Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 387 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Law and Liberty be Damned: Sarah Palin Personally Picketed OB-GYN Clinic after Doctor Went Public in Favor of Access

In her more recent statements, Sarah Palin has been coached to utter statements such as these regarding her views on women’s personal freedom:

Y’know, with my respect for the sanctity of life and my belief in the potential of life I know that this aspect of the abortion issue is very sensitive, and, you know, is a very private matter also.

“Oh, great,” you’re supposed to think, “Sarah Palin thinks abortion is a sensitive and private matter.” “Oh, gee,” you’re supposed to conclude, “I guess if Sarah Palin became President she would respect women’s right to control their own bodies, you know, with abortion being a sensitive and private matter and all.”

The problem is that when Sarah Palin has been specifically asked for her policy views about what practices she would put into the law to restrict Americans’ freedoms, she’s hummed a different tune. When asked by the 2006 Eagle Forum Questionnaire to complete the sentence, “I believe abortion should be _______,” Palin wrote:

I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate on KAKM-TV, Sarah Palin told you exactly what she’d do if she got the chance:

Libby Casey: Suppose Senator John Doe puts forth a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, and he asked you to attend the announcement and support him in that. Would you do it?

Sarah Palin: You’re, you’re asking if… in front of me were legislation that I would be asked to sign?

Libby Casey: No, if he was going to put forth a constitutional amendment, and he just wanted your support, you know, as a party member, as the leader of the state.

Sarah Palin: Um, I would. I would. And it’s no secret that I’m pro-life and I don’t hide that and nor am I ashamed of that but I am pro-life and yes, a, a proposal like that, I would stand by it.

There you have it, twice over: vote for Sarah Palin and you’ll get policies that force 12-year-old girls who’ve been raped by a teacher to carry and bear and be a parent to the rapist’s child. We’re talking about 7th grade girls here. Yes, it happens, and yes, Sarah Palin wants to give the rapist a special prize and the raped girl a special burden… because Sarah Palin prizes her sensibilities over the right to self-determination of an entire nation of women and girls. Forget Sarah Palin’s pretty, distracting words about how “private” and “sensitive” the issue is. She’s told you, point blank, what she would like to do if given the political power. Should the increasingly old and cancerous John McCain die, she wants to be your President.

Maybe some of you out there still don’t believe that Sarah Palin would really do this, even though she’s told you more than once that this is exactly her intention. Maybe you think Sarah Palin is lying to you.

That’s an understandable suspicion, considering that Sarah Palin has already lied to you about cooperating with the Troopergate investigation, that Sarah Palin has already lied to you about having “killed the Bridge to Nowhere” when she actually supported it until the Congress killed it, that Sarah Palin has already lied to you about the amount of energy produced by the state of Alaska, that Sarah Palin has already lied to you about the scientific consensus of Alaska state agencies regarding the threatened status of the Polar Bear.

Yes, considering the track record of Sarah Palin as a liar, it’s understandable that you might think Sarah Palin has lied to you about her policy plans on abortion, too. Maybe, just maybe, she’s a clandestine pro-choice activist seeking to fool all the anti-choice activists into voting her into office so she can whip off her mask and with a “ha ha!” appoint Gloria Steinem to the Supreme Court. Maybe. And maybe I am actually the Queen of Spain.

But I take the point; when you’re dealing with a liar, you can’t really trust in the liar’s words. If you want to know what a liar is going to do in the future, you have to look at what they’ve done in the past.

Fine. As David Talbot reports with more than one source, here’s what Sarah Palin has actually done in the past

Some background: In 1996, the evangelical church community of which Sarah Palin is a part engaged in a successful campaign to take over the board of the only hospital in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley which offered abortions. After the takeover, the new evangelical hospital board declared that the hospital would offer no abortions. A local OB-GYN doctor named Susan Lemagie filed suit in court with ten women who as a consequence had to travel far out of state to obtain abortions, seeking a court ruling that the hospital, a nonreligious nonprofit institution built using state and other public funds, must offer the legal public health service of abortion. Dr. Lemagie’s coalition won in court, based on the Alaska Supreme Court’s reading of Roe v. Wade and Article I Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution: “The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.” The court stated:

