Wear a T-shirt, give yourself opportunities to correct some right wing misinformation.
A number of feminist blogs are celebrating the one year anniversary of winning the hard fought battle to make emergency contraception available over the counter, despite resistance from Bush appointees in the FDA who were more worried about women escaping the “consequences” of broken condoms or date rape. Oh, the official story was that the FDA officials who blocked the drug’s OTC approval were concerned about the health effects, but I do believe that this is officially the least-believed wingnut cover story of all time. Still, it took years of stalling and pretending that the drug wasn’t proven safe (the standards of proof being set impossibly high—they hand EC out on the streets of Paris like they do condoms, creating an enormous test population that should reach any standard, except of course the one where you argue that the French have a different biology than Americans), one prominent FDA resignation, one expose of an appointee’s seedy history of forcing sodomy on his now-ex-wife, and one leaked memo warning of the dangers of teenage sex cults, the drug was finally, finally approved. By the end of it all, if you were stupid enough to think opponents of EC were motivated by concerns about the drug’s safety, you were probably too busy sending your bank account numbers to Nigerian princes to follow the mundane political machinations here at home.
The battle against EC did have one bright side: It helped pro-choicers expose what the mainstream media and far too many Americans do not understand, which is that the anti-choice movement opposes all attempts by women to control their fertility. Call it the Lord Saletan myth—the idea that anti-choicers are just made uneasy by abortion and therefore would be open to some sort of pro-contraception legislation that would reduce abortion. The fight against EC demonstrated that in fact the anti-choice movement is primarily motivated by the need to restrict women’s reproductive rights and if they had to increase or at least keep the abortion rate high to attack contraception and education that would reduce it, they would.
Cristina Page, writing at RH Reality Check, collected some really stellar quotes from anti-choice activists during the EC debates, demonstrating that they’re far, far, far more interested in stamping out what they consider sexual deviance and pushing the path of abstinence-young-marriage-pushing-out-four-children-and-embracing-separate-bedrooms-after-as-marital-birth-control for all women. Some favorites:
“What’s to prevent the pill from getting into the hands of the woman’s impressionable 13-year-old daughter, who sees the pill as a good excuse to ‘hook up’ with a boy she barely knows? Will ACOG pay for the girl’s counseling when she discovers that the boy who took away her virginity is a stalker or 40 years old?” Human Events
“You can say, Oh, I got drunk; I didn’t know this person that I slept with. I can undo it all with a pill.” Moira Sheridan, president of Delaware Right to Life
“Making EC available would be a welcome tool for adult sexual predators who molest family members, children of friends or students. They could keep a stash in their bedroom drawer or their pocket to give their victims after committing each rape.” Jill Stanek, Concerned Women for America
The last one really betrays the anti-choice sense that women don’t actually have agency, but are just braindead ciphers for male lust and men’s progeny. After all, a rape victim would only take EC if forced by a rapist, wouldn’t you know? In order to believe that women demand access for themselves so that they can minimize the damage post-rape, you have to assume that women are sentient beings who have the capacity for willful action. (The now-famous unwillingness of anti-choicers to commit to a punishment for women who get abortions is rooted in the idea that women are too stupid to know what abortion is and are only being manipulated by profit-hungry doctors. My pet theory is that the belief that women are impossibly stupid is the only way that misogynists can square away their misogyny with themselves—they don’t hate women! They just want to take away our rights to protect us from ourselves! The law is a big neck cone so the stupid bitches don’t chew out our stitches.)
So, there’s been raised awareness of the anti-contraceptive leanings of the anti-choice movement, but unfortunately, the media is still playing dumb. Page had another article in the Boston Globe where she called out journalists who don’t push Republican candidates when said candidates drop code words to indicate to right wingers that they’re willing to restrict access to the birth control pill and emergency contraception.
One code phrase is: “I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They’d also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
Mr. Romney’s code, deciphered, meant, “I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions.” In fact, he told the crowd, he already had some practice redefining contraception: “I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent.”
