Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What About Abortion in Cases of Rape and Incest? Women and Sexual Assault
Life News ^ | 4/5/10 | Amy Sobie

Posted on 04/05/2010 3:13:26 PM PDT by wagglebee

LifeNews.com Note: Amy Sobie is the editor of The Post-Abortion Review, a quarterly publication of the Elliot Institute. The organization is a widely respected leader in research and analysis of medical, mental health and other complications resulting from abortions.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Many people, including those whose mission is to help women and girls who are victims of sexual assault and abuse, believe abortion is the best solution if a pregnancy occurs.

Yet our research shows that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault don't want abortion, and say abortion only compounds their trauma.

“How can you deny an abortion to a twelve-year-old girl who is the victim of incest?”

Typically, people on both sides of the abortion debate accept the premise that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault want abortions. From this “fact,” it naturally follows that the reason women want abortions in these cases is because it will help them to put the assault behind them, recover more quickly, and avoid the additional trauma of giving birth to a “rapist’s child.”

But in fact, the welfare of a mother and her child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. As the stories of many women confirm, both the mother and the child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence.

Sadly, however, the testimonies of women who have actually been pregnant through sexual assault are routinely left out of this public debate. Many people, including sexual assault victims who have never been pregnant, may be forming opinions based on their own prejudices and fears rather than the real life experiences of those people who have been in this difficult situation and reality.

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done prior to this book, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent did not have abortions. This figure is remarkably similar to the 73 percent birth rate found in our sample of 164 pregnant rape victims. This one finding alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.1

Several reasons were given for not aborting. Many women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not believe in abortion, believing it would be a further act of violence perpetrated against their bodies and their children. Further, many believe that their children’s lives may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

The woman may also sense, at least at a subconscious level, that if she can get through the pregnancy she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength, and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he destroyed, she can nurture.

Adding to the Trauma

Many people assume that abortion will at least help a rape victim put the assault behind her and get on with her life. But evidence shows that abortion is not some magical surgery which turns back the clock to make a woman “un-pregnant.”

Instead, it is a real life event which is always very stressful and often traumatic. Once we accept that abortion is itself an event with deep ramifications for a woman’s life, then we must look carefully at the special circumstances of the pregnant sexual assault victim. Evidence indicates that abortion doesn't help and only causes further injury to an already bruised psyche?

But before we even get to this issue, we must ask: do most women who become pregnant as a result of sexual assault want to abort?

In our survey of women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, many women who underwent abortions indicated that they felt pressured or were strongly directed by family members or health care workers to have abortions. The abortion came about not because of the woman's desire to abort but as a response to the suggestions or demands of others. In many cases, resources such as health workers, counselors and others who are normally there to help women after sexual assault pushed for abortion.

Family pressure, withholding of support and resources that the woman needed to continue the pregnancy, manipulative an inadequate counseling and other problems all played a role into pushing women into abortions, even though abortion was often not what the woman really wanted.

Further, in almost every case involving incest, it was the girl's parents or the perpetrator who made the decision and arrangements for the abortion, not the girl herself. None of these women reported having any input into the decision. Each was simply expected to comply with the choice of others. In several cases, the abortion was carried out over the objections of the girl, who clearly told others that wanted to continue the pregnancy. In a few cases, victim was not even clearly aware that she was pregnant or that the abortion was being carried out.

"Medical Rape"

Second, although many people believe that abortion will help a woman resolve the trauma of rape more quickly, or at least keep her from being reminded of the rape throughout her pregnancy, many of the women in our survey who had abortions reported that abortion only added to and accentuated the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault.

This is easy to understand when one considers that many women have described their abortions as being similar to a rape (and even used the term "medical rape), it is easy to see that abortion is likely to add a second trauma to the earlier trauma of sexual assault. Abortion involves an often painful intrusion into a woman’s sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body. Once she is on the operating table, she loses control over her body. Even if she protests and asks the abortionist to stop, chances are she will be either ignored or told that it's too late to stop the abortion.

