←
→

Friday Reads: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire Edition

Posted: February 10, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Environmental Protection, morning reads, unemployment | Tags: , |31 Comments

Bonjour!

I think the season of the political lie is upon us.  I have never seen so many tired old tropes being trotted out on TV in all my years of fascination with the bloodsport of politics.  I’m going to try to concentrate on  folks out there fighting the memes and lies with facts.  My first selection is from Baseline Scenario.  Simon Johnson explains that unemployment insurance isn’t around to keep lazy people on extended vacations. In the process he takes on the lie that our government is broke.

Fire insurance is mostly sold by the private sector; unemployment insurance is “sold” by the government – because the private sector never performed this role adequately. The original legislative intent, reaffirmed over the years, is clear: Help people to help themselves in the face of shocks beyond their control.

But the severity and depth of our current recession raise an issue on a scale that we have literally not had to confront since the 1930s. What should we do when large numbers of people run out of standard unemployment benefits, much of which are provided at the state level, but still cannot find a job? At the moment, the federal government steps in to provide extended benefits.

In negotiations currently under way, House Republicans propose to cut back dramatically on these benefits, asserting that this will push people back to work and speed the recovery. Does this make sense, or is it bad economics, as well as being mean-spirited?

(For details on the current benefit situation, see this information from California, as well as this on the political background. After a two-month extension of benefits at the end of last year, the terms of continuing it are currently before a House-Senate conference committee.)

The United States has lost more jobs than in any other recession in the last 70 years – and jobs have been slower to return, as this chart shows.

In raw numbers, we lost more than eight million jobs, most of which have not returned. Paul Solman of the PBS NewsHour prefers a measure he calls U-7, which includes “the underemployed and those who want a job but have been out of work so long that the government no longer counts them; this currently stands at 16.9 percent of the workforce (see this story and also, for background, a discussion Paul and I had in the fall on the “shape” of the recovery, in which we rely on the B.L.S. data.)

However you want to count it, the financial crisis of 2008 brought on a jobs disaster — and the scale of this disaster is still with us. We like to say that the recession is “over,” but this just means that the economy is growing again. In no meaningful sense is the jobs crisis over.

Typically in the United States, most people are unemployed for relatively short periods of time, with a lot of movement in and out of unemployment. The fraction of long-term unemployed as a percentage of all unemployed is usually 10 to 15 percent. In the early 1980s, it briefly reached almost 25 percent.

Again, however, our experience since 2008 has been dramatically different – the share of long-term unemployed in total unemployed is close to 45 percent. And it appears to be staying at or near that level for the foreseeable future.

The House Republicans now propose to change many rules under which the federal government provides “extended benefits” to people who have exhausted their state benefits.

In most countries, unemployment insurance is managed primarily by the central government and its agencies – in our federal structure we have preferred, as with other kinds of emergencies (such as natural disasters) to have the states provide the first line of defense, with the federal government providing back-up. It is the federal government that has the strongest ability to borrow at low interest rates; most states are much more strapped for cash.

Do not be deceived by claims that the federal government is “broke,” in the sense that it cannot afford to provide additional support to states and people at this level. This is a myth, pure and simple.

Paul Krugman takes on Charles Murray’s new whine about declining morality in the poor down trodden white folks and how it’s hurting our country.  Krugman shows that one of the traditional measures of social problems is teenage pregnancy and it’s way down.  So, is violent crime.  So what is it that Murray is really complaining about?

Reading Charles Murray and all the commentary about the sources of moral collapse among working-class whites, I’ve had a nagging question: is it really all that bad?

I mean, yes, marriage rates are way down, and labor force participation is down among prime-age men (although not as much as some of the rhetoric might imply), But it’s generally left as an implication that these trends must be causing huge social ills. Are they?

Well, one thing oddly missing in Murray is any discussion of that traditional indicator of social breakdown, teenage pregnancy. You can see why — because it has actually been falling like a stone:

So, is economic stagnation really the result of less church going? I doubt it.

Jonathan Chait takes on another right wing lie.  That’s the one about how the job creators pay so much in taxes they are really down trodden billionaires!  Veronique de Rugy doesn’t stand a chance.