The attempt to redefine woman-controlled contraception as “abortion” speaks volumes about both the anti-choice agenda (ban all female control over reproduction) and their understanding that their actual goals are so far to the right that they can’t be spoken out loud. In an effort to stop new, effective contraception from getting into the market, anti-choicers launched an unfortunately successful misinformation campaign to convince people that EC works by sloughing off fertilized eggs. It doesn’t. The overwhelming evidence suggests that it couldn’t work that way. Anti-choicers exploit scientific unwillingness to speak in absolutes to suggest that it could conceivably slough off a fertilized egg and therefore they figured that people’s ignorance of biology would fill in the rest until people assumed that’s how EC must work.
Most people tend to overrate the importance of male orgasms as the central event in baby-making and assume, wrongly, that conception must occur within seconds or minutes of ejaculation. The myth makes a rough kind of sense, and it’s aided mightily by patriarchal frames that give credit for making babies to men (from the idea that conception-not-pregnancy makes a baby to the naming of children after their fathers). In reality, sperm are built for endurance for a reason—conception often takes up to three days after sex to occur, which is why the window for using EC is 72 hours, though the longer you wait, the worse the chances of it working get. (From what I understand, this is also why ovulation tests for couples trying to conceive might be a waste of money—if you wait until you ovulate to have sex, the egg might die before the sperm get there.) The prior misconceptions about how fast conception occurs made it all too easy for people to believe that any drug that gets to work after a man ejaculates must work post-conception somehow. It doesn’t. EC works like the birth control pill does, by preventing ovulation. As the PZ link I provided above points out, since EC is primarily composed of the very hormone that makes the uterine lining able to take on a fertilized egg, so if it had any effect on a fertilized egg at all, it would probably be something of an assistant to implantation. PZ puts it best—hormonal contraception works by blocking female gametes, making them a rough female equivalent of a condom. If they seem more mysterious, it’s probably for the same reason women’s bodies generally seem more mysterious, which is we keep our bits on the inside.
While it seems that EC usage has doubled in the year it’s been made available OTC, it’s still being way underused. Ideally, the pills would be swallowed for every broken condom, whoops, or rape, which would probably reduce the instances of those things resulting in unplanned pregnancy (which is the overwhelming cause of most abortions) by the effectiveness of the pill (about 75%, depending on when you take it). Womenstake has a good post up about some of the continuing obstacles of getting these pills in the hands of everyone who could use a back-up.* A lot of it is access issues, but education is still a big one—a lot of women haven’t heard about EC and a lot who have still think it’s an abortion pill, due to right wing misinformation campaigns. The irony there is that some women are surely delaying or avoiding EC because they think it’s an “abortion”, falling pregnant and then having to get an actual abortion once they realize how much they really don’t want to have a baby right now.
*One weird bit of misinformation I’ve seen on some feminist boards is that all fertile women should keep EC on hand. This isn’t true if you are on the birth control pill. I have no idea why you’d think you needed EC if you’re on the pill or the ring or the shots or any other hormonal birth control, but you don’t. Do not take EC if you are on another form of hormonal birth control.
37 Responses to “You say “sex cult” like it’s a bad thing”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Concerning ovulation tests.
When we were trying to conceive my wife took it took some tests during her first cycle. This helped pinpoint when she was ovulating. Since she is very regular we could aim for the window in the next cycles. So you are right that they are not instantly useful, but knowing what day in your cycle you ovulate will help you conceive.
Thanks for the info, Amanda. It’s a shame that the people who claim to be on the side of God and righteousness (the antichoicers) depend on ignorance and dishonesty to advance their cause.
True enough. I’ve heard the best advice ever for conceiving is to have sex every other day like clockwork.
To be perfectly honest, I was at FDA hearings about Plan B where OTC status was first and most famously panned back at the end of 2003, and the reason given was quite openly questions about whether Plan B could perhaps technically kinda-sorta “cause” an abortion. Tests are inconclusive as to whether it’s even possible, no documented cases of such a thing happening have ever come to light, and the scientific opinion on the matter is that it just plain isn’t a factor at all, period, end of story.
Oh, and it was thisclose to passing the panel, but the head of the group, who carries more clout than the others, either vetoed it or cast the deciding NO vote (it’s been a few years, I forget exactly how this worked), giving that reason. Even though all day in the talks he had shown no evidence of being worried about such a thing, and in fact poopooed the fundies who kept bringing it up. We were all convinced that he was on direct orders to see that it didn’t pass.
