Archive for the ‘Abortion Politics’ Category

h1

More on Down Syndrome

September 28, 2013
A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated. Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the United Kingdom indicates that from 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome has remained constant at around 92%. In the United States a number of studies have examined the abortion rate of fetuses with Down syndrome. Three studies estimated the termination rates at 95%, 98%, and 87%

A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated. Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the United Kingdom indicates that from 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome has remained constant at around 92%. In the United States a number of studies have examined the abortion rate of fetuses with Down syndrome. Three studies estimated the termination rates at 95%, 98%, and 87%

A reader, Molly, replied to the three posts on Down Syndrome by Andrew Solomon:

“Fascinating article. Extremely conspicuous in its absence is the uncomfortable fact that just over 90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted due in part to overwhelming pressure by the medical community. It would seem eugenics has not been discredited as thoroughly as the author would have us believe. I find it truly amazing that he indicts former generations for their barbaric treatment of disabled people and then completely ignores what has become common practice in our time. The medical community routinely pressures pregnant moms to abort babies who have any kind of disability whatsoever, and frequently offers little support for the brave few who opt to keep their babies. The history lesson seems incomplete without these facts.”

You’re right, Molly and my reading selection of the chapter on Down Syndrome from Far From the Tree was driven more by considerations of length rather than the appropriateness of including all of material. I also didn’t like Solomon’s mixing and matching his gay agenda with the story of Down Syndrome. Read on:

“Until Ronald Reagan signed the Baby Doe Amendment in 1984, which classed the neglect or withholding of treatment for disabled infants as child abuse, parents and physicians could essentially let such infants die if they wished. The Princeton ethicist Peter Singer has espoused the right of women to choose abortion through the end of pregnancy and to commit infanticide on newborns if they so choose. He has defended this position with the utilitarian argument that most women who terminate an unwanted child will produce a wanted one, and that the loss of happiness of the child who is killed (whose life would have been satisfactory) is outweighed by the happiness of the healthy child who follows.

Although Singer’s position is extreme, it reflects the pervasive devaluation of people with Down syndrome and the assumption that their lives are displeasing to others and to themselves. One mother described being asked by a psychiatrist how she got on with her son with Down syndrome; when she replied, “Terrific,” he said that there was no need to be defensive. Marca Bristo, who chairs the National Council on Disability, said, “Singer’s core vision amounts to a defense a genocide.”

By 2000, the resistance to prenatal screening from the disability rights camp had crystallized. Disability scholars Adrienne Asch and Erik Parens, in their seminal discussion of the problem, wrote, “Pre-diagnosis reinforces the medical model that disability itself, not societal discrimination against people with disabilities, is the problem to be solved.”

Prenatal genetic testing followed by selective abortion is really problematic and it is driven by misinformation.” A few years later,” Asch wrote, “Researchers, professionals, and policymakers who uncritically endorse testing followed by abortion act from misinformation about disability, and express views that worsen the situation for people who live with disabilities now and in the future.”

Leon Kass, chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics under George W. Bush, has argued that we “treat” prenatally diagnosed illnesses by “killing rather than tending to those who would develop them.” Preventing births of any subclass of people devalues them. A society where fetuses with Down syndrome are routinely aborted clearly believes that DS is a grave misfortune. This does not mean that anyone hates or wants to slaughter people with DS; indeed, many people who would choose to terminate a DS pregnancy would also go out of way to be kind to a living person with the syndrome.

But I know from personal experience how kind sympathy can be a noxious prejudice; I do not care to spend time with people who pity me for being gay, even if their sympathy reflects a generous heart and is offered with egregious politesse.

Asch claims that women abort disabled fetuses because of the woeful lives that would come of their pregnancies; that such woe is the product of chauvinism; that such chauvinism could be resolved. Janice McLaughlin, at the University of Newcastle, wrote, “Mourning the choice the woman is compelled to make is not the same as saying she is wrong or an active participant in discrimination. Instead it points to the ways in which she, too, is a victim.”