A woman’s control of her body, and the choice whether or when to bear children, involves the kind of decision-making that is “necessary for . . . civilized life and ordered liberty.” Baker, 471 P.2d at 401-02. Our prior decisions support the further conclusion that the right to an abortion is the kind of fundamental right and privilege encompassed within the intention and spirit of Alaska’s constitutional language. “[D]ecisions whether to accomplish or prevent conception are among the most private and sensitive.” …

We stated in Breese v. Smith, 501 P.2d 159, 169 (Alaska 1972), that “few things [are] more personal than one’s body.” [Fn. 8] In Breese, a school policy regulating hair length was at issue; the regulation was held unconstitutional because the State failed to show a compelling interest that justified the policy. Id. at 170-72. Surely “few things are more personal” than a woman’s control of her body, including the choice of whether and when to have children. Of all decisions a person makes about his or her body, the most profound and intimate relate to two sets of ultimate questions: first, whether, when and how one’s body is to become the vehicle for another human being’s creation; second, when and how–this time there is no question of “whether”–one’s body is to terminate its organic life….

For the above reasons, we are of the view that reproductive rights are fundamental, and that they are encompassed within the right to privacy expressed in article I, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution. These rights may be legally constrained only when the constraints are justified by a compelling state interest, and no less restrictive means could advance that interest. These fundamental reproductive rights include the right to an abortion.

A set of evangelical Christians in the Mat-Su Valley were incensed and outraged that Dr. Susan Lemagie would dare employ her legal right to go to court with a constitutional challenge. They were so incensed and outraged that they picketed Lemagie’s clinic for months. Lemagie’s poised 16-year-old daughter recalled in a 1998 issue of Newsweek the intense community pressure raised against not only her mother but her 12-year-old self for daring to defend women’s legal right to an abortion:

The initial community reaction to the case was troubling. At school, many of my conservative friends became more distant… “Your mom’s the only doctor in the state who does abortions,” my fourth-grade classmate shouted as he bolted across the playground, leaving me, red-faced and furious, on the swings…. Comments occasionally floated toward me in the halls: “Her mom kills babies. Isn’t that so disgusting?!” Local preachers from varying denominations condemned my mother from the pulpit. Picketers began protesting at the hospital across the street from my mom’s clinic. In late ’94, when the national papers carried stories about bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors, they moved to the sidewalk outside the clinic. My mother no longer talked about managed care and AIDS; she talked about buying a bulletproof vest.

I don’t think my family ever seriously believed that a fanatic with an automatic rifle lurked across the parking lot from my mom’s office, but the horrific thought remained in my 12-year-old brain. Small bands of picketers showed up maybe once a week throughout the first winter after the lawsuit was filed. Whipped by the January wind, their crimson ears looked as if they wanted to detach and wait in the car for their owners. My dad made a point of taking a picture of every car, every license plate, every group of grim strangers holding hideous pictures of infant corpses. “If a bomb ever went off,” he told me recently, “I could have just dropped off prime-suspect identification at the police station.”

Mr. Lemagie wasn’t paranoid to take care: the sister of one of my wife’s friends is one of the people killed by anti-abortion activists.

Who was one of the picketers so determined to deny all Alaska women the right to an abortion, no matter that abortion is legal in Alaska? Who was one of the picketers so outraged that Dr. Susan Lemagie exercised her right to judicial review as an American citizen? Who was one of the picketers, so sure of her moral rectitude that she would attempt to shut down Dr. Susan Lemagie, law and liberty be damned?

According to two sources, Sarah Palin.

Do you want Sarah Palin to be president?

29 comments to Law and Liberty be Damned: Sarah Palin Personally Picketed OB-GYN Clinic after Doctor Went Public in Favor of Access

  • Any coward who supports abortion has the blood of babies on their hands.

    SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

  • Jim

    It is intellectual cowardice to refuse to confront the complexity of human development.

    Is a fertilized egg a baby? Sarah Palin has supported not paying for rape kits with emergency contraception in them — emergency contraception can cause fertilized eggs not to implant. Killing a baby?

