are in agreement. Now I need to get back to work!
“The Lib’s have manipulated those grieving people to get what they want: Another legislative wedge-issue. They should be ashamed.”
Are you talking about that gay guy who was dragged behind the truck in Texas?
They are just doing the usual…trying to suck the cock of the anti abortion crowd.
Besides the guy in jail did not cause her death…the state legislators killed her with their idiotic “pervert” law that essentially makes all young males into lifetime criminals for humping their teen girlfriends. She had told all her friends since she was 12 that she was going to “date” him and “be” with him. Ill let you figure out what that was.
Some states are finally smartening up and adding the FEMALES to the pervert registry if they are involved in a CONSENTUAL case. See how the mommies and daddies like that kettle of fish…heh.
Putting these folks on a pervert list completely destroys their entire adult life. Having consensual sex does NOT….did it boomer/hippie moms/dads?
These lists will preclude them from EVER getting a job or anything else that involves a background check…and for what.
What they were doing is FAR different than someone physically KIDNAPPING an 8 year old from the playground, raping AGAINST their will etc. This is a whole differing issue.
Better lookout you baby boomers, if they make it retroactive we could all end up in jail for that evil “summer of love” when we were humping every teen girl that ironed her hair.
“They are just doing the usual…trying to suck the cock of the gay and Black crowd.”
“Besides the guy in jail did not cause her death…the state legislators killed her with their idiotic “pervert” law that essentially makes all young males into lifetime criminals.”
mrbill: Well, if he is not to blame, let’s let the poor kid out. I mean after all, he was in a tough spot. She was the one who refused to have an abortion. What else could he do but murder her?
“didn’t cause her death”
You stick around here, you will hear about everything.
See, CF, we can agree on some things!
“The proposed law is being used to define a new class of persons into existence….”
Like cf says, that is what the Hate Crime laws do. Elevate a class of people to special status existence.
“Are you talking about that gay guy who was dragged behind the truck in Texas?”
The gentleman was BLACK, not gay.
The gay gentleman that was killed was Matthew Shepard in Wyoming.
Keep your hate crimes straight.
Agreed, GMC has it correct. In the debates with Kline, Morrison stated his approval for raising the penalties against perps who kill a pregnant women.
Such extra penalties might function like hate crime legislation, but I don’t know that it falls into that category.
This is a serious question, why is it a far right talking point to be against hate crime legislation?
You are correct. When people are put into special, protected classes, I get confused.
There is no “special protected class” for blacks or gays. Hate laws are designed to provide additional prosecution for criminals that kill or injure people solely because of their race, color creed or sexual orientation.
The operative word is “solely.”
Hogwash. It’s pandering. You stab somebody, anybody 15 times and you have a hate crime. A hate crime of a protected, special class.
“The operative word is “solely.”"
Do you need help using the dictionary, Fleet? I was not referring to shoes or fish – I was referring to a crime directed at someone for no reason other than their class status.
I realize that you are intellectually challenged, Fleet, but try to understand the concept.
By the way, why would you object to a hate crime definition for crimes against minorities?
Oh, yes, you are a WHITE MALE.
Sorry I asked, my bad.
There are already laws against hurting other people. Why would you need another one?
ws- You get a check mark for the “my bad” remark.
By the way, why would you object to a hate crime definition for crimes against minorities?
WS: Don’t hate crime laws work both ways? I mean for instance, black on white as well as white on black?
I really don’t know but I would think they would be unconstitutional otherwise.
Steven, WS -
It’s not a “far right” talking point – why do so many automatically label anything you disagree with as “far right?” It makes it easier to demonize a position without dealing with substance, I suppose.
A reasonable person can be against additional “hate” crimes. In a criminal trial, generally motive is not an element of the offense; I don’t have to prove WHY a defendant beat a person to death, just that he did. When the crime becomes a “hate crime,” then motive becomes an element of the offense that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That requires a jury to peek into a person’s head (and just how do we do that?) and find WHY a crime was committed. And under Apprendi, such a finding must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in order to enhance a sentence, either during the trial or at a bifurcated sentencing hearing.