But the acts of women do not merely reflect the society; they create it. The more pregnancies are terminated, the greater the chance that more will be terminated. Accommodations are contingent on population; or ubiquity of disability keeps the disability rights conversation alive at all. A dwindling population means dwindling accommodation.

Of the 5,500 children born with DS in the United States each year, about 625 are born to women who had a prenatal diagnosis, ” One doctor assured Tierney Temple Fairchild, who had a prenatal diagnosis, not to terminate. “Almost everything you want to happen will happen. It’s just going to happen at a different schedule.”

This is untrue. A great deal does not happen on any schedule for people with DS. The remark was nonetheless helpful to the family in deciding keep their child, and they didn’t have amnio in subsequent pregnancies. “I had a choice and I chose life,” Fairchild wrote. “Does that make me pro-choice or pro-life? Our political parties tell us we can’t have it both ways. I chose life, but I am thankful I had the choice.”

Like deafness and dwarfism, Down syndrome may be an identity or a catastrophe or both; it may be something to cherish or something to eradicate; it may be rich and rewarding both for those whom it affects directly and for those who care for them; it may be a barren and exhausting enterprise; it may be a blend of all these. “I’ve never seen a family who chose to have the baby and then were really sorry Gregoli said.

There is a strong movement to connect expectant mothers with a prenatal Down’s diagnosis with families bringing up with DS. Many parents have written memoirs expressing the rewards of raising such children, contending that there is less to complain of in Down syndrome than in the attitudes of the world. Of course, people who dislike having children with DS don’t tend to write memoirs; neither  do those of low socioeconomic status, for whom the obstacles to good treatment may be daunting.

My own observation is that some parents manufacture an affirmative construction of their child’s disability to disguise their despair, while others have a deep and genuine experience of joy in caring for disabled children, and that sometimes the first stance can generate the second. I met disability activists who insisted that everyone’s joy was authentic, and I met psychologists who thought no one’s experience was. The truth is that while some people fall at either end of this spectrum, most are scattered across its wide span.”
Andrew Solomon, Far From the Tree

This completes the Down Syndrome story that I wanted to share. You cannot force women to bear Down Syndrome children but you can give a better picture of what having a DS baby may mean as well as what the evils of abortion may mean to your life. Far too little of either story gets out so that meaningful decisions can be made.  Ditto the Church’s message on gay marriage which Mr. Solomon seems not to have absorbed.

h1

A Loving Place, Inside Me — Matthew Hennessey

July 26, 2013
Charlie Allen had when he was born just 7% of life possibilities but now with five years old he challenged the grow adversities and won. Her mother, Emma, is a Norfolk executive and said her child is the livings proof that abortion limit must be slashed from 24 weeks”. “When he was born he was so tiny he could have fit into my hand, my wedding ring could go all the way up his arm and I wasn’t allowed to hold or stroke him as his skin was so thin it could tear,” she said to Daily mail. “He couldn’t breathe on his own and was immediately put in a ventilator. It was absolutely awful.” Charlie had just 23 weeks when he was born and weighed 1lb 7oz and now is a healthy boy.

Charlie Allen had when he was born just 7% of life possibilities but now with five years old he challenged the grow adversities and won. His mother, Emma, is a Norfolk executive and said her child is the living proof that abortion limit must be slashed from 24 weeks. “When he was born he was so tiny he could have fit into my hand, my wedding ring could go all the way up his arm and I wasn’t allowed to hold or stroke him as his skin was so thin it could tear,” she said to Daily mail. “He couldn’t breathe on his own and was immediately put in a ventilator. It was absolutely awful.” Charlie had just 23 weeks when he was born and weighed 1lb 7oz and now is a healthy boy.

Matthew Hennessey is a writer and editor who lives in New Canaan, Connecticut. He blogs over at the First Things site which is where I have reblogged it from.

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

I was not at all interested in reading Judy Nicastro’s New York Times op-ed. Not at first, anyway.

