Ohio Republicans Want to Make It Harder for Women to Get Long-Term Birth Control



Ohio Republicans are backing a bill aimed at restricting abortion access, as they do. One of the interesting/atrocious things about this one is that it would—in the service of reducing abortions—make it harder for women to get the most long-acting form of birth control short of sterilization, the intrauterine device (IUD).

The first hearing for House Bill 351, sponsored by Cincinnati Republican Rep. John Becker, was held yesterday. At the hearing, Becker said insurance plans should be barred from covering IUDs because preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg—which IUDs could theoretically do, though they primarily work by preventing sperm from getting to that egg in the first place—could be considered abortion.

"This is just a personal view. I'm not a medical doctor," he added. 

Sound policy reasoning there, Rep! Becker also acknowledged the wording of the bill could be interpreted to ban coverage of birth control pills, too, but he hadn't intended it that way. He's not a medical doctor, remember, just someone trying to play one with the weight of the state behind him.

Under H.B. 351, all insurance plans in Ohio would be barred from offering abortion coverage. This isn't a ban on "taxpayer funded abortions" we're talking about—it's an explicit restriction on the kinds of legal services that private insurance companies (and by extension, employers who offer health plans) can offer. Conservatives decry this sort of thing vociferously when it's Obama making every insurance company and employer cover certain services. 

In addition to the abortion coverage ban, H.B. 351 would prohibit public employee insurance plans and Medicaid from covering IUDs, one of the safest, most effective, most cost-effective, and longest-lasting form of contraception. 

There are two types of IUDs, a copper device and a plastic device that releases hormones of the variety found in birth control pills. The copper IUD is one of the only forms of birth control—short of, say, condoms and pulling out—that doesn't involve synthetic hormones. The upfront cost runs between $500 and $900, which can be prohibitive for women without insurance coverage. In the long run, however, IUDs can end up costing less than other forms of birth control (not to mention abortion or pregnancy) because they're effective for up to 12 years. 

But as the minutiae of women's contraceptive decisions increasingly becomes fair legislative game on both sides, expect to see more fights over whether IUDs magically become abortion because some people think they are. In Saline County, Kansas, the county commission is currently at odds over IUDs. Commissioner John Price said funds intended for county health services to buy IUDs were "murder" and he wouldn't stand for it. 

Kansas is one of 10 states—along with Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah—that prohibit all insurance plans for state residents from covering abortion. Twenty-five states currently have laws prohibiting abortion coverage for plans on the state health exchanges. 

NEXT: In Defense of Maureen Dowd's Risible Col About Her Bad Trip on a Pot-Laced Candy Bar

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do these people listen to the inane garbage that spills out of their mouths?

    1. Sadly, that is in fact why they spill it. They think it smells like flowers.

    2. Stupid Party going to stupid.

  2. “Conservatives decry this sort of thing vociferously when it’s Obama” etc.

    With all respect, ENB, you’re missing the point of what prolife conservatives (and prolife liberals such as Nat Hentoff) object to. To them, abortion is (or should be) criminal homicide. Believing as they do, why should they permit insurance companies to cover the cost of criminal homicide?

    You disagree because you *don’t* think abortion is or should be criminal homicide. But just because you disagree with your opponents doesn’t make them hypocrites.

    1. Now, I’m talking about actual abortions, I don’t know if the IUD would qualify.

      1. But at least the prolifers have made progress, if the choicers have to resort to “OMG birth control!” arguments – it indicates that arguing directly for legal abortion isn’t necessarily popular, so they bring in birth control as a human shield.

        1. IUD is birth control Eddie.

          1. Yes, but where I was uncertain was whether it’s an abortifacient too.

            1. My point is it is silly to claim they are using birth control as a ‘human shield;’ IUDs are birth control and the law squarely restricts coverage of them.

              This is where ‘a person is a person no matter how small [and, seemingly, theoretical]’ to calls for restricting things that are used for the purpose of traditional birth control.

            2. IUD prevents implantation. Biology books say pregnancy starts at fertilization. Medical books say pregnancy starts at implantation. Take your pick as to whether IUDs cause abortions or prevent pregnancies.

