Some brave woman needs to take life insurance out on her fetus

[rpgamerd00d]

Make the insurance company decline the policy.
Take them to court and sue for discrimination.
Push the case all the way to the US Supreme Court, to establish precendent (aka Stare Decisis).

The insurance company will need to argue as to why a fetus cannot have life insurance coverage. They will NEED to make the pro-choice arguement to defend themselves. Once the courts rule in favor of them (and they will), PRO-CHOICE LAW has been established via a back door. Not via "abortion", but via "What constitutes Life?"

There are two ways to do this:
1) Do it before Roe v Wade is overturned (to save it)
2) Do it after Roe v Wade is overturned (to restore it)

All we need is a volunteer and help from the ACLU.

[Duer 157099]

1. Brilliant!! n/t

[MADem]

2. Yeah, but what if Holy Roller Insurance Co. issues the policy? n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

4. Make it a $10 Billion policy and take the morning after pill

Get rich.
Repeat.

[LisaL]

9. Would that work with SO? Marry someone, take out a life insurance,

get rid of your SO, get rich, repeat?

[rpgamerd00d]

15. They usually dont pay if the beneficiary committed murder on the insured

[LisaL]

17. So, how do you propose this will work if a woman decides to

get rid of the fetus?

[rpgamerd00d]

21. Simple. "Oops, miscarriage. Pay me."

[LisaL]

22. The same would go for SO, i suppose? Oops, accident, pay me?

Insurance companies are not dumb.

[rpgamerd00d]

23. Cops would have to prove murder. And the same for miscarriage.

And since you can't prove it wasn't a natural miscarriage, you're SOL.

[Pharaoh]

59. They will tell you to read the fine print

[ehrnst]

68. You mean RU486 - not emergency contraception. EC prevents implantation.

If she takes EC they could correctly argue, no pregnancy occured.

Intentional issues aside.

[Nitrogenica]

3. That's brilliant. Insurance company greed is a powerful force.

[shaniqua6392]

5. You should send your idea to the ACLU!

It is truly brilliant and it sounds like something that would work!!

[mzmolly]

6. We could take it further and go for the sperm thing?

:P

Actually this is an excellent idea.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

7. This is a totally BRILLIANT idea! Also, the Insurance Lobby is so Huge

they would freak and then place pressure on legislators to be pro-choice!

[LisaL]

8. I believe insurance companies can decline someone a life

insurance based on risk involved.

[rpgamerd00d]

12. Nope. I am a licensed Life Insurance agent. Only pre-existing...

... diagnosed, health problems can cause you to be declined.

If you are healthy and don't have any life threatening or life shortening ailments, you can't be declined legally.

[LisaL]

14. I suppose the fetus will have to be diagnosed

healthy then? Before taking life insurance on him/her?

[rpgamerd00d]

18. They wouldn't go that far, that is my point.

They would have to alter the mortality tables to add data on not-yet-borns.

Actually, you could use a family policy or policy from work, add your fetus to the policy without the need for review, then abort and file a claim.

[LisaL]

25. By aborting the fetus, you would be murdering the insured.

Since you are not allowed to take a policy on a live person, murder him/her, and then get the money, why should it be different with a fetus?
If you are saying fetus is a person, that is.

[rpgamerd00d]

30. Again, the point isnt to file a claim really, its to get the Ins Company

...to decline your application in the first place, thats the better solution.

And of course, if you did it now, Roe v Wade says its not murder. Ins Company is screwed.

[Yupster]

32. Wait a minute rpgamer

The insurance company can order the applicant's medical records. They can order height, weight, cholestoral readings, blood tets, stress tests and whatever else the underwriter thinks she needs to make an underwriting decision.

They don't have to ffer you a policy if you cannot povide the things they require, and a fetus wouldn't be able to.

[ehrnst]

69. A pregnant woman simply taking out the policy may be enough

If Roe is overturned because of granting of fetal personhood. However, I'm sure in that circumstance that incurance companies will quickly put in clauses stating that they will only start coverage at birth. It may be worth attempting to fight these clauses as discriminatory in that event.

And it's worth pointing out that the cause of most miscarriages are unknown.

BTW: Someone getting pregnant with the intent of having an abortion is enough to put off most PCs from supporting a lawsuit brought about in that manner.