A piece in any newspaper titled “My Abortion, at 23 Weeks” stands a pretty good chance of ruining my day. But in the TimesBreezy titles like this are usually confined to the posh pages of the Travel section (“My Kashmir Adventure, at 23 Weeks”). Make no mistake: The Times knows what it’s doing. Slapping such a title on an op-ed is part of the Grey Lady’s non-agenda agenda to help you understand that abortion is as morally consequential as getting a mole removed. It’s no big deal, you see — just something a pregnant woman does for herself, like 36 hours in Baden-Baden.

So I didn’t want to read it, because I knew it would upset me. And I was right. “My Abortion, at 23 Weeks” by former Seattle City Council member Judy Nicastro is a towering example of how our elite culture has benumbed itself to the needs of the truly vulnerable. 

To summarize: Nicastro and her husband had one child with the help of in vitro fertilization. When that child was 4, they conceived twins, also through I.V.F. One of the twins was diagnosed in utero with a herniated diaphragm, which caused his internal organs to develop improperly. Doctors thought the baby could live, but that he would surely need “oxygen and other life supports for a long time.” The Nicastros felt it would be a nightmare to hear their son gasping for air and in pain, so they did what they thought was the responsible thing — they let a doctor inject poison into the baby’s heart and kill him.

The abortion of one of the twins came with the risk of miscarriage for the other. This would have, of course, added a further dimension of tragedy to an already sad story. That it didn’t happen is a blessing. That it could have happened should give pause to anyone who thinks I.V.F. has been a boon to our gross national happiness. It is, in fact, an ethical morass.

Among the more revolting justifications for abortion that I can think of holds that killing one child in utero is a gift you give to your other children. Typically, the child on the losing end of the bargain has been prenatally diagnosed with a disability or disease. Should such a child be born, rationalizers like to claim, it will in time become a burden on his already-born siblings. No parent should saddle children with such a baleful future.

One wonders, had Nicastro lost both babies, whether she would have grieved more for the twin she didn’t intend to kill than for the one she did.

I shall forego discussion of the tired argument that death by murder is a humane health care option for the disabled (especially for those who, by virtue of their extreme youth, have no say in the matter) except to note that it was the Nicastro’s pediatrician who blessed the procedure as “a reasonable option that I can support.” I have long harbored a pet theory that certain physicians — namely, post-natal caregivers such as pediatricians and surgeons — are less likely than prenatal specialists to counsel abortion. This was, I thought, a result of their having seen babies overcome “bad” prenatal diagnoses to live happy, loving, and productive lives. According to my theory, obstetricians and gynecologists viewed the woman, not the baby, as their patient, and so were quicker to pull the trigger on what is often coldly — though, deliberately — referred to as “termination.”

I might need to reexamine this.

Anyway, in the story of abortion at 23 weeks, Nicastro offers the helpful detail that her husband is a conservative and a Catholic. I suppose this is meant to underscore how difficult the ordeal was for both of them, and how much pity they are rightfully entitled to. But I can’t help but conclude that Nicastro’s husband must not be the world’s most devout Catholic if he agreed, first, to in vitro fertilization and, later, to an abortion. There are a few matters of prudential discretion afforded to followers of the Church of Rome, but these are not among them.

Suffice it to say that the diagnosis, abortion, and aftermath didn’t add up to a fun few days for Nicastro’s family. On balance, though, she feels good about the whole thing. It is evidently the editorial policy of the New York Times that no woman should be made to feel guilty about aborting a baby. She must feel good about her “choice,” no matter the circumstances. Only so deliberate and cynical a bending of the moral reality could lead Nicastro to the conclusion that abortion wasn’t just something she did for herself, it was something she did for her baby, too.

“We made sure our son was not born only to suffer. He died in a warm and loving place, inside me,” she writes. This is surely one of the most morally confused and willfully self-deceptive sentences ever published in a major American newspaper. It might be the most painful thing I have ever read. You will not be surprised to learn that Times commenters lauded Nicastro for her courage and showered her with compassion. Not one mentioned her departed son.