              1. “Take your pick as to whether IUDs cause abortions or prevent pregnancies.”

                I wasn’t taking my pick, I was responding to ENB’s claim that OMG the Republicans are such hypocrites because they support a *regulation* of *business!*

                1. Yes, but where I was uncertain was whether it’s an abortifacient too.

                  I was trying to help you be less uncertain.

                  1. OK, thank you

                    1. I got into a big fight with someone a year or so ago about Plan B. Same topic. I hit google books an found half a dozen modern biology text books that said pregnancy begins at fertilization. He responded with half a dozen medical texts that say pregnancy begins at implantation.

                      Given the medical definition, Plan B, IUDs, or any form of birth control that prevents implantation is not an abortifactant. Many religious people believe the opposite (I believe the catholic church is still opposed to IUDs, but I haven’t been up to date on catholic doctrine for some time).

                    2. The only addendum to that is that it’s never been proven that Plan B does prevent implantation and not simply fertilization.

                    3. Yes.

                      So the moral objections to Plan B (by those trying to ban it) assume that Plan B can in some cases prevent implantation and that preventing implantation is an abortion.

                      My opinion has been that since 1/3rd to 2/3rds of all fertilized eggs fail to implant, it doesn’t really matter one way or the other.

                    4. I agree it doesn’t matter in my mind but there is a lot of misinformation about Plan B that is spouted. The people who call it an abortificant are just plain wrong even by their own definition of abortion.

              2. IUDs don’t prevent implantation. IUDs theoretically could prevent implantation, but their main MOA is inhibition of sperm. Copper IUDs inhibit sperm by creating a sterile inflammatory response that causes the immune system to attack and kill sperm. The hormonal IUDs inhibit sperm by creating changes to cervical mucus so sperm can’t penetrate it, with a secondary action of the sterile inflammatory reaction with immune system response.

                Interference in implantation is something that could happen, but it’s very unlikely. Both IUDs primarily work by preventing sperm from ever reaching the egg.

      2. But at least the prolifers have made progress, if the choicers have to resort to “OMG birth control!” arguments – it indicates that arguing directly for legal abortion isn’t necessarily popular, so they bring in birth control as a human shield.

        1. If prolifers have made progress, why do they have to resort to these cowardly indirect attacks on abortion rights?

          1. cowardly?

            Stupid? sure.
            Ill-thought? sure.
            But cowardly?

            1. You have to be brave to say something so stupid in public.

      3. But at least the prolifers have made progress, if the choicers have to resort to “OMG birth control!” arguments – it indicates that arguing directly for legal abortion isn’t necessarily popular, so they bring in birth control as a human shield.

        1. Before the cock crows you will denounce pro-choicers thrice!

          1. hilarious

  3. Ohio Republicans are backing a bill aimed at restricting abortion access, as they do.

    I didn’t see anything about reducing access to abortion. I did see something about prohibiting insurance coverage for abortion.

    Remember when libertarians were clear on the difference between access to health care and third party payment for health care?

    Don’t get me wrong: looks like a stupid bill. But a libertarian publication shouldn’t be adopting the dishonest propaganda techniques of their proggy enemies, regardless of the issue.

    1. But, but, but it’s not a marriage unless the government says it is!

      1. I’m blanking: what was that stupid Georgetown law student’s name who was telling us that she couldn’t possibly get birth control unless somebody else paid for it?

        Exactly what is the difference between what the stupid bint said, which we roundly mocked and abused, and this article?

        1. Cocktail party invitations?

        2. Fluck?

        3. Sandra Flack was demanding someone else pay for her birth control.

          ENB is pointing out that some OH legislators want to force insurance companies to not pay for abortions, and quite possibly, certain forms of birth control.

          That’s one difference.

        4. You mean the carpetbagger from PA, who is now running for State Senate in my (CA) district and got 19.7% in the primary?

          1. Who’s that?

    2. ENB also cant distinguish between idiots who are open carrying and the general concept of open carry.

    3. I think it is a decent libertarian argument – why should the state have a say in what Insurance “can’t” cover. If I want, willing to pay for, and somebody wants to sell me insurance that covers say, piercing or tattoos or any other ridiculous procedure, why not?

