Abortion

Planned Parenthood and Our Abortion Choices

The latest scandal probably won't lead to any changes, if American ambivalence is an indication.

|

Credit: Wolfgang Moroder

Confronting reality is not always a pleasant experience, but it is always a useful one. The covertly recorded videos of Planned Parenthood officials are a reminder that destroying fetuses is an ugly process with fatal results. 

In private, these abortion providers don't conceal what the procedure entails. Discussing the harvest of medically useful tissue from aborted fetuses, for which the organization is compensated, a senior official said, "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, 'I'm not gonna crush that part.'" The image of doctors finding the ideal way to dismember a living organism does not have great appeal. 

If the Center for Medical Progress, which released the footage, expects it to change minds about government policy, though, it will probably be disappointed. 

Anti-abortion advocates insist that abortion takes a human life. Abortion-rights groups argue that every woman has a right to end a pregnancy. Americans have fully considered these views—and decided both are correct. 

A few months ago, the website Vox interviewed an Ohio man who was the picture of ambivalence. "Abortion is killing a baby," he said. "But I'm not saying it's always wrong." 

Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute, says his opinion is the dominant one. A majority or plurality of people regard abortion as murder, but most think it should be legal. 

Is that an incoherent view? Not really. This is one of those rare issues where two strong principles collide, and there is no way to reconcile them. Abortion policy is not a matter of right vs. wrong. It's a matter of right vs. right. 

As such, any resolution produces tragic results. Allowing abortion sacrifices the lives of fetuses. Forbidding it violates the bodily integrity and autonomy of women. One or the other has to give way. 

In the political arena, abortion-rights supporters often rely on terms that obscure the nature of the operation. But the women who undergo abortions are generally not oblivious. One study found that most of those who get abortions feel regret afterward. Nearly all of the patients nonetheless reported "that abortion was the right decision for them." 

Few people make the decision without understanding what they are doing. Where state laws require doctors to perform an ultrasound before each abortion, 98 percent of the women who watch them proceed to end their pregnancies. 

In a sense, this awareness is a tribute to the success of anti-abortion groups—and modern technology—in familiarizing Americans with prenatal development. Photos of fetuses at various stages of development are a favorite tool of these activists. Nowadays, every parent first glimpses a new child before birth on a computer monitor, and only later in the flesh. 

But the expansion of knowledge has not driven Americans to deprive women of the ultimate decision on their pregnancies. Given a terrible, tragic dilemma, they have elected to leave it to the mother. 

More than 40 years after the Supreme Court found abortion rights to be constitutionally protected, popular support for a ban is still modest. The court has rejected every opportunity to reverse itself. 

So anyone who wants to reduce the number of abortions has two basic options. The first is to publicize the facts about it, in the hope of persuading women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. This has already happened. A report last year by the Guttmacher Institute found that in 2011, the number of abortions fell to the lowest level in three decades. 

Carole Joffe, a sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told The New York Times one explanation was that opponents have "been very successful at stigmatizing abortion"—or, put another way, heightening concern for the unborn. Rates have fallen even in states with liberal abortion laws. 

Many Republicans have responded to the videos by proposing to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning funds. But that would be completely at odds with a second proven method of reducing abortions: contraception. 

The program that would be defunded pays for birth control and related services. When young women gain access to free, long-term contraceptives, their pregnancy and abortion rates plummet. Less use of birth control would produce more unwanted pregnancies, many of which would be medically terminated. 

As the videos confirmed, abortions are something to be avoided and lamented. It would be a shame if the revelations led to more of them. 

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Negative Consequences of Raising D.C.'s Minimum Wage

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. Since we all believe in science and math as truths, it is hard to argue that abortion is not killing a living human being. It is preposterous to consider that not murder by definition.

      What is even more scary is if we did not allow abortion. We would have even greater throngs of zombies wondering around with voting rights, reproductive capabilities, and applications for government jobs.
      All I can say is at least the dipshits are the ones getting abortions. We should be happy although it is clearly killing a human, which I thought was illegal.

      1. Since we all believe in science and math as truths, it is hard to argue that abortion is not killing a living human being. It is preposterous to consider that not murder by definition.

