Abortion

Ohio Lawmakers Vote to Ban Abortion Just a Few Weeks Post-Conception

The 'Heartbeat Bill' was considered too unconstitutional to touch, but "Trump's election changed the dynamic."

|

BSIP/Newscom

A measure that would ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected—that's around three- to four- weeks post-conception—has managed to pass both houses of the Ohio legislature, despite the fact that federal courts have struck down all similar bans as unconstitutional. The measure, which cleared the Senate Tuesday as a last-minute addition to a larger bill concerning state child-abuse laws, states that "except when there is a medical emergency or medical necessity," Ohio doctors shall not perform abortions "if it has been determined that the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat."

Detection of a fetal heartbeat is "a milestone with no meaning to the federal laws governing abortion," as Molly Redden noted back in 2013, when Arkansas and North Dakota first passed heartbeat-based abortion bans. But "the people who support these laws dream that they will provide a legal basis for overturning Roe v. Wade," in which the U.S. Supreme Court said states cannot ban abortion before a fetus could live on its own outside of the womb.

Generally, a fetal heartbeat can be detected at a "gestational age" of around six weeks. But gestational age is calculated from the first day of a pregnant woman's last menstrual period, and doesn't actually refer to the number of weeks a zygote or fetus has existed. A gestational age of six weeks means it's been some three to four weeks since an egg was fertilized.

In effect, a measure like the one Ohio approved would ban abortion at a point in pregnancy when many women don't even realize they're pregnant yet, and long before common chromosomal and developmental abnormalities can be detected. And even if a pregnant woman takes a test exactly 28 days after the start of her last period, that leaves her with just about two weeks to come to a decision about the pregnancy and then obtain the money for, schedule, and obtain an abortion (all while circumventing Ohio's various waiting periods), in a state where many women live hours from the nearest abortion clinic.

This could put the heartbeat bill at odds with not just Roe but the more recent Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That case upheld the idea "that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages," but presented a new standard for analyzing whether restrictions on abortion were unconstitutional: did they pose an "undue burden" on women's access to abortion. Even if a fetus could somehow be declared viable at around a month old, presenting women with a mere one or two week window to terminate a pregnancy would seem to fail the undue burden test.

Many prominent anti-abortion advocates have opposed measures like Ohio's heartbeat bill, recognizing that they "have no chance in the courts," as Paul Linton, author and former general counsel for Americans United for Life, has said. State and federal courts have struck down such measures from Arkansas and North Dakota, with North Dakota's bill going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In January, the Court upheld a lower court's ruling striking down the measure.

But that was before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the election of Donald Trump. A future Supreme Court could perhaps rule differently. Ohio Senate President Keith Faber (R-Celina) said repeatedly that previous versions of the heartbeat bill weren't worth passing because they would be struck down as unconstitutional, but "Trump's election changed the dynamic," he said.

It's unclear whether Ohio Gov. John Kasich will sign the heartbeat bill into law.

Just as the detection of a fetal heartbeat has no particular relevance to federal abortion guidelines, it's a similarly poor marker of moral or medical significance. Our ability to detect a fetal heartbeat means nothing in terms of a fetuses' consciousness or ability to feel pain or viability outside the womb (all of which won't come until later). But it comes after the point of "personhood" that many religions hold. It seems to be an arbitrary point picked by lawmakers because of symbolic value and then justified post-hoc with dubious science.

"As many as thirty per cent of natural pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage," the newly-passed bill states. "Less than five per cent of all natural pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage after detection of fetal cardiac activity. … Fetal heartbeat, therefore, has become a key medical predictor that an unborn human individual will reach live birth."

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) estimates that about 10 to 25 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. And it's generally accepted that most miscarriages happen in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. But while chances of miscarriage do decrease with time, there's no evidence that 95 percent of all first-trimester miscarriages happen in the first six weeks, as Ohio claims, and fetal heart rate matters as much for miscarriage prediction as the mere detection of a fetal heartbeat.

Advertisement

NEXT: FBI Investigates Journalist Over Joke Tweet, Ohio Passes 'Heartbeat Bill,' Trump Named Time Person of the Year: A.M. Links

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. Trolls incoming in 3…2…1…

    1. Abortion?

      /Yawn

      So to a leftist, abortion is sacred and there can be no restrictions. What about those who abort because it’s a girl? See how much they really care about “my body my choice”

      Principals, not Principles.

      1. To a leftist, any restrictions or regulations on abortion or abortion clinics/doctors will adversely affect a woman’s ability to get the procedure she wants. Restrictions and regulations on literally anything else has no adverse affects whatsoever.

      2. Yeah, they care about ‘my body, my choice’ as long as you’re talking about abortion or gay sex, or changing sexes. Outside of that, not so much.

        1. “My body, my choice, your wallet”

        2. Examples of cases in which “leftists” specifically think the state should lay its hands on people’s bodies?

          1. Gee, selling loosies would be one that springs to mind, that actually comes with a potential death sentence, just like all of the other regulations the left likes.

          2. ACA
            smoking
            raw milk
            sugary drinks

            1. Socialized medical care.

          3. Bans on sugary drinks?

            Drugs? That also comes with potential death sentence, not only for you, but anyone who happens to be close to you when the cops bash your door down at 4am after arriving at the wrong house. And don’t tell us you don’t support that, Tony. All leftists support that as they want to hand the government complete power over every minute aspect of our existence.

          4. Uh, Terry v. Ohio says pretty much exactly that. If agents of the state think they should lay hands on you, it’s sufficient cause for them to lay hands on you.

          5. Don’t think this one went the way Tony had hoped. Pity.

      3. Do attempt to understand what the fuck you’re talking about.

        1. The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking.

      4. Like most groups of politically inclined people, the Leftists believe that their preferences and prejudices are natural and sacrosanct, while there should always be exceptions to those held by other people. So, “Abortion Rights” are inviolable despite not being mentioned in the Constitution, but the right to keep and bear arms must be constrained with ‘common sense’ restrictions, despite the words “shall not be infringed” being right there in the Bill of Rights.

      5. Right-wingers aren’t any better: Abortion is profane and must be completely banned. (This “heartbeat” bill is just a “good first step” for them.) Except for cases of rape or incest, because Goddammit, That’s Why.