The victim is no less dead – is he “more dead” or “worse dead” because he was killed out of bigotry? And, to take the Texas case, it’s hard to imagine a more henious crime than dragging a man behind a truck, no matter what his color. How could you possible enhance it beyond the hate that is expressed in the act?
Hate crimes come dangerously close to punishing thought; the one thing America cannot and should not punish. And they are unnecessary; the criminal code has sufficient punishment for the crime itself, without adding in an element of motive.
And yes, the laws themselves are pandering. Appearance over substance.
“The operative word is “solely.”"
I reposted this point for your benefit Fleet.
… and I would suppose, Outlander, that a black person could be prosecuted for an assault on a white person – i.e., Howard’s Beach – but I am not sure of the law in NYC.
I have done some checking, however, and I have yet to find where a band of roving homosexual men have assaulted straight guys.
There have been a few cases where gay guys have chased down straight fellows, but in the end, they just wanted to compliment them on their clothes.
“It’s not a ‘far right’ talking point – why do so many automatically label anything you disagree with as ‘far right?’ It makes it easier to demonize a position without dealing with substance, I suppose.”
I think you are being unusually naive to say the above. There is a literature that indicates those who are of the dominionism persuation are looking to overturn hate crimes so as to make their efforts of installing Biblically inspired laws against homosexuals, etc. easier.
Here is a reference. I have the book loaned out now, but if you are interested I could get it to you somehow.
http://www.welcometothehomeland.com/page.php?s=1
It is interesting and troubling that extremists as I describe, and the book describes, can get cover from mainstream conservatives such as yourself.
I am so disappointed that our House members couldn’t see past this and made it into a political issue. I don’t think Chelsea Brook’s family really gets the impact of this. Most people don’t.
But if you’ve dealt at all with any of the anti-abortion groups, they will use ANY piece of legislation that gives them any wiggle room. Just look at what Phill Kline did, he created his own category for what he felt was important in documentation. The legislators know this, but their voters do not.
This is a bad law, as evident that it was shot down every year before when it was introduced as the Unborn Victim of Violence Acts. And yes, this has been used by anti-choicers in other states to justify putting someone on trial for abortion related issues.
I am hoping the Senate will use more smarts. I’ve already spoken to my Senator. Thankfully the antis have made him angry, and right now he’s not likely to be catering to them.
It is our responsibility to put forth what this bill is really about. It defines a person as anyone en utero. And it WILL be challenged as soon as the ink is wet to start applying to abortion.
If you are pro-choice in any means, you need to write your senators and house members RIGHT NOW.
The better law would absolutely be doubling penalties for any crime against a pregnant woman.But that wouldn’t suit the anti-choice groups. I can promise you they’d fight against it. That right there tells you they aren’t concerned about the life of the woman.
Outlander, what Mr Bill was referring to was the push to make all consensual sex between teens criminal. I understand what he was saying, why didn’t you?
I don’t speak lib, Mom. Good thing I have you to interpret…
Actually, I did understand. And I had no comment on that part of mrbill’s post.
Outliar is proof that the old saying “opinions are like armpits, everyone’s got one” isn’t true.
You have to have a brain to have an opinion.
OLiar just listens to hate radio and types–no analysis necessary.
Oh, hi CapnAmerica-ca. I’m glad you weighed in with your usual contribution. Still following me around the blog like a puppy, I see.
“Besides the guy in jail did not cause her death…the state legislators killed her with their idiotic ‘pervert’ law that essentially makes all young males into lifetime criminals for humping their teen girlfriends.”
Pmom,
I hate to defend outlander and all, but the above blame of the state for this perp’s planning and hiring of someone to commit murder, is just a little too much.
The law is pretty clear, if you are male and over age 16, having intercourse with girls under 16 is a very risky situation.
We could say, and be backed up by neuroscience , that developmentally boys brains don’t become fully developed until age 23-24. The centers govening judgement develop last. Girls develop earlier on a neurological basis too over boys.
When my boy starts dating he is going to have to give the girl’s parents a notarized statement about how his judgement centers are not pruned nor mylinized and therefore they are putting their dauthers at risk and do they really want to do that? Any parent who would sign that agreement would worry me, for sure.
No no no, Steven I get it. The only person to blame for this girl’s death IS the man who killed her.