For many women this experiential association between abortion and sexual assault is very strong. It is especially strong for women who have a prior history of sexual assault, whether or not the aborted child was conceived during an act of assault. This is just one reason why women with a history of sexual assault are likely to experience greater distress during and after an abortion than are other women.

Research also shows that women who abort and women who are raped often describe similar feelings of depression, guilt, lowered self-esteem, violation and resentment of men. Rather than easing the psychological burdens experienced by those who have been raped, abortion added to them. Jackie wrote:

I soon discovered that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the pain I would feel deep within causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I could continue my life as if nothing had happened.2

Those encouraging, pushing or insisting on abortion often do so because they are uncomfortable dealing with sexual assault victims, or perhaps because they harbor some prejudice against victims whom they feel “let it happen.” Wiping out the pregnancy is a way of hiding the problem. It is a “quick and easy” way to avoid dealing with the woman’s true emotional, social and financial needs. As Kathleen wrote:

I, having lived through rape, and also having raised a child “conceived in rape,” feel personally assaulted and insulted every time I hear that abortion should be legal because of rape and incest. I feel that we're being used by pro-abortionists to further the abortion issue, even though we've not been asked to tell our side of the story.

Trapping the Incest Victim

The case against abortion for incest pregnancies is even stronger. Studies show that incest victims rarely ever voluntarily agree to abortion. Instead of viewing the pregnancy as unwanted, the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity. She is also likely to see in her pregnancy the hope of bearing a child with whom she can establish a truly loving relationship, one far different than the exploitive relationship in which she has been trapped.

But while the girl may see her pregnancy as a possible way of release from her situation, it poses a threat to her abuser. It is also poses a threat to the pathological secrecy which may envelop other members of the family who are afraid to acknowledge the abuse. Because of this dual threat, the victim may be coerced or forced into an unwanted abortion by both the abuser and other family members.

For example, Edith, a 12-year-old victim of incest impregnated by her stepfather, writes twenty-five years after the abortion of her child:

Throughout the years I have been depressed, suicidal, furious, outraged, lonely, and have felt a sense of loss . . . The abortion which was to “be in my best interest” just has not been. As far as I can tell, it only ‘saved their reputations,’ ‘solved their problems,’ and ‘allowed their lives to go merrily on.’ . . . My daughter, how I miss her so. I miss her regardless of the reason for her conception."

Abortion businesses who routinely ignore this evidence and neglect to interview minors presented for abortion for signs of coercion or incest are actually contributing to the victimization of young girls. Not only are they robbing the victim of her child, they are concealing a crime, abetting a perpetrator, and handing the victim back to her abuser so that the exploitation can continue.

For example, the parents of three teenaged Baltimore girls pleaded guilty to three counts of first-degree rape and child sexual abuse. The father had repeatedly raped the three girls over a period of at least nine years, and the rapes were covered up by at least ten abortions. At least five of the abortions were performed by the same abortionist at the same clinic.3

Sadly, there is strong evidence that failing to ask questions about the pregnancy and to report cases of sexual abuse are widespread at abortion clinics. Undercover investigations by pro-life groups have found numerous cases in which clinics agreed to cover up cases of statutory rape or ongoing abuse of minor girls by older men and simply perform an abortion instead.

In 2002 a judge found a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arizona negligent for failing to report a case in which a 13-year-old girl was impregnated and taken for an abortion by her 23-year-old foster brother. The abortion business did not notify authorities until the girl returned six months later for a second abortion. A lawsuit alleged that the girl was subjected to repeated abuse and a second abortion because Planned Parenthood failed to notify authorities when she had her first abortion. The girl's foster brother was later imprisoned for abusing her.4

Finally, we must recognize that children conceived through sexual assault also deserve to have their voices heard. Rebecca Wasser-Kiessling, who was conceived in a rape, is rightfully proud of her mother’s courage and generosity and wisely reminds us of a fundamental truth that transcends biological paternity: “I believe that God rewarded my birth mother for the suffering she endured, and that I am a gift to her. The serial rapist is not my creator; God is.”