      1. That tattoo insurance should be completely separate from HEALTH insurance, the later which should be based on medicine, science, biology and human needs.

        The first part is 100% correct. The State should, if anything, just regulate which SHOULD (accepted science and medicine) be covered.

        If it doesn’t do that, companies use fine print to rip off people who can’t read 200 page policies. You know, like “if you lose one finger, one eye and one hand in the same accident, we will pay you $50K”…..

        That was the prevalent kind of insurance sold to the poor before there was this terrible thing named……regulation.

        1. If it doesn’t do that, companies use fine print to rip off people who can’t read 200 page policies.

          Better for every single person to have to pay for coverage they do not want or need than for one half-literate moron to have to take responsibility for themselves.

          That was the prevalent kind of insurance sold to the poor before there was this terrible thing named……regulation.

          Wait, I thought all the poor were going without insurance because the greedy KKKORPORASHUNS wouldn’t sell them any insurance? It’s so hard to keep track of all these narratives…

        2. “If it doesn’t do that, companies use fine print to rip off people who can’t read 200 page policies.”

          But you have no problem with the people those knuckleheads elect enacting the regulation of which you are so enamored?


    4. The bill would ban all insurance companies from offering policies that cover abortion even when they are willing to sell such coverage on the open market. As a result, only people with the money to pay out-of-pocket would be able to get the procedure, even if the free market would otherwise allow them to get an abortion at a far lower cost, while still making a profit for the insurer thanks to the magic of shared risk pools. But these geniuses don’t want them to be able to buy into those risk pools, because Jesus.

      How does that not restrict access?

      1. Access has nothing to do with ability to pay?

        1. So if the Ohio legislature passed a bill that says nobody can sell ice cream for less than ten thousand dollars a scoop, that wouldn’t restrict access to ice cream?

          1. The black market would provide.

            1. Is there black-market insurance that uses black-market shared risk pools and premiums to mitigate the individual cost of medical procedures? Or do you have to pay cash to the guy with the wire hanger? Because if it’s just number two then the law is still blocking the free market from working like it should.

              1. Or do you have to pay cash to the guy with the wire hanger?

                How do I false dilemma?

                There’s nothing in the law that makes providing abortion services illegal. It’s a bad law and anti-market, but the histrionics are a bit much.

          2. That’s a really poor comparison. The law doesn’t price-fix abortion services or contraception, both of which would probably be cheaper if, like ice cream, they weren’t paid for primarily by a third party to the consumer and producer.

            This law is ridiculous and anti-market in a country where abortion and birth control are 100% legal. But the analogy is disingenuous and stupid.

      2. I agree, there is nothing worse than having to pay out-of-pocket to kill babies.

    5. If you start banning avenues for obtaining a product/service, you are restricting access.

    6. Does the same bill make certain viagra and ED stuff is not covered?

      Please let me know…

      1. boners=abortions?

  4. Does anyone have a magic wand that they can wave to make the Repubs stop being stupid until the election is over in November?

    1. No.

      The stupid party is the stupid party.

      Just like you cant get Libertarians to abandon principle until after an election*.

      *Barr exception noted

      1. I held my breath and voted in the Repub primary yesterday. It was a bit demoralizing since there was no one named “Paul” all the ballot. But the idea of Brailey taking Harkin’s seat was too much too bear.

        1. I got to vote against McConnell, so I had that going for me.

          I havent seen Paul around town since I moved here. I used to see McConnell in Louisville. Mostly at the airport.

          1. At any rate, the Ernst vs Brailey campaign should be interesting. I can already see the ads about the girl raised on the farm versus the guy that ridiculed Grassley for being a farmer while standing next to a liquor cart in front of a bunch of trial lawyers. If she promises to castrate Brailey, I’ll send her my next paycheck 😉

            1. I left a lot of my ballot blank yesterday but figured Ernst would be the least bad of the lot.

        2. Ah, so you wanted the vehemently pro-life “Pauls”, who have said that even in the case of rape, a woman should carry to term?

          “Paul is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest”

          1. “How could anyone possibly believe something I don’t believe?!?!?”