But I do think the law is setting up for some bad things to be happening to a lot of people.
it just doesn’t take into account the way kids are. Girls are more mature than boys at that age, they will seek out older boys. And I think it is really scary to be treating all these kids on hormones as criminals.
But that does NOT excuse him murdering the girl.
“Too many variables exist whereby simple negligence that resulted in the accidental loss of a pregnancy could be charged as a murder.”
That was exactly my first thought.
“Better lookout you baby boomers, if they make it retroactive we could all end up in jail for that evil “summer of love” when we were humping every teen girl that ironed her hair.”
Hehehe You missed me, mrbill. (heating up the iron as I type…)
We can’t double the penalties for assault against a pregnant woman. But neither can we file charges when a fetus is destroyed as long as we allow the destruction of fetuses under the law. Either a fetus has a value, or it doesn’t. There is no gray area here.
Hate Crime legislation MUST go. Our nation was founded upon the concept of ‘equal rights under the law,’ but attempting to punish the ‘thoughts’ of the criminal is ludicrous.
Women were just added to the list of protected persons under the ‘hate crime’ umbrella.
So what happens when a minority (also protected) rapes a woman? Does one protected person cancel out the protection of the other?
If a white man rapes a white woman – hate crime….since she’s a woman.
If a white man rapes a black woman – double hate crime…she’s a woman, and black.
If a black man rapes a black woman – hate crime, he’s onle protected once, she’s protected twice.
If the black man rapes a white woman – no hate crime…each minority cancels eachother out.
Sheesh.
General Sherri – the point of hate crime legilation is if the crime was comitted “solely” because the victim was black, gay, etc…..
Damn, how hard headed are you Republicans?
Wasn’t it the father of the kid that got her pregnant who paid to have the kid’s friends do it? Or am I confused? (Very likely today.)
And just where were the girl’s parents? I know how hard it is to keep track of your kids, especially teenagers, but didn’t they file for a restraining order well AFTER they learned of her pregnancy?
“developmentally boys brains don’t become fully developed until age 23-24.”
23-24…that’s stretching it. Not sure that a male brain ever becomes fully developed. ;)
Steven:
I’m not being naive at all. You simply seek to attach a point of view to what you label as “far right” and thus dismiss it without dealing with the matter on the merits. A common technique here, unfortunately; it’s intellectually dishonest, but widely used.
As to “dominionist” folks: NO ONE takes them seriously, except the far left. The left likes to wave a few nuts around as evidence of the “threat” from the right. RIIIIGHT. Just part of the tactic of demonizing what you disagree with. Again, intellectually dishonest.
Can’t we just deal with this issue without bringing in this extraneous nonsense?
“23-24…that’s stretching it. Not sure that a male brain ever becomes fully developed. ;)”
Watch it rox – I resemble that commet!
WS – You’ve missed – or ignored – the point. Is a murder victim “more dead” or “worse dead” if bigotry was a motive? And how do I prove that motive? Sometimes it may be obvious, but often not so. Aren’t we here really criminally punishing unacceptable thought? And do we really want to do that?
How about punishing the ACT?
And another fair point previously raised and ignored (unless I missed it; I haven’t attempted to read every post) – does it cut the other way? If a black kills a white because he’s white, is it a “hate crime?”
No, GM, you missed the point… the point was that a hate crime as defined was when the victim was attacked “solely” because of his status.
Why is that so difficult for people to understand?
I am not suggesting every attack on a gay or black or yada, yada victim is a hate crime.
It is only when the attack was based “solely” on the miority status.
Criminal profilers can tell when a crime was motivated by something the person felt, simply by how the crime scene was left. What transpires absolutely is a manifestation of what the person felt that resulted in their crime.
Some of the most hideous crimes are because of hatred of a person or the kind of person.
Serial killers hate women at their core. There was one female serial killer who hated men. Hate crimes have legitimate relevance. Is it a deterrent? I don’t know, is the KKK still lynching people?
If there was any doubt as to the anti-abortion groups feelings on Alexa’s law…
Kansans for Life’s website has it number one as what they want you to call your senators about.
It’s their dream bill they’ve been fighting for years, it just has a new name.
