Abortion.
It’s a thorny topic. Just saying the word out loud makes most people squirm. And there are passionate people on all sides of the debate that feel equally strongly about their positions.
I was just challenged by a conservative Christian friend of mine to read a post from the “The Matt Walsh Blog” on the “bodily autonomy” argument for abortion. I read it, and now I’m responding. This post will make a lot more sense to you if you first read the original article, which you can find here. Read that first and then come back here.
Are you back? Okay, let’s get started.
First I need to point out that whoever wrote the original letter to Matt was very misguided in their use of language. Calling names and berating people does not strengthen your argument, nor does it help the person you’re having a discussion with see your point of view and take it seriously. So there’s that. I wouldn’t have written the letter in quite the same way.
But anyway, here is my point-by-point rebuttal of the rebuttal to the argument. Again, if you haven’t read the original post, or at least skimmed it, you’re going to be completely lost. So read it and follow along.
1. Matt is correct that the relationship between mother and child is different than the relationship between you and a random stranger. Of course it is. There is nothing quite so meaningful as the bond between a mother and her child. As a mother, I’m astutely aware of this. But I think the fundamental misunderstanding comes from the fact that the bodily autonomy argument isn’t necessarily meant to be an argument about morality; it’s about legality.
What we are saying when we say that a woman should have the sole right to determine what goes on inside their own body is that the government should not have a say in what you do or do not use your body for. Whether you think having an abortion is “moral” or not isn’t really the question. The question is who gets to make that decision for you? You, or the government?
A better analogy would have been this: if your child needs a kidney transplant, should the government compel you to give them your kidney? Again, keep in mind that I’m NOT asking whether or not you would do it (I think we all would if we could). The questions is, “should the government compel you to do it?” And if they should, should it only be for biological children, or adopted children as well? I cannot stress this enough: this is not about morality or what you would do in a specific situation; it’s about what the law would compel you to do, and who gets to make that law, enforce it, and carry out the punishment for it.
And before you ask, yes, I am also in favor of legalized prostitution, drugs, piercing, and pretty much whatever else you want to do with your own body.
2. How a person gets pregnant is irrelevant. Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting should not be a punishment for having sex. It’s easy to say that everyone who has ever had sex was making a mature decision and they should live with the consequences, but that’s just not the case. Have you met a teenager recently (or ever been one)? How a person gets into the condition they’re in shouldn’t be relevant to the treatment they receive or their ability to control their own body. If I am injured while snowboarding, should I just deal with the broken leg?
3. Again, this goes back to point number 1. It’s not about the morality of the situation or what we think a “good parent” should do. It’s about whether or not they should be forced to do it by the government, or thrown in jail for it.
4. I don’t even know how to comment on the whole “natural order” thing. It assumes that there is a god that created a natural order that we always have to stick by no matter what. If that’s the case, then I guess we also can’t ever use birth control, or shave our legs, or eat Hot Pockets®. It sounds like Matt thinks we shouldn’t ever go against the “natural order,” so does that mean we should eschew dentistry too? I’m just leaving that one alone.
5. The first problem I have with this one is his terminology. The use of the term “abortionist” is specifically meant to make a doctor sound like a criminal, which I guess is his point, but it really bothers me. I’ve met abortion doctors, and they are anything but creepy, trench coat wearing butchers (although, when we make abortion illegal, we will see many more of those types around). They are doctors trying to do what is best for their patients. They are not doing it to make money (or else they would be charging a helluva lot more). I have the same problem with the term “abortion industry.” There is no abortion “industry.”
But I digress. Matt claims that abortion involves an embryo or fetus being “crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart,” which leads me to believe that he doesn’t actually know how an abortion is done. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, there are different methods, and the later the pregnancy is, the harsher the method becomes. I won’t lie; it does make me uncomfortable. But I keep coming back to the same question: “Is it the government’s job to tell another woman what she can do with her body?”
I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. What I do know is that if you’re seeking a late-term abortion, you probably aren’t there because you just didn’t feel like being pregnant anymore. Often times there is a fetal defect, or a life-threatening condition for the mother. Since I don’t know what’s going on in every case, I shouldn’t be the one making the decision. And neither should my congressman. I know that it’s easy for some people to look at women who are having abortions as “careless,” and “selfish,” but keep in mind that you do not, and cannot possibly know what is going on in every situation. That’s what it comes down to.