          2. Presumably you are in 100% agreement with your left wing heroes of the working class on all policy issues ?

    2. Ah, you mean you want them to lie even more than they regularly do…until them obtain power and are able to actually force their Neanderthal ways upon us?

      1. until them obtain power

        It’s good to see your writing devolve to the same level as the thought process behind it.

        1. Taxachusetts has the best schools ever, just ask the Masshole. Or don’t; he’ll tell you about it anyway.

  5. There must be some misunderstanding as I have been assured by many here that social conservative Republicans would never restrict people’s freedom in this way.

    Also, baby murder!

    1. Was the straw man wearing overalls or pants?

    2. Yes, you have had a giant misunderstanding. Most people here are pro-choice and even many of the pro-lifers like me are opposed to this ban by regulation strategy (especially when they lump in birth control like this). Eddie isn’t “many here.”

      1. Lots of people here have said that the progs are making it up that socons have it out for birth control.

        1. We know that catholics have it out for birth control. That includes both socon catholics and progressive catholics.

          We dont have lots of people that stupid around here to say the things you claim.

          1. Actually, “the catholics” are nothing of the sort.

            Look it up. The two most catholic states in the USA are MA and RI.

            You don’t hear this chit coming from there en masse…do you?

            The stat is fairly clear.
            “Eighty-two percent of U.S. Catholics say birth control is morally acceptable, nearing the 89% of all Americans and 90% of non-Catholics who agree”

            Am I misunderstand the stats? What do you mean by “catholics have it out”?

            98% of US catholic women have used birth control to plan their families.

            1. A lot of catholics would probably be wise to seek out their spiritual guidance from an institution that doesn’t think they are in violation of grave moral laws and compromising their eternal souls. Whatever the cafeteria catholic faithful believe, the church itself opposes contraception of any kind.

              Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

              1. What is the church other than their members?

                Just as with the Kochs, look at what people do – not what they say or write.

                Pretty simple. The Church would not exist without it’s members, the super-vast-majority of whom are very fine with birth control.

                Humans wrote that stuff and future humans can and will change it, and it will still be the Catholic Church. Note that the same church – from the top down – teaches science and evolution, which is in conflict with the holy scriptures.

                This is the BS we call religion. Telling people what to do is so passe.

        2. Bo gets this one right. SoCons hate freedom.

          1. The Pauls hate freedom?

            1. Rand wants you to carry to term if your father or your brother knocks you up or if a escaped convict holds you at knife point and makes you preggy.


              1. Good thing the governor of Massachusetts from 2003-2007 had a much more evolved perspective, eh Komrad?

              2. playing devils (or angels) advocate here:

                So because of someone else’s sin. One should die?

          2. Yes but he’s wrong about “many here” denying that.

          3. With both Bo and Cytotoxic here, I’m afraid Guam might tip over.

        3. Lots of people here have said that the progs are making it up that socons have it out for birth control.

          Some have said…

          Anyway, it may have escaped your notice that the basis for the ban was the perception, correct or incorrect, of the legislator who introduced it that IUD’s act as abortifacients. The same bill doesn’t disqualify hormonal or barrier contraceptives from insurance coverage.

          And even if “the socons” (i.e., 1 state legislator in Ohio…) “had it out” for birth control more generally, it may be useful to keep in mind that this law hasn’t passed, isn’t going to pass, and would very likely be overturned anyway, especially in light of the PPACA mandate for contraceptive coverage.

  6. ???

    Ive never seen anyone claim that.

    1. That was a reply to Bo.

      1. “I have been assured by many here that social conservative Republicans would never restrict people’s freedom in this way.”

        Yes, that comment is typical Straw Man based Bo shit.

        Or better yet, give us links to at least two (you said may) different posters making that claim, or just admit you are making shit up.

  7. Okay but once they get this abortion thing settled, then they’ll start doing something about that $70 billion unfunded pension liability, right?

    1. The very next minute, they promise.

      Well, maybe minute two, because there’s some evil marijuana-using grandmothers (we’re 99 percent sure!) whose houses could do with a good shooting-up. But right after that!

      1. I believe they’re low on flashbanging babies this month.

    2. Why do you think they want more new taxpayers?

  8. I’ve seen commercials for IUDs that say they are restricted only for women that are in stable, long-term relationships and already have children.