And on Operation Rescue’s site:
“While this bill purposefully does not deal with abortion, it does contain language that would restore the status personhood to the pre-born – a necessary step toward the abolition of abortion: It will help the public better understand that babies in the womb are valued and must be protected by law.”
operationrescue.org/?p=546
I fully and 100% support abortion and the right to it but if somebody brings harm to a pregnant female and that female has the intent to bring the fetus to life then I would advocate a murder charge against the person who causes the fetus to die.
If anybody over 18 sleeps with anybody under 16, it should be a minimum 10 year sentence without parole.
“Can’t we just deal with this issue without bringing in this extraneous nonsense?”
I think you’re whistling past the graveyard which is worse than so-called “intellectual dishonesty.”
37% of Iowa primary Republican voters identify themselves as evangelicals — that translates into that group having a large say in who your candidate for president in 2008 will be. These folks have a disproportionate say in the political arena – especially in the Republican party. “Nobody takes them seriously.” Except McCain and Romney. McCain is trying to kiss up to the religions right. Romney was firmly pro-choice, but is now firmly pro-life… the timing of the change was interesting, too. No flip-flopping by those Repubs though.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900916.html
If you would look at the issues without your denial glasses, I might take your points seriously. You make that very difficult to do. Denial is a great defense mechanism if you are 2 years old. So save your accusations of dishonesty.
Another source disputing GMC’s ridiculous claim that the Republican party has no interest or concern about evangelical christians or dominionists:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-18-christian-right-vote_x.htm
“NO ONE takes them seriously, except the far left.”
The above goes down as my nomination for GMC’s dumbest statement yet. Can he top it? We fans await his next post…
Man, the only people who could stop George Bush before 2006 were the evangelicals. Remember Harriet Miers?
GMC,
I am glad there are blind Republicans like you because if there weren’t we might not have Paul Morrison in as the KS AG.
Kansas moderate Republicans have to appeal to a base that does not want them. Fine. We dems will take them. Morrison has done more on the consumer protection in a few weeks than Kline did in his entire term. So, in conclusion, please keep up the good work and don’t take the base of your party seriously.
One good reason to make crimes against pregnant women carry even stiffer penalties is because homicide is a common killer of pregnant women.http://incestabuse.about.com/cs/domesticabuse/a/pregnantmurder.htm
Yes lindainks,
Men who batter women tend to do it more often when the woman is pregnant. I have heard a whole lot of reasons for what might be the cause for that. It is just very difficult to understand.
I’m sick and tired of the pro-choice lobby screaming that this bill is an erosion of abortion rights. The word “abortion” does not appear in this bill. It gets down to justice for the unborn baby, and with medical advances allowing babies to live outside the womb earlier and earlier during pregnancy, it’s unconscionable to think that harming a fetus, an unborn baby, is not a crime.
No wonder O’Reilly and others are lambasting Kansas as an abortion mecca. It’s liberals like $ebeliu$, Tiller the Baby Killer Morri$on, and other liberal whiners who just don’t get it. They think abortion is the end all to be all. If liberals spent half as much time on helping improve the lot of the underclass as they claim to, rather than scream about abortion, we wouldn’t have the problems we do right now.
Okay, time now, for the rational arguments.
Too bad, GMC can’t see that TillerHater is a member of his base.
GMC, you and your party tied yourselves to this stuff, stop whining about it, ok?
Cue the violins, please…
Steve;
YOU associate “evangelicals” and “dominionists.” They are not the same, in fact, this is just more of the same crap. Tie and smear, bait and switch. Second verse, same as the first.
Will I take the votes of evangelicals? Absolutely. Will I take the votes of those who believe (as I do) that Roe was wrongly decided and will work, within the system and according to the rules of the political process, to change that? Absolutely. Will I apologize for that? No (and no, I won’t turn this into an abortion thread).
Both parties are big tent parties. I don’t see you complaining about all those conservative democrats (i.e. Webb, for example) you stuffed in Congressional seats after the last election.
No one (aside from a few irrelevent nuts) seeks to impose a religious state. That’s left wing fearmongering. Period.The dems have their nuts as well, like Phelps, and they’re equally irrelevent. I don’t constantly try to tie you to Lenin; why do you insist on that tactic?