Similarly, Julie Makimaa, who works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault, proclaims, “It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.”

That’s a slogan we can all live with.


Citations

1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

2. David C. Reardon, Aborted Women, Silent No More (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1987), 206.

3. Jean Marbella, "Satisfactory explanations of sex crime proved elusive," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31, 1990; M. Dion Thompson, "GBMC, doctor suspected nothing amiss," Baltimore Sun, Oct. 31. 1990; "Family Horror Comes to Light in Story of Girls Raped by Father," Baltimore Sun, November 4, 1990; Raymond L. Sanchez, "Mother Sentenced in Rape Case," Baltimore Sun, Dec. 6, 1990.

4. "Planned Parenthood Found Negligent in Reporting Molested Teen's Abortion," Pro-Life Infonet, attributed to Associated Press; Dec. 26, 2002.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; moralabsolutes; prolife; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 521-524 next last
To: metmom

You really don’t have a leg to stand on if you can’t label someone a murderer, do you?

Maybe you need to read the Bible a bit more. The answers are there.

What was the punishment for causing miscarriage? (and miscarriages ARE abortions...not all abortions are man-induced.)

I’m still waiting for you to provide any quote from me that shows enthusiasm or support for abortions.

If Pro Life means support for life how is it that even those who don’t support abortion are people you call pro abortion?

Oh....maybe because it is easier to smear people than talk to them.


261 posted on 04/06/2010 11:34:06 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: MrB; calex59
Remember that the pro-aborts use these “hard cases” in order to justify ALL cases.

Exactly!

There are approximately 4000-5000 pregnancies from rape each year (incest pregnancy figures are a little harder to pinpoint, but in cases of incest the abuser often stops his abuse when the girl reaches puberty) and not all of them chose to abort. There are over 1.3 MILLION abortions in America each year and the abortionists use the tragic circumstances of a few thousand to justify all the others.

262 posted on 04/06/2010 11:37:23 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: metmom
From Pregnancy.org:

Day 21, Week 3: The heart begins to beat.

Day 28, Week 4: The backbone and muscles are forming. Arms, legs, eyes and ears have begun to show. Hair has begun to sprout.

Day 30: The embryo is 10,000 times larger than the original fertilized egg. The heart is pumping increasing quantities of blood through the circulatory system.

Hmmm. The heart is beating at day 21. If it's beating, it's pumping blood. The fetus is already formed with bodily parts that require blood to function. By day 30, the heart is pumping increasing quantities of blood.

The crux of his misinformation: Leviticus directly says that the life of the flesh is in the blood. There is no blood at conception, so how can life begin at conception? At least Biblically speaking?. Well, if I take this literally (though it has nothing to do with our topic at hand), I'd say life of the flesh is already developed as early as day 21 if not before. Oh, well, another idiotic argument destroyed. Man, how people set themselves up...

263 posted on 04/06/2010 11:39:22 AM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: metmom

#253.

I have only seen anger and vitriol like this when dealing with Liberals who has been confronted with an idea that disturbs their orthodoxy.

Provide them with information that doesn’t jibe with their world view and they attack the messenger instead of the message.

Yeah, yeah, I’m a this or that...sticks and stones.

But your problem runs deeper....if you can’t shock people with words like murderer and baby killer, how do you coerce people into doing things your way?

Coercion....so religious yet so unChristian.


264 posted on 04/06/2010 11:43:09 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

Comment #265 Removed by Moderator

To: bcsco; metmom
Let's take a real close look at Leviticus 17:

11 Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul. 12 Therefore I have said to the children of Israel: No soul of you, nor of the strangers that sojourn among you, shall eat blood. 13 Any man whosoever of the children of Israel, and of the strangers that sojourn among you, if by hunting or fowling, he take a wild beast or a bird, which is lawful to eat, let him pour out its blood, and cover it with earth. 14 For the life of all flesh is in the blood: therefore I said to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh at all, because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and whosoever eateth it, shall be cut off. 15 The soul that eateth that which died of itself, or has been caught by a beast, whether he be one of your own country or a stranger, shall wash his clothes and himself with water, and shall be defiled until the evening: and in this manner he shall be made clean.