        Abortion is no more murder than withdrawing life support of a body with no higher brain activity is murder.

        1. Brain activity is a necessary qualifier for murder? So if I went in as a random person off the street and unplugged the “body” you reference from life support, without permission of the family, what would I be charged with? Destruction of property? What’s the substantive difference between the brain activity of a fetus at 8 months and a 1 month old infant? What higher level functions are necessary for you to determine the humanity of someone?

          If you don’t see the eugenicist implications of your arbitrary application of what you deem to be the parameters of human life, I’m not sure how to make it clearer. If you can define a certain threshold of “brain activity” as being a prerequisite to humanity, what’s to stop the next guy from bumping that threshold a wee bit higher until we’re talking full blown Holmsian “3 generations of imbeciles is enough” type declarations stripping rights from those not considered “fit” (sub “high enough brain activity” here). Human life is human life. Either we value it for its own sake or we don’t. Equivocations such as yours do nothing to answer the question.

          1. Brain activity is a necessary qualifier for murder?

            You can only murder someone who isn’t dead, so, yes.

            So if I went in as a random person off the street and unplugged the “body” you reference from life support, without permission of the family, what would I be charged with? Destruction of property?

            You’d be hard pressed to do that. If you unplug them before the absence of brain activity has been established, you’d be committing murder. Once it has been established, life support gets withdrawn immediately anyway.

            If you don’t see the eugenicist implications of your arbitrary application of what you deem to be the parameters of human life

            First of all, it’s not what I “deem to be the parameters”, these are our legal parameters.

            You also seem to mistakenly believe that “eugenics” means “killing people we don’t like”. Actually, it is about (supposedly) improving humans through interfering with reproduction, and it specifically refers to state interference in such choices (since men and women engage in eugenics privately every time they select a mate).

            If you can define a certain threshold of “brain activity” as being a prerequisite to humanity,

            It’s not a “certain threshold of brain activity”. The issue is personhood. The law protects persons, not lumps of human tissue.

            1. Human life is human life. Either we value it for its own sake or we don’t. Equivocations such as yours do nothing to answer the question.

              It’s you who is literally “equivocating”, using the term “human life” in two different senses in order to confuse the issue, referring to human tissue on the one hand, and to born human beings on the other.

              We don’t value “human life” in the sense of “human tissue”: every day, you excrete plenty of stem cells that could be grown into a full copy of yourself, and you do so without giving it a second thought. What we value is personhood. In religious terms, we value a body containing a sentient, sapient soul. The body doesn’t even have to be human. Confusing a soulless human body with a person isn’t just wrong, it is obscene and perverse.

              1. So … the soul is conferred upon exiting the birth canal? You sure? I’m an atheist, so not positive, but I believe most religious organizations don’t agree with you so not sure why your tone is so authoritative and adversarial.

                I don’t necessarily believe that a COMPLETELY brain dead vegetable surviving solely on life support fits the definition of “life”. But any amount of brain activity would throw doubt on the assertion. And since fetuses HAVE brain activity, your assertion is that there is a minimum amount or certain type of brain activity required for “personhood”. And whatever minimum you (or “the law” for that matter”) set is arbitrary. So that assertion is what I was responding to.

          2. Brain activity is a necessary qualifier for murder?

            You can only murder someone who isn’t dead, so, yes.

            So if I went in as a random person off the street and unplugged the “body” you reference from life support, without permission of the family, what would I be charged with? Destruction of property?

            You’d be hard pressed to do that. If you unplug them before the absence of brain activity has been established, you’d be committing murder. Once it has been established, life support gets withdrawn immediately anyway.

            If you don’t see the eugenicist implications of your arbitrary application of what you deem to be the parameters of human life

            First of all, it’s not what I “deem to be the parameters”, these are our legal parameters.

            You also seem to mistakenly believe that “eugenics” means “killing people we don’t like”. Actually, it is about (supposedly) improving humans through interfering with reproduction, and it specifically refers to state interference in such choices (since men and women engage in eugenics privately every time they select a mate).

            If you can define a certain threshold of “brain activity” as being a prerequisite to humanity,

            It’s not a “certain threshold of brain activity”. The issue is personhood. The law protects persons, not lumps of human tissue.