May God have mercy on his soul.

h1

A Cardinal Boycotts Boston College — Anne Hendershott

May 21, 2013
In interviews with the Boston Herald and InsideHigherED.com, one professor described the display of crucifixes as offensive, while another found it "insensitive" and "indicative of a bias toward one way of thinking, elevating one set of ideals above others, honoring one group of people in preference to the rest." Complaining about the crucifixes, Boston College Chemistry professor Amir Hoyveda wrote a letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, saying that he could "hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution." Yes, this is Boston’s premier Catholic institution of higher learning, much the way that the Red Sox are our premier baseball organization.

In interviews with the Boston Herald and InsideHigherED.com, one professor described the display of crucifixes as offensive, while another found it “insensitive” and “indicative of a bias toward one way of thinking, elevating one set of ideals above others, honoring one group of people in preference to the rest.” Complaining about the crucifixes, Boston College Chemistry professor Amir Hoyveda wrote a letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, saying that he could “hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution.” Yes, this is Boston’s premier Catholic institution of higher learning, much the way that the Red Sox are our premier baseball organization.

Ignoring U.S. bishops, the Catholic university will honored an abortion-rights supporter yesterday. The companion piece to this is the post Boston Strong. You will see it is no accident that Boston was the center for the homosexual priest scandal in the U.S. or that our secular leaders in this city no longer allow priests to act as first responders and administer last rites to the dying at disaster scenes like the marathon bombing a few months ago.

Ms. Hendershott is a sociology professor at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, and the co-author of Renewal: How a New Generation of Priests and Bishops are Revitalizing the Catholic Church,” forthcoming from Encounter Books.

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

At Boston College’s commencement ceremony on Monday, Cardinal Sean O’Malley won’t be in attendance. The leader of the Boston archdiocese announced on May 10 that he would not deliver his traditional graduation benediction at the Catholic school because the college had invited Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny — a supporter of abortion rights in Ireland — to deliver the graduation address and receive an honorary degree.

The cardinal said the invitation has caused “confusion, disappointment and harm” by ignoring the U.S. bishops “who have asked that Catholic institutions not honor government officials or politicians who promote abortion with their laws and policies.”

In April, Mr. Kenny’s coalition government introduced legislation with the curious title “The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013.” It will allow access to direct abortion for pregnant women if they claim to be so distraught about the pregnancy that they are in danger of committing suicide. Mr. Kenny has said that he “would like to see the legislation enacted before the Dail [parliament] rises for the summer.”

The prime minister’s actions have been condemned by the Catholic bishops of Ireland, who released a statement that warned: “International experience shows that allowing abortion on the grounds of mental health effectively opens the floodgates for abortion . . . it is the unborn child’s common humanity that makes his life equal in value to that of the mother.”

Boston College has responded to criticism of its invitation to Mr. Kenny — from Cardinal O’Malley, a pro-life student group at Boston College, and the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, among others — by saying that the decision was about common culture, not legislation. On May 10, college spokesman Jack Dunn told the Boston Globe that the invitation was extended “in light of our long-standing connection with Ireland and our desire to recognize and celebrate our heritage,” and was made “independent of the proposed bill that will be debated in the Irish parliament this summer.”

The abortion bill is just Mr. Kenny’s most recent clash with the Catholic Church. Last year, for instance, his government promoted a bill which would impose criminal penalties, including imprisonment, on priests who refuse to violate the seal of the confessional — normally sacrosanct — in cases of sexual abuse. On July 20, 2011, Mr. Kenny told the Irish parliament that the Vatican, in a bid to preserve its power, has “downplayed” the “rape and torture of children.” Later that year, he closed the Irish embassy to the Holy See, citing economic reasons.

Ireland’s prime minister isn’t the first abortion-rights proponent to be honored by the college. In 2010, the pro-choice Republican senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, delivered the commencement address at the Boston College School of Law. In 2007, the law school invited Edward Markey — a Massachusetts Congressman with a 100% abortion rights voting record in Congress — to speak at its commencement. In 2006, Mr. Markey joined 54 other Catholic Democrats in the House in signing a “Catholic Statement of Principles,” reserving the right to disagree with the Catholic Church on important issues like abortion. Mr. Markey is now running for John Kerry’s vacated Senate seat.