[ehrnst]

106. Self-delete (dupe)

[Misunderestimator]

87. Won't fly.... The preexisting risk would be the pregnancy itself.

All they would have to show is the stats representing number of stillbirths and abortions in healthy women. If anything, it would backfire, as they could cover the fetus with the provision that the policy is voided in event of a stillbirth or abortion. Only thing left is death due to complications during delivery. They would be able to rake the money in.

[TriMetFan]

16. What risk?

The fetus is a baby. That is what they the wackos say. So how can a baby be a risk?

[LisaL]

19. Risk of miscarriage and fetus not making it to be a baby.

[TriMetFan]

31. But the right says the fetus is a baby. So there is a baby.

Which to them is life. Yes a women can have a miscarriage just like you or I can have some one run us over and kill us.

[Yupster]

35. The baby could have any number of life threatening illnesses

The insurance company would want medical records and a physical before they take on such a risk without seeing it.

If you were an adult applying for insurance the company would want your medical records and they'd probably want a nurse to come to you house and write a report on you and take a blood sample. If you refused to let the company look at you, you wouldn't get a policy offered. It would be the same with the fetus.

[jbnow]

66. Then have a person who

has coverage for their family through employment (often a nominal sum for each child, 5 or 10K, no examination needed) request payment if the woman has a miscarriage.

[FlaGranny]

105. They can examine the baby with

ultrasound and/or amniocentesis. They can tell if the baby has problems before birth easily.

[TriMetFan]

10. Great thinking. Now to only find that women.

I would do it, but I can't have any kids. So Sorry.

[WePurrsevere]

11. I wonder if it would work if a grandmother took out a policy on her

daughter's fetus? My parents had one for two of my daughters.... so I wonder if a parent could take out a policy on their child's fetus'?

[rpgamerd00d]

13. You can with permission from the guardian.

You'd have to have enough money and ACLU support to take it thru all the courts though.

[WePurrsevere]

24. My parents didn't need my permission to take out the policy on my

daughters.

As for money.. we certainly don't have enough and realize that so I edited my post since it was more of an idea to toss out in case there is an expectant grandparent that does and is willing to give it a try... it's not a bad idea really... worth a shot IMO.

edited to add: it was a small policy... if I remember correctly I think it was $10k.

[Yupster]

20. You have to have an insurable risk of loss in a person

Back in the 1700's and 1800's people would take out insurance policies on their neighbors who looked sick.

Insurance reforms made that illegal.

Now you must have an insurable risk of loss in the person to take out insurance on them. In other words the person's passing would create some sort of loss to you. I don't know if grandparent would work. Acquaintence or neighbor would not unless you had a business interest or something with them.

[WePurrsevere]

33. As I said.. my parents took out policies on my daughters. One was a

healthy newborn infant who died of SIDS at 2 months. My parents were paid without any trouble at all.

It was one of those odd things that happened. The only reason my parents bought the policy was to help my step-brother who was selling insurance policies with a large company. My (now X) DH and I didn't even know there was a policy until she died.

edited to add: it was a small policy... if I remember correctly I think it was $10k. but it was doubled since it was under a certain time... I think it was 1 year but that part is foggy after all this time.

[Yupster]

46. Here's from an on-line law dictionary

It appears grandparents would be covered by the definition of insurable interest.


"Insurable Interest
A basic requirement for all types of insurance is the person who buys a policy must have an insurable interest in the subject of the insurance. With respect to life insurance, an insurable interest means a substantial interest engendered by love and affection in the case of persons related by blood and a lawful and substantial economic interest in the continued life of the insured in other business related cases. Everyone has an insurable interest in their own lives and in the lives of their spouses and dependents. Business partners may have an insurable interest in each other, and a corporation may have an insurable interest in its employees' lives. The insurable interest requirement is designed to prevent people from taking out a life insurance policy on some randomly selected persons and then killing them to get the insurance proceeds. The rule also prevents life insurance from becoming a gambling device and prevents someone from taking out insurance policies simply because people are known smokers or known to drink and drive. However, it is not necessary for the beneficiary to have an insurable interest in the life of the insured."

[WePurrsevere]

54. Thank you for finding that info. :-) n/t

[bobbieinok]

61. so WalMart has 'insurable interest' on employees it insures???

there was a big concern some time ago about WalMart doing this......I think it became public when a widow was contacted by the ins co by mistake; she hadn't known the company had taken out a policy on her husband

[AllegroRondo]

71. Yes, actually they do.

its considered necessary to cover the cost of replacing the employee if they were to die.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

26. I doubt that will go anywhere

proably dismissed as frivilous before going to trial.