    I wonder if that is a company policy or a product of state/Federal regulations?

    1. I think that’s just the medical community’s recommentation, because they last so long, and are semi-invasive to remove if you want to start having children.

      1. There are also restrictions on getting them if you have certain STIs.

    2. I’ve never heard that about IUDs, but I know it seems to be doctor’s choice a lot of the time whether they will give you long-term BC, just like they won’t tie your tubes if you’re childfree.

      1. ” just like they won’t tie your tubes if you’re childfree.”

        No shit? Not even being facetious. I didn’t realize that was a thing.

        I got a vasectomy without any mention of the fact that there are no miniature politcsbyothermeans running around.


  9. Remember, anti-choice crusaders revel in their own scientific illiteracy. These people seriously believe that life beings at fertilization and personhood can be defined by a heartbeat. It is best to treat them with the ridicule and scorn they deserve.

    1. Well life does begin then and personhood isn’t a scientific question.

    2. A fertilized egg isn’t alive? What is it then, and when does it become alive?

      1. Psst!

        (Quit trying to define words and disembarkation points. It makes abortionists look bad. They hate that. They firmly believe you can have your cake and eat it too.)

      2. An unfertilized egg is alive too. If that’s the criteria, abstinence is an abortion too.

        1. I didn’t say anything about criteria, but thank you for demolishing that straw man.

    3. “life beings at fertilization”

      A fertilized egg is a Zygote, and a Zygote is certainly alive.

      Where did you learn your science? And do you get the inherent irony in the sentence: “anti-choice crusaders revel in their own scientific illiteracy.”

      1. Look. There’s a consensus among people who agree with him that a fertilized egg is not alive. Settled science. Go fuck yourself, denier.

        1. The way you respond to people is no different than what you accuse me of. Isn’t it?

          1. LOL, his response was meant as sarcasm.

            1. Perhaps that has something to do with his name…

          2. Yeah, but nobody likes you.

  10. I demand the FDA fast-track RISUG and Vasalgel. Long-term, reversible male contraceptive is a win for everyone.

    1. Except bureaucrats.

      The more widely desireable drugs are in the “regulatory pipeline” the more people the FDA can hold hostage when budget cuts come around: “With our diminished budget, we simply don’t have the resources to evaluate [Drug X] for at least another year.”

  11. Very interesting that for many decades now, a woman’s medical privacy in all areas has become the political football of politicians (mostly men). Male Members of Congress (most of whom, if any) are NOT medical doctors even, tends to be hilarious and sad simultaneously.

    1. While I don’t agree with the premise of the Bill, this has jack to do with a woman’s medical privacy.

      If someone sponsored a bill restricting vasectomy surgeries, no one would be calling this an issue of a “man’s medical privacy”.

      It’s a political move to restrict abortion. Furthermore, it’s a statist regulatory approach that reaches into insurance contracts the government shouldn’t be involved with.

      It’s every bit as stupid as Obamacare is when it mandated private health insurance policies cover birth control.

      I deplore both sides when they are statist nitwits.

  12. Let’s not pretend “both sides” do this stuff.

    The War on Women is a republican construct – and, as with most other such stuff, the Kochs (owners of this site, Cato, etc.) usually finance the candidates the political party which “accomplishes” such nightmares…..

    Yeah, I know. Someone will now quote me what Koch said once – as opposed to where they spend BILLIONS of their dollars.

    When they start throwing their money at democRATS, then I’ll believe that they are serious about women’s health. Of course, much of their platform is anti-health for everyone. Their primary fight is to stop regulations of their polluting industries… They want all of us to pay the price for that, while they bank the profits and then use them to elect their pawns.

    It’s sad that this is what America has some to. Even more so that any of you may be sincere in believing in their propaganda.


      Clearly the solution is to get money out of politics. I think I read that at Media Matters, which is financed by a multi-billionaire…

    2. Thank science the Masshole popped in. I was just sitting here wondering who the owners of this site, Cato, etc. were.

      Interestingly, only democrats are serious about women’s health. I learned something new today.

      I will be laughing and shaking my head for days that you say the war on women is a Republican construct.

