Today is the 39th anniversary of the decision in Roe v. Wade, in which the United States Supreme Court, citing the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment about the right of privacy, handed down a ruling protecting a woman’s right to abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. The vote was 7-2 in favor. The Court later extended this right up to the time of fetal viability outside the womb. Here, courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s, “Freethought of the Day,” is an excerpt from Harry Blackmun’s decision writing for the majority.
This decision is, of course, always endangered by the possibility of reversal, a possibility that has become more real with the present conservative-dominated Court. Mindful of that, let’s revisit the reasons why the decision was made.
Roe v. Wade Issued
“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.”
h/t: Diane G.
Roe v. Wade is under attack like never before. With 6 catholics on the court, I’m very worried.
I realise this sounds terribly naive, but isn’t what you say a sign that the US legal system is fundamentally broken?
If judges are making law based on religious principles and not detailed analysis of legal principles and legal history, then doesn’t this utterly destroy any pretence of secularism, and should such judges be removed immediately such behaviour is noticed?
This is not the only worry.
Across the country, states are passing laws that encroach on the right to an abortion. For instance, one state (Texas?) just passed a law that requires–regardless of medical necessity–the mother to see an ultrasound of her fetus before having an abortion. Bonus: If the fetus is less than 12 weeks, the ultrasound has to be done via vaginal insertion.
Moreover, with the terrorist against abortion clinics and abortion doctors, many, many counties in numerous states have no abortion providers whatsoever.
The Right has been working all the levers on this one since they haven’t yet been able to overturn Roe v. Wade. This has effectively reduced access to abortion significantly in this country.
Roe allows states to restrict abortion in certain ways. In fact, it allows states to go so far as to ban most late-term abortions. I’m pro-choice, but I don’t believe the right to abortion is absolute and unlimited. I think Roe probably gets the balance between the rights of the pregnant woman and the rights of the fetus about right.
Out of interest, what limitations would you place on abortion?
hs
It can also be interesting to compare with other nations since they face the same problem: what is morally viable?
In Sweden you can make an induced abortion (as opposed to a spontaneous, natch) as a selective abortion up to week 18 without much ado. The time limit is likely chosen to not overlap with the minimum time for assisted fetus survival for moral and parent health reasons; IIRC it used to be w21.
After that you need to get the permission of The National Board of Health and Welfare, which means you are not guaranteed abortion unless it is a therapeutic abortion. Hence most abortions in Sweden are selective before w18.
I haven’t really thought about it in detail. The kind of restrictions allowed under Roe seem reasonable to me. These are similar to the kind of restrictions imposed on abortion in most European countries.
This has effectively reduced access to abortion significantly in this country.
This doesn’t seem likely to me. I think the power of the anti-abortion movement probably peaked in the late 80s/early 90s, when Operation Rescue and the National Right to Life Committee were at their height and large-scale anti-abortion protests and clinic blockades were relatively common. After the Webster ruling in 1989, a reversal or gutting of Roe seemed like a serious possibility. But then came the Casey ruling in 1992, which reaffirmed a broad right to abortion. And the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and similar state laws, really shut down intrusive anti-abortion protests. It seems to me that with every passing year the chances of reversing the legal right to abortion get increasingly slim. In practical terms, too, I think abortions have probably become significantly easier to obtain. Women are more financially independent. And the advent of medical abortion means that many pregnancies can now be terminated without a surgical procedure.
A significant segment of those who need abortions are not by any means financially independent. Try finding a way to travel to another state when you can’t afford it…
Or as Rick Santorum puts it, of course poor people have photo ids. How else would they be able to board an airplane?
It seems to me that with every passing year the chances of reversing the legal right to abortion get increasingly slim.
I would disagree with that. Given that all the remaining Republican presidential candidates are anxious to repeal Roe, I think there is a very real possibity that it will happen in the next few years. One or two appointments from a Republican president will ensure it.
Ginsburg is 78 and not in the best of health, if she goes while a Republican is President…we’re doomed.
Good point. No matter how good our arguments are, the welfare of our nation’s women will ultimately depend on the subjective analyses of nine people, many of whom privilege their religious beliefs over fair jurisprudence.
Given that all the remaining Republican presidential candidates are anxious to repeal Roe, I think there is a very real possibity that it will happen in the next few years. One or two appointments from a Republican president will ensure it.
Every Republican president has wanted to repeal Roe. I think you overestimate their power. Even if Roe were reversed, which I think is very unlikely, I doubt it would have much effect on access to abortion for most American women.
Gary W wrote:
Every Republican president has wanted to repeal Roe. I think you overestimate their power.
Well, the president appoints the Supreme Court justices, and justices decide the cases, so it’s hard to see how that’s overestimating a president’s power.
Even if Roe were reversed, which I think is very unlikely, I doubt it would have much effect on access to abortion for most American women.
In some states that’s true, NY and the West Coast states wouldn’t change much, for instance. Another way it’s true is that many states have laws on the books that effectively ban abortion in spite of Roe. For example, Ohio passed a bill banning abortion in cases where a fetal heartbeat could be detected with up-to-the-minute technology, which would effectively ban abortion since a heartbeat can appear as early as five to six weeks, before abortion is usually a feasible option.
South Dakota passed into law a requirement that women seeking abortion have an authorized crisis pregnancy center subject a woman to an antichoice lecture before signing off on her paperwork, but the centers can refuse to provide the service, catching a woman in red tape that prevents legal abortion. Kansas empowered the health department to conduct annual reviews of clinics with ever-stricter regulations designed to squeeze them out of business. Other states have managed to restrict clinics with the result that in 87% of the counties in the US abortion is not available.
But overturning Roe would still have a huge impact. Many states have “trigger laws,” laws that ban abortion altogether and will go into effect immediately if Roe is overturned. The rising tide of fundamentists in this country has made the overturning of Roe their holy grail.
Well, the president appoints the Supreme Court justices, and justices decide the cases, so it’s hard to see how that’s overestimating a president’s power.
The president only nominates justices. They need to be confirmed by the Senate. And the judiciary is independent. They’re not simply puppets of the president who nominates them. That’s why the Constitution guarantees them lifetime appointments and forbids congress from reducing their salaries. Harry Blackmun, who wrote the opinion of the court in Roe and who is generally considered one of the most liberal justices of the last few decades, was himself a Republican and was nominated by a Republican president (Nixon). All of the Republican presidents since 1973 have claimed publicly to support the repeal of Roe, but none of them pursued that goal aggressively in office. I doubt that any of the current crop of GOP presidential candidates except Santorum would try to do much to restrict abortion. And I think the chances of Santorum getting the nomination, let alone being elected president, are close to zero. Abortion has now been a constitutional right for almost 40 years. The Supreme Court rarely reverses such important and longstanding rulings. I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that it’s unlikely.
But overturning Roe would still have a huge impact. Many states have “trigger laws,” laws that ban abortion altogether and will go into effect immediately if Roe is overturned.
Really? How many states have trigger laws that would ban abortion altogether?
Again, I think you are drastically overestimating the impact. If Roe were repealed there would be an immediate backlash. Legal challenges would be filed against trigger laws, and a huge political movement would arise to repeal them and to secure abortion rights at both federal and state levels by statute or state constitutional law. A few small red states like South Dakota might be able to enact and enforce significant restrictions beyond what is allowed today by Roe, but it seems unlikely that access to abortion would be significantly reduced for most American women. As I said before, women are much more financially independent now than they were three decades ago. And there would be a huge initiative by organizations like Planned Parenthood to increase private funding, so that even poor women in states with substantial restrictions would be able to obtain an abortion by traveling to another state — as many women already do.
Steve, Roe v. Wade is not based on religious principals, its based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This is very broadly interpreted as saying the government cannot take a way your freedom to act the way you want without a good reason to do so, and without giving you some method (due process) to appeal this taking away of your right and get it back.
Now, a lot of people argue that this is a very liberal and legally unwarranted interpretation of the 14th amendment. But AFAIK no legal scholar seriously argues that SCOTUS grounded their reasoning for Roe vs Wade in a religion (or in atheism).
I second that question on a basis of a detailed analysis of legal principles and legal history, since I believe that is how we have it here [Sweden], and I can’t see or understand the answer here.
I don’t think you can flip-flop on laws where I live without an analysis. Wouldn’t that be mandatory in a society with a justice system?
If Roe is overturned, it will be cloaked by “strict constructionism”. A guy like Scalia will not say “it offends my religious beliefs”, he will merely say “it’s not in the Constitution and therefor it falls under the 10th Amendment (if it’s not specified in the Constitution it’s reserved for the states) and not the 14th or 9th…he’s wrong, but that will be his argument. There are 4 on the court that fall in this category, with Kennedy being the swing vote.
The people who would overturn this decision care not one bit about mother and child. They want women to be slaves to their laws, but they refuse to ensure the woman has access to health care. Certainly after the baby is born, mom and child can rot in hell for all they care.
Furthermore, they are against even measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
However I also wish our society acknowledged that abortion is not something to take lightly. My friend in college volunteered at a woman’s health care center, and she would encourage women to consider adoption. They offered financial and medical help should a woman be willing to hear about alternatives to abortion. Barring a disaster, a fetus will grow to be a healthy human being and should be given that chance. But it should be the woman’s choice in the end.
In regards to your first paragraph, that reminds me of a quote from the late, great George Carlin: “If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re pre-schooled, you’re fucked.”
True enough. 🙂
“The people who would overturn this decision care not one bit about mother and child. They want women to be slaves to their laws, but they refuse to ensure the woman has access to health care. Certainly after the baby is born, mom and child can rot in hell for all they care.
Furthermore, they are against even measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy.”
First, I don’t agree with the people you are criticizing. However, even if you disagree, you have to interpret their arguments correctly. Yes, some are mainly concerned about controlling women. However, some are genuinely of the opinion that abortion is murder. In this sense, the “no exceptions, not even for incest or rape”, are more consistent. You might disagree with it, but it is not inconsistent, it is not wishy-washy, it is not taking the easy way out. The only hope is to convince these people that abortion is not murder. Also, it is possible to believe that abortion is murder and also that it is OK to control women’s sexuality. Many people believe this. One belief doesn’t exclude the other. With regard to preventing unwanted pregnancies, your logic is wrong. You think: they don’t like abortions, many abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies, hence they should support birth control, sex education etc so that there are fewer unwanted pregnancies. However, from their point of view this doesn’t work, for several reasons. First, if abortion is not possible, then unwanted pregnancies don’t lead to abortions. Second, this implies condoning sex without the risk of pregnancy, which many don’t want to, at least not among non-married couples. Third, the fear of an unwanted pregnancy probably prevents sex many times for every unwanted pregnancy which results when this fear is overcome. Again, I am not agreeing with their arguments, but you have to address them on their own terms.
One problem with Roe vs Wade is that since it makes “viability” the critical issue, technology will make foeti viable earlier and earlier, regardless of worse and worse quality of life thereafter.
There is something to be said for a conservative cutoff date*, such as the end of the first trimester, but that should be balanced against better access to pregnancy testing, counselling and abortion services before that time. Equally, I hear the case that the state (and even more so, the church) has no business forcing a woman to complete a pregnancy.
*My overriding concern is to prevent suffering, and embryology suggests the foetus has the apparatus needed to feel pain as early as 10 or 12 weeks. (By all means correct me on this.)
Your “overriding concern is to prevent suffering.” Just of the unborn? How about the woman who may be suffering from rape, incest, ectopic pregnancies, etc. Does the suffering of the woman count for anything then? Or should we just ALWAYS defer to the unborn?
I did not hear Shuggy saying it’s all or nothing. Actually they are taking a brave stance that not many people are willing to in this type of forum. I don’t know what is meant by a “cutoff date” (legal, or educational?) but there’s something to be said for keeping the procedure legal but allowing doctors to tell the woman that a third trimester abortion is gruesome. Assuming the woman’s situation is not exceptional (no rape, risk, etc) at that point why not just give the baby up for adoption? Who doesn’t realize they’re pregnant for that long?
I bet my knee surgeries were pretty gruesome, too. I did not then, nor do I now feel deprived because I wasn’t explicitly told of that particular fact before the procedures.
You mean your mother forced you to have surgery even though there was nothing wrong with your knees? Did you die as a result? Give me a break.
Certainly, a cutoff date is problematic. If not viability, then what? Conception is mystical. Birth is arbitrary. Sentience is no good either. Babies are not sentient.
I fall back on utilitarianism. If survival is not good the fetus, then abort. And who should be the spokesperson for the fetus? Biologically, I can think of no one with a greater interest in the welfare of a fetus (which cannot speak for itself) than the mother. So I, and society, should defer to her judgment.
And, yes, there are bad mothers. But that is simply the way things are.
“Assuming the woman’s situation is not exceptional (no rape, _____risk_____, etc)”
You do realize that giving birth is actually quite dangerous, right? It is also exceptionally expensive – but hey, force them to have it anyway because it will make you feel better about yourself.
Do you get pleasure from misquoting people, or are you just illiterate? I explicitly said it should always be 100 percent legal and up to the woman. Try to pay attention, eh?
Do you have scientific evidence that hospital births are more dangerous than an abortion?
“Who doesn’t realize they’re pregnant for that long?”
Apart from under-educated teenagers, people without regular access to healthcare, and the mentally ill? Or the most vulnerable women/girls in society, as they might otherwise be known?
You talk as if no one ever had their circumstances change in a 6 month time-period. Like a relationship breaking up, or the guy they were dating turning out to be an asshole/addict/criminal. Such that keeping the baby, which seemed like an ok choice in September, might look like a huge mistake by January.
As I mentioned before (you may not have seen it) I was strictly talking about well cared for adults, who had consensual sex, with no unusual circumstances. First we have to agree on the basics.
More importantly, I don’t know the logistics of adoption but by the third trimester I can’t imagine an abortion is much safer than giving birth at a hospital. Find an adoption agency, have some respect for the nearly full term baby. Again, it’s a woman’s choice but I strongly think communities should support women who are in this situation and ensure if a woman chooses to have a baby they are cared for in every way.
Then fight for free birth control. Quickly.
amelie, +1
shortowl,
I understand that social and economic circumstances can change dramatically during a pregnancy. A pregnancy that is initially wanted may become unwanted if the pregnant woman loses her job or is abandoned by her husband. But if the pregnancy is almost over, if the fetus is almost fully developed, then unless there are serious medical reasons favoring abortion I don’t think requiring the woman to complete the pregancy at that point imposes an undue burden or hardship on her. Like amelie, I’m not aware of any evidence that late-term abortion is significantly safer than delivery for healthy women under normal circumstances.
You misunderstand me. I certainly want to balance the suffering of the mother against that of the foetus (NB I do not say “unborn”), and for the beginning of the pregnancy that of the mother is overriding. I’m only quibbling about where to draw the legal lines.
It occurs to me that if abortion can be guaranteed painless for the foetus, the onset of neural function may be sooner than we need to worry about.
I say you can abort the day up until the damn thing pops out. Weve already got enough resource drains on this planet. While we’re at it, we should also put limits on how many children a woman can have. Remember what Asimov wrote: “Any woman who intentionally has more than two children commits a crime against humanity.”
“…until the damn thing pops out.” Which raises the question, why stop there? All that happens at birth is the beginning of lung function (including breathing) and the associated rather dramatic rerouting of the circulation – nothing of any ethical significance. Exactly the same thing can happen by Caesarian or induction up to several weeks earlier.
At this point I invoke the slippery slope, with, I think some justification – though I would turn a blind eye to the kind of passive euthanasia of the hopeless that happens now. I don’t know how much it ought to be codified.
And as for the population problem, “intentionally” is what this is all about, so that’s a red herring.
You do realize that a criteria of “guaranteed painless” abortions would be as impossible to meet as filling in all the gaps in the fossil record, right?
Not really. Exsanguination was the preferred method of suicide among the Romans, even more painless if effected at the umbilical cord.
“There is no new evidence to show foetuses feel pain in the womb before 24 weeks, and so no reason to challenge the abortion limit, UK doctors say.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10403496
Whether the fetus can feel pain or not is rather irrelevant. The people making the “can feel pain” argument are making an emotional appeal. A fetus might be able to experience current sensations, but it doesn’t have the cognitive ability to remember past sensations that it’s no longer experiencing or anticipate experiencing a sensation some time in the future.
Oops, subscribing.
I think it _can’t_ feel pain. IIRC there is no connection between brain stem and brain before w24. “The elevator doesn’t go all the way up.”
Yup, sort of. “It found that nerve connections in the cortex, the area which processes responses to pain in the brain, does not form properly before 24 weeks.”
The elevator goes up, but there is no floor.
“The people making the “can feel pain” argument are making an emotional appeal.”
Yes, and I make no apology for that. Pain is suffering (except in odd cases like S&M) and suffering is emotional. I’m agin it.
“A fetus might be able to experience current sensations, but it doesn’t have the cognitive ability to remember past sensations that it’s no longer experiencing or anticipate experiencing a sensation some time in the future.”
So if I bash you on the head and you don’t see it coming or remember it, the pain I cause you then and there is of no consequence?
Strawman argument. I have the cognative ability necessary to imagine pain, a fetus doesn’t. And the only way you could sneak up and bash me on the head hard enough to cause pain but without me remembering it would be if you caused brain damage, which would be assault (or possibly murder) whether or not I remembered it. So unless you’re trying to equate abortion with assault or murder, I really don’t see where you have a point.
I agree with Shuggy. Every creature capable of suffering has an interest in avoiding suffering. That’s the foundation of utilitarian ethics. Inflicting pain without justification is wrong. It is irrelevant to this principle whether a fetus can remember or anticipate experiencing pain.
And yes, compassion and empathy for someone or something that is suffering is an “emotional appeal.” So what?
So what? So what does this have to do with the legalized abortion? We’re not talking about whether or not it’s ethical to poke a baby with an electrified bit of wire to see if it’ll jump, we’re talking about what stage of development it’s acceptable for a woman to terminate her pregnancy.
I’ve got no problem with it being legal right up to prior to her actually going into labor, because I figure that if a woman hasn’t gotten an abortion prior to that then she actually wants to have a baby and the only reason she’d chose to abort at that point would be for medical reasons.
It’s not like being pregnant then getting an abortion is an easy or fun thing that women are going to go out and do for kicks.
So I really don’t take the fetus’s suffering or lack thereof into consideration. Or rather, I do, I just don’t see where it requires more consideration than the woman’s rights to make her own decisions about her life.
Hear, hear!
Gary W wrote:
Inflicting pain without justification is wrong.
And who is to decide when it is justified? If a woman’s life is in danger is it justified? Or if she’s raped? How about if there’s a high probability of genetic disease, or if she simply can’t care for or doesn’t want a baby, should she be forced to go through pregnancy, with all its attendant woes? The answer, as I see it, is that there is no one qualified to make these decisions except the woman herself. For the rest of us to dictate the answer to her, with the force of law, seems wrong.
So what does this have to do with the legalized abortion?
If an act inflicts pain, that’s a reason not to do it. I’m not saying it means abortion shouldn’t be legal. I’m not saying it means abortion is immoral. It’s a factor that should be considered in evaluating the morality and legality of abortion. I think your position that it simply doesn’t matter whether the fetus suffers or not is appalling.
I’ve got no problem with it being legal right up to prior to her actually going into labor, because I figure that if a woman hasn’t gotten an abortion prior to that then she actually wants to have a baby and the only reason she’d chose to abort at that point would be for medical reasons.
Another argument that doesn’t make sense. You can’t simply assume that every woman who wants to have a late-term abortion does so for medical reasons.
And who is to decide when it is justified?
Anyone. Is that what you really meant to ask?
If a woman’s life is in danger is it justified? Or if she’s raped? How about if there’s a high probability of genetic disease, or if she simply can’t care for or doesn’t want a baby, should she be forced to go through pregnancy, with all its attendant woes?
You’re conflating an ethical question with a legal one. “Is it justified?” is not the same question as “Should it be legal?” As I said before, I think Roe probably strikes about the right balance between the rights of the pregnant woman and the rights of the fetus. I don’t really object to legal restrictions on non-therapeutic late-term abortions.
Precisely. Thank you.
So pain is only pain if you can imagine it? There has to be a first time for everything, and until the first time we feel any particular pain we have no way of imagining it, so by this line of reasoning how could we ever learn to feel and hence to imagine any pain?
If “bash you on the head” doesn’t work for you, just substitute “[cause you sudden and severe pain with memory loss]” by whatever means you like, and run the ethical issue again.
See above.
(I wish people wouldn’t do that.)
“So unless you’re trying to equate abortion with assault or murder, I really don’t see where you have a point.”
I guess I am equating late-term abortion (where the foetus is viable and we really are talking about an “unborn child”) with assault – whether or not the victim can understand it or remember it – and indeed homicide. We can argue whether it is justifiable homicide, but I am against assault.
Are you saying whether something is or is not assault (or homicide) depends on the surroundings?
I do make a big deal about stages of development, and I have no patience with those who say the zygote, blastula and gastrula etc. are human beings and “unborn babies” (with “souls”, whatever they are), but at the other end of pregnancy, I don’t know why you make such a big deal about birth (assuming you think termination should not be allowed after that).
While Roe does bring up the issue of viability, the first trimester ban on anti-abortion measures would function just fine without it (er, without viability as a legal distinction).
Later rulings rejected the first trimester demarcation in favor of a more squishy system. Ostensibly, this was to make the ruling more liberal, i.e. to prevent states from instituting draconian anti-abortion measures in the second and third trimesters. But IMO, the later squishy rulings now appear to be having a reverse effect.
From the swedish wikipedia on abortions after w18 [google translated]:
“The reasons for late abortions are such that severe fetal malformation incompatible with life after the cord stopped pulsing and clamped. An example of such a permit is anencephali and the subject is that it is difficult for the woman to complete an entire pregnancy and forced to give birth to a full term baby who dies without fail when the umbilical cord stops pulsating.
Some women not aware of that they are pregnant until late, so-called repressed pregnancy.
A combination of late discovery of pregnancy and the woman’s age is not unusual: The very young woman does not understand that she is pregnant, while women at the end of the fertile part of life believe that menopause occurs.
Sometimes the need for late abortion due to so-called prenatal diagnosis, when the couple already has severely ill children with hereditary conditions, choose to interrupt an ongoing pregnancy if they receive notification that the expected (and hoped) the fetus has inherited the genetic combination required for disease development. These highly complex situations can now be avoided by pre-implantation diagnostics developed and used. Among those in the ‘test tube’ fertilized eggs can a blastocyst, but the unfortunate genetic combination selected for implantation and continued pregnancy.”
The text in bold are 3-4 conditions where an early stop for induced abortions would be morally awkward. IIRC those that do not notice, misunderstand or repress pregnancy doesn’t often come around before w12; but correct me if I am wrong. Then those extra 6 weeks are very valuable. (w18 chosen according to a previous comment of mine).
If you can’t trust women with a choice, how are you to trust them with a child, of all things.
Except for the legal Implications, I tend to agree with Shuggy. My mom had every reason to have an abortion – I was unexpected. She was poor and a single mom. I am eternally grateful she did not Have one. Being Atheists i would think everyone here would understand we each only get one shot at life. If we’re against overpopulation, fight harder for free and abundant birth control for men and women.
If abortion had been legal and safe mumble years ago, I would not be here, and I have no problem with that, because I would not be here to complain about it. Maybe someone better would be here in my place.
Not having been aborted is just one more (tiny) link in the very long and weak chain that brings us here to enjoy the Dawkins Consolation.
I doubt someone “better” would be here, you are a calm and kind person.
Thank you.
At the back of my mind was the anti-abortion argument that goes
“Would you abort [recount a pregnancy with a list of deplorable life-circumstances]?”
“Yes.”
“Congratulations, you have just aborted Beethoven!”
To which I would rejoin “Or Hitler.”
There is a malformed or missing closing italics tag in the third comment in the second comment thread which causes everything after it to be in italics when it should not.
Fixed, thanks. If this happens again, shoot me a private email and I can fix it more quickly.
==mgmt.