The “health” aspect was a bit of spin added later, because, um, actually, no the morning after pill does NOT cause abortion, any more than the birth control pill does. At least some very stupid people might fall for the safety excuse, because, hey, the FDA are supposed to be the anointed experts of whether a drug is safe or not. Whereas anybody with access to Wikipedia or Human Reproduction For Dummies knows that birth control pills don’t cause abortions.
Not a word was spoken in the hearings about whether Plan B was safe enough to be over the counter — every single one of the panel members, and every single one of the people giving testimony (even wackjob groups like Concerned Women For America) knew it was perfectly safe.
Other attempts could have gone a little differently, though, I guess.
Bingo.
Oh, and btw, at that very hearing I actually heard some wingnut woman stand up and say (in response to the group I was there with), that if women don’t want to get pregnant they should just, and I quote, “Keep their legs shut”. Oh, and then she actually called us sluts. Yes, a group of feminists, representing NOW, were actually slut-shamed in an FDA hearing for having the audacity to suggest that ALL women, in ALL cases, ought to be able to decide whether to have a child or not.
The Concerned Women For America’s main theme in their presentation was that having access to something like EC will contribute to women being sexual. This was the actual gist of their actual presentation, expressed in exactly those terms. This is not a “reading between the lines” interpretation, or an unfair twisting of what they wanted. This is what they openly said that they thought. EC should remain generally unavailable because it contributes to women having sex.
I’m completely irregular, so the every-other-day thing was the only way we had a chance of pregnancy. And even then, it took more than one month of trying. We tried various methods for over a year, and it was very clear that the difficulty was with my body, not his sperm. It’s kind of nice, even though it was hard, knowing that it really was my body in total control.
Do you think that if the right succeeds on reframing hormonal birth control as early abortion, they’ll go after female-controlled barrier methods next? I mean, condoms are in their own best interest for their own needs (it wouldn’t do to get their hookers and mistresses pregnant), but surely the diaphragm is dangerous to humanity somehow.
Also, does they really think that any rapist who would give their victim EC wouldn’t just use a condom to prevent DNA evidence?
^ refers to a post in moderation, sorry.
Dammit, I just can’t win today, can I?
Oh, and I’ve discovered what’s happening to my posts. Anytime I post from work, they disappear into the ether. Anytime I post from home, everything works out. This is probably a good thing, because I should be doing more working and less blogging. I still can’t figure out what about my work setup is causing this to happen — we don’t have any big defensive No Fun Internet At Work thingums, or crazy firewalls, or anything like that. Maybe someone from my office got our ISP banned from blogsome? Maybe someone in my office has been bunnied here at Pandagon?
Just a point–for some women having EC on hand is a good idea even if you’re on the birth control pill. If you forget to take it or take it a few hours later for a few days, and especially if you’re switching prescriptions it’s important to use a condom backup. Condoms can come off or break, and if that happens EC is your best option, especially if the effectiveness of the pill has been compromised.
It’s what my gyn told me, so I’m just passing it along. There aren’t any side effects from taking EC while you’re on the pill aside from the normal side effects for EC or maybe making you moody for a few days. (For things like the shot you should talk to a doctor first, though.)
(Sorry if this is a double post, my computer had some issues.)
Small correction, Amanda– EC has been proven to be effective for up to 120 hours after sex. I was actually writing an article about the EC anniversary for my local PP affiliate and also had to be corrected on the 72 hours time frame. I believe that the change was made sometime within the last several months . . .
I’m sure it is effective, Cara, but it’s best if women understand that every minute you’re not taking it after sex is a minute you could start ovulating. The effectiveness depends strongly on beat-the-clock.
But 120 hours? Wow. Shows exactly how long sperm can live. Interestingly from reading the book Woman: An Intimate Geography, I learned that eggs are downright fussy and perish within a day or two of being released. (Which is why sperm have to be tough.) It’s tempting to anthropomorphize that based on cheap gender stereotypes, but wrong-headed and silly to boot. (It seems like men should have more endurance, based on cheap stereotypes, but women live longer on average.) From what I can tell, ovum just have to maintain a crazy balance of chemicals to allow one and only one sperm in and to make sure that it’s a good sperm (you can’t impregnate a woman with a chimpanzee, and apparently some women overcorrect to the point of being allergic to their husband’s sperm) , and I imagine that such a balance doesn’t last too long.
Randomly related:
I agree that we need to stress that EC needs to be taken ASAP. But I think that it’s also important for women to know how long it is effective in certain, extenuating circumstances– no transportation, no money, shock/delayed treatment after a rape, denied EC by a pharmacist, you’re under 18 and need to go to a doctor to get an RX, or hell, that you don’t even know that EC exists until a couple of days after (it’s amazing, but many people still don’t understand the difference between EC and a medical abortion and/or know how easy it is to obtain).
I think that we can simultaneously stress the messages that you need to take EC as quickly as possible for it to be effective AND that if because of some circumstance out of your control you couldn’t get it immediately, you shouldn’t just give up.
I kind of like the “rapists and molesters will make their victims take EC” argument. It suggests that the only way these folks will believe that the girl has been raped or molested is if she turns up pregnant to prove it, and that since the rapists know that, they can get away with it by using EC. Isn’t that a neat little tangle of psychopathology, never mind that in my experience it’s not even true, plenty of pro-lifers will still assume a pregnant thirteen year old incest victim is just a slut who’s trying to avoid being called a slut.
All in all it seems to offer the view that pregnancy is a punishment for being molested, after which if we think you’ve suffered enough, we’ll consider getting you away from your rapist.
Many anti-choicers want us to believe that the Human Life Amendment says the “Life begins at conception” when in fact, under the amendment that Georgia lawmakers are currently considering (and that the misogynists Augusta (GA) Chronicle editors and readers support) would have life begin at fertilization. What that means, is that as soon as sperm makes contact with the egg, it is then considered a “life” under the Human Life Amendment - regardless of whether the fertilized egg is attached to or separated from the womb. That alone makes all Human Life Amendments, such as the one being considered in the Peach State, 1000% unconstitutional. So, again, if there are any Pandagonians in Georgia, call your state legislator or state Senator and tell him or her to strongly oppose the Human Life Amendment at every turn.
On a related note (sorry if I go OT), maternal deaths are up to its highest point since 1976. The MSM tried to say that obesity is a factor, and I wrote to The (Columbia) State newspaper and cried foul. I know why maternal deaths are up so high nowadays. Women are being denied abortions and anti-choice laws, as well as anti-choice attacks on abortion clinics are the three biggest factors in the spike in maternal deaths.
I love how they care more about keeping EC away from young girls than combating the pedophiles that rape them. I give it less than five years before the public, and not just the religious zealots, start blaming girls for dressing “provocatively.”
This basing of “life” on rhetoric rather than health sciences simply has to stop.
I’m sick of biology-ignorant assholes outsourcing suffering for their own beliefs onto women and forcing women to keep re-fighting for rights which are ours.
If the premise is that life begins at conception, they should also be made to address the reality of spontaneous abortion and why it occurs as a routine function of female biology that.
And the phonily pious doofuses who indulge this persecution should call out the agenda of punishing sexually active women — over whom these bigots and fanatics have no legal, moral or ethical standing — to show where they gained this authority. Rhetorical snowflake babies don’t justify this biblical times harassment.
They should also be challenged on the hooey that abstinence is 100% effective. Out in the field (so to speak) the failure rate correlates more to the Rhythm Method. Even worse if there’s a full moon and the heady scent of new mown hay in the air and Meatloaf on the car radio.
I really want the debate to shift from Cletus the Rhetorical Fetus to: Abstinence - is it just a more polite way of saying “Barebacking?”
Usually these people try to hide their anti-contraception agenda because they know mainstream America would have nothing to do with them otherwise.
I think a lot of feminists suggest having it on hand in order to administer it to others who might not be able to or know how to get their hands on it.
And not all feminists are on hormonal birth control (*raises hand*) so that doesn’t really make sense either.
One weird bit of misinformation I’ve seen on some feminist boards is that all fertile women should keep EC on hand. This isn’t true if you are on the birth control pill. I have no idea why you’d think you needed EC if you’re on the pill or the ring or the shots….