Life insurance companys universally don't issue policies for children younger than a certain age.

This is regardless of health and applied universally to everyone.

So its just an underwriting policy and since its applied to everyone its not discriminatory.

Im quite sure that Life insurance companys already have their ducks in a row in terms of limits on age (both young and old), so I don't think that this would be the blowout case that we can fantasize about.

[ArmchairActivist]

27. This is one of the finest ideas I've ever seen on DU!

Doesn't seem like you need to be all that 'brave' either! Just need to be one of those vocal, activist type people. B-)

I wonder if there are any of 'those' type of people on this website? :evilgrin:

[Yupster]

28. Nah

The policy wouldn't get through underwriting.

When you apply for life insurance the owner has to fill in a medical questionnaire on the health of the proposed insured.

Then that questionnaire goes to an underwriter who decides what follow-up is in order.

It may be that they order medical records from the doctors, or they have a nurse visit your home to draw blood and check cholestorl, etc.

After looking at this info the underwriter will offer the owner a policy at standard rates, preferred rates, or a rating which is more costly than standard. Or they can decline to offer any policy at all.

When you answer all the medical questions with "I don't know," then no underwriting decision would be possible and the insurance policy would not be offered.

They would stay far away from the politics of abortion. They'd just turn it down for lack of information allowing an underwriting decision.

[rpgamerd00d]

29. This only is true for policies over $250,000, actually.

Under $250,000, and you don't take any medical tests at all.

[Yupster]

42. That's not correct

First each insurance company sets its own standards on what it requires, and second it depends also on the answers on the medical questionnaire. On a $ 100,000 policy, one person could get visited by a nurse and another not. The difference might be because one peron fell outside the company's height and weight boundaries, or one person wrote that they had a cholestoral problem. With AIDS, insurance companies are now requiring blood draws from many more people than they did a generation ago, and this typically means a person going to your house.

[Bunny]

44. Huh? I took out a life insurance policy on myself for quite a bit

less than 250K, and I had a nurse come to my house, weigh me, take my blood and urine, and make me answer a bunch of medical questions.

[sheelz]

45. Does the dollar amount of the policy matter?

It could be low-balled??

[InsultComicDog]

34. For all we know they would write up the policy

and charge according to the risks involved.

[Yupster]

43. Maybe, but

I don't think they would feel they could adequately know the risks involved which is the whole idea of insurance. If the company can't adequately predict how at risk it is, they won't offer the policy. How could they?

[InsultComicDog]

74. "The whole idea of insurance"

...is spreading the risks among many people, so maybe they start selling thousands of these policies.

I'm sure their actuaries could work out the risk estimates.

[Coyote_Bandit]

36. Forget it

First, the application will be declined.

Second, even if the policy were to be issued, you have to remember that all insurance coverage is governed by contract. Want to take bets on whether or not a life insurance company allows a fetus to be considered a life under the terms of their contract? Go ahead, start looking for that exclusionary clause and at the definitions of what is covered. And what is covered is the issue. Not when life begins in broad legal terms but, rather, what life is insured under the terms of this particular insurance contract.

On edit: the only thing litigation would prove is what is or is not covered under the terms of a particular contract.

[EVDebs]

52. The lawyers always win. Plan B and contraception are what they're against

now on the right. They are really 'anti-contraceptionists' and the media needs to get going on this. If Plan B and contraception were prevalent and easily accessable...they'd still freak. They are Control Phreaks.

[Autonomy]

86. re: First, the application will be declined.

Uh, that's the point. And if they refuse, then your second point is null.

[sheelz]

37. Great idea!

Would suing them for discrimination work and if so why?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

39. Its not illegal to discriminate

It IS illegal to discriminate against certain classes.

Everybody discriminates everyday. This morning I discriminated against cherios in favor of eggs.

On Nov 3rd, 2004 I discriminated against Bush because of his politics. When hiring people, I discriminate against stupid people.

Life insurance companys routinely discriminate against children because they have not reached a certain age (generally 6 months old).

Since a fetus hasnt reached 6 months of age (age being universally defined as post birth), this application would be declined and any suit would be dismissed as frivilous.

[dmr]

55. I took out a policy on my son through Prudential

when he was a month old. I decided at the time to increase my coverage and while I was at it, began a policy for him. This was the late 1980s.

[sheelz]

38. Could we also sue fundie doctors who

won't do abortions for discrimination?