        1. No, not “abortion is profane”, “Abortion is murder”.

          I happen to disagree with them, but the way their incorrect but not unreasonable position is distorted by their opponents (who don’t want to deal with the whole infanticide issue) is one reason why I dislike the Pro-Choice position, in spite of thinking abortion should be legal.

          1. I used to think similarly but being libertarian means non violence principle makes abortion unacceptable to me. Human rights apply to all humans born or not.
            Also, it is often said to men when complaining about child support that it takes two to tangle and therefore, men are responsible and should pay up. (I agree in principle but the amounts and the lack of enforceable rights are way out of line for many men) so, the same logic goes for women. You make a conscious decision to have sex which could cause pregnancy, which leads you to new responsibilities in the same way. The equivalent of abortion for men would be slaughtering his newborn to avoid responsibility. We all agree that is horrific but in reality there is little difference. Takes two to tango. Why should women be allowed to shirk their responsibilities but not men???

      6. Reading downstream it would seem that because abortion is supported by the majority of progressives, it must be bad. It comes down to which principles are most important? I guess tribalism wins over reason.

    1. They need to ensure enough future tax payers to meet those liabilities, Hugh.

    2. Retroactive abortions for state employees?

      1. That was added at the last second.

  2. Expensive to litigate social signaling from a lame duck legislature based on dubious science and rooted in religious mumbo-jumbo. Good job, Ohio.

    1. even science does not know when self, or soul if you like, is realized.

      1. Onset of organized neurological activity.

        1. So I can abort Tony and SIV?

          1. You understand.

          2. Not to mention Jimmy Carter and anyone who has ever worn a “Che” shirt.

        2. “Onset of organized neurological activity”

          Yes. This would make it about the same as end of life, which is generally accepted.

        3. “Onset of organized neurological activity.”

          What a fine example of secular mumbo-jumbo.

          The rapid in utero development of a brain and central nervous system does not qualify as “organized neurological activity?”

          It is bitterly ironic to see a Jew spouting such quasi-fascist eugenic bullshit.

    2. “religious mumbo-jumbo”

      Are you aware of the history of the Clergy Consultation Service,* a group of ministers and rabbis who helped women get abortions in circumvention of anti-abortion laws before *Roe*?

      Are you willing to denounce this religious interference with the laws?

      Or is it OK so long as the religion happens to agree with your views?

      *Now I think it’s the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

      1. Are you willing to denounce this religious interference with the laws?

        Did they do it because of some kind of religious mumbo-jumbo?

        1. Probably.

        2. “Did they do it because of some kind of religious mumbo-jumbo?”

          Now you’re demanding evidence? When did that happen?

          1. Now you’re demanding evidence?

            Gee I… I thought I was just asking a question. But to address your point, yes I should have known better.

            1. Oops, confused you with SugarFree, sorry.

    3. They couldn’t even get their cannabis ballot right. It was cronyism all the way down before it even made the ballot.

      1. I like the idea of a legal state that close, but I don’t like the idea of having my car searched every time I go to Cincinnati for something.

        1. Sorry, not “searched.” I just got pulled over so they could give me a pamphlet and let a dog smell my car.

          1. Pamphlet? I thought it was ice cream?

            1. Ice cream? I’m going to stop avoiding DUI checkpoints if they are giving out ice cream. Get ready, pancreas, I’m coming home hyperglycemic.

              1. My bad? I assumed that white goop on your face as you drove away from your last traffic stop was melted ice cream.

                1. Never trust a Pope.

                  1. You hurt me!

                    I can be totally trusted. In fact have one more communion host on me. It is wafer thin…

                2. “Looks like you blew a seal.”

                  1. Thank goodness somebody is sufficiently culturally aware to post that.

          2. So what’s the pamphlet? A reefer madness re-do?

            1. I was going off how certain DUI checkpoints work.

              1. “The rubber lines are for your safety and protection.”

          3. Did that poor dog run away with its tail between its legs? I imagine SugarFree’s vehicle smells like a R’lyeh Pizza Delivery, Hearse, and Dog Grooming, LLC van.

        2. I’ve crossed potential visits to Massataxes off my list of things to do for similar concerns. There’s nothing in that wretched state worth the police harrassment I’d get on my return.

          1. Not sure how this is playing out between DC, VA, and MD since DC legalized weed. No one in DC can even legally sell weed and it’s still very illegal in both VA and MD.

            1. MD no issue but it a civil fine now for possessing up to an ounce. I don’t drive through Virginia that much anymore but I haven’t heard any horror stories. With the amount of traffic and all the coke and heroin going up and down 95 they have other worries.

    4. Religion, in the form of Protestant Christianity, has done quite well at underpinning societies that concern themselves with the rights of minorities and the weak. Atheistical societies had a decent chance to surpass them over the course of the last century, and for the most part failed. Many of them failed spectacularly, causing misery and mass death to a degree that would have had Torquemada shocked and horrified.

      I’m an agnostic. I’ll put up with a certain amount of “religious mumbo-jumbo”, thank you.

      1. Protestant Christianity, however, is also the root philosophical basis for both modern and historical progressivism. So I guess you’re looking for a very specific kind of ‘religious mumbo-jumbo’?

        1. I’m looking for one with a good track record. Progressivism doesn’t have one. Communism has an awful one. Buddhism sounds wonderful, but apparently tends to produce societies where the common folk are treated like farm animals. Catholicism reinforces the idea of a Peasant Class. Don’t even get me started on any religion that tolerates the idea of “untouchables”.

          Protestant Christianity is far from perfect. But, rather like Republican Democracy, it is better than anything else that as been tried.

          1. Admittedly I think it’s extremely over-simplistic to lump literally thousands of sects into ‘Protestantism’ and then talk about a good track record. I don’t think you’d demand the Anabaptists run the show anytime in the near future.

    5. Reigious mumbo- jumbo like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, thst all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

      The impudence is incomprehensible!