You should keep EC handy in case you need to use it as a backup to your regular method, not in addition to it. [You forget to take the pill/run out/have a GI upset; the ring slips out/you remove it and forget to reinsert it; you forget/are not able to get the next shot within the alloted time frame.]
Bottom line: Both males and females should keep ECPs handy. You never know when you, your partner, or a friend might need them.
Thanks for clearing that up, Ema . . . I somehow missed the footnote! You’re absolutely correct, and women who are using hormonal contraception and have some type of interruption in their method prior to intercourse would be well-advised to use EC, and organizations like Planned Parenthood advocate its use in those cases.
Bitter, the anti-contraception agenda of the whackjobbery is pretty clear. Among the cavalcade of weirdos the GOP has trotted out in their primary Mitt “I’m Pro-Life Except When I can Stick My Irish Setter on The Romneymobile Roof-Rack” Romney has actually articulated it. Yep. He’d double Gitmo too. (Gawd, I hope they put him on the ticket.)
They’d be on the wrong side of the issue, though, as “pro”life / no choice deadbeats cause MORE abortions.
Pandagon: Sorry if I’ve been “spamming” the site — I’m outdoors in big awful weather and some kind of kind of war has broken out between postings and the anti-spamming function. Either it’s a combination of wifi weirdness and browser caching not playing well with the live preview or the fertility gods yanking my chain.
I’ve noticed faux-lifers get all red in the face when you point out that the best birth control is homosexuality.
From what I understand, this is also why ovulation tests for couples trying to conceive might be a waste of money
Right. In the course of looking up peer-reviewed research on popular methods of sex selection prior to conception (hint: none of them work), I discovered an article that found chances of conceiving were highest in the two to three day window BEFORE ovulation. People who had sex on the day of ovulation or later didn’t, for the most part, conceive at all.
Wow, there’s some real confidence in the intelligence of girls. Can’t tell the difference between a teenage boy and a 4–year-old manwhile in bed with him!? Or can one now lose one’s virginity over the internet? I guess when you’re not having actual human sex, you forget what it is.
Thanks for this rundown on the battle for EC.
I’m tired of EC critics claiming that people who make use of it are validated in their “lack of responsibility” when in fact, taking EC when you are not prepared to have a child is a supremely responsible act.
For myself, coming from a Christian-based background, I’m tired of my faith being used as a weapon for sexism; my own spirituality affirms choice, health, and rights–it doesn’t take them away.
Regarding pharmacies that refuse to sell EC to customers based on the pharmicists’ religious beliefs, my boyfriend and I joked about pushing the point to a crisis. It would be a hilarious to get a job at a pharmacy and then, claiming Christian Science as our religion and citing the “religious exception” clause, refuse to sell absolutely ANY medicine. According to the pharmacies own rules, they can’t fire you! HA!
What’s sad is that the EC=abortion myth is so pervasive that even well-meaning people who support reproductive rights repeat it as truth. I constantly find myself having to educate people on how EC (and all hormonal contraception for that matter) works.
I really wish we progressives could find some factual, yet emotionally appealing, soundbite to counter the pro-forced birth/ anti-contraception lies. Unfortunately, soundbites never work well with well-reasoned positions on issues.
Regarding pharmacies that refuse to sell EC to customers based on the pharmicists’ religious beliefs, my boyfriend and I joked about pushing the point to a crisis.
I assume those same stores wouldn’t fire me if I got a job as a checkout girl and started refusing to sell cigarettes or beer to anyone.
I think the sound bite approach could work. It even fits on a bumper sticker:
LIFE BEGINS A FEW DAYS AFTER SEX
After explaining to several bright people that Plan B and the abortion pill were completely different drugs, I am seriously considering getting that T-shirt.
Also whats with the naked women banner ads? ,
Hey Jim, I said “factual” and there is nothing scientifically verifiable in that statement.
Anna Clark, that’s exactly why I’m no longer a Christian. I’m now a Unitarian Universalist.
Ellie: So just having argued with a Christian for several hours, I have the following question for you. You said:
If the premise is that life begins at conception, they should also be made to address the reality of spontaneous abortion and why it occurs as a routine function of female biology that. If the premise is that life begins at conception, they should also be made to address the reality of spontaneous abortion and why it occurs as a routine function of female biology.