            1. I find it telling that you’re hyper-focused on your analogy of the brain-dead patient, to the exclusion of what we’re actually discussing. Fetuses are not brain dead clumps of cells that magically start operating upon exiting the womb. Stimuli and response occurs as early as the first trimester. It’s not the mothers brain that sends signals for the fetus to kick. In some senses the fetus has a much HIGHER level of brain activity compared to full grown adults as the synapses rapidly develop and grow. The process of which starts fairly shortly after conception.

              Your definition of eugenics is only semantically different from “mine” (even though I never attempted to define it). How does one “improve” humanity without defining traits that are undesirable? And who decides what those traits are? So then how would the deciders not then be “killing people they don’t like”?

              As far as the laws surrounding end of life decisions, I don’t really care as it’s irrelevant given the (normal healthy) fetus isn’t brain dead as I pointed out. But my understanding is that the laws vary by state, and that not in every case would life support be “withdrawn immediately”. It would be withdrawn at the behest of the competent person identified to make decisions or per the directions of the deceased prior to whatever circumstance led them there. Not an expert though. But, again, it’s irrelevant.

  1. abortion might be the single trickiest moral issue politics deals with today. if you’re not conflicted about it you’re not thinking about it hard enough

  2. The abortion debate won’t get interesting again until medical science progresses to where they’re viable outside the womb much earlier in development.

    1. And, when a gay gene is identified.

      If that happens, you’ll find the “lgbt” crowd all of a sudden being best friends with Pat Robertson and holding Jerry Falwell memorials.

      1. Why? Because the same people who hate gays would suddenly start liking abortion?

        1. Because some people who currently like abortion would suddenly like it a good bit less.

          1. Society will soon have to begin working on a lot of tough questions with respect to designer babies. The eager anticipation of embryonic gay genocide by right-wing idiots perhaps indicates that that segment of the population has more to think about than others.

            1. And the most epic failed abortion chimes in

    2. The abortion debate won’t get interesting again until medical science progresses to where they’re viable outside the womb much earlier in development.

      Already today, you can transfer a fertilized egg from one mother to another, so a fertilized egg is “viable” outside its mother. But a fertilized egg isn’t really substantially different from a stem cell either; with a little bit of help, even a stem cell can develop into an adult human being.

      Viability, that is the potential to develop into an adult human being outside its mothers womb, simply is not a meaningful criterion in the abortion debate.

  3. Republicans have responded to the videos by proposing to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning funds. But that would be completely at odds with a second proven method of reducing abortions: contraception.

    I was with you until you put your hand in my pocket.

  4. “Few people make the decision without understanding what they are doing. Where state laws require doctors to perform an ultrasound before each abortion, 98 percent of the women who watch them proceed to end their pregnancies.” — Citation??

    1. I generally don’t believe anyone who says 98% of people do/believe X.

  5. “As the videos confirmed, abortions are something to be avoided and lamented. It would be a shame if the revelations led to more of them.” Safe, legal and rare. Except that is a complete sham.
    Planned Parenthood has no reason to reduce the number of abortions. And folks like Amanda Marcotte and the broad who just made the comedy about an abortion (don’t remember the name) don’t want to make it rare. They want to make it as normal and accepted as any procedure.

    And I am not sure Chapman characterized American opinion completely. The majority of Americans wanted to ban late term abortion. The majority of Americans don’t want to ban early abortions (or Plan B, IUDs etc.) Texas seemed to have the majority of Texans when it passed the 20 week limit. And while this is an arbitrary date, I would imagine a libertarian position would be while the mother is the only sentient being involved, her choice is the only thing that matters legally. When the fetus becomes viable, then now its right to life kicks in. Obviously the devil is in the details regarding viability. So lets meed somewhere and try to get close. 20 weeks, 24 weeks etc. If only there was a process in the US that allowed the individual states to make different laws………

  6. I think I lean anti-abortion because of my personal views, and I don’t really see the life of a fetus as a woman’s choice. I really value life, and as a father I have a soft spot for children. However I still support abortion being perfectly legal and it is a moral decision.

  7. Does Planned Parenthood offer gift certificates?

    Do they have a bridal registry?

    1. Yes. They reside in your wallet.

  8. Abortion is one of the rare subjects that I will take a hard right stance on and one that I feel the libertarian platform really needs to align right on as well. Without the right to life all other rights that we fight for don’t matter one bit. In my opinion, the failure to take a stand on that issue oftentimes makes many libertarians look like hypocrites.

    Look, I understand women’s rights, I really do. I sympathize with them and I am all for those rights. But what about the baby’s rights? That is a unique human being, with their own set of DNA, growing inside the woman. It’s not just a clump of cells and tissue.

    No one can deny that the vast majority of abortions are performed not because of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life. But out of convenience. Which means that if the woman, and the man, kept their pants on, or taken proper steps to prevent pregnancy, then the child would not have come into being.

    As for the potential loss of Planned Parenthood funding for other services? I’m going to paraphrase what Julie Borowski said on this issue. If you’re a college kid and your parents send you money for bills with a note specifically telling you not to buy ‘booze’ with the money it doesn’t matter if you don’t buy booze with it or not. Your parents just bought you booze. Why? Because the money you were going to spend on bills you are now going to spend on booze.

    1. That is a unique human being, with their own set of DNA, growing inside the woman. It’s not just a clump of cells and tissue. It is just a clump of cells and tissues. People, dead or alive, are clumps of cells and tissues. The important difference is a functioning brain. Our brains make us human. Our brains allow us to interact with the world and perceive the world even if some people’s brains develop with limitations compared to “normal” brains. To me, the brain seems awfully important to the issue–more precisely the cerebral cortex since the cerebral cortex governs cognition rather than things like respiration and a heart beat as in the brain stem, which happens in other animals. An embryo at a few weeks in development doesn’t have a functioning brain or a developed cortex at all, so it seems silly to get all bent out of shape over an embryo without a brain. Sure, it could develop into a being with a functioning brain, but so what? It doesn’t have one at that moment, so it’s not losing anything. To me it’s losing the potential just like sperm loses potential to be united with an egg if uninserted.
      It may be difficult to define a functioning brain or the important moment for the cortex. But Carl Sagan wrote about the issue saying the linking up of neurons and regular brain waves typical of adult brains don’t occur until about the 30th week of pregnancy onward. If the case that basically seems like a good point to me to have a cut off.

  9. If women have a God given right to eradicate their spawn, then their mates have the right to not pay child support. Of course men’s autonomy counts for shit in this country.

  10. I’m pro choice. However, I don’t see why tax dollars should go to Planned Parenthood, just like I don’t see why tax dollars should go to Christian family planning organizations or churches. From a libertarian point of view, defunding one group selectively makes little sense.

    Politically, defunding PP may be a good play during the Republican primary, but it’s going to hurt candidates in the general election.

    Despite its questionable history, PP still has a fairly good reputation, and it does perform useful services. The supposed “sale” of fetal tissues based on that feeble video is a red herring, utterly irrelevant, a legal gray area violating nonsensical knee-jerk legislation, and I think most supporters of PP will see it as such.

  11. I don’t like laying pro-choice all on bodily autonomy. It’s just not convincing to people who think the fetus has the same right. More convincing to me is to seriously look at the consequences of banning abortion. Of course we will no more eradicate abortion than we have murder, only abortion will be black market and thus riskier, and, importantly, women and doctors who are caught will have to face severe legal consequences. If we’re actually operating under the claim that a fetus is the same as a person, then that means first-degree murder of an infant. We’d be saying that the large fraction of women who will get an abortion in their lifetime all deserve to be in prison for life.

    Moral norms are to some extent, perhaps entirely, arbitrary. That is why this issue is difficult. People are coming from different starting places. One side is pretty much universally coming from a religious perspective and is being dishonest about its motivations. They have not developed a comprehensive ethical framework on the rights of fetuses. They are simply obsessed with controlling sexuality, particularly women’s.

    The pro-choice side is not, as it might be claimed, coming from a place of enjoying the killing of fetuses. It is on its face the more pragmatic argument.

    1. As an empirical matter, would many women who currently patronize abortion clinics resort to coat hangers if abortion was banned? Many of these women are already extremely conflicted. Its not analogous to drug markets where addiction makes demand highly inelastic. I could see how increasing the safety risks would dissuade many mothers from aborting.

      On a moral level, I think many pro lifers would be content with a radical shift in social and cultural norms in lieu of 100% elimination of the practice. Specifically, for abortion to become a taboo like incest or racism rather than a symbol of women’s empowerment.

      1. I would not, as it would mean the state forcing women to give birth against their will, or else charging them with first-degree murder of an infant. That does society (meaning individuals in society) no good.

        The only good claimed by banning abortion is that we’re saving the lives of babies. If it were actual babies, sure we’d move heaven and earth to come down on their side and not whatever good comes from, say, a factory polluting their drinking water. But it is not a long-established norm to treat a fetus as a person with rights. It’s a pretty recent rhetorical invention. We are free to make that choice, but we are also free not to, and I say let’s not and thus make society better off for it.

        1. An appeal to tradition by a progressive? That’s interesting.

          Surely you can see why a reasonable, non religious person might have trouble distinguishing between third trimester abortions and infanticide, “recent rhetorical inventions” notwithstanding?

          1. Yeah, but if we’re acknowledging that the fetus becomes more of a person as the pregnancy progresses, that means at some point it lacks personhood rights. Where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary from a scientific standpoint (as what a person is is not a scientific question). Since all we have to consult are specific cultural norms, we should draw it at a place that minimizes the harm to the safety and freedom of women while acknowledging that at some point the fetus gains the attributes we associate with personhood. We should not force women to give birth against their will because the patriarchy demands to assert its ownership of women’s sexual behavior and its consequences (except for child support?).

            1. Where the line is drawn is completely arbitrary from a scientific standpoint (as what a person is is not a scientific question).

              That’s a true statement though not a particularly helpful one. NAP protects live human beings, not “persons”. You can easily take rights away from humans by telling others they aren’t “persons”, just like Dred Scott took rights away from blacks by telling others they weren’t “citizens”.

              The term “person” is subjective; the term “human” is not. When in doubt, use the objective definition.

              1. It is not objective. In this context you’re just switching out terms and not solving the problem. Thus is an embryo a human? In this context what matters is whether it has the rights of a baby or not.

                Besides, the NAP is quite a problem here considering that the mother is also a person. Libertarians have been all over the place on applying NAP to abortion. Of course, since NAP is both immoral and impractical, I don’t think it is relevant.

                1. See? Aggression is hard-wired into the code that took them over when brainwashed into superstition. Since the non-aggression principle says they cannot napalm Vietnamese babies or bake Jewish mothers for altruistic reasons, the non-aggression principle has to go! These malware victims made it illegal to teach evolution in 1927, banned condoms, banned beer, have people tortured and murdered in their “war on” you-name-it, keep the LP off the ballot in antiabortion dictatorships susceptible to their coercive influence, but claim to be all in favor of live so ling as it does not interfere with the initiation of deadly force against genuine individuals. These desperate creeps have no appeal to anything but force, having rejected reason the day they were taken over by superstition.

                2. It is not objective.

                  How isn’t it?

                  Thus is an embryo a human?

                  It isn’t part of a human and it has human DNA…

                  In this context what matters is whether it has the rights of a baby or not.

                  Correct.

                  Besides, the NAP is quite a problem here considering that the mother is also a person.

                  You only have the right to stab yourself if it doesn’t kill another human being. That’s just like the right to dump crap on your property as long as it doesn’t get on mine. This is totally consistent with NAP.

                  Of course, since NAP is both immoral and impractical…

                  Under which circumstance is it immoral to NOT aggress by assaulting/killing/stealing from someone?

                  And the tyrant always says that whatever they don’t like is “impractical”. The most dangerous word from a politician’s mouth is “necessary”…

  12. Oh, I get it. We libertarians are supposed to be against federal funding for things only if they are not in the service of the Greater Good(tm).

    Got it.

  13. Choice?

    As regards God’s law: In the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth consistently preaches individual freedom, compassion and personal responsibility. If He told the adulterous woman to “go and sin no more,” what would He have us tell a woman seeking an abortion? Would He grant her the freedom to choose? Would He allow her the personal responsibility for her action?

    As regards civil law: The question, “When does life begin?” – can be argued philosophically, physiologically or emotionally without ever reaching a consensus. So shouldn’t a Constitutional Republic focus on a legal definition? “Life” is mentioned in our Declaration of Independence – so let’s define when life legally begins and pass law that defends it as the founding documents require, end the debate and move on to other matters. Civil law could “draw a line” that the medical profession (or Planned Parenthood) could not legally cross without facing murder indictment. At the same time, no one would be deprived of their right to carry a baby to term.

    1. Grant, that is certainly a more sound solution than offered by most. I don’t understand why, like you said, that scientists cannot determine an point with a well defined range when the fertilized egg becomes a human.

      After all, these government workers have been able to forecast the date when the earth is going to boil under our feet every 5 years without fail.

      1. Just determine a point when a fertilized egg becomes an actual human. Easy peasy. And while you’re at it, figure out what the phenomenon of consciousness is. Jeez, those whining scientists! Anyone could do their jobs!

        What date did they give us, pray, for when the earth was going to boil under our feet? Scientists, that is. Not the news media. What dates have scientists give us, in five-year intervals?

  14. “A report last year by the Guttmacher Institute found that in 2011, the number of abortions fell to the lowest level in three decades.

    Carole Joffe, a sociologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told The New York Times one explanation was that opponents have “been very successful at stigmatizing abortion”?or, put another way, heightening concern for the unborn. Rates have fallen even in states with liberal abortion laws. ”

    Hold on, there, though. The abortion rate is measured per 1000 women. It’s not measured for every 1,000 pregnancies, and it’s certainly not measured per 1,000 pregnancies that were unintended or regretted. The abortion rate itself doesn’t actually tell us WHY abortions have gone down. Were there fewer pregnancies? That’s probably measurable, but what about unwanted pregnancies? I doubt there’s a metric for that. But we certainly don’t have enough information to say definitively that it went down *because* abortion has been stigmatized. We don’t have enough information to say anything further than that it decreased, one way or another.

  15. The 14th Amendment begins with “All persons born…” not conceived. True, cults of drooling mystics are anxious for brainwashable hosts for their ideas (death is good, hence the initiation of deadly force is good and wonderful). This has nothing to do with the value of life: Christians and Mohammedans bomb, napalm and murder everyone they can get at. It is about making women into slaves by robbing them of individual rights, and propagating cruel mindless superstition by brainwashing those too helpless to resist. It is not that they “believe in God,” but rather that “God” whispers to them they have to send men with guns to git them commies, queers, naygurs, hippies, infidels, papists, protestants, ragheads, plutocrats, jews, gentiles (enter additional minorities here). The countries that ban abortion are the most backward and corrupt cesspools on the planet, where actual individuals are gunned down daily on whispered instructions from God and His agents. There you see the results of letting similar creeps use the force of law to ram their agenda down your throats at gunpoint. They banned condoms, got that? Superstition is malware.

    1. The 14th Amendment begins with “All persons born…” not conceived.

      Exactly. The US Constitution is clearly intended only to apply to “persons” and “individuals”, which means human beings after birth. Of course, that doesn’t mean the states can’t regulate abortion for other reasons, but you can’t derive an obligation to do so from the Constitution. (Even if the Constitution did apply to a fetus, it would still be difficult to derive prohibitions against abortion from any of its provisions.)

    2. Christians and Mohammedans bomb, napalm and murder everyone they can get at.

      Funny, I’ve never bombed, napalmed, nor otherwise murdered anyone. I must be doing it wrong.

      It is not that they “believe in God,” but rather that “God” whispers to them they have to send men with guns…

      “Do unto others.” Some do think “god” tells them to send men with guns to git others. Some other people think that “inequality” or “social justice” or “unfairness” tells them to murder too. So what? Abusus non tollit usum.

      The countries that ban abortion are the most backward and corrupt cesspools on the planet…

      Guilt by association? How many fallacies can you stuff into one post?

  16. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.