[Yupster]

47. You can sue anyone for

anything you want to.

No matter how hard a person would think of a ridiculous thing to sue someone for, it's probably already been tried.

I honestly considered suing a fast food place for forty cents not long ago. I really thought I should but then wimped out.

I ordered something and the price came out 40 cents higher. The lady just shrugged and said yeah that's what the computer says. We think it might be wrong. The point is she didn't give me my 40 cents back. She seemed a very dim bulb so I didn't want to hold up the line arguing with her for 40 cents so instead I asked for the manager who wasn't there so I left him a note and my phone number and demanmded a call.

He never called me so next time I was nearby (two weeks later?) I stopped in and talked to him. He gave me 40 cents from his pocket (which made me mad) and said yeah the computer isn't ringing that up right and they're going to have it fixed.

I wanted to sue because it seems they knew it was wrong and were overcjarging who knows how many people. How many went through all the trouble I did to get my 40 cents back. I thought this is where class action lawsuits are necessary, but in the end I just dropped it and saved myself the trouble.

[sheelz]

51. I realize you can sue anybody for anything.

What makes the original post about discrimination? If it's really about discrimination just go after the fundie doctors. But the poster is trying to SCOTUS to define life by suing the insurance company for not writing a contract/policy? Again, how is that discrimination? I'm not a discrimination lawyer but I know there is no law against discriminating a blastula/fetus.

[JitterbugPerfume]

40. I am pro choice

but this is a sad sad thread to take a life so lightly

[LizMoonstar]

48. i don't think that's the point -

the person doing this would be someone with a wanted fetus; i think the fetal policy-abort-get rich things are a joke more than anything.


btw, Barak and Roll just pointed out to me that even the fact that you can't insure a fetus, for whatever reason, carries weight in the fetus-person debate.

[phylny]

57. There doesn't have to be any abortion, just applying for the policy.

All that has to happen is that the insurance company denies the policy because the baby isn't born yet, and instant lawsuit.

The other thing I'd suggested was that expectant parents should take a deduction off their taxes for the fetus. Or, apply for a social security number ;)

[Walt Starr]

41. It should be a woman in South Dakota

Just sayin', it would make for a more legitimate case.

[EVDebs]

53. One who has just taken Plan B ! eom

[Freedom_from_Chains]

49. It has always been the case in law,

although pro life groups try to obfuscate it, that a person is only a person upon birth. Therefore, since only a person can have rights, or in essence be a being, fetus have no rights and cannot be insured because they are not a person, although one could argue they have potential to be a person. There are however a lot of variables in that argument.

[Yupster]

64. Not in inheritance though

A fetus can inherit money.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

73. What statute or case are you getting that from?

Just curious as I have never heard that but then again that has never come up as a question.

[Yupster]

96. Here's an article from a Law Review

I'll google the subject tonight if there's any interest.

"Historically, birth, when the child became physically separate from its mother, was the origin of legal rights.24 Over time, however, courts began recognizing that legal rights precede one's debut into the external environment. Nineteenth-century property law concerning inheritance marked the earliest recognition of fetal rights. Under such law, a fetus existing at the time of the testator's death was entitled to receive an inheritance.25 The fetus was granted the status of a person for this limited purpose, provided that the fetus was born alive.26"

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_199707/ai_n8758631

[Little Star]

50. If a woman is pregnant

and the religious right claims the fetus is a baby. Any pregnant woman should be able to get life insurance on her 'baby'. This notion of mine would not include any thing going wrong with the fetus. I bet that you can't get that insurance on a 'baby' who is unborn even if it would be born healthy. What say you???? Would make a good test case and I bet insurance companies would claim a fetus is not a life.

[phylny]

56. I've posted the same thing for a few days.

If I'd had life insurance on my first and third pregnancies, I probably wouldn't have to work anymore, since I had miscarriages that resulted in losing 3 fetuses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=508782&mesg_id=520471

[SheilaT]

58. I sincerely doubt

any insurance company would be foolish enough to get embroiled in this. And don't just think filing a lawsuit would work out as easily as you imagine.

First of all, who's going to pay the lawyers? Secondly, the insurance companies have lots of lawyers on their payroll, and can, as the saying goes, paper you to death.

I suspect the simplest way an insurance company would deal with this would be to write the policy, but that it doesn't go into effect until some date which would be sixty or ninety days after the anticipated delivery date, and then only if certain criteria are meant, meaning the baby now born is healthy.