Pretend I’m an anti-choicer (this is the Internet, it should be easy). Now, tell me: how does the consideration of spontaneous abortion impact the morality of abortion, any more than the reality of random death impacts the morality of murder?
murcielago:
This is why we shouldn’t accept the bogus argument that “life begins at conception,” period. It’s completely mystical.
Humanity is clearly something that develops gradually, and often doesn’t completely.
Some winger or other recently repeated their rhetorical question somewhere where I couldn’t reply, “What is the dividing line between human and non-human then, if not conception?”
What I wanted to be able to say was,
“Pregnancy. It’s a nine-month thick line.”
I don’t always read carefully. I suppose if had been reading Pandagon with full consistent attention these past 2 years, I’d have realized long ago what Amanda finally got through to me today, that EC works by supressing ovulation, period; I’d always thought there was some merit to the winger claim that, at least sometimes, it terminates an already fertilized egg.
And above, when I wrote we should reject the bogus “life begins at conception” mantra, I really meant “at fertilization.”
Obviously, anyone who rationalizes or takes on faith that the new human genome formed at fertilization marks the beginning of a new human being with a complete set of human rights to set against the woman’s, won’t see any distinction between an egg (or whatever we call it at that stage) that has actually implanted and one that is still floating around loose.
I’ve got to read that Woman: An Intimate Geography book sometime, after I can afford to pay my library fines, I guess.
The title is certainly appealing enough.
Murcie: Now, tell me: how does the consideration of spontaneous abortion impact the morality of abortion, any more than the reality of random death impacts the morality of murder?
If anti-choicers believe (as they claim) that every fertilized egg is a human being, and that having an abortion is as much murder as killing a toddler would be, it follows that they believe that half of all the human beings in the world die before they are born, and that these deaths are exactly as tragic as the death of a toddler would be. To someone who genuinely believes what anti-choicers claim they believe, spontaneous abortions would be the most serious health crisis of all: far more serious than the (relatively) trivial number of fetuses that die by induced miscarriage.
But then, if anti-choicers really believed that abortion is terrible and needs to be stopped, they would be investing their efforts in means of ensuring women neither conceive accidentally (since accidental conceptions are the most likely to be aborted) and will be able to support an unplanned child, no matter what her life circumstances (the most common reason given for having an abortion). They’d be working on a universal program to bring contraception, including the morning-after pill, to the world (never mind the women of the US) and they’d be working on social programs to prevent women from needing to abort a child they would have kept because they can’t afford to support another child.
But they don’t. So we know they don’t. Their claim to believe that life starts at conception is a self-serving lie, which ought not to be taken seriously in any serious discussion.
Since a wide variety of activities (alone or combined with environmental factors) might cause a body carrying a fertilized egg to expunge it, the self-declared “pro”life phonies would have to explain how they’d restrict women’s participation in a variety of activities and spheres.
If setting the life-clock at fertilization gains popularity, then the no-choice crowd should be made to explain their case on real merits and real facts and not false nightmarish imagery or pickled perversities.
Should women be prevented from travelling without being screened? (Preventing a fertilized egg from getting past the baggage check — for its own safety — could be part of a new program for Homeland and Wombland Security to protect good fetuses and tag teensy terrorists at the embryonic level.)
Would a suspicion of having a fertilized egg and, say, boarding a plane criminalize women’s travel?
Should women be banned from all sports and fitness? Stopped from losing weight or gaining too much weight? Conceiving outside the continual surveillance of the state? Getting sick without permission? Recovering after being sick? Live her life without screening herself constantly for possibly carrying a fertilized egg?
Should men be punished for endangering fertilized eggs or failing to fertilize perfectly good ones — preemptive unmeditated spontaneous partial abortion — for taking a hit off a blunt or other reasons?
Sanctimonious rhetoric alone should never have been enough to give every religious bigot a forum and the presumption of a higher morality. We have to stop letting them hide this deep-seated hatred of women behind a pretense of religiosity.
By the end of it all, if you were stupid enough to think opponents of EC were motivated by concerns about the drug’s safety, you were probably too busy sending your bank account numbers to Nigerian princes to follow the mundane political machinations here at home.
you are freaking priceless Amanda.