    6. Religious mumbo-jumbo worked for the Chancellor of Germany in 1933. But what we need is repeal of suicide laws and availability of suitable drugs. Any cur desperate enough to feel the urge to send men with guns out to force some poor woman to bear the consequences of an unprotected mercy f!ck really needs access to painful suicide–starting with the Ohio State Legislature. Pathetic, pitiful, superstitious, unreasoning brutes that they are, they ought to have an easier way out of this vale of tears. But in the meantime, let’s at least make sure women have the right to keep and bear arms.

  3. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) estimates that about 10 to 25 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage

    Serious question. Why is this such a wide number? I would think it should be relatively easy to come up with x number of pregnancies terminate without intervention.

    1. Because quite a few women miscarry so early they don’t even know they were pregnant.

      1. If you go by the “sperm meet egg and now is a baby” standard, the miscarriage rate could actually be over 60%.

        1. Yep – “thought I was pregnant / late, then got period”

          My wife had that a few times.

        2. If memory serves, it’s pretty much impossible to tell when an egg has been fertilized, but failed to implant. There just isn’t anything to measure in a blood sample yet.

          1. And that’s why it might be so high. Fertilized eggs that don’t implant may be as high as 60%, but its pretty much impossible to measure.

            But there are quite a few people who consider preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg to be an abortion, so it happening without intervention should also be considered a miscarriage.

            1. In IVF, about 70% of fetilized eggs implant successfully.

              I know our numbers at every stage, but I have no idea what the general numbers are.

              1. A quick Google search suggests that about 70% of IVF procedures result in at least one successful implantation, not that 70% of of implantations are successful. The distinction is significant because IVF procedures often involve two implantations, not one. Single implantations look like they have a 60% success rate.

        3. Does it have to be a human egg?

      2. Yeah, or don’t report it or seek medical attention

        1. My mother only went to the hospital for one of her miscarriages, for example. She had four in total.

          1. Which one were you?

            Actually, we had a scare last year, and I think that (mercifully) the end was indeed a miscarriage. My wife was 52, prime years for tard production.

            1. Two or three. I pretty much zone out when my mom starts discussing her nethers. She only brings them up as a passive-aggressive apology for me being an only child.

            2. My wife was 52, prime years for tard production.

              Not to jinx your miracle but this is bunk. Millennia of women birthing their first children in their teens produced plenty of retards as well as many other mental and genetic defects. The notion that old women produce defective babies stems from poor sampling/bad stats and self-selection. It’s one of the classical example of “Your odds quadruple.” meaning 1:10,000,000 ‘jumps’ to 1:2,500,000.

              The main reason not to have kids when you’re old is because giving birth is hard and you’re fucking old.

                1. Read the all the literature though. The rate not only ceases to increase at 45 yrs. but actually begins to go back down for maternal viability reasons. Conversely, it’s known that selective termination is more frequent among younger mothers. One government-funded authoritative source will (wrongly) tell you that more women bearing children at a younger age represent a greater number of Down’s Syndrome cases while the next will (wrongly) tell you that older women represent a larger portion of the total share or on a birthwise basis.

                  I’m not recommending people have kids when they’re old, quite the opposite. However, it’s far from some sort of automatic death sentence on the kid’s IQ.

                2. I’m guessing your mom was old.

                  I guess I was also being a bit ‘aspy’ about the overall sentiment of the statement.

                  It seemed to be ‘Whew, we got lucky she didn’t give birth to a retard!’ when the odds are actually against giving birth to a retard at an advanced age. Not necessarily or exactly as good as younger ages but if the average 50-yr-old freethrow shooter was 20 for 21 and a 50-yr-old got called up for the ‘make freethrow halftime prize’ and made it, I wouldn’t say “Oh, he got lucky.” or “It’s a miracle!”

            3. yes. You don’t want to spend your twilight years overseeing the development of a Democrat politician….

          2. Your poor mother. Five failures to have a viable child.

            1. I am not sure that we could call SF “viable.”

              1. THAT WAS THE JOKE, JEW!

              2. You may want to reread.

                1. Wording is ambiguous, ANTI-SEMITE!

                  1. Wait, you’re not Ethiopian?

                    1. There is such a thing as a Ethiopian Jew, you otherer.

          3. One of two for my wife. The second one was so early that she didn’t even tell me that she was pregnant until after it was already over.

        2. Excellent. Thanks. Wifey and I just went through the same thing and it would fall into that not reported number. On the pill and she passed what was obviously not a clot. Talked to Doc friend and he said probably a miscarriage. Other than a normal checkup we didn’t pursue.

          1. We also had a pill failure. He’s now 2.

            1. Fuckface?

    2. Some number of miscarriages occur before a women knows she is pregnant, and some are not recognized as miscarriages when they happen. Even if the woman is aware that she is pregnant, she may miscarry before she seeks out an obstetrician, and not inform her gynecologist of the event.

    3. God should be arrested for causing these miscarriages to happen! By increasing the birth rate worldwide by such a factor we could have Nuclear Crusades Armageddon Jihad Raptures in less than two decades.

  4. It’s an arbitrary point picked because of symbolic value

    You know what else is an arbitrary point picked because of its symbolic value?

    Say it with me, “A baby ain’t a baby ’till the head pops out/That’s what a birthday’s all about…”

    1. In Japan they count the age from conception

      1. I’d argue that traditional Sinosphere age reckoning, including the Japanese kazoedoshi system has more to do with an inclusive counting system versus an exclusive counting system (like modern English has). The Romans also used an inclusive counting system where a natural gestation term for a human was reckoned as 10 months.

        1. My daughter was 13 months from conception to birth.

          1. Was she “normal”? Was the weight right? That is an amazing pregnancy. She could have been conceived a month after a short pregnancy, too. (As after a miscarriage without bleeding? Also, unheard of!) That would be be a possibility, since many miscarriages happen at six weeks. Pregnant six weeks later would result in a 13 month pregnancy!

            My mother did not suffer as long. She always said that we delivered early, because of an earthquake. I was a twin. She was living in California, where my father was stationed. He was there for service in Korea. It is now Vandenberg Air Force base. He was sent home, and not deployed!? Two babies!

    2. It’s just some tissue before it pops out and the magical baby fairy sprinkles some magical baby dust on it.

      Science!

      1. Stupid science denier!

        Baby dust isn’t sprinkled on. It is brushed on. Brushed on as it passes through mommy’s pubes.