    Is a blastula without a single differentiated brain cells a baby? Sarah Palin opposes stem cell research because she is unable to see the difference between a blastula and a baby.

    Is a sixth-week embryo that looks like a miniature version of a shrimp without developed conceptual ability a baby? I understand why people are squeamish about aborting eighth-month-old fetuses. But a sixth-week embryo is not what an eighth-month fetus is.

    Your prayer is a fiction for the cowering fearful. Open your eyes and pay attention to the reality that is around you.

  • Jim

    P.S. I see the website you link to celebrates the killing of fully formed people who disagree with you.

    So much for that every-life-is-sacred bullcrap.

  • Matthias

    This makes me so sick! How can you be like that? What has to happen to somebody that he ends up so fanatical? The blood of babies? You obviously know shit about the human development. Or, if you actually do, you just put it aside to let your bigotry flow. I can almost picture you, worshipping a cross with a bloody corpse nailed to it. You believe Jesus died for your sins? I hope instead of ‘Jesus’ coming into your heart, you will manage to get some reason into your head.

  • Kay

    No woman should have the liberty to kill her unborn children. No matter the stage of development, the life growing within her is an innocent HUMAN life (from day 1). The unborn baby may not look exactly like a newborn (yet) but it is still a human life. We all look different throughout our stages of development. A 2 year old doesn’t look like a 14 year old, a 14 year old doesn’t look like an 80 year old.
    Stopping an innocent human heart IS murder. You liberals say that a woman can do whatever she wants to HER body (in reality she cannot). The problem with that belief is that the baby is NOT the mothers body. She isn’t terminating HER body. If she was terminating HER body it would be called suicide instead of abortion. If the baby is the mothers body and baby is a boy, would you say that the mother has a penis?

    ————————

    “The blood of babies? You obviously know shit about the human development.”

    Matthias, do you believe babies don’t have blood? And who worships a cross with a bloody corpse nailed to it? Christians don’t worship the cross. Jesus is the one being worshiped and He is no longer a corpse. The smartest thing any person could ever do is to ask Jesus to forgive their sins and trust what He did for them on the cross.
    —————————

    “Is a sixth-week embryo that looks like a miniature version of a shrimp without developed conceptual ability a baby?”

    Absolutely. Its a human life in its process of development. If you were in a car accident and had a head injury that left you without conceptual abilities, are you still human? Of course.

    “I understand why people are squeamish about aborting eighth-month-old fetuses. But a sixth-week embryo is not what an eighth-month fetus is.”

    What is so hard about calling the unborn “baby”? People stay clear of that word so that having an abortion doesn’t sound so cruel. It doesn’t matter what it looks like or what stage of development it is in. It is still a small human life. According to the Bible and Science, we only reproduce after our own kind. Humans produce humans, dogs produce dogs, cows produce cows, and so on. Besides all that, by the time most women even know that they are pregnant, the baby already has a blood pumping beating heart. Abortion DOES stop a beating heart.

  • “No matter the stage of development” means everything that you said, Kay, applies to a fertilized egg. That’s what Sarah Palin says too.

    I find it very hard to call a single-celled organism that just got fertilized a second ago a “baby”.

    A single-celled organism doesn’t have a beating heart, Kay.

    By the way, Kay, did you know that the Iraq War has killed babies too? The Iraq War has started plenty of beating hearts.

    So why is it that abortion opponents like you never bother much about the beating hearts of human beings who have already been born?

  • Kay

    “A single-celled organism doesn’t have a beating heart, Kay.”

    Who gets an abortion at this stage? Abortions are usually performed during the end of the first trimester when the baby already has a beating heart.

    “By the way, Kay, did you know that the Iraq War has killed babies too? The Iraq War has started plenty of beating hearts.”

    I think you meant to say has “stopped” plenty of beating hearts. But aborted babies are being killed by their mothers. They cannot fight back when the “doctor” injects them with saline. They have no weapons to fight the scissors that cut away at their tiny bodies. No one hears their scream of torture. We have to use our voice to speak out for them.

    “So why is it that abortion opponents like you never bother much about the beating hearts of human beings who have already been born?”

    The womb is supposed to be the safest place on earth and it has become a war zone itself. The unborn cannot defend themselves so someone has to take a stand for them. They are human beings with the right to life just like everyone else. What have they done that their own MOTHERS give “doctors” permission to burn them, chop them up in small pieces or suck their brains out?

    ———————-

    “Is a sixth-week embryo that looks like a miniature version of a shrimp without developed conceptual ability a baby?”

    Jim, a sixth-week embryo does not look like a shrimp. At six weeks it has arms, legs, fingers and toes. And at 10 weeks the baby is fully formed.

  • Jim

    Shrimp.

    And no, Kay, humans aren’t fully formed at 10 weeks. They’re fully formed at about 18 years. Some people say about 30 years.

  • Kay

    Jim, the baby in the picture does not look like a shrimp to me.

    I was specifically referring to unborn babies being fully formed, meaning their limbs, organs, etc are fully formed at 10 weeks.

  • Jim

    No, their limbs and organs and so on aren’t fully formed. They. Just. Aren’t. Go read an embryology text.

  • Kay

    Yes, they are. All the organs are already in place. EVERYTHING to be found in a FULLY grown human being has already been formed.

  • Jim

    If by that you mean that there is a thing called a “brain,” then yes. But it is not myelinated and is not fully functional beyond the brain stem.

    If by that you mean that there is a set called “lungs,” then yes. But they are not functional at all.

    If by that you mean that there is a thing called the “stomach,” then yes. But the stomach does not function.

    All you mean by “fully functional” is that the bud of what will be is there. By that measure, I could say that an acorn is a fully functional oak tree.

    You’re either ignorant or you are willfully misrepresenting reality with your use of phrases like “fully formed.” When people like you who want to convert either your ignorance or your misrepresentation into mandates for an entire nation of people, that is a problem. That is what makes Sarah Palin a problem.

  • Kay

    “If by that you mean that there is a thing called a “brain,” then yes. But it is not myelinated and is not fully functional beyond the brain stem.”

    Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram.

    “If by that you mean that there is a set called “lungs,” then yes. But they are not functional at all.”

    Of course not. If they were, the baby would drown in its own amniotic fluid.

    “If by that you mean that there is a thing called the “stomach,” then yes. But the stomach does not function.”

    The baby’s stomach secretes gastric juice by eight weeks.

    “All you mean by “fully functional” is that the bud of what will be is there. By that measure, I could say that an acorn is a fully functional oak tree.”

    Did I say “fully functional”? I said fully FORMED. At 10 weeks the limbs and organs are already there. They aren’t “buds” of what will be there.

    “When people like you who want to convert either your ignorance or your misrepresentation into mandates for an entire nation of people, that is a problem.”

    I was simply trying to point out that abortion is murder. You were trying to make a difference between a baby at 6 weeks and one at 8 months. Both have blood pumping beating hearts. Both are human beings. Abortion is legalized murder.

  • Jim

    “Fully formed,” “fully functional” … neither is true.

    Your cut-and-pasted claim that “Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram” has been demonstrated to be altogether bogus.

    6 weeks, 8 weeks. Want to move the goalposts some more?

    I was “trying to make a difference between a ‘baby’ at 6 weeks and one at 8 months” because there is a difference between a fetus at 6 weeks and a fetus at 8 months. There is, actually, a large number of such differences. Don’t pretend there is no difference. Be empirical.

  • Kay

    “By that measure, I could say that an acorn is a fully functional oak tree.”

    That would be like saying a baby is an adult. Just like the acorn and the oak tree are both oaks, a baby and an adult are both humans. The acorn is a complete oak. It just needs time to grow to become an oak tree.

    But is this the only line that pro-choice people have? Why do they always use the acorn and oak tree? Can they not think up something else?

  • Jim

    Yes, it would be like saying a baby is an adult and … finish the thought, Kay … that would be absurd.

    Extend your reasoning: Why, a sperm plus an egg are a complete human being. They just need time to fuse and grow to become an adult.

    You menstruate? Then you kill, kill, kill half a baby every month! Murderer!

    Now you tell me that’s crazy because the vital difference is that the sperm and the egg have fused, THAT’S the beginning and nothing before or after matters, THAT’S when we get a human, ignore everything else.

    Then I say why? Because you say so? What is the standard behind that… besides well, it just is?

    I say that a first-trimester fetus without measurable brain activity (again, your 40 day claim has been demonstrated to be bogus) is fundamentally different than a third-trimester fetus with measurable brain activity. And if a fetus has no measurable brain activity, I have absolutely no problem with it being aborted. And I have a huge problem with politicians like Sarah Palin who want to shove their own poorly-articulated, empirically unsupported standard onto the entire remainder of the population.

  • Elle

    Wow, I mean this is the reason america is slowly losing it’s freedom and the ideals which once made it a great nation.
    The Christian Taliban Republic of America is not too far off in the future now.

    Any argument on abortion always comes down to name calling and sound bites. too bad people tend to forget that, arguing with evangelicals and other fanatics is futile, the use of reason and logic will always be trumped by belief and faith. Intelligence has nothing to do with it, thinking is anathema to the true believer.

    So, christians don’t believe in killing babies? What about the millions of babies in the past that were left out of doors to die after they were born because they suffered some type of birth defect or disfigurment?

    Are any of you aware that, early church doctrine put forth that children had no soul until they reached a certain age after birth?

    Isn’t it wonderful that christians feel they have the wisdom and intelligence to be able to know the truth or fallacy of scientific discoveries and research, believing only those that fit into their agenda of course?

    Too bad, reality is not a buffet, you do not get to decide what you want to be true.

    It wouldn’t be so bad, if they would just keep their insanity and stupidity to themselves. But no, They are the one’s who have the one Truth, and know what is good and moral and proper for all the rest of us.

    Hey, why not call it what it is, lust for Power.

  • Kay

    “Fully formed,” “fully functional” … neither is true.

    Go to any website, read any book, ask any ob/gyn doctor and they will tell you that by 10 weeks the unborn baby is fully formed.

    “Your cut-and-pasted claim that “Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram” has been demonstrated to be altogether bogus.”

    Not so.

    “6 weeks, 8 weeks. Want to move the goalposts some more?”

    ?

    “I was “trying to make a difference between a ‘baby’ at 6 weeks and one at 8 months” because there is a difference between a fetus at 6 weeks and a fetus at 8 months.”

    There is no difference in matters of which one is a human being. That was my point. Both are living human beings. A baby at 6 weeks may look somewhat different than a baby at 8 months but they are still human beings and have the right to life.

    According to what you have told me, abortion isn’t wrong because the embryo/fetus isn’t fully formed (according to you) or functional. You also said that humans aren’t fully formed until they are at least 18 years old. Does this mean if we no longer want our toddlers or teenagers we have the right to kill them? After all, according to your logic, they have no right to life since they aren’t fully formed yet. If a persons body isn’t 100% fully functional they don’t deserve to live? Does that also mean that we have the right to kill the mentally challenged and the handicapped? People who believe like this have the spirit of Hitler.

  • Jim

    I have provided you a link to the thoroughly sourced debunking of your claim. So now it is up to you, Kay:

    You go ahead and show me the original peer-reviewed scientific research paper that demonstrates “brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram.” Show it to me. If you want to demonstrate that you are at all concerned with empirical reality, show it to me. Until you do, I will conclude that you are not really a person who’s concerned with observable fact.

  • Elle

    LOL!!!

    “According to what you have told me, abortion isn’t wrong because the embryo/fetus isn’t fully formed (according to you) or functional. You also said that humans aren’t fully formed until they are at least 18 years old. Does this mean if we no longer want our toddlers or teenagers we have the right to kill them? After all, according to your logic, they have no right to life since they aren’t fully formed yet. If a persons body isn’t 100% fully functional they don’t deserve to live? Does that also mean that we have the right to kill the mentally challenged and the handicapped? People who believe like this have the spirit of Hitler.”

    Considering in the past you “good christians” did just that sort of thing all the time, why not.

    Of course the mentally ill were “possessed” by satan or whatever, and they gave them a nice exorcism beforehand, which some times killed them anyway, but what the hey, I mean it was all done in the name of the lord and salvation of their immortal soul.

    Ever read up on some of the things the puritans did back in colonial times, I mean besides the Salem bit?

    Fine upstanding christians have been killing children, the mentally ill, and whoever they darn well pleased, all in the name of jesus, for centuries.

    It would almost be funny, if it weren’t so sad.

  • Jim

    P.S. My remark regarding 18 to 30 year olds was an attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your claim that 6 week old embryos or 8 week old fetuses are “fully formed.” NO, I do not believe that “according to your logic, they have no right to life since they aren’t fully formed yet.” I believe that an 8 week old fetus may be aborted because it is lacking in cognition. My brother in law has Down’s syndrome and I am fully supportive of his right to life. My father had significant mental illness and I was fully supportive of his right to life. If you do not understand the distinction between what I am actually saying and your characterization of what I am saying, then you need to do some significant cognitive work of your own.

    In the meantime, go find that peer-reviewed scientific research article.

  • Kay

    “You menstruate? Then you kill, kill, kill half a baby every month! Murderer!”

    Give me a break. My ovum is genetically identified as a cell of MY body. When I menstruate I’m not murdering myself. The JOINING of the sperm and the ovum creates a living being. The ovum itself and the sperm itself are not living human beings.

    “I say that a first-trimester fetus without measurable brain activity (again, your 40 day claim has been demonstrated to be bogus) is fundamentally different than a third-trimester fetus with measurable brain activity.”

    Its only bogus to those who believe the unborn don’t have the right to life. I still think you are missing my point.

    “And if a fetus has no measurable brain activity, I have absolutely no problem with it being aborted.”

    That is so sad. It doesn’t matter if the baby has no MEASURABLE brain activity (yet), it still has its OWN blood pumping from his/her beating heart. What if something happened to you and you TEMPORARILY had no measurable brain activity? Would some pro-choice liberal have the right to take your life? Would it be okay? Would you call it “murder”?

    “And I have a huge problem with politicians like Sarah Palin who want to shove their own poorly-articulated, empirically unsupported standard onto the entire remainder of the population.”

    That is exactly what the pro-abortion people are doing with their secular humanism. And yes, secular humanism IS a religion. So why should the secular humanist democratic liberals force their beliefs on the entire population? Are all liberals hypocrites? Or is it just the majority?

  • Jim

    You made the 40-day claim.

    You continue to defend it.

    Go find that peer-reviewed scientific research article.

    I’m not going to have any further discussion with you until you do that or retract your claim.

  • Kay

    Elle, you cannot condemn the entire Christian faith based on the actions of one particular group. Those things happened in the name of “Christianity” but it does not mean that is what Christianity teaches. Biblical Christianity professes conversion by love not by torture.

  • Kay

    “I’m not going to have any further discussion with you until you do that or retract your claim.”

    Thats fine. I’m not doing any research right now. So you’ll just have to wait.

  • Elle

    Oh, but if it had of been just “one group”.

    Back in the “good old days” it was pretty much across the board. It wasn’t just catholics, or protestants, it wasn’t just some isolated sect, it was all of them.

    Yes, if you sit down and read the bible, christianity doesn’t teach a lot of the things that the ‘christian community’ practiced or still practices. Kind of like the Islamic fundies, the christians have tended to pick and choose among the writings in their sacred text what they want to believe.

    That is one of the problems, there are so many things that have been written into the bible, that you can pretty much get away with anything you want to, and back it up with scripture. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at some of the cults that have been founded using that book.

  • Jim

    Have you got that peer-reviewed scientific research paper backing you up, Kay?

  • Jim

    How about now, Kay? Can you document your claim now?

  • Jim

    I’m still waiting for Kay’s citation of an original peer-reviewed scientific research paper that demonstrates “brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram.”

    I’ve been waiting for five months. Kay won’t come back with the scientific documentation of her claim, because there is no scientific documentation of her claim. Rather than admit that she is wrong and change her position on that basis, she’s run away to go make the same absolutely untrue claim somewhere else.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>