De Rugy wrote a column centered around the claim that the United States has a more progressive tax system than any other advanced country, and as her sole piece of evidence cited the fact that rich people pay a higher share of the tax burden in the U.S. than in other countries. I wrote a response, noting that this reasoning is completely idiotic. Rich Americans pay a bigger share of the tax burden because they earn a bigger share of the income, not because the U.S. tax code is more progressive.

De Rugy’s reply is an incoherent collection of hand-waving that does not come close to addressing this very simple and fatal flaw with her claim. She introduces a series of other fallacies, like conflating the marginal tax rate (the percentage tax you pay on your last dollar) with the total tax rate (the overall percentage of your income paid in tax), using “income tax” as a stand-in for total taxes, and trying to broaden the debate into a bigger philosophical dispute. But it’s not a philosophical dispute. It’s a simple case of her making up false claims based on extremely elementary errors.

And this is why I am forced to be so mean. There are just a lot of people out there exerting significant influence over the political debate who are totally unqualified. The dilemma is especially acute in the political economic field, where wealthy right-wingers have pumped so much money to subsidize the field of pro-rich people polemics that the demand for competent defenders of letting rich people keep as much of their money as possible vastly outstrips the supply. Hence the intellectual marketplace for arguments that we should tax rich people less is glutted with hackery.

No discussion of reprehensible lies would be complete with out Santorum and without the numerous conspiracy theories and untruths told about the concerns of environmentalists.  Don’t you know, science professors just want to get rich so they make up shit about climate change and fracking?

Reaffirming his support for domestic natural gas production using hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), Santorum called those who oppose the process purveyors of a “reign of environmental terror.”

“We have to have all sorts of government regulations because of the threats of hydrofracking,” Santorum said. “It’s the new boogey man. It’s the new way to try to scare you.”

This tactic is used primarily in areas less familiar with the process than Oklahoma and Texas, Santorum said.

“They’re preying on the northeast, saying look what’s going to happen,” he said. “Ooh, all this bad stuff’s going to happen, we don’t know all these chemicals and all this stuff. What’s going to happen? Let me tell you what’s going to happen, nothing’s going to happen.”

Santorum’s disdain for environmentalists was palpable and largely shared by the crowd of nearly 1,500 people here at the Meridian Convention Center. Perhaps sensing he was preaching to the choir, Santorum expounded upon his position that manmade global warming is a myth and a plot by the left to take freedoms away from the American people.

“This was a politicization of science,” Santorum said, of the science behind global warming. “You hear all the time, the left – ‘Oh, the conservatives are the anti-science party.’ No we’re not. We’re the truth party. The absurdity and the politicization and the manipulation of data, why? Because the left is always looking for a way to control you. They’re always trying to make you feel guilty so you’ll give them power so they can lord it over you.”

Connecting this position to foreign policy, Santorum said that by catering to these “radical environmental groups” President Obama has forced the country to increase its reliance on foreign oil, and he’s signaled to Middle Eastern foes that we’d need their help in the future.

Alrighty then.  Well, since President Obama mentioned a decreased dependence on foreign oil in the State of the Union Address. We can just use FactCheck.org to truth check the Frothy Rickster.

According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 37 million offshore acres were offered in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration and production. The current 2011 average for U.S. petroleum production (through October 2011) is 7,782 thousand barrels per day, actually the highest in more than a decade — since the average of 8,011 thousand barrels per day in 1998, according to figures from the Energy Information Administration. And EIA estimates that the current 11-month average for U.S. dependence on foreign oil for 2011 is 45.4 percent. That’s the lowest since 44.5 percent in 1995.

But, as we’ve reported, economists say the chief reason for the declining oil imports is reduced consumption, brought on by the recent economic recession.

As for fracking issues, you can check out the series at Pro Publica about the procedure. It’s been associated with ground water contamination in Dimock PA.

First, the earth around the rural town of Dimock, Pa., was cracked open as gas drillers used fracking to tap the vast energy supplies of the Marcellus Shale.

Then, in April 2009, residents there lost their access to fresh drinking water. Wells turned fetid. Some blew up. Tap water caught fire.

Now, nearly three years later — and after a string of lawsuits and state investigations has ushered Dimock to the forefront of the environmental debate over drilling but failed to resolve the water problem — the Environmental Protection Agency is stepping in to supply drinking water itself.

On Friday, the agency announced it would bring tanks of drinking water to four homes, including that of Julie Sautner, whom ProPublica first interviewed about her water problems in 2009.

“Data reviewed by EPA indicates that residents’ well water contains levels of contaminants that pose a health concern,” the agency said in a statement. Tests showed dangerous levels of arsenic, a carcinogen, as well as glycols and barium in at least four wells, and the EPA is apparently concerned that the contamination may be more widespread.

According to the statement, the EPA plans to test the water supplies in 60 additional homes for hazardous substances.

In 2009, Pennsylvania officials charged Cabot Oil & Gas, the company that drilled the wells in Dimock, with several violations it said had contributed to methane gas leaking out of the gas wells and into drinking water.

The Department of Energy has released a report and a warning of environmental issues surrounding fracking.

A federal energy panel issued a blunt warning to shale gas drillers and their regulators today, saying they need to step up efforts to protect public health and the environment or risk a backlash that stifles further development.

“Concerted and sustained action is needed to avoid excessive environmental impacts of shale gas production and the consequent risk of public opposition to its continuation and expansion,” said members of the Energy Department’s Shale Gas Subcommittee in a draft report released today.

The seven-member committee, appointed in January by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, provides a way for the Obama administration to weigh in on gas drilling, which is primarily overseen by state regulatory agencies.

In August, the panel issued a lengthy set of recommendations to state and federal agencies and the gas industry for making gas drilling safer.

Today’s report – acknowledging that progress on the panel’s suggestions has been slow – sets out who needs to do what in order to turn recommendations into reality. The panel also stressed the importance of shale gas to the nation’s energy policy, noting that it already makes up 30 percent of domestic gas production.

The report calls on the EPA to revise a proposed rule on air emissions to include limits on methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and criticizes recent moves by the agency that have hindered efforts to get better data from the oil and gas industry, a crucial step toward improving controls.

The report also concludes that joint federal and state efforts to ensure water quality are “not working smoothly” and urges the EPA to move unilaterally to improve oversight as it carries out a study on potential effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.

The panel’s recommendations are not binding, but Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said they carry significant weight.

“We need more experts acknowledging publicly that there are real risks and they can be addressed,” she said. NRDC and other environmental organizations sent a letter to President Obama last week, urging him to issue an executive order directing federal agencies to carry out the panel’s recommendations.

That’s just a few of the issues.  Follow the ProPublica link and look for a huge list of more.  As for the continuing lies and untrue propaganda shown daily on Fox News, here’s a comment from Krugman on Chait’s “meanness”.

Actually, I think he’s not mean enough here; some of the hacks know that they’re being hacks, and are putting out deliberate falsehoods.

The key reason we can’t have a polite debate is that one side keeps putting out the old discredited arguments, again and again. Inequality hasn’t really increased, never mind the IRS data; we have huge social mobility, never mind the actual evidence; tax rates on the rich have gone up because they pay more taxes, never mind their soaring incomes; taxing the rich even slightly more has devastating effects on economic growth, never mind the Clinton boom and the Bush not-boom.

So it’s not a discussion in good faith, and neither Chait not I would be doing anyone a favor by pretending that it is.

I suppose that’s something that will keep us chatting on at Sky Dancing for some time.  SO, what’s on your reading and blogging list today?

31 Comments on “Friday Reads: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire Edition”

  1. Connie, Orlando says:
    February 10, 2012 at 5:39 am

    Great post, dak. Just want to add Santorum’s ludicrous French Revolution rewrite: Liberty, Equality, Paternity! Yes, it’s about claiming their paternity rights. Woman as vessel to perpetuate their seed.