There has been an uneasy relationship between the church and the wider Boston College campus community as well. In 2009, when college administrators placed 40 crucifixes on classroom walls throughout the Boston campus, a number of faculty members were furious.

In interviews with the Boston Herald and InsideHigherED.com, one professor described the display of crucifixes as offensive, while another found it “insensitive” and “indicative of a bias toward one way of thinking, elevating one set of ideals above others, honoring one group of people in preference to the rest.” Complaining about the crucifixes, Boston College Chemistry professor Amir Hoyveda wrote a letter to the editor of the Boston Herald, saying that he could “hardly imagine a more effective way to denigrate the faculty of an educational institution.”

Boston College pro-choice law students have formed BC Law Students for Reproductive Justice. On their website as of May 16, the Boston College pro-choice law students vow to “promote awareness of reproductive issues in order “to ensure that future lawyers will be prepared to successfully defend and expand reproductive rights.”

In a sense the professors and students are continuing the tradition of the longtime proponent of abortion rights, the late Rev. Robert Drinan, who was dean of Boston College Law School for 14 years (1956-70) before serving in the U.S. House of Representatives. While a congressman, Drinan could be counted on to vote for increased access to abortion, just as earlier, while a dean, he had helped counsel Catholic politicians on how to accept and promote abortion with a clear conscience. In 2011, the Boston College Law School held a symposium to honor Drinan.

Yet Cardinal O’Malley’s refusal to countenance the college’s support for Prime Minister Kenny may be a sign that things are about to change. In April, Pope Francis chose Cardinal O’Malley as one of eight cardinals to advise him on running the church and reforming the Vatican bureaucracy.

This honor brings with it a responsibility to ensure that Catholic colleges and universities are faithful to the Catholic mission. The cardinal’s Boston College boycott is a good start.

h1

Lebensunwerten Lebens: Life Unworthy Of Life – Derek Jeter

July 9, 2012

Allied counsel Thomas J. Dodd looks at the Shrunken Head of Buchenwald at the Nuremberg Trials. The image, used to illustrate the barbaric “pathological phase” in Nazi culture, belied the Holocaust’s careful scientific planning. In reality though, allied prosecutors wrestled with the apparent moral nihilism of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the profound legal problem involved with prosecuting Nazi crimes without an established code of positive law. The book shows how Nazi doctors were accused and convicted of “crimes against humanity” — a concept Allied prosecutors themselves found dubious — crimes based on the same theories of eugenics practiced in the United States for decades.

R.R. Reno writing in this month’s First Things referred to the mainstreaming of the phenomena of “after-birth abortion,” a locution authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva use to describe killing newborns “whose parents don’t want them.” Reno termed it “Mainstreaming” because he had come across the article by these authors in TheJournal of Medical Ethics, an altogether mainstream, peer-reviewed scholarly publication. Or, in other words, precisely the place where one would least expect such advocacy.

Heretofore this kind of thought has only been found on the fringes of the pro-choice movement where the wacky professor Peter Singer  lives. Or in the Groningen Protocol where the kind and ever-merciful Netherlands, a state which currently allows “Children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to not be worth living” to be “terminated.”

The popular pro-choice movement does not want to acknowledge the logic of its advocacy when pursued to its rational ends, so it is not often we confront the haunting exposition of “after-birth abortion.”

Yet here it is:

… the authors follow the ruthless logic of the pro-abortion position to its conclusion. “If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy,” they observe, and if we can’t give a cogent explanation why a fetus suddenly becomes a person simply by passing through the birth canal, “then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”
R.R. Reno, Life Too Inconvenient for Life

Whew! When we think like a liberal we understand the following:

The editors of the TheJournal of Medical Ethics apparently think that these sorts of arguments should be taken seriously. They will of course say that the journal is committed to “stimulating discussion” and “airing controversial views.” What’s the harm in thinking it through? Aren’t free exchanges like this good for us? Doesn’t it help us refine our moral arguments and perhaps overcome our irrational responses of disgust and moral dismay?

In 1920, two distinguished German professors published an argument in favor of euthanasia. The argument turned on the claim that there are some lives unworthy of life. Giubilini and Minerva use that haunting phrase, perhaps unaware of its origins. And they extend it. Their argument for “after-birth abortion” gives us permission to destroy newborns who aren’t unworthy but are inconvenient.
R.R. Reno, Life Too Inconvenient for Life

Hence the German for “lives unworthy of life” is the title of my piece here.

It is here that Jonathan Haidt’s new book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, comes into play, because you need to understand who these people are who use these terms and how their blindness defines who they are.

Haidt observes that our moral culture is shaped primarily by emotion. Very few people reason out moral truths, most of us live by our gut reactions. The fixed points in our moral universe are the deeds so heinous we can’t imagine performing them – or can we? As Reno introduces the Haidt book:

Haidt’s basic claim that our moral outlooks are largely intuitive rather than reasoned refutes the standard liberal presumption that conservatives are motivated by subrational emotions (“fear,” for example) while liberals are “reasonable.” One of the main thrusts of The Righteous Mind is that people tend to be liberal or conservative because they have different emotional responses to the same social realities. And not just different. He concludes that conservatives are sensitive to things that liberals have difficulty seeing.
R.R. Reno, Our One-Eyed Friends

This fact became clear to Haidt when he did research for his doctoral dissertation. He developed a set of stories designed to bring out moral responses:

  1. One involved a family who ate their dog after it had died of natural causes.
  2. A second  had a woman using an old American flag as a cleaning rag.
  3. A third described a man having sex with a chicken, which he later eats.

Reno explains:

To explain this difference, Haidt offers an analogy to our capacity for taste: “The righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors. Our innate moral intuitions fall into six categories or “foundations”: care, freedom, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity. Care, freedom, and fairness tend to focus on individuals. We see someone suffering, and our care taste bud is stimulated. Loyalty, authority, and sanctity focus on social realities. They are what Haidt calls “binding” foundations, because they unify people into social groups. No individual is harmed when someone uses the flag as a cleaning rag, but doing so involves a symbolic disregard for the moral value of patriotic loyalty.
R.R. Reno, Our One-Eyed Friends

It is these “binding foundations” that liberals have a blind spot for. Note that the last two, authority and sanctity, are fundamental to a religious mindset. The only “authority” that liberals bend their knee towards is choice – whatever preserves choice is good and anything that challenges it (loyalty to country, obedience to God, or recognizing the sanctity of His existence by killing life) is to be questioned.

Liberals have inherited this suspicion of heritage. We share the assumption that freedom must mean freedom from -- freedom from the limitations imposed on us by the old institutions: church, community, family. It seems not to matter that such freedom presupposes our alienation from one another. Existential alienation is a small price to pay for enlightenment, the fulfillment of the progressive movement, or the satisfaction of appetites.

It is hard to recall the medieval definition of freedom, which was not the political license to follow our bellies or the philosophical encouragement to send our elders packing. Freedom was understood, rather, as a growing into the habits, the virtues, that allow us to fulfill our end as human beings without the impediments of vice.
Anthony Esolen, The Freedom of Heaven & the Freedom of Hell

Hence when Haidt asked the same questions to students at the University of Pennsylvania about his set of stories designed to bring out moral responses, the results were quite different. The Penn students experienced feelings of disgust, but for the most part they stepped back from those feelings and reassessed them to be morally permissible. For example, after hearing the chicken sex story, one Penn student said, “It’s perverted, but if it’s done in private, it’s his right.” It may be ugly, but as long as nobody else is harmed and no one’s rights are violated, it’s OK.

Killing infants with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to not be worth living falls into the same bag. Liberals will preserve the “choice” of termination no matter how heinous the crime against the sanctity of life is. They just don’t “see” it that way.

Seeing with the social as well as with the individual eye, as it were, unites American conservatives with the vast majority of human beings who in all known cultures place a great deal of importance on the “binding” foundations. All known cultures, that is, except the subculture of people who grow up in Western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic societies, WEIRD societies, as Haidt calls them.
R.R. Reno, Our One-Eyed Friends

Spot on in my book.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 274 other followers