Throughout this entire passage it clearly says that the life of the FLESH is in the blood; however, simply having flesh and blood DOES NOT make something a human. That is why this passage also speaks of the SOUL and the soul is a necessary component of our humanity.

Now let's look at Jeremiah 1:5:

Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.

Here it's very clear that God knew us BEFORE conception and this would indicate that our souls are certainly present at conception and the soul is where our humanity comes from, THIS is the Breath of Life that God breathed into Adam's face.

266 posted on 04/06/2010 11:56:14 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Throughout this entire passage it clearly says that the life of the FLESH is in the blood; however, simply having flesh and blood DOES NOT make something a human.

No, flesh and blood belong to any number of animals. But, the life of the flesh being in the blood, then a fetus at 21 days or beyond (or maybe even sooner) has life according to the link I provided above. It just hasn't been born as yet. This is the key point, IMO.

267 posted on 04/06/2010 12:04:37 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

I understand exactly what you are saying. I’m simply stating that the humanity PRECEEDS the blood.

There are many that will try to find any loophole that allows them to kill babies, and this seems like another one.


268 posted on 04/06/2010 12:14:15 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I understand exactly what you are saying. I’m simply stating that the humanity PRECEEDS the blood.

And you're exactly right. I've been addressing the argument about life not existing without blood. There have been two convergent threads to this...

269 posted on 04/06/2010 12:19:11 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; Eagle Eye; metmom; wagglebee; xzins; MrB; calex59
. Well, if I take this literally (though it has nothing to do with our topic at hand), I'd say life of the flesh is already developed as early as day 21 if not before. Oh, well, another idiotic argument destroyed. Man, how people set themselves up...

Nevertheless, Eagle Eye's argument is valid. The definition of life in Leviticus is in relation to the blood flowing through the veins and it is the blood which is said to carry the life. Therefore from a strictly biblical standpoint, I believe a legitimate argument can be made that abortion is not a "murder" in the biblical sense unless it stops a beating heart.

Now while some of us may believe that it is murder to abort before the heart begins to beat, that does not necessarily mean that we have a biblical basis for our position.

So let's knock off the invective diatribes against Eagle Eye on this point. He has a valid point. Now can anyone point to a biblical verse which provides evidence that life from a biblical standpoint begins before the heart begins to beat? If so, use that to refute Eagle Eye. If not, then let's stop with the personal invectives.

Marlowe

270 posted on 04/06/2010 12:27:16 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins

What about Jeremiah 1:5? Leviticus 17 is talking about life of the flesh ONLY, not human life.


271 posted on 04/06/2010 12:43:40 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; bcsco; Eagle Eye; metmom; xzins; MrB; calex59
What about Jeremiah 1:5? Leviticus 17 is talking about life of the flesh ONLY, not human life.

Using Jeremiah 1:5 you could make the argument that contraception is murder.

BTW the definition of murder is the killing of the flesh, not the killing of the spirit. Man cannot kill the spirit, only God has that power.

The question then becomes at what point does the flesh have "life".

I believe that there is a valid argument that the flesh is not "life" from a biblical standpoint until the heart begins to beat. I will concede that argument on a biblical basis. The fact is that 99.999999% of all abortions occur after the heart begins to beat, as most women are wholly unaware they are pregnant until about 30 days into their pregnancy.

272 posted on 04/06/2010 12:51:05 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I suggest you go back and visit the site I linked to. The heart is already developed by day 21. By day 30 it is already pumping larger quantities of blood.

So as you put it, if blood carries life, then the heart pumping blood at day 30, or even 21 being fully developed, means there is life. It just hasn't been 'born' as yet. Therefore, this 'strictly biblical argument' you define is backed up by medical fact.

I believe a legitimate argument can be made that abortion is not a "murder" in the biblical sense unless it stops a beating heart.

Ah, but as shown above, it does.