6. He’s right. The argument does put me in the precarious position of allowing for a woman to do harmful things while she’s pregnant. I really hate it, but I don’t think it should be illegal for a woman to do reckless things while she’s pregnant. I think she should be encouraged not to do them, and assuming she wants to have a baby, she won’t do them, but at the end of the day, I don’t think she should be thrown in jail for them. Because again, it puts the government in control of what she does with her body.
7. Please refer to point number 5. Here’s where I have a problem. He uses the word “moral” again. This is not a discussion about morality, it is a discussion about legality. You may be surprised to know that I am a lot more bothered by late term abortion than by first-trimester abortion. But my solution to this is not to outlaw ALL abortion. It’s to make first trimester abortion more accessible to women who are seeking it. Unlike a lot of pro-lifers (who equate an embryo with an infant), I DO think there is a difference between a 2-day-old zygote and a 35-week-old fetus. However, since the question of “when life begins” can be a muddy one, depending on what you consider to be “life” and what your specific religion (or lack thereof) tells you, I think the most reasonable course of action in the law is to make life begin at birth. Again, we are talking about legality, not morality.
8. This one gets into the semantics of the word “body.” The bodily autonomy argument only addresses the use of your body and its parts. What Matt is talking about here is really a philosophical argument that I don’t think applies. Pregnancy requires more or less the same thing of every female body it is affecting. Parenthood does not.
For example, I could have chosen to breastfeed my children, but I didn’t. Did I get thrown in jail for it? No, because there are alternate means of feeding a child and the government doesn’t require me to use my body to nourish another person, even if I gave birth to them. It would be easy for someone to make a moral pronouncement about what a “bad mother” I am, if they didn’t know I did it for medical reasons. I was on a medication that was unsafe to take while breastfeeding. Fortunately, the government did not step in and make that decision for me. I made it with the help of my doctor, the way medical decisions should be made. And you know what? Even if I just “didn’t feel like” breastfeeding, I shouldn’t have been thrown in jail for not doing it, because it’s my body.
9. Come on. Just, come on. Really? Doing what you want with your body is not the same as doing what you want anywhere with your body.
10. See point number 8.
The crux of the issue here is that pro-lifers seem to think this is as easy as making a decision about what you would do or what a “good person” should do. But it’s not. It’s a thorny issue precisely because it has to do with pregnancy and motherhood, which are profoundly important things. But being pro-choice does not mean “I think abortions are great and I think everyone should have at least one.” Nor does it mean “every unplanned pregnancy should end in an abortion.” All we are saying is “abortion should remain legal.” At the core, that’s really it. We’re not “pro-aborts” as Matt so callously refers to us. We are people who think that the government has no place in telling us what should or should not go on in our uterus, and that our lives are complex enough that we are in the best position to make decisions for ourselves. At its heart, it’s really a Libertarian ideal, which is why I find it perplexing that Libertarians such as Ron Paul are anti-choice.
It’s hard to be in agreement on this issue because we are starting from different points. The pro-life community generally starts with the premise that every fertilized egg is a “soul” that God has sent to Earth for a specific purpose. When you’re an atheist, as I am, you don’t see it that way. You see that embryo as a potential person, but not one that is equal to the living, breathing woman that is currently pregnant. In my view, that is probably the single biggest reason that we’ll never agree on this issue.
There are many, many other issues that cause division when it comes to abortion, but this post has already gotten extraordinarily long, and it is supposed to be focused on the bodily autonomy argument, so maybe I’ll tackle the other arguments and issues another day. You can read more about my views on abortion here.
But let me end with this statement. I really wish the pro-life community would do less judging of the women who have abortions, and work harder to prevent the need for them in the first place. Birth control, comprehensive sex-ed, assistance for people living in poverty; all of these things reduce the need for abortion in the first place, but the pro-life community in general seems so determined to NOT provide these things either. There is SO MUCH we could do together to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but when you spend all of your time trying to outlaw something that will still happen if it’s illegal, you miss the opportunity to really make a difference. And that makes me sad.
Showing posts with label sex ed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex ed. Show all posts
Friday, March 14, 2014
Friday, November 11, 2011
Reproduction Education
So I need to rant here for a minute.
I've been in the hospital twice in the past 2 weeks with my Crohn's disease (hence my lack of riveting new blog posts). Every time I go to the ER, they ask me if I'm pregnant or not. When I reply that I'm not, they ask me if there's a chance I could be pregnant. When I reply that there's not, they ask me how I know that there's no chance that I'm pregnant.
Now, I understand that they need this information. For one thing, I'm presenting with severe abdominal pain. So obviously, it would be good to know if a pregnancy is contributing to or causing the pain. Also, they generally want to do an x-ray, which I've heard is a no-no if you're pregnant (although that didn't stop them from doing one anyway when I was actually pregnant).
My problem is this: How do I know I'm not pregnant? Well, let me see. For one thing, I've been pregnant twice, so I have an idea of what the symptoms are. For another thing, I've been in possession of this female body for 34 years and have some idea of how it functions. Oh, and there's all those birth control pills I take. Which leaves only one matter up for discussion: sexual activity.
Now, I'm married, and I don't think my sexual habits are anybody's business, least of all some nurse I just met. But after I've given them my last menstrual period date and the knowledge that I'm on a strict contraceptive regimen, they still prod me as to how I know I'm not pregnant. If they want to know when the last time I had sex was, why don't they just come out and ask me? Maybe the fact that it's a Catholic hospital makes them squeamish to mention the word "sex;" I really don't know.
But my main beef with this whole process is the fact that they even have to ask me how I know I'm not pregnant in the first place. It implies that most women don't know how one becomes pregnant. If I could just answer them that yes, in fact, I know there's no chance I could be pregnant, and they could trust me at my word, that would mean that women are fully educated about how and when they become pregnant. But sadly, this is not the case in America. Too often, women have very little idea of how the actual reproductive process works.
When I worked at Planned Parenthood, we had many teenagers that would come in for pregnancy tests who had no idea what their period had to do with pregnancy. In some cases, the girls had not yet had their first period, but were scared they might be pregnant. And to me, the problem is plainly that we discourage education about sexuality and reproduction. As if, should we mention it to kids, they will get the idea to do it (because we all know that kids don't think about sex until someone suggests it to them).
Maybe, if we actually let the schools educate the masses about our reproductive systems, then I wouldn't have to answer personal, patronizing questions every time I have to go to the emergency room in excruciating pain. I once had to tell the doctor that I hadn't had sex in "X" number of months, in front of my poor mother! No mom should have to hear that kind of thing.
So America, lets pull our heads up out of the sand about sex, and let me go to the hospital in peace for once.
Rant finished.
I've been in the hospital twice in the past 2 weeks with my Crohn's disease (hence my lack of riveting new blog posts). Every time I go to the ER, they ask me if I'm pregnant or not. When I reply that I'm not, they ask me if there's a chance I could be pregnant. When I reply that there's not, they ask me how I know that there's no chance that I'm pregnant.
Now, I understand that they need this information. For one thing, I'm presenting with severe abdominal pain. So obviously, it would be good to know if a pregnancy is contributing to or causing the pain. Also, they generally want to do an x-ray, which I've heard is a no-no if you're pregnant (although that didn't stop them from doing one anyway when I was actually pregnant).
My problem is this: How do I know I'm not pregnant? Well, let me see. For one thing, I've been pregnant twice, so I have an idea of what the symptoms are. For another thing, I've been in possession of this female body for 34 years and have some idea of how it functions. Oh, and there's all those birth control pills I take. Which leaves only one matter up for discussion: sexual activity.
Now, I'm married, and I don't think my sexual habits are anybody's business, least of all some nurse I just met. But after I've given them my last menstrual period date and the knowledge that I'm on a strict contraceptive regimen, they still prod me as to how I know I'm not pregnant. If they want to know when the last time I had sex was, why don't they just come out and ask me? Maybe the fact that it's a Catholic hospital makes them squeamish to mention the word "sex;" I really don't know.
But my main beef with this whole process is the fact that they even have to ask me how I know I'm not pregnant in the first place. It implies that most women don't know how one becomes pregnant. If I could just answer them that yes, in fact, I know there's no chance I could be pregnant, and they could trust me at my word, that would mean that women are fully educated about how and when they become pregnant. But sadly, this is not the case in America. Too often, women have very little idea of how the actual reproductive process works.
When I worked at Planned Parenthood, we had many teenagers that would come in for pregnancy tests who had no idea what their period had to do with pregnancy. In some cases, the girls had not yet had their first period, but were scared they might be pregnant. And to me, the problem is plainly that we discourage education about sexuality and reproduction. As if, should we mention it to kids, they will get the idea to do it (because we all know that kids don't think about sex until someone suggests it to them).
Maybe, if we actually let the schools educate the masses about our reproductive systems, then I wouldn't have to answer personal, patronizing questions every time I have to go to the emergency room in excruciating pain. I once had to tell the doctor that I hadn't had sex in "X" number of months, in front of my poor mother! No mom should have to hear that kind of thing.
So America, lets pull our heads up out of the sand about sex, and let me go to the hospital in peace for once.
Rant finished.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Women's Expo Wrap Up
For all of you followers on the edge of your seats; yes, I did make it out of the hospital in time to staff our pro-choice booth at the local women's expo last Saturday. And what an exciting day it was. . . .
One of my favorite booth visitors was a kind old gentleman who shuffled up to our booth with his wife (I'm assuming - she never said anything). He took a look at the sign we have hanging under our banner that reads "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice," and exclaimed, "Oh, good for you! This is great - what a great booth! Are you a local organization then?" I responded that yes, our group is local and fairly small as he looked over the materials on our table. He looked at the sign again and suddenly looked at me and said, "Wait a minute - that says 'pro-choice.' Do you advocate abortion?!" I replied with "No, I don't, but I think that everyone should be able to make up their own mind on the issue," and before I could even get the whole sentence out he raised his cane up, waved it at me and shouted "Oh for crying out loud!!" He backed away from the booth still waving his cane at me and shouted something about parenthood, but by then I couldn't really hear him anymore. I was thinking too hard about the powerful and thoughtful argument he had presented me with and starting to change my mind on the issue.
Another man came up to the table (he was a vendor from another booth) and also looked at our sign with approval, then bought one of our buttons that read "pro-family, pro-choice." He signed up on our email list, then told us that he had gotten into a heated argument with someone the other day over "this issue." He said that his friend was talking to him about the Planned Parenthood funding hoopla. As he was telling us this, he spit out the words "Planned Parenthood" as if he had vomited them into his mouth. He asked his friend why, if they were in favor of funding PPH, they weren't in favor of giving just as much money to Birthright? The two of us at the booth just stood there puzzled as he nodded at us and quietly walked away telling us "thank you" for the button.
Is it really that foreign to people that you can be pro-child, pro-family AND pro-choice? I think people thought that we were doing some sort of false advertising, but we really feel that the pro-child, pro-family, pro-choice thing properly describes our group. A large percentage of the people in our group are mothers, and isn't everybody "pro-family?"
Of course, what we got the most of during the day was a constant stream of young women taking a condom out of our basket, pondering it for a minute, then saying something like "it's too late for me." We heard stories all day of young mothers who had no knowledge of (or access to) birth control. One girl told me that she had worn a purity ring and then proceeded to get pregnant her first time (she had always heard that you couldn't get pregnant the first time). When I told her that there have been studies done which have proven that purity rings serve no purpose at all in delaying sex, she seemed genuinely shocked. I think that all this time she's been carrying around some kind of guilt, feeling like she's the ONLY one who ever broke the purity ring promise. I felt bad for her.
We also had a mom who was outraged that her 15-year-old daughter had been able to get birth control pills at a PPH clinic. She told us that she had "control" over whether or not her daughter got pregnant now. I asked her how she had control over that and she said her daughter was grounded.
We did however get a few cool moms who picked up some condoms to put in their teenagers' Easter baskets. One said that although she knew her precious babies wouldn't need them, maybe they had a friend they could give them to, then they all laughed. It was a refreshing bit of realism in a day filled with people wearing blinders.
One of my favorite booth visitors was a kind old gentleman who shuffled up to our booth with his wife (I'm assuming - she never said anything). He took a look at the sign we have hanging under our banner that reads "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice," and exclaimed, "Oh, good for you! This is great - what a great booth! Are you a local organization then?" I responded that yes, our group is local and fairly small as he looked over the materials on our table. He looked at the sign again and suddenly looked at me and said, "Wait a minute - that says 'pro-choice.' Do you advocate abortion?!" I replied with "No, I don't, but I think that everyone should be able to make up their own mind on the issue," and before I could even get the whole sentence out he raised his cane up, waved it at me and shouted "Oh for crying out loud!!" He backed away from the booth still waving his cane at me and shouted something about parenthood, but by then I couldn't really hear him anymore. I was thinking too hard about the powerful and thoughtful argument he had presented me with and starting to change my mind on the issue.
Another man came up to the table (he was a vendor from another booth) and also looked at our sign with approval, then bought one of our buttons that read "pro-family, pro-choice." He signed up on our email list, then told us that he had gotten into a heated argument with someone the other day over "this issue." He said that his friend was talking to him about the Planned Parenthood funding hoopla. As he was telling us this, he spit out the words "Planned Parenthood" as if he had vomited them into his mouth. He asked his friend why, if they were in favor of funding PPH, they weren't in favor of giving just as much money to Birthright? The two of us at the booth just stood there puzzled as he nodded at us and quietly walked away telling us "thank you" for the button.
Is it really that foreign to people that you can be pro-child, pro-family AND pro-choice? I think people thought that we were doing some sort of false advertising, but we really feel that the pro-child, pro-family, pro-choice thing properly describes our group. A large percentage of the people in our group are mothers, and isn't everybody "pro-family?"
Of course, what we got the most of during the day was a constant stream of young women taking a condom out of our basket, pondering it for a minute, then saying something like "it's too late for me." We heard stories all day of young mothers who had no knowledge of (or access to) birth control. One girl told me that she had worn a purity ring and then proceeded to get pregnant her first time (she had always heard that you couldn't get pregnant the first time). When I told her that there have been studies done which have proven that purity rings serve no purpose at all in delaying sex, she seemed genuinely shocked. I think that all this time she's been carrying around some kind of guilt, feeling like she's the ONLY one who ever broke the purity ring promise. I felt bad for her.
We also had a mom who was outraged that her 15-year-old daughter had been able to get birth control pills at a PPH clinic. She told us that she had "control" over whether or not her daughter got pregnant now. I asked her how she had control over that and she said her daughter was grounded.
We did however get a few cool moms who picked up some condoms to put in their teenagers' Easter baskets. One said that although she knew her precious babies wouldn't need them, maybe they had a friend they could give them to, then they all laughed. It was a refreshing bit of realism in a day filled with people wearing blinders.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Let's Talk About Sex
I just finished watching the TLC special, "Let's Talk About Sex." It compares the way America deals with sexuality and the way European countries deal with it. It confirms something that I already knew, what with my background in family planning and all. European countries take a realistic approach to dealing with sexuality and thus have MUCH better outcomes when it comes to teen pregnancy and STD rates. In America, we seem to be afraid to discuss the issue at all, and when we do, we treat sex as though it's a dirty, scary thing to be avoided at all costs when you're a teen. As a result, we have skyrocketing teen pregnancy and STD rates.
We American parents cover our eyes and plug our ears and just assume that our kids are not having sex. We also assume that our kids aren't thinking about sex unless someone suggests it to them. In Europe, they talk to their kids openly about sex from a young age, because they know that sexuality is a natural part of life that ALL teenagers are already thinking about.
Basically, they use science and common sense to prevent bad outcomes for teens, and we use fear and religion. And based on the statistics, it's quite obvious which approach is the more useful one.
We American parents cover our eyes and plug our ears and just assume that our kids are not having sex. We also assume that our kids aren't thinking about sex unless someone suggests it to them. In Europe, they talk to their kids openly about sex from a young age, because they know that sexuality is a natural part of life that ALL teenagers are already thinking about.
Basically, they use science and common sense to prevent bad outcomes for teens, and we use fear and religion. And based on the statistics, it's quite obvious which approach is the more useful one.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
I thought they were all about personal responsibility. . .
Since 1971, Minnesota has had a law that allows teenagers to get reproductive medical care without their parents' consent (as well as substance abuse and mental health care). "But I have to sign a form to allow the school to give my child an aspirin" you might say. "But I don't want my child getting medications without knowing about it" you might also say. Or you might say, "But I want my child to feel comfortable talking to me about these things."
Here's the problem: your teenager doesn't feel uncomfortable asking you for an aspirin and thus will probably get the medical care they need in that situation. It seems like once you become a parent, you immediately forget what it was like to be a teenager. I don't. I vividly remember the discomfort I felt even thinking about approaching my parents to discuss sex.
But guess what? I was lucky enough to live in Minnesota where I could walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own and get a prescription for birth control pills (as well as a pap smear, a UTI test and a talk with a qualified medical professional about keeping myself safe and healthy). And guess what happened? I didn't get pregnant as a teenager. In fact, I waited until I was 27 and fully ready to have a baby, and it was the most wonderful experience of my life. I've never had to have an abortion, and I've never had an STD. And even if I had, I would have been able to go and get myself treatment on my own instead of waiting around while chlamydia took my fertility away.
What's the moral of this story? Of course parents want their kids to feel comfortable coming to them when these issues arise, but most simply don't, and many have parents who would be hostile or downright abusive if their child ever tried to ask them about birth control. So isn't it better that we let them take care of themselves and prevent something bad from happening? I'll trade complete and total openess for a happy, healthy child.
Why do I bring this up you might be asking? Well, the MN GOP (at the instruction of the Family Council I'm sure) is trying to get rid of this law, and I think it would be a tragedy if they suceeded. So PLEASE contact your representative and senator to let them know that this is an important law that needs to be maintained. Tell them NOT to repeal minors' consent for health care.
Here's the problem: your teenager doesn't feel uncomfortable asking you for an aspirin and thus will probably get the medical care they need in that situation. It seems like once you become a parent, you immediately forget what it was like to be a teenager. I don't. I vividly remember the discomfort I felt even thinking about approaching my parents to discuss sex.
But guess what? I was lucky enough to live in Minnesota where I could walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own and get a prescription for birth control pills (as well as a pap smear, a UTI test and a talk with a qualified medical professional about keeping myself safe and healthy). And guess what happened? I didn't get pregnant as a teenager. In fact, I waited until I was 27 and fully ready to have a baby, and it was the most wonderful experience of my life. I've never had to have an abortion, and I've never had an STD. And even if I had, I would have been able to go and get myself treatment on my own instead of waiting around while chlamydia took my fertility away.
What's the moral of this story? Of course parents want their kids to feel comfortable coming to them when these issues arise, but most simply don't, and many have parents who would be hostile or downright abusive if their child ever tried to ask them about birth control. So isn't it better that we let them take care of themselves and prevent something bad from happening? I'll trade complete and total openess for a happy, healthy child.
Why do I bring this up you might be asking? Well, the MN GOP (at the instruction of the Family Council I'm sure) is trying to get rid of this law, and I think it would be a tragedy if they suceeded. So PLEASE contact your representative and senator to let them know that this is an important law that needs to be maintained. Tell them NOT to repeal minors' consent for health care.
Monday, March 28, 2011
What's that now?
I had an amazing and rare uplifting moment last week. I emailed our local high school librarian to see if it would be okay if I donated a copy of Dan Savage's new book "It Get's Better" to the school library. I wasn't going to buy the extra copy if they wouldn't even allow it into the collection, but imagine my surprise when I got the following response:
"Yes, thank you. We welcome contributions. . .FYI: We have an open, progressive library collection for the young adults in our school. . . I did read some reviews of the book, and it appears it will have a place in our LGBT section."
Our high school library has an LGBT section??!! Keep in mind, I live in a school district that does NOT observe Martin Luther King Jr Day and takes almost every Wednesday afternoon off for religious release time. My jaw about fell to the floor when I read that! I couldn't have been prouder of our local high school librarian.
"Yes, thank you. We welcome contributions. . .FYI: We have an open, progressive library collection for the young adults in our school. . . I did read some reviews of the book, and it appears it will have a place in our LGBT section."
Our high school library has an LGBT section??!! Keep in mind, I live in a school district that does NOT observe Martin Luther King Jr Day and takes almost every Wednesday afternoon off for religious release time. My jaw about fell to the floor when I read that! I couldn't have been prouder of our local high school librarian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)