  2. Connie, Orlando says:
    February 10, 2012 at 6:30 am

    I have a stupid question on the contraceptive issue. So, the new announcement is that women should get contraception without a co-pay. Isn’t that the only difference? If an employee has prescription coverage in their employer provided health insurance, they could get contraception with a co-pay before this announcement, right? Granted some insurance plans don’t include prescription coverage, but those with prescription coverage don’t exclude contraception exclusively – or does the Catholic Church have a “special” arrangement with insurance providers to exclude contraception prescriptions? Unless I’m really mixing this up, it seems to me that it is the insurance companies that have to change their plans – not the employers, Catholic or not. Or maybe this 2 week cold from hell has killed all my functioning brain cells.

    • bostonboomer says:
      February 10, 2012 at 7:58 am

      How can insurance plans exclude birth control coverage? It’s against the law to discriminate against a certain class of people. This “debate” is nonsense, and now the WH is apparently going to give in and try to change things to what the red-hatted old men want. I guess someone will just have to take it to court again, since religious “freedom” doesn’t permit people to disobey the law.

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/10/146662285/rules-requiring-contraceptive-coverage-have-been-in-force-for-years?ft=1&f=103537970

      • dakinikat says:
        February 10, 2012 at 8:04 am

        We need to call the white house and leave messages

        Write or Call the White House

        Comments: 202-456-1111

        Switchboard: 202-456-1414

        Their email is conveniently off line at the moment. Flood them with calls.

      • bostonboomer says:
        February 10, 2012 at 8:06 am

        In fact, employers have pretty much been required to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their health plans since December 2000. That’s when the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that failure to provide such coverage violates the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act. That law is, in turn, an amendment to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlaws, among other things, discrimination based on gender.

        Here’s how the EEOC put it at the time: “The Commission concludes that Respondents’ exclusion of prescription contraceptives violates Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, whether the contraceptives are used for birth control or for other medical purposes.”

        But it’s not only the EEOC that has ruled on the issue. More than half the states have similar “contraceptive equity” laws on the books, many with religious exceptions similar or identical to the one included in the administration’s regulation.

        That’s no accident. “The HHS rule was modeled on the exceptions in several state laws, including California, New York and Oregon,” says Lipton-Lubet of the ACLU.

      • Connie, Orlando says:
        February 10, 2012 at 8:29 am

        But my point is: the only difference I see with the Administration’s announcement is that birth control/contraception would be without a co-pay. If that’s the case & I’m not missing something, then this massive uproar on the Right is about NOTHING! This change is on the insurance company’s plans, not the employer.

    • bostonboomer says:
      February 10, 2012 at 8:51 am

      Yes, removing the co-pay is the only difference. Of course that difference would make it possible for many more women to have access to birth control, but who cares? The Catholic bishops must have “freedom” to control women’s bodies–even women who aren’t Catholics.

      • Connie, Orlando says:
        February 10, 2012 at 9:14 am

        So, technically, the Catholic hospitals & universities have been providing insurance to their employees that either included or didn’t include prescription coverage. For those with prescription coverage, the female employees may or may not have filled a prescription for contraception. No screaming from the bishops. Now that there is no co-pay, their dicks are in a twist. Unless the hospitals & universities are paying 100% of the premiums (which I doubt since very few employers pay 100% of the premiums) then WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? Why are “they” (church, media, et al) saying the Church is PAYING for contraception.

      • ralphb says:
        February 10, 2012 at 10:17 am

        This entire thing is completely made up because the red beanie squad and right wing politicians wanted to pick a fight. Now Obama is going to give the church their “exemption” and issue a rule that the insurance companies have to cover it with no co-pay. At least that’s what I read this morniing.

        I can’t believe they’re moving the goalposts on this at all and don’t expect the issue to go away no matter what happens.

  3. Minkoff Minx says:
    February 10, 2012 at 6:37 am

    This is great, I am glad you have brought out some truth in this crazy as political arena.

    There is a link I want to share, you have to click it to see some of the The Best Swag at CPAC | Mother Jones

    Just go look at it…geez this swag gives me the creeps.

  4. Minkoff Minx says:
    February 10, 2012 at 7:23 am

    https://twitter.com/#!/politico/status/167958315916210176

  5. bostonboomer says:
    February 10, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Massachusetts birth control law (put in place by Romney) is similar to Obama rule.

  6. bostonboomer says:
    February 10, 2012 at 8:09 am

    Mitt Romney has financial investments in pharmaceutical companies that produce birth control meds.

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/08/420990/mitt-romney-is-financially-invested-in-the-birth-control-he-now-opposes/

  7. dakinikat says:
    February 10, 2012 at 8:17 am

    Sources say it will involve health insurance companies helping to provide the coverage, since it’s actually cheaper for these companies to offer the coverage than to not do so, because of unwanted pregnancies and resulting complications.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

    We should send all the Catholic Bishops to jail for their part in the child abuse cover up and be rid of them once and for all.

    Obama just sells women to the highest bidder any chance he gets.

  8. KendallJ says:
    February 10, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Sounds like Obama caved on the birth control mandate. It sounds like Catholic affiliated institutions won’t have to offer insurance that covers birth control. But they will have to advise employees of where else they can get such coverage. But what isn’t clear is who will have to pay for it. Will women have to come out of pocket? I wonder if Kim Gandy and Ellie Smeal still think Obama is what a feminist looks like. I’m sure the white house didn’t meet with a single women’s rights group on this, but spent there time discussing this issue with an all male clergy and a bunch of male senators who are closet, if not blatent, misogynists.

    These religious affiliated institutions receive public funds in most cases. But the great feminist Obama is going to allow them to deny women access to their constitutionaly protected right to birth-control. I don’t hear the beenie boys objecting to viagra or refusing to cover it in their health plans for unmarried men. This is such bull shit and so typical of Obama to cave. Its about hating women and nothing else.

    To all those fucked up so called feminist women who crusified Hillary Clinton for her Iraq war resolution vote, and supported Obama over her, even though they voted for Karry without questioning his war vote, go FUCK yourselves!!! Does any feminist in their right mind think for a minute that Hillary Clinton would be caving to these red beenie boys. OBAMA IS NOT A FEMINIST!!!!!

    • bostonboomer says:
      February 10, 2012 at 8:58 am

      The Archbishop of DC was on MSNBC this morning, and he said he would not accept the idea that Catholic organizations would have to refer women to another source for birth control. These freaks are not going to accept any kind of compromise, and Obama would have been much smarter to just stand up to them.

      As I said above, I guess he doesn’t really care about being reelected. There are a hell of a lot more women than there are bishops and other religious freaks.

      • KendallJ says:
        February 10, 2012 at 9:14 am

        Unfortunately, there are enough brainwashed women that go along with these misogynists that we are screwed. These same women use birth control, but believe that the are sinning when doing so. Look at all the so called feminists who deluled themselves to thinking Obama was a faminist and would respresent their interests better than Hillary Clinton.

        Besides, Obama is banking on Romney being knocked out for the rethug nomination, and it going to Santorum. MSNBC is doing their best to make that happen. If it does, Obama will win the general handedly and doesn’t give two shits about what progressive women think. As far as he’s concerned, they will have no other place to go.

      • dakinikat says:
        February 10, 2012 at 9:20 am

        Obama is having a presser at noon about his capitulation to the pedophile enablers.

  9. dakinikat says:
    February 10, 2012 at 10:11 am

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/10/white-house-amends-birth-control-mandate-contraceptive-coverage-to-be-offered-dir

  10. dakinikat says:
    February 10, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Statement by Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on Obama Administration Announcement on Birth Control Coverage Benefit:

    “In the face of a misleading and outrageous assault on women’s health, the Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work.
    “We believe the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access these critical birth control benefits.
    “However we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy, which does not compromise the essential principles of access to care.

    “The individual rights and liberties of all women and all employees in accessing basic preventive health care is our fundamental concern.
    “Planned Parenthood continues to believe that those institutions who serve the broad public, employ the broad public, and receive taxpayer dollars, should be required to follow the same rules as everyone else, including providing birth control coverage and information.
    “As a trusted health care provider to one in five women, Planned Parenthood’s priority is increasing access to preventive health care. This birth control coverage benefit does just that.
    “The birth control benefit underscores the fact that birth control is basic health care, and is fundamental to improving women’s health and the health of their families.
    “That’s why women have consistently applauded the Obama administration for one of the greatest expansions for women’s health in decades.
    “Unfortunately there are significant and immediate threats to women’s health and access to birth control in the House and Senate that would completely take away access to birth control and severely undermine women’s health.
    “One bill, the Rubio-Manchin bill, would allow any business or corporation, on the basis of personal religious belief or moral conviction, to take away birth control coverage from their employees.
    “Employers should not be allowed to impose their personal beliefs on employees regarding birth control coverage or basic health care.
    “Another bill, sponsored by Senator Blunt (R-MO), would drastically undermine women’s health and allow any employer or health plan to refuse to cover any health care service they object to on religious or moral grounds.
    “That’s why Planned Parenthood, and women across the country, won’t let up for one minute in our fight to protect the birth control benefit and women’s health.”
    ###

    Planned Parenthood Myth v. Fact on Birth Control Coverage Benefit:

    Click to access Myth_V_Fact_on_Birth_Control_coverage.pdf

  11. dakinikat says:
    February 10, 2012 at 10:12 am

    We are in the process of preparing a live blog of the president’s press on birth control coverage by insurers and the responses to it by women’s groups

    please check back shortly …

  12. peggysue22 says:
    February 10, 2012 at 10:43 am

    I’ve never quite understood the religious sector’s unwillingness to protect the environment, a creation of God for which human beings are stewards.

    Santorum and his ilk, pooh-pooh the concern about fracking, even though there is ample evidence that fracking is causing frack quakes and tremors in the US. It’s not made up. The Brits have the same data.

    The pollution from fracking chemicals, the resulting contaminated ground water is something these fracking companies want to hide from the public at large. It’s all about money. In the same way BP lied about having a strategy in addressing a blowout in their deep sea drilling sites, these fracking companies will lie until we have a major disaster on our hands. Small, rural communities often climb on board because they’re offered money incentives in hard times. I read a devastating article right before the holidays about a community in SW Pennsylvania. The fracking company has literally poisoned everything. People complain, kids get sick, livestock dies and the community is told everything is A-Okay.

    It’s immoral. It’s anti-life. The documentary Gasland is very revealing. No wonder the film maker was barred from a recent meeting in DC. They stack these meetings and conferences with fracking cheerleaders who refute all scientific evidence. Then they line the pockets of our representatives with extra goodies. After that? They’re good to go.

    The US is being treated like a Third World country. Extractions R Us. And our politicians are allowing it to happen, gladly.

  13. dakinikat says:
    February 10, 2012 at 10:48 am

    http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2012/02/10/8000-cases-of-child-molestation-by-75-archdiocese-of-milwaukee-priests-revealed/

    Sealed documents filed in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee bankruptcy identify at least 8,000 instances of child sexual abuse and 100 alleged offenders – 75 of them priests – who have not previously been named by the archdiocese, a victims’ attorney said Thursday.

    “This is a public safety crisis, a child safety crisis that needs to be investigated,” Isely said at a news conference on the federal courthouse steps, surrounded by fellow survivors and reporters.

    “We need to know who they are and where they are. How can there be 8,000 crimes committed by over 100 offenders and there be no accountability?” he said.

  14. dakinikat says:
    February 10, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Komen Exec Karen Handel Calls Planned Parenthood a ‘Gigantic Bully’

    In an interview with The Daily Beast, former Komen VP Karen Handel says Planned Parenthood broke a secret pact and launched an ‘Armageddon.’ She calls the organization ‘a gigantic bully, using Komen as its own personal punching bag.’

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/10/komen-exec-karen-handel-calls-planned-parenthood-a-gigantic-bully.html

    • jawbone says:
      February 10, 2012 at 11:21 am

      Handel is saying that Planned Parenthood had agreed to roll over and play dead? Huh?

      And PP says the news of the future defunding was actually first made public by anti-choice groups…..

      Gee, Karen, how’d they</iL learn about it?

←
→