The amazing thing about this discussion is that, on the point of this thread, we 1) agree on this bill; it’s a bad idea, as I posted above, and 2) while I’m not excited about “hate crimes,” as they create prosecution problems and are dangerously close to thought crimes, I don’t think the future of the republic is at stake here. So many on the left seem convinced the sky is about to fall at any moment.
Reasonable people can disagree and still be reasonable people. Why you have chosen to make this an attack thread, I cannot fathom. Are you that insecure? Do you have that little confidence in what you believe? Why are you that small?
“Reasonable people can disagree and still be reasonable people. Why you have chosen to make this an attack thread, I cannot fathom. Are you that insecure? Do you have that little confidence in what you believe? Why are you that small?”
I like the last question, especially… Convinces me that your are open to debate. Not!
The sky is falling meme is a little less defensible than what Fleetwood posts. That’s the best you can do? Profoundly sad, I am sorry to say.
You stick with your plan. It is working realllly… well.
The incredibly sad thing is, the Republican party has done a great deal for the state of Kansas. Apologists for the less defensible portion of your party do not help you or me.
While I don’t think you are stupid, I must conclude you are somewhat deluded. That is very sad, in my humble opinion.
…that “you’re” not…sorry.
“YOU associate ‘evangelicals’ and ‘dominionists.’”
That is a fair criticism. I think “conservative Christians”, “evangelicals”, and “dominionists” are along a dimensional spectrum, but their voting habits tend to lump them into the same cluster. More research will reveal if I am right or wrong. Care to post something that disputes my position. Thought not, but thanks.
“No one (aside from a few irrelevent nuts) seeks to impose a religious state. That’s left wing fearmongering. Period.”
Yeah, just ask any gay person how real the dominionist threat is in kansas.
Cant wait until they come for YOU gmc.
Damn, and does anyone remember the viciousness of the terry fox supporters on what is STILL the most commented upon thread in the history of this blog?
I can do a bone dig, or repost the link, but why? Anyone who thinks the dominionist evangelicals are NOT a threat to democracy AND the constitution is in complete denial.
Am I the only one who remembers the dominionist postings there? I hardly call that a “few” nutcases. It’s a whole bushel basket of nuts.
But gmc doesnt want to claim them ’cause they make the rest of the repukes look bad? Sorry, too late. They are ALL yours in the brotherhood of conservatives.
Doesn’t this law that they are thinkin about depend on the intent of the mother? I mean if she wanted the baby her intent was to carry it to full term and what the attacker does prevent life by outside attack. I think this is intent to prevent life more than it is to murder. Not sure what legal language that would be.
For god’s sake, the dominionists in this state have ALREADY put phred phelps in charge of the kansas constitution.
And you think these evangelical republicans DONT have a dominionst agenda? Gay people were just the start. Women and reproductive rights are up next. And whose ox will they be goring after that?
Anyone wanna bet it will be that mean ol’ libral media?
If the evangelical dominionists are not stopped now, they will continue their march through every piece of the constitution.
And when they come for YOU? There will be no one left to speak for you. And might I add, you will be no better off than the average gay person in kansas.
Welcome to the jungle.
KFG -
Phelps is the Democrats’ nut. You can have him.
Bait. switch. repeat.
“Yeah, just ask any gay person how real the dominionist threat is in kansas.”
I’ll ask you. How are the dominionist’s causing any problems in Kansas for gay people? Besides gay “marriage”, I don’t see where the problem is.
“Besides gay “marriage”, I don’t see where the problem is.”
That sounds a lot like the old joke “Other than the unfortunate incident Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
Take a look at the non-discrimination legislation that is being held up in committee. Look at the domestic partnership registry killing bill IS getting out of committee.
Oh, but other than gay marriage…
Thanks fleetie. I think we all see you now for who you are!
gmc, so if phred represents all democrats, he must also represent all dominionist christians too, right?
I mean, he has the same self declared affiliation with both, no?
Thanks for making my points for me. You do it so much better than I ever could!
That was a non-answer (as usual), I said beside the gay “marriage” deal. There is nothing to complain about.
Fleetie, are you really that dense or is it just an act?