Now can anyone point to a biblical verse which provides evidence that life from a biblical standpoint begins before the heart begins to beat?

As previously argued above: Jeremiah 1:5 that says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

God knows us before we were even formed. He has consecrated us before our birth. Please tell me how an abortion doesn't fly in the face of God's design?

Oh, and there's also been the argument about still born fetuses. That is God's design, not man's. It's His will we should be honoring, not the will of the parent to make life simpler for oneself, or because the fetus is a burden.

Again, how is it proper to destroy the child for the sins of the father? God does, yes. But we're not God.

So let's knock off the invective diatribes against Eagle Eye on this point.

And what of Eagle Eye's invective diatribes against us? Calling me a liar? No comments on that? If I recall correctly, he was the one who began with the invectives.

273 posted on 04/06/2010 12:51:50 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; wagglebee

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch257/ch257c.html

Development of the Embryo

The next stage in development is the embryo, which develops under the lining of the uterus on one side. This stage is characterized by the formation of most internal organs and external body structures. Organ formation begins about 3 weeks after fertilization, when the embryo elongates, first suggesting a human shape. Shortly thereafter, the area that will become the brain and spinal cord (neural tube) begins to develop. The heart and major blood vessels begin to develop by about day 16 or 17. The heart begins to pump fluid through blood vessels by day 20, and the first red blood cells appear the next day. Blood vessels continue to develop in the embryo and placenta.

************************************************************

So, the first blood shows up on day 21. Three weeks from conception. That means that IF you are going to permit abortion based on that criteria (that is the appearance of blood), you have to know EXACTLY when the woman conceived.

Since that is not possible, you need to factor in a safety margin of several days, a week at the most to be safe.

That means that a woman could only go for an abortion and not have it be considered murder if she does it BEFORE she even has any reason to suspect or know that she’s pregnant.

There is also the complicating factor that since the time of conception, the fertilized egg has been growing and cells have been differentiating, a sign that something is alive.

Another big failure on the part of the pro-abortion crowd to justify abortion, to be sure.


274 posted on 04/06/2010 12:54:10 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; wagglebee; Eagle Eye; metmom; xzins; MrB; calex59
As previously argued above: Jeremiah 1:5 that says "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." God knows us before we were even formed. He has consecrated us before our birth. Please tell me how an abortion doesn't fly in the face of God's design?

Are you as adamant about contraception as you are against abortion? If Jeremiah 1:5 is your sole basis for arguing against abortion in the first 21 days, then would you not argue that contraception is Murder as well?

And what of Eagle Eye's invective diatribes against us?

You could try turning the other cheek.

275 posted on 04/06/2010 12:56:23 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Using Jeremiah 1:5 you could make the argument that contraception is murder.

No, I disagree. Contraception is the prevention of conception for pleasure. Jeremiah speaks to God knowing us before we were conceived. If there is no act of conception, intentional or otherwise, then the all-knowing God is aware of man's intention. And conception has not occurred. A convoluted statement, I agree, but I think you get my gist...

276 posted on 04/06/2010 12:57:14 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; bcsco; metmom; xzins; MrB; calex59
Using Jeremiah 1:5 you could make the argument that contraception is murder.

Less than a century ago this is what all Christians believed.

277 posted on 04/06/2010 12:58:16 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
If there is no act of conception, intentional or otherwise, then the all-knowing God is aware of man's intention. And conception has not occurred.

The same argument could apply in cases of abortion. If there is no act of "birth" then God could not say he knew you before you were born, because you were never born.

278 posted on 04/06/2010 1:00:13 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Less than a century ago this is what all Christians believed.

All?

Do you hold to that position?

279 posted on 04/06/2010 1:01:14 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Are you as adamant about contraception as you are against abortion?

See a post I just made.

You could try turning the other cheek.

Yes, we all could. But you were adamant about pointing out our invectives and ignoring Eagle Eye's. In fact, you still are...

280 posted on 04/06/2010 1:01:29 PM PDT by bcsco (Obama: Hokus Pokus POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 521-524 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson