Hodari's trashed babies to get Christian burial

This Saturday, May 3, the Archdiocese of Detroit will provide a funeral Mass and burial for 25 aborted babies retrieved from the trash dumpsters behind late-term abortionist Alberto Hodari's Woman Care abortion clinics in MI.

Services will begin at 10:30a at St. Gerald's Church, 21300 Farmington Road, Farmington, MI. A private burial service will take place for the aborted babies immediately following the Mass at Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in Southfield.

Those not following the story can catch up here.

client name.jpgIn a nutshell, in February and March pro-lifers led by Monica Miller,director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, discovered biohazardous waste, over 200 patient records, used syringes, and the remains of aborted babies in the dumpsters of 3 of Hodari's abortion clinics. Click to enlarge one patient record from Hodari's trash, left. You can view a YouTube video of what they found here....

On March 6 Miller handed over to authorities all she had found except the babies. She kept copies of the medical records.

On March 10 the MI Dept. of Environmental Quality and police searched Hodari's Lathrup Village dumpster and also found biohazardous waste.

To date no charges have been filed, although the Oakland Co. prosecutor's office is expected to charge Hodari with violating MI laws on improper disposal of patient records.

In a press release announcing the funeral, Miller stated:

hodari funeral.jpg

These unborn babies are the throw-aways of our society. They were killed in violent acts of abortion, and literally thrown away in the trash - destined to find their final resting place with garbage in a land-fill. When we found them we discovered the awful secret of their hidden and silent deaths. Now they are embraced by God's people and buried with other babies. This tomb will be a place of refuge especially for grieving mothers and dads who regret that they made the decision to abort their children - a place of reconciliation....


Comments:

Jill, I think you need to close a bold tag somewhere in this post. Everything below it on your main site page is now in bold.

Posted by: Hieronymous at May 2, 2008 10:14 AM


I found it and fixed it. Thanks hieronymous.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 10:24 AM


Thanks Hiero and Bethany!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 2, 2008 10:36 AM


Sweet babies,
I am so sorry that you suffered here on earth, that your lives were so short and that you were sacrificed on the altar of convenience. Your lives have great significance and worth. You are much loved. Rest in the arms of Jesus, precious little ones. I will hold you in heaven someday.

Posted by: Carla at May 2, 2008 10:51 AM


Sweet babies,
I am so sorry that you suffered here on earth, that your lives were so short and that you were sacrificed on the altar of convenience. Your lives have great significance and worth. You are much loved. Rest in the arms of Jesus, precious little ones. I will hold you in heaven someday.

Beautiful prayer, Carla. That would be nice printed on a prayer card (to be placed on a rack in a prayer chapel or other appropriate place for post-abortive mothers to see). My church has an adoration chapel where there are many different prayer cards/materials available free for the taking. Perfect!

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 11:17 AM


And of course you have to convince yourself that the *only reason* any woman has an abortion is merely *convenience* - you need to belittle demean and denigrate the reasons women have for ending a pregnancy and the women themselves.

Posted by: TexasRed at May 2, 2008 11:58 AM


http://www.naral.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/michigan.html

Michigan
Post-Viability Abortion Restriction
Michigan's post-viability abortion restriction provides that any person who intentionally causes an abortion that is not necessary to preserve the woman's life is guilty of manslaughter if the abortion occurs after "quickening." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 750.323 (Enacted 1931). A court interpreted this law to apply only to viable fetuses and declared it constitutional. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973).

Posted by: TexasRed at May 2, 2008 12:00 PM


Services provided - certainly the whole spectrum of womens issues - where does it say 'late term abortion'? Just what does 'late term abortion' mean in this context?

Services

Minimally Invasive In-Office Procedures

Hysteroscopy
Essure Tubal Ligation
Endometrial Ablation
Colposcopy
LEEP
Well-Woman Care

Pregnancy/Pre-natal Care

Menopausal medicine

Adolescent medicine

Birthcontrol counseling/Family Planning

Abnormal bleeding

Chronic Pelvic Pain

Ultrasound

And Much more...

Posted by: TexasRed at May 2, 2008 12:06 PM


And just how many fetus', at what stage of gestation, were found? I didnt see that information in the article.

Posted by: TexasRed at May 2, 2008 12:07 PM


"And just how many fetus', at what stage of gestation, were found? I didnt see that information in the article.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 2, 2008 12:07 PM"

Any is too many.

Posted by: Andy at May 2, 2008 12:15 PM


ignoring TR today....

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 12:22 PM


Eternal rest, grant unto these little babies, O Lord.
And let Perpetual Light shine upon them.
May they rest in peace.
Amen.

Posted by: RSD at May 2, 2008 1:22 PM


Sobering.

It's a 9 minute video but could only stomach the first 3 1/2 minutes.

The arms. The ribcages. Legs...human trash.

Wish I could be in Detroit tomorrow. Thank you, St. Gerald's Church.

I join your prayers, Carla.

Posted by: carder at May 2, 2008 1:38 PM



PRAYER FOR THE UNBORN CHILD

Almighty God, our Father,
you who have given us life
and intended us to have it forever,
grant us your blessings.
Enlighten our minds to an awareness
and to a renewed conviction
that all human life is sacred
because it is created
in your image and likeness.
Help us to teach by word
and the example of our lives
that life occupies the first place,
that human life is precious
because it is the gift of God
whose love is infinite.
Give us the strength to defend human life
against every influence
or action that threatens or weakens it,
as well as the strength
to make every life more human
in all its aspects.

Give us the grace...

When the sacredness of life
before birth is attacked,
to stand up and proclaim
that no one ever has the authority
to destroy unborn life.

When a child is described as a burden
or is looked upon only as a means
to satisfy an emotional need,
to stand up
and insist that every child is a unique
and unrepeatable gift of God,
a gift of God
with a right to a loving
and united family.

When the institution of marriage
is abandoned to human selfishness
or reduced to a temporary conditional arrangement
that can easily be terminated,
to stand up and affirm
the indissolubility of the marriage bond.

When the value of the family is threatened
because of social and economic pressure,
to stand up and reaffirm
that the family is necessary
not only for the private good of every person,
but also for the common good of every society,
nation and state.

When freedom is used to dominate the weak,
to squander natural resources and energy,
to deny basic necessities to people,
to stand up and affirm
the demands of justice and social love.

Almighty Father,
give us courage to proclaim the supreme dignity
of all human life and to demand
that society itself give its protection.
We ask this in your name,
through the redemptive act
of your Son and in the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

(Adapted from Pope John Paul II's homily of October 7, 1979.)

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 1:49 PM


Thanks, Janet. Beautiful.

By the way, are you ignoring TR today?

;0)

Posted by: carder at May 2, 2008 1:53 PM


~ SPIRITUAL ADOPTION ~


Archbishop Fulton J Sheen was a great advocate of the unborn. He encouraged the spiritual adoption of an unborn child. Pray for an unborn child, one on one, one day at a time for a year, so this unknown child, whom we will probably never meet or know until we are with the Lord, will live.

THE PRAYER
by Fulton J Sheen
+
Jesus, Mary and Joseph,
I love you very much.
I beg you to spare the life
of the unborn child
that I have spiritually adopted
who is in danger of abortion.
+

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 1:58 PM


Amen.

Just wanted to let you know that my daughter Aubrey, who I aborted in 1990 is included in the prayer I wrote. This mommy will hold her girl one day. One sweet day. She is the reason I started coming here. I promised her that I would continue to be a voice for the unborn.

I cannot stop looking at those perfect little fingers and that tiny elbow in the picture.

Posted by: Carla at May 2, 2008 2:01 PM


Prayer for Life
----------------
"O Mary, bright dawn of the new world, Mother of the living, to you do we entrust the cause of life.

Look down, O Mother upon the vast numbers of babies not allowed to be born, of the poor whose lives are made difficult, of men and women who are victims of brutal violence, of the elderly and the sick killed by indifference or out of misguided mercy.

Grant that all who believe in Your Son may proclaim the Gospel of life with honesty and love to the people of our time. Obtain for them the grace to accept that Gospel as a gift ever new, the joy of celebrating it with gratitude throughout their lives and the courage to bear witness to it resolutely, in order to build, together with all people of good will, the civilization of truth and love, to the praise and glory of God, the Creator and lover of life."

-John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae

Posted by: RSD at May 2, 2008 2:07 PM



Thanks, Janet. Beautiful.
By the way, are you ignoring TR today?
;0)

Carder, I don't know why but your comment just made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of my chair. I must not have gotten enough sleep today. :D


Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 2:13 PM


Bethany,

Janet's got me in stitches.

When one ignores TR on every thread, well, I just had to ask.

Posted by: carder at May 2, 2008 2:33 PM


Carder, Bethany, I'm determined that no one is going to ruin my Friday. ha ha!

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 2:36 PM


A few more words about the funeral mass plans from http://www.LifeNews.com/printpage.php

Pro-Life Groups Plan Funeral for Babies Killed in Abortions at Dumpster Clinic

RSS Newsfeed
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
May 1, 2008

Lathrup Village, MI (LifeNews.com) -- "Pro-life groups are planning a funeral for the babies who were victims of abortion at a Michigan abortion center and then thrown in the dumpster. The incident caused a national controversy when the Womancare abortion business received only a slap on the wrist for violating illegal dumping laws.

Monica Miller of the Citizens for a Pro-Life Society found the patient records, medical waste and bodies of unborn children in the dumpster.

Albert Hodari, who runs the abortion center, didn't receive a fine from the state, but local officials continue to investigate the matter.

Miller's group told LifeNews.com on Thursday that it plans a solemn Requiem Mass with Bishop John Quinn, the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit, on Saturday morning.

A private burial of the aborted babies at Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in Southfield, Michigan will follow the Mass.

The burial has the support of Fr. Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life, who is calling on all of the nation's Catholic priests today to offer a Mass within the next few days for the "Hodari babies."

"This is not the first time that my friend Monica Miller has organized such a work of mercy for discarded children like this," Pavone told LifeNews.com. "Her work spans the last couple of decades, and it has been my honor to participate with her in similar funeral services in the past."

"This Saturday's service is no ordinary funeral," Pavone added.

"There are still too many of our fellow citizens who don't even acknowledge that the people who will be buried this Saturday are people at all," he explained. "To mourn their deaths publicly, therefore, is not just to honor them, but to sound a wake-up call to our nation that we are living amidst the biggest holocaust of all time."

"That is why I call upon my brother priests nationwide to bring to the attention of their congregations this weekend that children are being buried who were brutally, legally killed, and that the killing has to end," Pavone added."

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 2:48 PM


"Carder, Bethany, I'm determined that no one is going to ruin my Friday. ha ha!

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 2:36 PM"
------------------------------------

I second the motion!!!

Posted by: RSD at May 2, 2008 2:50 PM


Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 2:51 PM


Carder, Bethany, I'm determined that no one is going to ruin my Friday. ha ha!

So, rather than just ignoring her, you had to be rude about it and post that you were ignoring her on every thread? Wow. Do you feel better?

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 4:18 PM


Hysteroscopy
Essure Tubal Ligation
*
Pregnancy/Pre-natal Care
*
Menopausal medicine
*
Adolescent medicine
*
Birthcontrol counseling/Family Planning
*
Abnormal bleeding
*
Chronic Pelvic Pain
*
Ultrasound

OKAY THIS JUST KILLS ME...

Hysterectomy...no more pregnancy
Tubal ligation...no more pregnancy
Prenatal care...yeah right.
menopausal medicine...birth control pills
adolescent medicine...birth control pills
birth control/family planning...birth control pills/abortion
abnormal bleeding...birth control pills
pelvic pain...birth control pills
ultrasound...so they can tell you you're pregnant and should have an abortion and then put you on birth control pills...

what a hoot!

Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 5:05 PM


Edyt,

One can only be called an idiot, stupid, immature, a liar, etc. so many times before one speaks up...or in this case doesn't speak at all.

I know you think that you are attacked here a lot, but honestly, you don't know the meaning of the word attacked till you've been at the butt end of one of TR's rants...

Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 5:10 PM


So, rather than just ignoring her, you had to be rude about it and post that you were ignoring her on every thread? Wow. Do you feel better?

Oh wow, Edyt. lol Talk about double standards...

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 5:18 PM


So getting attacked by one person is worse than being ganged up on.

I see what you mean.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 5:18 PM


So was Janet "ganging up on" TR by saying she was going to ignore her insults for a day?

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 5:38 PM


Bethany, are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I'm tired of playing your stupid games.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 5:52 PM


Edyt,

TR has attacked every pro lifer on here at one time or another. Janet, and Janet alone decided that for one day, and one day only, she was going to ignore her. Some people thought that sounded like a good idea. Janet didn't call TR any names. She didn't threaten her, or abuse her. She just ignored her.

Are you telling me that ignoring a person's rudeness is the same as calling them an idiot? Stupid? A liar? A fool?

Please, I think the most mature thing a person CAN do with TR is to ignore her. Engaging her is just asking for punishment.

People here have asked her over and over and over to explain where here animosity comes from. They have made friendly overtures. They have tried to engage her, only to be called idiot so many times we've even offered her the use of our thesaurus.

If any one is playing games here, it is you. Pretending not to see how TR acts and turning this on Bethany and Janet.


Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 6:08 PM


Yeah, it's one thing to ignore a person. It's totally different to ignore a person and then post on every thread that you're ignoring them.

And every pro-choicer on here has been attacked. Basically, what you're saying is it's worse for pro-lifers to be attacked by one person than it is for one person to be attacked by a whole group of people.

Yeah, I am going to turn the tables because you're all just being hypocrites.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 6:13 PM


Edyt:
Yes, I'm having an excellent Friday. I hope y'all are too.

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 6:13 PM


Some samples of TR's rants...

Why do you imagine I could possibly care how many children you have? And very few antichoicers DO have huge families so your assumption just comes across as idiotic. But there is a definite asset in waiting until you are financially established before starting a family and assuming women who have an abortion do not have children is showing a real lack of intelligent thought. Since the population of the US is not decreasing, whining about SS makes you look not too very bright too.


please stop. Texas Red - if you want to make a point, you do not have to insult people to get them to listen to you. Why do you dislike 'anti-choice' people so much? What is your background? Posted by: joyfromIllinois at November 7, 2007 1:27 PM ************************************* I find it amusing that you make no comment about antichoicers insulting comments - typical hypocricy. And I dont 'dislike' antichoicers. I find you amusing. If nothing else you remind me of how wise it is to be on the pro choice side. I couldnt care less if you choose to continue a pregnancy. I respect your right to do what you know is best. But youre incapable of showing that same respect to others. You are certain that you know what is 'best' for total strangers and what they think, feel, believe, need, want or like couldnt possibly matter as much as what YOU want. I find this self absorption, egocentricity, control freak misogyny and megalomania vastly amusing.

Thank you. I do love being reminded what kind of petty petulant incompetent chiennes wind up on the antichoice side. When you cant think of anything else you whine 'Well I bet you dont have a boy friend'.

Back to my point - why do antichoicers keep coming up with arguments which make them look like idiots? Whining 'well what if ...' and 'Well it MIGHT happen like ....' and 'Well lets just pretend ....' just makes you look incredibly stupid. Its a scenario only an idiot would come up with and only an idiot would find impressive. The baby is separate from her. Its a separate person. She already made the committment of continuing the pregnancy and giving birth. Its not mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure inside her uterus. Trying to pretend that a pregnant woman and a woman on a boat trip are 'really the same thing' is slack jawed drooling stupidity.


I could go on, but why bother? I think "ignoring" her showed great restraint...

Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 6:16 PM


I know I've talked about the Monkey Island game before. Instead of swordfighting, the pirates swap insults. Get the retort to an insult right and you get the "point"...Every time TR starts in, I think of this game...Here's some samples.

Fearsome Pirate Insults
Every enemy I've met, I've annihilated!
With your breath, I'm sure they all suffocated.

You're as repulsive as a monkey in a negligee.
I look THAT much like your fiancee?

Would you like to be buried or cremated?
With you around, I'd prefer to be fumigated.


Killing you would be justifiable homicide.
Then killing you must be justifiable fungicide.


Throughout the Caribbean my great deeds are celebrated!
Too bad they're all fabricated.

When your father first saw you, he must've been mortified.
At least mine can be identified.

You can't match my witty repartee.
I could if you would use some breath spray.

You're the ugliest monster ever created.
If you don't count all the ones you've dated.

Coming face to face with me must leave you petrified.
Is that your face? I thought it was your backside!



Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 6:26 PM


Edyt,

Basically, what you're saying is it's worse for pro-lifers to be attacked by one person than it is for one person to be attacked by a whole group of people.

What gang are you talking about? Show me where anyone insulted, attacked or berated TR...

Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 6:29 PM


Mk 6:26 LOL those are so funny. I have never played that game before. Looks fun. :)

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 7:07 PM


Bethany, are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I'm tired of playing your stupid games.

Are you implying that you are being ganged up on, Edyt? Please inform me as to when and where this happened.

From what I recall, it is not us who have been insulting and demeaning you, it is the other way around.

You have resorted to calling us names and acting superior to us, and I quote, "idiots", and yet, we have never done this to you.

We believe you are an intelligent woman, Edyt, just misguided on certain issues. We don't believe we are superior to you just because we disagree. We believe our *position* is right, but we do not believe that as people, that we are better than you.

But you seem to put us down as though we are not as good as you. I don't know why that is.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 7:15 PM


TR,
I went to the Womancare website
http://www.womancare-abortion.com/
and non of the services you gave were listed at the website. Currently they only list abortion services. You might of mistakenly went to WomanCare PC's website, which is a different chain of woman's health clinics in Illinois, which are not primarily abortion clinics and offers a wider variety of health services.

Posted by: Rachael at May 2, 2008 8:06 PM


You have resorted to calling us names and acting superior to us, and I quote, "idiots", and yet, we have never done this to you.


LOL.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 8:30 PM


Edyt: This is not about you! Don't take it so personally. We've had some good discussions recently, don't you think? It's not a conspiracy either, it was only me, so don't be so hard on everyone else. You can call me rude if you want....

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 8:45 PM


Edyt,

Are you ignoring me?

Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 8:59 PM


"Coming face to face with me must leave you petrified."

Is that your face? I thought it was your backside!

Yo' momma so low she play handball against the curb.

Posted by: Doug at May 2, 2008 9:23 PM


"Lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut."

Posted by: Doug at May 2, 2008 9:25 PM


Edyt: This is not about you! Don't take it so personally. We've had some good discussions recently, don't you think? It's not a conspiracy either, it was only me, so don't be so hard on everyone else. You can call me rude if you want....

No, see it is. Because I get insulted a lot, and for Bethany to say that TR is the only meanie on the board is ridiculous. I've been patient in the past, but sometimes I think there's no point in trying to be nice, or trying to look like a human being with actual feelings because no matter what, a good portion of you will say downright nasty things that the moderators will conveniently overlook unless that person is a pro-choicer.

Fact of the matter is, until this whole blog can figure out how to be a little kinder to each other (i.e. no insults or ad hominem attacks in place of arguments) then there's no point in TR trying to be nice to any of you. I can totally relate, because I've tried really hard in the past to be patient despite how nasty people were to me. There is a point where you just want to go, "F*** it."

And if the moderators can't see when a pro-lifer is being rude and insulting people, then there's no way this board will ever be a nice place to have thoughtful conversations.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 9:32 PM


Edyt:

I don't recall Bethany saying "TR is the only meany on the board". If you are really angry, then take a break. We all have to do that. That's the nature of blogging with different personalities. I think the moderators do a good job, but we all need to take responsibility for our own actions and words too, and know when to stop for a while.

Sometimes I think you forget that you are talking to a pro-life majority here (at least close to it). You make arguments, people make counter arguments, you'll rephrase the argument or repeat it and then you get frustrated when someone doesn't say I agree or I disagree. At that point it's better to agree to disagree, than to keep going. Does that make sense?

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 10:27 PM


Edyt:...there's no point in TR trying to be nice to any of you.

She generally comes on the board on Fridays and tears into every one's post that she can, sometimes 6 - 8 posts in a row, and then waits for responses. Then it starts over again. Just look at the threads. There is no desire on her part to have any friendly conversation. Once in a she'll be pleasant and civil, all seems fine, but then slowly she becomes demanding and more offensive until there's a blow up. It's been like a ritual the last few weeks, and it's been aimed at me. So that's why today, I told her not today.... Apparently she left because she knew she would be able to have her fun with me today. How is that rude on my part? If you still don't like it, well all i can say is, it's not directed at you.

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 10:38 PM


Edyt: And if the moderators can't see when a pro-lifer is being rude and insulting people, then there's no way this board will ever be a nice place to have thoughtful conversations.

In my opinion, maybe your expectations for this board are what need to change. It's about abortion, being pro-life specifically. You've got to realize it isn't going to be a "nice place to have thoughtful conversation". Since you are not pro-life, you are already on the defensive to a certain degree.

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 10:43 PM


Edyt,

Again I ask you, are you ignoring me? I have asked a number of times now to show me where anyone, ANYONE, ganged up on Texas Red. You have failed to so, yet continue to claim that we did.

As for being nasty to you, when someone upsets you, point it out. How can I know which comments are upsetting you if you don't tell me.

And how can I decide if there is any merit to your complaints when you won't talk to me.

Today you complained that we have "ganged up" on TR, and you want me to "do something"...but you have yet to show me what you are talking about. I have read, and reread the posts here and I don't see any ganging up.

We have all sort of agreed that if your side gets to keep TR, then we get to keep yllas. John L and SoMG kind of cancel each other out. Everybody else, in my opinion, steers clear of the insults and discourses in a VERY reasonable fashion.

You state yourself that sometimes you just want to say F**K OFF to people here, and that you have a breaking point. Janet had her breaking point yesterday, and all SHE did was say that she wasn't going to play TR's game. Why does that get youu all bent out of shape? I just don't get it.

As a moderator, I'd like to help you out here, but you'll have to show where this "gang" attack took place.

Posted by: mk at May 3, 2008 6:41 AM


It would be great to hear from someone who went to the aborted babies' funeral this morning in MI.

Posted by: Janet at May 3, 2008 2:09 PM


And of course you have to convince yourself that the *only reason* any woman has an abortion is merely *convenience* - you need to belittle demean and denigrate the reasons women have for ending a pregnancy and the women themselves.

Posted by: TexasRed at May 2, 2008 11:58 AM

TR,
you prove to yourself to be such a joke. Yes. Women make it so obvious that the only reason they have abortions is out of convenience.

Aside from the mothers' life being in danger, which most would consider a medical condition, what other circumstance would be for anything OTHER than CONVENIENCE??????????
Please enlighten us with your moronic wisdom.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2008 4:37 PM


MK, you wrote: "John L and SoMG kind of cancel each other out. Everybody else, in my opinion, steers clear of the insults and discourses in a VERY reasonable fashion."

I never insult anyone who doesn't deserve it.

As I said, people who believe medical "information" posted by Jill OUGHT to be patronized.

People who care about abortion but don't take the trouble to inform themselves about it correctly DESERVE to be insulted.

Posted by: SoMG at May 4, 2008 8:18 AM


Besides, HisMan's posts are consistantly more insulting than mine. Not just to me, but to everyone who does not share his particular religions delusions.

Posted by: SoMG at May 4, 2008 8:20 AM


I never insult anyone who doesn't deserve it.

"Deserving is in the eye of the beholder."

As I said, people who believe medical "information" posted by Jill OUGHT to be patronized.

Jill is a respected medical professional, so it makes you look unprofessional yourself to continually mock.

Most of us don't all have a birds-eye-view of abortion as you do, so can you please give us a little slack?

Posted by: Janet at May 4, 2008 12:02 PM


Again I ask you, are you ignoring me? I have asked a number of times now to show me where anyone, ANYONE, ganged up on Texas Red. You have failed to so, yet continue to claim that we did.

I never said anyone ganged up on TR. (Although that may have happened...I wouldn't be surprised). What I said was that it seemed you had a bigger problem with one person saying nasty things, rather than a whole group of people being rude to others.

As for being nasty to you, when someone upsets you, point it out. How can I know which comments are upsetting you if you don't tell me.And how can I decide if there is any merit to your complaints when you won't talk to me.

Sorry, I've been crunched hard with work lately so my posting has been scattered and irregular. If you'd like, I can go back through the comments thread and find a few attacks (I can think of a few, but I don't know exactly where they might be). It's not just about things "upsetting" me. I have a tough skin. What I have a problem with is the way that you and the other moderators will let pro-lifers get away with saying horribly mean things. I understand this is a pro-life website, but in Jill's guidelines there's a mention of respect. In my book, respect isn't based off your stance on abortion. Could be different for the rest of you, though.

Today you complained that we have "ganged up" on TR, and you want me to "do something"...but you have yet to show me what you are talking about. I have read, and reread the posts here and I don't see any ganging up.

Again, I said nothing of the sort. I see where you may have interpreted it that way (I said: Basically, what you're saying is it's worse for pro-lifers to be attacked by one person than it is for one person to be attacked by a whole group of people.) but I wasn't talking about TR, I was talking about pretty much any pro-choicer who comes here.

We have all sort of agreed that if your side gets to keep TR, then we get to keep yllas. John L and SoMG kind of cancel each other out. Everybody else, in my opinion, steers clear of the insults and discourses in a VERY reasonable fashion.

So... you think insults are okay since we've got an "even number" on both sides? Again, it's not about taking sides to me. I don't care if you're pro-choice or pro-life. I'd rather have a mature, reasonable conversation that doesn't denigrate people. It is a problem when you, MK, actually had to compliment the group for having a reasonable, mature discussion in another thread. If the people on this blog can't routinely have mature discussions (and I understand this is an emotionally charged topic), then why bother talking about it at all? Yes, things get rough in here sometimes and I understand that. But instead of telling two people (or more) having the discussion to take a breather because the knives are coming out, you encourage it and side with one party or another.

I'm sorry to say this, but that's not what a good moderator does.

Again, I don't care if you want to continue the insults, but don't do yourselves a disservice and blind yourselves to the insults coming from one side, but not another.

Posted by: Edyt at May 4, 2008 2:04 PM


Jill is a respected medical professional, so it makes you look unprofessional yourself to continually mock.

If asked whether I would rather get information about abortion from a doctor or nurse, I would say doctor, hands down. The fact that many here would rather take information from the nurse scares me, quite frankly.

Posted by: Edyt at May 4, 2008 2:15 PM


Edyt,

I rarely take sides. Go back over my posts. But when it comes to making a referee call, then yes, sometimes I have to decide if there really was unfair play...

If you look at how I usually handle things, I try very hard to present both sides of the complaint to all parties.

A few months back, a number of pro lifers actually left because I called them out, while defending the pro choicers.

It's a fine line between a heated discussion and actual abuse of the rules.

The point about SoMG, John L (who by the way got paired together because they rarely sugarcoat their messages, not because they are abusive) and Yllas and TR is that on a number of occasions we have discussed this as a board and come to the conclusion that since it was only a couple of people that "crossed lines" and it was fairly even, we would let things stand. Pro choicers tend to ignore yllas and prolifers tend to ignore TR.

Going over your posts from yesterday, I am unclear as to what exactly you are complaining about. You commented to Janet for saying she was ignoring TR and then asked why it was okay to gang up on one person. If you didn't have anything specific in mind then why bring it up?

I can't read your mind. If you have a specific complaint, let me know. But at this point, I don't have a clue what we are talking about.

IMO, Janet did nothing wrong. If someone offends you in the future, please let me know. But be aware, that unless you have NEVER called anyone a name, throwing around the term hypocrite is, well, hypocritical...

Posted by: mk at May 4, 2008 2:33 PM


I was telling Janet that it seemed hypocritical for her to criticize TR for being rude while posting in every thread that she was ignoring TR. To me, that's rude as well. She didn't do anything wrong, but then again, rude is rude.

I'm not condoning what TR has said in the past. The point was not about TR when I mentioned ganging up on someone. Like I said in my last post, it's about pro-lifers ganging up on one person who happens to be pro-choice. This time it happened to be TR. Other times, it's not. Like I said before, I understand this is a pro-life site and I clearly expect to see more pro-lifers than pro-choicers. But a good number of discussions go past respectful disagreement to callous name-calling and mockery. I've done that, TR's done that, HisMan and John L have done that... and many more. It's not okay to let some people get away with insults just because it's only a few people.

All I'm saying is... perhaps it's time to raise the bar.

Posted by: Edyt at May 4, 2008 2:48 PM


Edyt: 2:48:Like I said in my last post, it's about pro-lifers ganging up on one person who happens to be pro-choice. This time it happened to be TR.

I don't think I called TR "rude" on Friday before I posted I' was ignoring her that day. (I might be wrong.) If you want to call me rude doing that, that's fine. I think TR had it coming from me, and I have no regrets. That's normally not the way I operate, ask anyone here. It doesn't phase me if you didn't approve.

As for the mockery. PL'rs get mocked constantly by the PC'rs. That's why most of the more boisterous ones come here. I don't know why you are complaining, although name-calling can be annoying, I agree with you there. You need to not take yourself so seriously.

As far as raising the bar, I think you could raise the bar too and try not to be so condescending in your tone. That attitude tends to lower the bar really fast.

Posted by: Janet at May 4, 2008 7:02 PM


Janet, you wrote: "Jill is a respected medical professional, "

Not any more. Neither nor. Neither "respected" in the medical community (except by those right-to-lifers in the medical community whose right-to-lifism overtrumps their contempt for those who lie to the public about medical matters) nor a "medical professional."

You wrote: "Most of us don't all have a birds-eye-view of abortion as you do, so can you please give us a little slack? "

I agree that it is excusable to know less about abortion than I know. Not everyone has had my experiences and not everyone understands statistics. But the level of ignorance and uncritical parroting of misinformation I see on Jill's site--by posters who supposedly care a lot about the issue--is NOT excusable. It's just not that hard to learn the basic facts. Can we agree that if you care about an issue, you ought to learn the basic facts about it?

The right-to-life movement would be more effective politically if they didn't tell so many obvious, easily-documented whoppers. Also, if they didn't play so many high-school debater's tricks like exaggerating small effects (for instance the protection you get from breast cancer by having babies while you're young, or the increased risk of breast cancer caused by taking the pill. Both these effects are real, they've been measured, but both of them are too small to make any difference to a reasonable person. By pretending not to understand this you get yourselves written off by many in the medical community who might otherwise be inclined to listen to you and might support at least some of your goals.)

Also, it would improve effectiveness if right-to-lifers directed less obvious hate-rhetoric against their opponents, and adopted a less hysterical tone. Objective listeners do not respond well to debaters who begin by calling their opponents murderers. That's an attack, which indicates that the attacker perceives his own position to be weak. That sort of thing may be good for fundraising but it undermines your credibility among reasonable people. Who, in spite of everything, comprise the majority. (So proclaims SoMG the optimist.)

(Objectivity compels me to add that the pro-choice movement also suffers from liars within its community, and sometimes from an hysterical tone which improves fundraising a little but alienates reasonable people. However, these problems are worse in the right-to-life movement than the pro-choice movement. Very much worse.)

Posted by: SoMG at May 4, 2008 8:08 PM


Edyt, you wrote: "The fact that many here would rather take information from the nurse scares me, quite frankly. "

Particularly this nurse (Jill). Or rather, ex-nurse.

Not to knock nurses generally, who are great sources of info, especially surgical nurses.

Posted by: SoMG at May 4, 2008 8:20 PM


SoMG,

I hate to say it (GOD I HATE TO SAY IT) but you make some good points. Not about Jill, but about the fact that we take small things and blow them out of proportion...Abortion stands on it's own as a horror and we probably shouldn't rely so much on debatable "facts"...Talking about the breast cancer link is not totally without merit, but using it as a reason to forgo an abortion, to me, sort of misses the point.

But on the same token, when you say things like a woman is ten times more likely to die in childbirth than an abortion, aren't you doing the same thing. Blowing a percent of a percent up to make it seem like you are MUCH MORE likely to die in child birth?

I also agree (gag) with you that "attacking" is all but useless when it comes to debate.

Even in an argument with my husband, I try to start sentences with "I" instead of "YOU"...once a person is on the defensive, very little else can be accomplished.

There is a huge difference between saying that abortion is murder and someone is A MURDERER.

One shuts communication down, while the other stimulates it.

And while we are on the topic, I've said before that I believe we have a hate/hate relationship going on and that if I ever cross the line with you, feel free to speak up. I don't expect we will ever be Godparents to each others children, but truly I only hate you with a small "h"...;)

Posted by: mk at May 4, 2008 8:52 PM


SoMG,

By the way, I will vehemently deny this if you ever repeat it, but I pray for you also, every Sunday at mass.

Posted by: mk at May 4, 2008 8:55 PM


Awwwwww....that's sweet.

Posted by: SoMG at May 4, 2008 9:32 PM


SoMg,
Thank you for your comments. One of major hurdles I see in this debate is that neither party is willing to look at the other's statistics, sources, studies, etc.... without saying "it's biased". There is not ONE UNBIASED source of information that either side can agree on. WHAT'S THE SOLUTION? Without that source, how are we even supposed to agree on what you see as so important- the basic facts?


Posted by: Janet at May 4, 2008 9:33 PM


SoMG: 8:08: The right-to-life movement would be more effective politically if they didn't tell so many obvious, easily-documented whoppers. Also, if they didn't play so many high-school debater's tricks like exaggerating small effects (for instance the protection you get from breast cancer by having babies while you're young, or the increased risk of breast cancer caused by taking the pill. Both these effects are real, they've been measured, but both of them are too small to make any difference to a reasonable person. By pretending not to understand this you get yourselves written off by many in the medical community who might otherwise be inclined to listen to you and might support at least some of your goals.)

SoMG, I'm generalizing, but I'm finding that some PC'rs like to say that "PL'rs don't understand something", when in fact, PL'rs just don't believe the PC'rs have presented their case well enough (for example on the breast cancer issue) and, therefore, don't agree. There are scientists on both sides of these issues. Again it comes down to, "who does one believe?". There's a credibility problem on both sides as I mentioned in my previous post.

Can you please explain what "goals" you might be referring to in your final sentence that the medical community might support? Thanks.

Posted by: Janet at May 4, 2008 9:47 PM


You wrote: "But on the same token, when you say things like a woman is ten times more likely to die in childbirth than an abortion, aren't you doing the same thing. Blowing a percent of a percent up to make it seem like you are MUCH MORE likely to die in child birth?"

Yes. It's a fair cop. I usually only say that when someone suggests that abortion is inherently dangerous. Probably "less dangerous than childbirth" would do just as well.

You wrote: "Talking about the breast cancer link is not totally without merit, "

There you go again. Yes it is. Totally. Why? Because (all together now, class) there is no breast cancer link. At least not in Denmark.

Posted by: SoMG at May 4, 2008 9:50 PM


Janet, you wrote: "PL'rs just don't believe the PC'rs have presented their case well enough (for example on the breast cancer issue) and, therefore, don't agree. "

Are you aware of the Melbye study, which tracked the entire female population of Denmark (1.5 million) for two decades or whatever? That's the reason mainstream medical opinion is so one-sided on this question. Here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/2/81

You wrote: "There are scientists on both sides of these issues. Again it comes down to, "who does one believe?". "

You need to learn to recognise fakes. Not just abortion-related fakes but fake scientists in general. Unfortunately there is no single characteristic which all fakes have in common but the earmarks of fakes include: they tend not to be numerous (their main opinion is usually a minority opinion within their community), the views for which they are known are unsupported by mainstream organizations like (for instance) the American Cancer Society. They often exaggerate or one-sidedly report statistical noise (phrases like "49 studies were found which showed..." are tip-offs, because they leave out the size of the studies, the size of the effects measured by the studies, and the number of similar studies which showed the opposite.) They cite studies which turn out when you look them up to be small. Some of them give themselves away by expressing incautiously strong opinions about matters that are difficult to measure, or that are too new for anyone to legitimately claim to really understand them. They publish in pay-to-publish rags. (That means you have to learn to distinguish between trustworthy journals and pay-to-publish rags. Well start with The Lancet, NEJM and JAMA and follow the footnotes.) Some of them have fake or meaningless degrees. Your doctor disagrees with them about their main issue, that's another possible sign of a fake. Being funded by organizations with explicit or implicit political or religious goals (including actively pro-choice organizations, UNLESS the question of the study is a question that can only be asked by pro-choicers, like for instance "Why do you want this abortion?" or "Was the cramping the misoprostol caused milder or more severe than your typical menstrual period?") raises a question. Being the protege of a another previously-identified fake. None of these earmarks is by itself conclusive but any one should raise the question and two or three of them should generate definite suspicion. Some are more damning than others--publishing in pay-to-publish rags is probably the most reliable earmark of a fake scientist of the ones that I have listed. That, or being the protege of an already-known fake, which only rarely applies.

If you look hard enough at a fake, you can (sometimes) find a political motivation. I'm thinking of Peter Deusberg, the Berkeley retrovirologist who denied that HIV was the cause of AIDS and offered false hope to HIV-positive patients in denial. He liked being a cult hero to those guys. He was not merely skeptical about it--he claimed to be so sure that he offered to inject himself with HIV "provided as I can be sure it is perfectly pure" which of course is BS because there's no such thing as a perfectly pure sample of anything.

Two well-known politically motivated right-to-life BS artists masquarading as scientists are David C. Reardon and Joel Brind. I can't think of any fake scientists on the PC side--I guess you could argue that Dr. Nathanson was a PC fake before he converted, exaggerating the dangers of the black market, making up "estimated" numbers of illegal-abortion deaths. But that's ancient history. Can anyone name any more recent pro-choice fake scientists? I can only think of truthful observers like Dr. David Grimes.

Posted by: SoMG at May 5, 2008 12:12 AM


? said:"Talking about the breast cancer link is not totally without merit, "

There you go again. Yes it is. Totally. Why? Because (all together now, class) there is no breast cancer link. At least not in Denmark.

Posted by: SoMG at May 4, 2008 9:50 PM

SoMG, I want to comment on your source (your famous Denmark studies) as an example of the problem of "believablility" which I mentioned earlier. (This quote is not mine, by the way.) Don't take it personally, I just want to make a point.

You are refuting the statement about the merits of talking about a breast cancer link (my mind isn't made up on this issue), saying it is "totally" without merit, but then you qualify your answer by saying "At least not in Denmark". Can you see how that qualifier doesn't support what you said previously? In other words, how can we base our whole opinion on the breast cancer link on studies done in one country, one tiny country, I might ad?? It appears that maybe there IS a bit of merit in further discussion. Now, I understand that you are a medical professional and understand the studies better than I do, but can you see how that statement of yours may not be persuasive in this argument?

I haven't had a chance to read the rest of your 9:50 post, but I will try to comment on it later today.
Thanks.

Posted by: Janet at May 5, 2008 4:32 AM


SoMG,

I say discussing it is not without merit, precisely because there is so much disagreement on it.

I'm not saying to continue to perpetuate a lie, I'm saying that since it's already out there, it should be discussed to it's conclusion. An awful lot of people now believe that there IS a link...do we let them continue to quote sources that as you say, are not worthy? So discussing it, is the only way to get to the "truth"...

I don't know if you'd call them "sources", but women that walk around waving coat hangers aren't doing your cause any good either. Especially plastic coat hangers. Or those that don't want parental notification for 14 year olds, or ultrasounds shown, or the ones that focus on rape and incest, ignoring the fact that most abortions are done for convenience. To me, these are all dishonest diversions.

While I hate, hate, hate your particular stance on abortion, because it is so cold and calculated, it is, at least, the most honest. The unborn child is a human being, a person, but the since it lives in a womans womb, she has the right to kill it, is one of the most horrifying points of view I have ever encountered, but it is honest, straight forward and without sugar coating. I hate it, but I can respect it.

What I can't respect is the "Women will die! Rape victims by the millions will commit suicide! Fathers by the zillions will rape their daughters!"

These are dishonest arguments that your side puts forth, and often so much time is spent pointing out the fallacies of these views that the truth about what abortion is gets lost.

It may have been a long time ago, but people still use Bernard Nathansons' false statistics to argue for abortion...

Once that crap is out there, it's awfully hard taking it back, as is evidenced by the abortion/breast cancer argument.

Abortion is not wrong because it causes cancer, is physically dangerous, or causes depression. It is wrong because it takes the life of a human being. Period.

Posted by: mk at May 5, 2008 5:35 AM


SoMG,

I just thought of another dishonest argument from the PC side...the notion that a woman carrying a late term child would ever need to abort for health reasons. You and I both know, that at that point, the child could be taken alive and that there is NEVER a reason to kill it. Yet your side makes the argument that late term abortions are necessary for the life/health of the mother...that's a whopper!

I realize you think that late term abortions are fine, but not because a woman's life is in danger. Saying a woman has the right to end her pregnancy at any time simply because she wants to is terrifying to me, but at least it's honest, and this discussion is about honesty on both sides.

It is dishonest to say that late term abortions should remain legal for medical reasons.

Posted by: mk at May 5, 2008 6:27 AM


MK, there are times when delivery isn't a good option - conditions on the woman's part, the position of the baby, etc. Relatively rare, but it does happen.

Posted by: Doug at May 5, 2008 6:45 AM


Doug,6:45:
mk's point is that's just heresay.

Posted by: Janet at May 5, 2008 7:30 AM


oops, that's hearsay!

Posted by: Janet at May 5, 2008 7:31 AM


Doug,

At that point, if you can deliver a dead baby, you can deliver a live one. The doctors questioned in the partial birth abortion debate admitted as much. Not one came up with a reason to medically abort a late term fetus.

Posted by: mk at May 5, 2008 10:13 AM


MK, A large hydrocephaly (water on the brain) is an indication for a late-term abortion, if the head is too big.

Posted by: SoMG at May 5, 2008 2:47 PM


MK, you wrote: "I say discussing it is not without merit, precisely because there is so much disagreement on it."

Not in the medical community. Ask your doctor.

You wrote: "How can we base our whole opinion on the breast cancer link on studies done in one country, one tiny country, I might ad?? "

Denmark may be a tiny country, but 1.5 million women is not a small study. It's the biggest study we have by far. If there were a link, it's VERY unlikely that it would have failed to show itself in a study that big.

You are hypothesizing that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer in Denmark, but it does in the USA? That's what we call a "formal possibility"--it could in principle be true, but it's not very plausible. What would be the mechanism? In other words, if it does in the USA, why not also in Denmark? Your hypothesis leaves you with some very heavy explaining to do, at least.

Posted by: SoMG at May 5, 2008 3:03 PM


SoMG,
The comment about Denmark was mine, I don't know if mk mentioned it too. Anyways, I was thinking, for example, in terms of diet differences, there may be reasons why the Danes don't get breast cancer as we do. I'm not up on the studies, but I do recall that the high-fat American diet has been linked to certain diseases that are more common here than elsewhere. Aren't we seeing some of the more typically "American diseases" showing up in other parts of the world as they adopt our unhealthy diets? Couldn't this missing ABC link in Denmark be related to diet differences or other such cultural differences?

Posted by: Janet at May 5, 2008 3:55 PM


SoMG,
Your comments on recognizing "fake-scientists" seem to say, don't believe them (they are fakes) if they are not mainstream. Isn't that kind of like the age old which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Why such harsh criticisms of David Reardon? I hear them time and time again. I understand that Reardon doesn't have medical credentials, but it doesn't seem one would be necessary for the studies he does on the post-abortive effects of abortion on men and women. How do you classify his motivations as political? Abortion is a moral issue first to the serious pro-lifers, a political issue second.

Posted by: Janet at May 5, 2008 4:30 PM


Janet, you wrote: " I was thinking, for example, in terms of diet differences, there may be reasons why the Danes don't get breast cancer as we do. "

If as you suggest diet protected the Danes from breast cancer, it would protect those Danes who have not had abortions as well as those who have. Both the test group and the control group would have lower bc rates than they would otherwise, without the benefit of good diet, but if there were a link, it would still show up. In other words, both groups--Danes with abortion history AND Danes without abortion history--would have lower bc rates than than Americans have, but the Danes with abortion histories would STILL have higher bc rates than the Danes without abortion histories, if there were a link.

You need to explain not just why Danes have lower bc rates GENERALLY (if they in fact do) but also why an abortion history fails to increase the bc risk SPECIFICALLY in Denmark. That's much harder to explain by diet.

Keep trying.

Posted by: SoMG at May 5, 2008 7:43 PM


Janet, you wrote: "Your comments on recognizing "fake-scientists" seem to say, don't believe them (they are fakes) if they are not mainstream. "

No, Janet. I said that being out of the mainstream is ONE OF THE EARMARKS that should raise SUSPICION of a POSSIBLE fake scientist. I also said that it is NOT by itself sufficient evidence to conclude that the non-mainstreamer in question is DEFINITELY a fake scientist. Obviously, some non-mainstreamers are genuine dissenters whose non-mainstream beliefs are based on legitimately-measured data, maybe data measured in their own labs that conflict with the mainstream data or show that the mainstream view is not the whole story. Or maybe the dissenter notices a pattern in the already-published data that the mainstream has not yet noticed. Some fortunate dissenters get vindicated over time and cause the mainstream view to change or deepen.

As I said, there is unfortunately no single characteristic that all fakes share by which you would be able to identify them easily without missing any of them. Some fakes (such as Peter Duesberg, see my previous post) reveal themselves in obvious ways but generally it takes work to reliably tell whether someone is a fake. To identify a non-obvious fake you have to learn his/her field, learn what the mainstream opinion is, learn why (s)he is considered non-mainstream (if (s)he is non-mainstream--there are also fakes whose positions ARE mainstream but who believe them based on bad reasoning or faulty work.) Ultimately you have to read the suspect's papers and arguments and be able to recognise bs and debater's tricks, conlusions which are not really implied by the reported data. Obvious or subtle exaggeration. "Slickness."

Identifying fakes is a skill you have to build, like learning to distinguish classical music from Romantic music or learning to diagnose Parkinson's Disease (not all PD patients have tremors like Janet Reno, and diagnosis in tremor-free PD patients is usually based on a conjunction of several other symptoms and risk factors and on the doc's "clinical sense"). Martin Gardner (as in "Spirit of Martin Gardner" as in "SoMG") was an expert in the art and science of identifying fake science and fake scientists.

You wrote: "Why such harsh criticisms of David Reardon? "

Just the facts. He studies self-selecting groups such as members of the political organization "Women Exploited by Abortion" and attempts to make generalizations about the public based on the characteristics of those small self-selecting groups. Sophomoric faulty reasoning. Rebuttals to his work are all over the internet if you google far enough (at least they were when I first learned his name), the world doesn't need me to write another one. The fact that he suggested in print that penile amputation with a kitchen knife is a late consequence of abortion doesn't help his reputation either.

Posted by: SoMG at May 5, 2008 9:40 PM


SoMG:
Do you have a link to the Danish study on the ABC link? Thanks.

Posted by: Janet at May 6, 2008 3:01 AM


Janet,

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/2/81

Posted by: SoMG at May 6, 2008 5:43 AM


Read the whole thing.

Note that at the time the study was written up, previous studies had been inconsistant, with some previous studies showing a (small) PROTECTIVE effect of abortion AGAINST breast cancer.

Some (dishonest) right-to-life writers point to the studies that show abc without also mentioning the studies that show the opposite effect or the studies that showed no effect. That's one way you can tell that the abc web site Jill links to is bs. That's what I mean by the phrase "one-sided amplification of statistical noise". Statistical noise is what causes some small studies to report either a small abc effect or a small "negative abc" effect rather than the true value which appears to be zero abc--abortion neither increases nor decreases the risk of subsequent breast cancer.

Posted by: SoMG at May 6, 2008 6:15 AM


SoMG: I haven't had a chance to look at this yet. I will. This report is ten years old, are there any more recent?

Posted by: Janet at May 7, 2008 10:51 PM


SoMG: Thanks for your post , by the way.

Posted by: Janet at May 7, 2008 10:51 PM