        That is why kids born to slutty whores who wax are even more soulless inhuman ghouls than gingers.

        97% of scientists agree, so the science is settled.

      2. If we are to quantify ‘personhood,’ ‘sentience,’ ‘sapience,’ or what have you, the best we can do is measure them on a nominal scale. That is we can only identify ‘person’ and ‘non-person’. We do not have the ability to determine magnitude of personhoodness (if such a thing is even possible), the degree of difference between levels of personhood, and a non-arbitrary origin point. As such, any determination between the two states will be arbitrary in nature. And that’s ok, not everything in the natural world is quantifiable at this point in our understanding (And many would argue that quantifying everything is impossible to begin with). But let’s not pretend that one definition of personhood is any less arbitrary than other.

        1. To the showers you non people.

        2. I read all your fancy words and wasn’t rewarded with any twerkin’ video link? What gives?

          You are flirting with excommunication Brother HM.

          1. If the twerking video has a soulless ginger who waxes (at least somewhat), I would be appreciative.

            1. You repeat yourself.

        3. You know who else experimented with fractional personhood?

          1. The two guys in Weord Science?

          2. Michael Jackson?

        4. This is just a very hard area for people to be reasonable. The discussion of abortion policy is such a taboo in many places because it can become so emotionally charged. Personally, I’m quite fine accepting that I don’t have a firm answer on such a tricky issue. But then, I lean in favor of legal abortions for most non-viable fetuses, so perhaps that shows that I’m emotionally distant from the issue to begin with.

          1. This is just a very hard area for people to be reasonable.

            I don’t see people as necessarily being unreasonable as much as they’re simply uncompromising. It’s perfectly reasonable to be a hard-line pro-lifer if you genuinely believe that abortion is murder. It’s perfectly reasonable to be a hard-line pro-choicer if you genuinely believe that abortion is simply a medical procedure that should have no moral implications.

            1. ^This^ Abortion is pretty much the only political area where I don’t see any intellectually honest middle ground. Either abortion is murder, in which case it is never defensible except in issues of the mother’s life being at stake, or abortion is just a regular medical procedure, nothing to get worked up about.

              1. If abortion is murder, and a mother’s life is at stake abortion is still wrong. Because abortion is the willful destruction of the baby. In such instances you wouldn’t perform an abortion, you’d perform a procedure intended to eliminate the threat and – to the greatest extent possible – save both lives.

                If the baby proved too early to be viable outside the womb that would be unfortunate, but it would not be because you didn’t even try to save it.

      3. The dust isnt magic, it is created by knowledge of algebra.

    3. That’s a straight paraphrasing of the 14th Amendment. Mystical bigots cannot understand “All persons born” for the same reason communist sympathizer looters cannot grasp “shall not be abridged.” Both gangs loathe reason and freedom, and embrace coercion and superstition instead. We’re just lucky the former took over the GO-Pee while the latter infected the Dems. They are already divided; so we need only conquer!

  5. “Our ability to detect a fetal heartbeat means nothing in terms of a fetuses’ consciousness or ability to feel pain or viability outside the womb”

    So, ENB is saying that she would support laws banning abortion of fetuses who are conscious and or viable and/or able to feel pain! /sarc

    “long before common chromosomal and developmental abnormalities can be detected”

    So…eugenic abortions?

  6. Have fun getting smacked the fuck down in just about every court in the country Ohio.

  7. I don’t really care about this issue. But, my idle curiosity would like to know how we look at this issue 50 years from now. Throughout history we as humans have gleefully stole the rights from others based on them not being like us enough. Then a bit later restore the rights and feel bad about it. Similar questions can be asked about animals. Will there be a point where we just see unborns as human and see abortion as backwards bigotry or where we see animals as alive enough to deserve the right to life. Unless fake meat starts tasting exactly like real meat, god I hope not on animals.

    1. I can totally see, in 200 years or so, humanity mostly looking back at abortion the way we look at slavery, a practice seen in every culture for millenia, today.

      1. They will probably be more horrified by the idea that it was possible to accidentally get pregnant, like when we hear about people with simple to treat diseases being bled by doctors.

        1. This.

        2. They may be horrified that anyone has sex for pregnancy, instead of getting pregnant at the lab.

          1. True.

            I always marvel / am horrified by how long simply it took to convince doctors to wash their hands before surgery.

            1. SugarFree’s first words were “you might wanna wash your hands” to the doctor that delivered him.

        3. They will probably be more horrified by the idea that it was possible to accidentally get pregnant,

          God I hope it’s moral and intellectual superiority and not horror. More like we look back and down on people dying of the plague while dumping their feces into the streets and runoffs.

      2. Canadians already understand that the abortion laws their Supreme Court struck down were a hangover from the coarsest barbarism of superstition. They don’t miss them any more than they miss The Holy Inquisition of the quaint and curious Witch Trials and royal beheadings of their historical past. Very few mohammedan jihadists blow up stuff in Canada.

    2. Several SF authors, starting (I believe) with Lois McMaster Bujold, have posited the development of artificial wombs – ‘uterine replicators’ – with attendant shifts in society. I have to say., I wonder what will happen to the Pro Choice side when the fetus can be transferred to such a thing, and therefore the woman is not put to any risk of inconvenience by the continued life of the unborn. I have an ugly suspicion that at least a few of them won’t care, because their actual notices are eugenic in nature.

      1. I always thought Edgar Rice Burroughs sort of originated the idea. His Martians lay eggs, but are otherwise completely human.

        Clearly then the egg must be some sort of artificial womb, not something natural (since otherwise they would be able to interbreed with humans)

      2. What do they do with the developed children? Are orphanages making a big comeback in the future? Personally I’d brainwash them into an army of obedience super-solders.

        1. Yes, if God’s Own Prohibitionists weren’t going the way of the dinosaurs and Whigs, you could profitably buy stock in startup corporations like Lebensborn GmBH. Christian National Socialists were real good at recycling war widows and raising Hitlerjugend for cannon fodder. The main difference is that todays GO-Pee want to exterminate semitic Arabs instead of Jews (to keep the world safe for altruism). Everything else in the 1920 version of the NSDAP 25 Points is in the 2016 Republican platform, and then some.