      You really are a treasure.

      1. Ah, so you are claiming the Kochs didn’t start – and virtual own – Cato? Wow……

        That’s public info, including the recent lawsuits and settlements.

        Next thing you know, you’ll tell us they have nothing to do with Americans for Prosperity and the dozens of other groups they front.

        You really can’t be that foolish……or can you?

        1. I was remarking on the fact that you find it necessary to point out the relationship between the Kochs, Cato and reason as often as possible. I realize that reading comprehension is difficult for you though so I’m happy to explain.

          You really can’t be that foolish……or can you?

  13. Well, 278,000 people voted for a D that wasn’t even in the race anymore, and now I might know why.

  14. craiginmass,

    Your assessment of the situation is probably as close to the truth of the matter as it comes. Actually, and in my opinion, the U.S. really has only one political party that controls everything. It should be called The DemoPublican Party. It’s the same bunch of habitual, career, professional politicians hanging around all the time, only to be replaced by more of the same.

    The party is controlled and manipulated by the super rich who own the media anyway. I’m surprised we still call ourselves a Democracy or even a Republic. (Plutocracy?) The U.S. might have been better off had we not had The Revolution, stayed with Britain, and became like Canada. The Parliamentary System tends to be a bit more humane.

    1. You may be partially correct, but at least the Buffets, Gates and Soro’s of the world are giving big bucks and support to issues that are more about actually helping people – while folks like the Kochs are actively trying to destroy what little is left of our middle class and upward mobility…

      So there is that slight difference. Both may be bought and sold, but one retains at least a slight pang of conscience and is not as excited about having young men fight for the old, about polluting our air and water more and about making women barefoot and preggy.

      Those difference should sway many. But money talks. When the Kochs can spend billions and decades building up their own “alternative” institutions – then “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.

      I’m with the founders and other enlightened folks who realize all men (people) are evil when their own selfish interests are at stake. This is the complete opposite of modern libertarians who seem to feel that Greed is always Good.

      1. Since the “good” billionaires outnumber the evil billionaires by at least 3 to 1 by your own count, it’s surprising that every single bit of the power of the entire government is owned by those evil KOCHTOPI.

        It’s just sad that those poor altruists just give and give and give and never get anything in return for it. If only they could shake off the better angels of their nature and learn to occasionally lobby the government…

        1. Actually, you missed the major point – need to take business 101.

          “Good” billionaires such as Buffet and Gates are managers of public companies. They can’t spend unlimited dark money (or could not under older law) like your friends and buy the government.

          Bad guys usually win. A couple terrorists can scare the heck out of millions of people.

          But, in one sense, you have a point. Unfortunately, the only way to fight fire is with fire – so it’s true than many more of the “good” wealthy folks are going to have to fork out in order to fight the Kochs.

          But, just as with organized crime, the Kochs have spent decades building up their orgs and institutions. Money alone can’t counter it. But it does help.

          I can’t say who is going to win this war. China, Russia and many other places have proven that people who think they are economically better off…will put up with just about anything. In other words, people can be bought. Politics takes a far back seat to economic security.

  15. Why don’t you lazy welfare cheats buy your own IUDs? I guess libertarians aren’t really against welfare.

    1. This is a case where the state is preventing private actors from offering a service that they otherwise would be offering – not of the state providing or failing to provide a service itself.

  16. Scienfoology (Scienfoologists) does not / do not want to get embroiled in the abortion wars (to include IUDs). Scienfoology does, however, offer your young women who would rather not submit to the Government-Almighty-mandated pre-abortion “shaming wand” rituals, a “religious freedom” out? Just WHY should religious freedoms be reserved for the “virtuous” women who don’t need or want abortions? Abortion-seeking so-called “slutty” women deserve religious freedoms too? Therefore, Scienfoology offers religious rituals in which the abortion-seeker’s religious EFFIGY is subjected to the ritual raping via “shaming wand”, rather than the personal body of the abortion-seeker. To see the full details of the “religious exemption” escape clause from the raping/shaming wand, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/sonograms/

  17. Every time Rep Becker jerks off he’s killing thousands (or millions?) of potential babies. He should be burned at the stake!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.