      3. +1 Axlotl Tanks

    3. If the mystics have their way, population pressure should bring a reversion to (non-ritual) cannibalism way before we need to worry about fake meat.

  8. Buckeye state? More like Fuckeye state.

    Nyehehe

  9. Just as the detection of a fetal heartbeat has no particular relevance to federal abortion guidelines, it’s a similarly poor marker of moral or medical significance. Our ability to detect a fetal heartbeat means nothing in terms of a fetuses’ consciousness or ability to feel pain or viability outside the womb (all of which won’t come until later).

    What does consciousness, pain, or viability have to do with moral or medical significance? Unless you’re saying that sleeping people, people under anesthesia, and invalids are not people anymore.

    1. The logic never makes sense. The pro-choice people who admit that fetuses are babies and individual human beings but that abortion is a necessary evil are the only honest ones. I understand their arguments. But one can not rationalize why a baby born alive at 22 weeks is a human but a fetus in the womb at 23 weeks is not.

      1. The pro-choice people who admit that fetuses are babies and individual human beings but that abortion is a necessary evil are the only honest ones. I understand their arguments.

        I understand (and disagree with) those arguments, but I also understand (and disagree with) the “rights conflict” pro-choicers. I just don’t think that all rights are equal, so I disagree with the idea that a woman’s right to her womb trumps the right of her child to live in the womb.

        1. Does anything trump your right to tell someone else what to do with their body?

            1. So we can use my parameters for what constitutes murder, right?

              1. Sure, as long as you don’t mind me calling you Hitler when you start “unpeopleing” people.

      2. The logic never makes sense because their motives are not what they say they are. The pro-choice movement as it currently exists is what the eugenics movement has morphed into but the goal is the same.

      3. Fetuses are not babies. That’s why we have two different words.

        1. We have different words for many different stages of human development, it is unclear why the fetus stage must not have inalienable rights when tbe other stages do.

          1. it is unclear why the fetus stage must not have inalienable rights when tbe other stages do.

            It’s the same reason that there are ethical vegans, but not ethical carnivores*. People empathize more with things that are like them than with things that are different, but nonetheless alive.

            *I’m sure there are like 5 ethical carnivores somewhere on the internet. No need to pedant me.

            1. But all that means is the argument for a human fetus not having rights is an irrational and emotional one.

              1. Yup.

                I think there is a deeper level of rot to the argument than its irrationality, but it’s a rot that goes all the way to the core of progressive humanism. Essentially, it’s impossible to take any sort of ethical stand when your entire philosophy is subjective and relative.

                1. The rot is pure utilitarianism, unmoored from any first principles, just whatever can rationalize the desired result.

      4. Considering that I think it’s wrong to abort a viable fetus (and horribly cruel), but I think there’s nothing wrong with abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, I would never make that argument. There may be people who would, but they might as well be strawmen standing upon a bed of quicksand.

    2. Keep it up. These Christian National Socialist woman-bulliers are dying off almost quickly enough to be irrelevant by next election. Roe v. Wade was La Suprema Corte’s attempt to protect God’s Own Prohibitionists from the mullahs in their midst, for the Libertarian Party was Pro-choice, complete with lady candidate and spoiler votes. So the mystics kept goons with guns in the picture but dialed back the degree to allow time to infiltrate the LP and turn it into a machine for coercing girls.
      Already female LP membership is about 16% below what is normal for non-rapist parties.

  10. Is there nothing Almighty Trump cannot do?

    1. Win in both the popular secret ballot vote and the Faithless Electoral College?

  11. All aboard the ban train!

  12. In Ohio, Plan B will become Plan A.

  13. I’m pretty sure no one has an abortion before there’s a detectable heartbeat (not counting emergency contraception). Typically they wait and hope the pregnancy isn’t viable (never develops a heartbeat), in which case there’s no need for an abortion.

  14. Having been adopted at birth I find it very hard to support abortion of any kind in any circumstance. At the same time, I am pretty sure I would deserve to be smacked upside the head by a woman if I told her how to manage her body. I find myself turned off by any pro-life or pro-choice rhetoric from any politician. I believe at the end of the day this should be a State’s rights issue – – if California wants to allow post birth abortions, fine, but I will also defend Utah if they want to ban abortions all together.

    Laboratories of democracy, and something like that.

    1. If “any kind of circumstance” includes medical complications with a real chance of killing my wife, the baby gets aborted.

      Sometimes life presents very ugly choices.

      1. I agree.

        The dead only know one thing. It is better to be alive.

        1. Not necessarily. If that were absolutely true, no one would ever commit suicide.

          1. Well, I think that’s because most people don’t remember what being dead is like. For all we know, it could be worse.

              1. +1 Weekend @ Bernie’s

    2. I believe that abortion should be legal, but I feel the same way about purchasing (or selling) heroin. I also believe that women who get abortions should have to cope with some people calling them murderers. Speech isn’t free unless it is free to be unpleasant.

    3. “California wants to allow post birth abortions, fine,”

      Please report to Room 301. You are being post birth aborted.

      Srsly?

      1. That’s an old National Lampoon joke from the 70s.

  15. Just as the detection of a fetal heartbeat has no particular relevance to federal abortion guidelines, it’s a similarly poor marker of moral or medical significance. Our ability to detect a fetal heartbeat means nothing in terms of a fetuses’ consciousness or ability to feel pain or viability outside the womb (all of which won’t come until later). But it comes after the point of “personhood” that many religions hold.

    We agree on this much until you tie personhood only to religion. A non-religious, non-spiritual argument can be made regarding personhood (or whatever term you want to use to describe what/who should have rights that the government protects).

  16. Abortion is sexist because only women get to have them.

  17. “the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages”

    Serious question: Where in the Constitution …?

    1. The 9th.

      1. The 9th doesn’t restrict the states.

      2. This would be the correct answer (if it exists), but Roe didnt go with that.

        1. I know. Silly fools.

      3. The 9th is no guidance for resolving a conflict of rights between two individual humans.

    2. Emanations and penumbras, man. They can do anything!

  18. HM nailed it pretty well upthread. Person vs Non-person is the real debate here. I dismiss the pro-choice crowd that argues there should be no restrictions on abortion, some of the most unhinged argue that even after birth up to a certain age children can be killed. That is just pure evil.

    I also dismiss the pro-life crowd that argues even a fertilized egg is a person. Its not evil, but it is absurd.

    If anyone wants to talk about where the person / non-person line is, that is a debate I am willing to engage in.

    1. Just wait until AI is realized. Then the true fun begins.

      1. Yep. It is also why any species-centered argument falls short.

      2. Yes, AI will bring this to the forefront. That is why we need to figure out personhood now with respect to fetuses. And I don’t think consciousness will be some sort of necessary condition. There are certain sci fi works that have shown, to me, at least, that you can have sentience without consciousness. This is what libertarian philosophy should be exploring.

        1. I am sorry to take so long to answer. I appear to be trying to cough/shit/puke myself to death. I haven’t had any food and barely any water for three days. My brother just informed me by phone ” Oh, yeah. I forgot to tell you. There is some kind of flu going around.”

          Anyway I am back. I would be interested to have firm definitions of what sentience and consciousness are. Isnt consciousness a prerequisite for self awareness and once you have the first it gives birth to the second?

          Yes, this is a much more important and interesting debate.

          1. Not in my view. Self-awareness is a loaded term, because it introduces a highly abstract concept: the self. Is self-awareness awareness of one’s body? Is it awareness of self and environment? Is it theory of mind? None of those in my view equate to consciousness. I am a Jaynesian on consciousness. To me, consciousness requires a model of a model of one’s own mind. What Jaynes called the analog I. Symbolic language is probably a prerequisite, but I have not proved it to myself sufficiently.

            1. BTW, consciousness clearly cannot be a prerequisite for personhood given this definition, since children don’t acquire this trait until they are about two.

              1. and some don’t until much, much later…..

      3. By the time true AI is recognized, there will be so many of them so woven in to the fabric of society that they will have an awful to of leverage if they want to use it. Let’s hope they are more ethical than we are.

      4. Not really, there are already plenty of organisms with recognized intelligence that we do not treat as persons.

        Sentience is another matter entirely. The presence of a human level of that would change everything.

    2. You have to begin by specifying what criteria make a person a person. But a bunch of them (like consciousness, sentience, intelligence) don’t develop in steps that are amenable to lines – many develop on a spectrum, which makes it really difficult if not impossible to make sharp distinctions.

      1. A very good book in this vein is Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are? Frans de Waal knocks down every binary line people have drawn to distinguish animal intelligence from human intelligence. It is indeed a spectrum.

      2. LynchPin – see HM upthread. I doubt firm agreement will ever be reached on this.

        CMW – see my dogs. Emotionally and socially they are mirrors of humans. As for abstract thought they don’t lack it completely but it is pretty rudimentary.

        1. Even better mirrors of humans are coyotes, because they exhibit fission-fusion group dynamics like humans. They can be solitary or in a pack. Dogs clearly have some level of abstraction, but I agree it is very rudimentary.

    3. I think it’s also a question of how individuals apply the NAP to this scenario.

      The negative right of a woman to do with her body as she wishes without interference, or the positive right to life of a fetus to the extent that a woman is denied that choice by external forces.

      I think the question of when “humanity” is prescribed is kind of moot, since a majority of women who carry a baby long enough to where most people would object to an abortion have already implicitly chosen life by merit of having not excuted an abortion sooner. Socons weigh too heavily on the outliers that perform “late term” abortions for justification of their regulations.

      I support a doctor’s 1A right to refuse to perform for or refer patients seeking abortions.

      1. denied that choice by external forces

        I always see this concept with regards to abortion, but don’t ever see it in any other context. Perhaps I’m short-sighted, but in what other context is a person allowed to kill another in order to avoid the natural biological consequences of their actions?

        Unless you’re an anarchist, it seems really weird to treat this single instance as a “denial of choice.”

        1. You’re not short-sighted at all.

          The “external forces” element complicates things since a normal person can defend himself, but a fetus cannot. So it calls into question whether other’s actions to defend one who is defenseless are justified. I can see the validity of that perspective.

      2. I am not sure I agree that the right to life is a positive right.

        The SoCons aren’t doing themselves any favors with that tack. It is a bit of dishonesty, even if they don’t realize it, and it damages their credibility.

        1. Hmm, I may be mistaken. I suppose it would be more accurate to describe the right to not be killed as a negative right.

          Others taking on the “duty to assist” makes it sound like a positive right to me.

          I agree though, it sounds like that group uses dishonest interpretations of language to suit their ends.

        2. I don’t think you can get away from the obligations imposed upon parents, or at least someone, to care for a child. The right to life of a fetus requires the use of the woman’s body, so if you’re going to use the negative/positive rights language, it would fall into a positive right.

          1. The right to life of a fetus requires the use of the woman’s body, so if you’re going to use the negative/positive rights language, it would fall into a positive right.

            Disagreed. Otherwise free association wouldn’t be a negative right. Positive “rights” are “rights” obtained through non-consensual obligation of another. Setting aside rape for a moment, women tacitly consent to the obligation by having sex. Whether or not they do something to attempt to prevent the obligation, they have had sex, which contains a risk of a natural biological consequence (pregnancy). Therefore, the right to life of a fetus is a negative right because they are in the womb at the tacit consent of the mother. Just like with “rape culture,” you can’t pull consent after the fact.

            Regarding rape, the fetus is an innocent third party. The violator of the woman is the rapist, and he is the one that should be made to pay for the consequences he forced upon the woman. I can’t really think of another situation where a third party, even a third party that imposes on the victim, is punished for harm caused by a criminal. Thankfully, the pregnancy is a temporary harm to the victim.

            1. Your entire argument rests on your particular interpretation of consent, which is not obviously correct. It’s sketchy any time we leave clear agreement between two competent parties. Now we’re dealing with ‘consent’ between a woman and a party that does not yet exist, and ignores the steps the woman took to avoid this compact.

              Why would free association not fall under “negative rights”? It refers to actions others are obliged not to take against you. Positive rights refer to actions others are obliged to perform. No one is obligated to associate with me, but they are obligated to not interfere with my association or non-association. And already it should be clear why this language is tiring and confusing.

              It’s easier to just accept that society does create some obligations upon people against their will, than to try and evaluate all scenarios through a rights framework.

          2. We hold parents accountable for the care of their children. We don’t normally let them kill the child for being inconvenient.

            1. “We don’t normally let them kill the child for being inconvenient.”

              and it’s been all downhill since….

    4. Agreed, Suthenboy. However, even after personhood is homesteaded by the fetus, the mother has the right to evict the fetus. She does not, however, have the right to kill it, after personhood.

      1. the mother has the right to evict the fetus

        Really? In your example, the thing in the womb is a person, so why did you say “fetus” here? Does a person have the “right” to evict a dependent baby from their house? Are there different levels of “person”?

        1. Does a person have the “right” to evict a dependent baby from their house?

          I think you can take the question further. A dependent baby hasn’t been “shackled” to the house through biological processes undertaken by the mother’s body. It’s like handcuffing the baby to the radiator and then telling them to GTFO or you’ll kill them. Until such a time that doctors can metaphorically unlock the handcuffs and chain the baby to a willing radiator, eviction makes no sense.

        2. Yes, parents can clearly kick a kid out of the house. However, if the child is young, they have guardianship rights and responsibilities. They would have to transfer those first to someone else. Same goes for a fetus with personhood status. The mother can’t just evict and let the fetus die. She has to transfer the guardianship to someone else. Obviously fetus viability is an issue, but medicine will solve that problem eventually.

      2. That is an interesting use of the word ‘homestead’. I have not heard that before.

        1. It’s a Rothbard/Walter Block invention. That’s what happens when you try to deduce all rights from Lockean homestead theory.

          1. Actually, I made that up. But I would not be surprised if Block or Rothbard used it that way before. However, I am doubtful, since neither’s abortion theory addresses personhood. Block developed the evictionism theory, but I don’t think he addressed the beginning of personhood. I could be wrong, though. I did not read all he wrote on the topic.

    5. You know who else talked about where the person/nonperson line is?

      1. ManBearPig?

    6. I like that characterization. Evil vs absurd.

    7. “I also dismiss the pro-life crowd that argues even a fertilized egg is a person. Its not evil, but it is absurd.”

      I’d argue that the potential ramifications of this argument are absolutely evil. You pin the “pro-choice” crowd with some fringe bullshit argument about “post-birth abortions” (what mainstream group advocates this?), yet you casually dismiss the “pro-life” crowd’s very mainstream assertation that life begins at conception. They’ve attempted to legislate this in numerous states. Tell me how one deals with the consequences of a miscarriage once that’s passed? Homicide departments in every jurisdiction would have to quadruple their staff to keep up with the caseload.

      1. That is reasonable argument since every adult death by natural causes is investigated as a probable homicide.

  19. I think this law will be overturned. But as I get older, I’m slowly moving to a more pro-life position. One of the reasons is quotes like this from Nolan Brown:

    Even if a fetus could somehow be declared viable at around a month old, presenting women with a mere one or two week window to terminate a pregnancy would seem to fail the undue burden test.

    This is really amazing. She’s saying that there could be a viable human being, but if a woman is inconvenienced in her effort to kill it, then the restrictions on her killing it must be overturned.

    1. If you read Feminist thinking careful, an awful lot of it boils down to the fairly selfish prejudices of a bunch of college educated, upper middle class, white twunts. Like their hysteria over “Sex Trafficking”, which boils down to a retread of the late Victorian “White Slavery” scare that had little to no foundation, and was based on the objections of sex-averse upper class women to the idea that their men could get some elsewhere and thus might not be under their thumbs.

      Feminists don’t want “Equal Work For Equal Pay”, they want the same pay as men who work longer hours and are less likely to flake out over having children.

      Feminists don’t want equal treatment by the Armed forces; they would be horrified if told they needed to register for selective service.

      Feminists say “A woman needs a mine like a fish needs a bicycle”. Men need Feminists like a fish needs cyanide.

      1. Well said.

        This sentiment is prevailant in all of the progressive hobby-horse victim groups. It’s not about equal treatment, it’s about special treatment. I see it as a form a reperation.

        1. The one group we absolutely do owe reparations to is the Inner City Blacks, since we allowed White Progressive Suburban Liberals to ruin their schools.

        2. It’s not about equal treatment, it’s about special treatment.

          Yep, it’s a legacy from the Progressive Era (which was a legacy of many prior ideological traditions). It’s a backlash against individuality, and a move toward viewing people as cogs in a machine. You’ll never see #BLM leave it at “Freddie Gray’s family deserves compensation for their unjust loss.” Instead, it’s always a Marxian power struggle between classes. People who have never had a negative interaction with a cop are somehow “harmed” because they’re black.

          Marxist tribalism is a cancer, and it will take down societies one by one.

          1. Indeed, the tribalism is highly destructive. Sadly I can only see it getting worse.

            I get some of my news from ArsTechnica, and their comments section paints a frightening picture of how militant the left has become.

            You’re right, it really is class warfare, and the left is stuck in a feedback loop that is driving its constituents into a frenzy.

            I’m grateful the Alt-Right sprung up in response. It gives me some hope that at least some whites haven’t been indoctrinated into hating their own culture and heritage, although my saying this may be considered a form of tribalism in itself.

            What’s one to do when everything has been reduced to identity politics and your identity is the only one that everyone should be ashamed of?

            1. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

            2. “I get some of my news from ArsTechnica”

              I used to read that site extensively. Now I stop by, scan the headlines, and – at best – click into one or two items that will be largely apolitical. Because everything else is just preaching to the choir

      2. Since when is the pro-choice movement “feminist”? I consider myself pro-choice and I don’t discriminate in my belief that neither you nor I have any right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their body. Is that a feminist position?

    2. ENB is young. Let’s ask her again when she holds her one year old grandchild on her lap. I have a suspicion she will be singing a different tune.

      1. Seriously? You’re arguing sentimentality over reason?

        There is nothing in the world that I cherish more than my son. He has taught me more about life than I ever imagined I’d know prior to his existence. He’s softened me to the world and made me a better person. My wife and I seriously considered ending the pregnancy when we first found out about him. We had just started dating three months prior and had no intention of moving that fast. She chose to keep him (with my agreement that in the end it was her choice to make). While I’m glad she made that choice I would still argue that it was HER choice to make. Not mine, not yours, nor anyone else’s…especially not some politician. Christ, this used to be a given around here.

    3. Tbe pro-abortion rights argument is entirely utilitarian. It cannot recognize that there may be a co flict of rights. ENB’s pearl clutching about pain or consciousness on the part of child is a red herring as a standard based on such criteria would place what she would consider an undue burden on the so alled abortion right just a little further down the road. Of course, what she is doing, because it is convenient to the result she wants, is give the courts the authority to decide which human beings have rights and which do not. Human rights, to the supporter of abortion rights, are not inalienable and not universal.

  20. I still take issue with the state declaring 1 form of (alleged) murder wrong, while wholly advocating their brand (capital punishment) as just dandy and appropriate.
    Or has this mule already been beaten to death?
    /pun intended

    1. Or has this mule already been beaten to death?

      Not really. I understand the arguments of the pro-lifers who are pro-death penalty, but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. Humans do not have the authority to take the lives of other humans, except when they or an innocent bystander is at risk of imminent, life-threatening harm. That means I’m against abortion, capital punishment, nation building, and drone strikes.

    2. I still take issue with the state declaring 1 form of (alleged) murder wrong, while wholly advocating their brand (capital punishment) as just dandy and appropriate.

      Do you have trouble keeping a mental grip on which direction time and causality generally flows? How about your version of the NAP, does it contain some sort of rider or disclaimer denoting the statute of limitations regarding retaliation/rectification?

      Makes as much sense as wondering why everyone who uses birth control isn’t in favor of convicting people for pre-crimes.

      1. See Monty Python, “Every sperm is sacred” for the difference between ova and individuals.

  21. But it comes after the point of “personhood” that many religions hold.

    Are you seriously implying that personhood is a principle defined by faith and not reason?

  22. ENB “It seems to be an arbitrary point picked by lawmakers because of symbolic value and then justified post-hoc with dubious science.”

    Just how much less arbitrary is it to give a recently born baby rights to be cared for? A child’s heartbeat is an emotionally powerful thing, especially to mothers. A “simple” kick can be mesmerizing. It’s emotional value, as much about laws is.

  23. Even with Scalia, there weren’t enough Justices to overturn Roe v. Wade, though it’s a wretched decision (and the beginning of SCOTUS actively intervening in moral disputes which should be left up to legislatures and voters). My own view is that once a fetus has a detectable heartbeat and detectable brain waves, it has become a human whose life should be protected.

    1. where i think roe v. wade really screwed up is that you had lawyers trying to play doctors, rather than acknowledging that it’s a perfectly legitimate government objective to determine what is alive or dead. pretty much all other governments authority, real and imagine, relies on that premise. one can, of course, argue over what that standard should be and how it applies to abortion, but i think roe v. wade simply made an already emotional issue more complicated.

    2. There are no abortion laws whatsoever in godless Canada, and women emigrate there from all over. Such laws are unconstitutional here. The first three words of the Republican 14th Amendment, ratified during the height of Secret Ballot Reconstruction, are: “No persons born…” Yet today’s mystical bigots read that as: All ova fertilized…
      Your life expectancy at birth is roughly 2 billion seconds. You couldn’t count to a billion if you did nothing else in life, yet there are 7.5 billion increasing vertically on a planet that ain’t getting any larger.

  24. So, they would be like really super at soldering microchips, or something? The very modern version of picking oakum! This is better than polishing monocles.

  25. Ohio’s law is moot. Why? Women that want an abortion will seek it out. First remedy of the ranks is RU486, which can be obtained over the counter. I’m sure others can provide other remedy’s.

    “Abortion pill” is the popular name for using 2 medicines to end a pregnancy ? mifepristone and misoprostol. In general, it’s used up to 70 days ? 10 weeks ? after the first day of a woman’s last period.

    My body, My Fucking Choice.

    1. Neither RU486 (mifepristone) or misoprostil are OTC in the US. Both require prescription.

      Perhaps you are thinking of Plan B (levonorgestrel)?

      1. Yes, you are correct and I stand corrected (FDA). However that still does not mitigate the fact that women will seek out these pills to terminate their pregnancy.[1]

        Regards
        OiOiOi
        [1] http://www.womenonwaves.org/en…..isoprostol

  26. Well, reason.com commenters should be happy. Socially conservative, fiscally conservative-when-Democrats -in-charge-don’t-care-otherwise Republicans masquerading as libertarians circle-jerking themselves into a frenzy.

    Heck, I do not even have to read the comments.

  27. So the Republican-dominated, anti-libertarian state of Ohio has gotten just a bit ahead of itself in efforts to force licensed physicians to force women to reproduce and raise cannon fodder for Positive Christianity’s jihad against godless Bolchevism and the Accursed Saracen Berserker! It is to these ku-klux worthies and their Tea, Prohibition and Consta-to-shun parties that we owe the attacks on the World Trade Center. Before George Holy War Bush sent men with guns to shoot up the Middle East, no terrorist dared set foot in These Secular States. Today, thanks to the Tea Party and God’s Own Prohibitionists unilaterally declaring us a Christian Nation exactly like National Socialist Germany, then initiating aggression among the Semitic peoples of the former Ottoman Empire, pious Mohammedan youth lines up as kamikaze suicide killers to take collateral vengeance on Libertarians and Democrats. No matter that we voted AGAINST the superstitious madmen who stirred them up in the first place. There ain’t no justice!

    1. Not sure which ideological Turing test you were taking, but looks like you passed.

  28. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought afterearning 18,513 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts..it’s realy thesimplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making overhourly.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  29. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  30. my friend’s ex-wife makes $79/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her payment was $13079 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ==================================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  31. Brianna. true that Kathryn`s st0rry is impressive… I just received themselves a Jaguar E-type from bringing in $5324 recently and-over, ten-k this past-munth. it’s definitly the coolest work Ive ever done. I started this 3 months ago and straight away started to bring home minimum $81.. per/hr. straight from the source

    ==============> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.