One of the reasons some insurance companies are very happy to write policies for babies (as several posters here have noted) is that so very few of them die. Heck, insurance companies probably wish more parents would buy such policies. I used to get mailings for these when my kids were younger. They were very cheap, and when the kid turned 18 or 21 could be continued simply by paying a higher premium.

But with a pre-born baby, a fetus, the risk of miscarriage, especially in the early weeks, is relatively high. Plus, what's the number of legal abortions in this country? One in how many pregnancies are terminated? Someone here probably knows that number. So insurance companies might be willing to write a short-term policy for a high premium and low pay-off. and, as others have pointed out, deliberate termination of the pregnancy (abortion) would void the policy. You'd have to jump through interesting hoops to prove it was a natural miscarriage.

[Yupster]

65. My guess is the insurance policy would

send you a letter saying what information is needed before underwriting can be completed and therefore it wouldn't deny the policy, it would just be awaiting your answers which you wouldn't be able to do until birth.

[Innocent Smith]

60. Some insurance companies would issue policies

They would just charge very high premiums. Heck, people have even insured their arms, legs, signing voices, etc.

[Poiuyt]

62. Or use a fetus as a tax deduction

[fob]

63. I was thinking that if we all added the several million "dependents"

that reside in our testicles/ovaries on tax forms, we could simply de-fund this madman* and his* cronies.

[Rainscents]

67. Hell, I'll take out insurance for eggs...

Since, right winger says... Life began at eggs. And soon as I become pregnant and lose the fetus, I'll collect my 1 million dollar insurance! Hell yea, great idea!

[adwon]

70. Problems

1. Discrimination. On what basis? If an insurance company declines to insure a fetus, not a pregnant woman but a fetus, the "injured" party is the fetus. What rights have been abrogated? Are they constitutional or statutory? I'm just not seeing the 'right' that is violated here.

2. The Supreme Court. Two possibilities. 1) They state that determining when life begins is a legislative question, not a judicial one and so decline to rule on the issue. 2) They state that regulation of insurance companies falls under the traditional police powers of the state. Without a clear textual basis in either the constitution or statute, this seems like the more likely route to me.

[rpgamerd00d]

72. Folks, please remember, we want to LOSE, repeat, LOSE this case

We want to sue the life insurance company, and then appeal to the SCOTUS and STILL LOSE.

Once we've LOST COMPLETELY, we've BACKDOORED the Right to Choose.

Again, to be clear, we want to get pregnant (and NOT have an abortion), file for insurance for the fetus, get DECLINED, then SUE AND LOSE, then appeal to SCOTUS AND LOSE.

Bang. Instant, backdoor Stare Decisis for Pro-Choice.

[eyesroll]

90. No, it's instant Stare Decisis that insurance companies can turn fetuses

down.

What makes you think that the SCOTUS (assuming they'd take the case anyway) wouldn't issue a very very narrow ruling -- that for the purposes of THIS QUESTION, the fetus is not insurable, but this doesn't establish precedent.

[Skinner]

75. Am I the only person that thinks this is a terrible idea?

C'mon people. Think.

This frames the issue in terms that are beneficial to OUR OPPONENTS. If the focus is on the rights or personhood of the fetus, that is bad for us. This would not help our cause in any way at all. Even if the intent is to lose the case, it still would be a horrible, horrible PR strategy.

[rpgamerd00d]

76. Can't affect Dems as long as the mom claims to be Indy or Repug

Have it be bad PR for Repugs while helping us.
:D

[Skinner]

79. It doesn't matter if the mother is a republican or democrat.

What this proposal does is put the focus on THE PERSONHOOD OF THE FETUS. That is terrible framing for our side.

[Autonomy]

83. I don't agree. This idea isn't about PR, it's about the law...

We're not trying to convince anyone of anything on the abortion issue; sides have long since been established and entrenched. I think this is a brilliant idea, though the ins co's will surely try to find some loophole to get out of having to reject the claim based on lack of personhood. But it won't be easy for them to find another reason that can't be shot down.

[Misunderestimator]

88. Definitely not the only person...

The only thing that would happen is that insurance companies would make provisions to void the policy in the event of stillbirth or abortion, then they would make money hand over fist AND give credence to the anti-choicers' fantasy that a fetus is a person.

[Pacifist Patriot]

100. Nope, you are not the only one.

[leesa]

77. That's right. Another woman tried to get a break for drivig in the

multiple passenger lane because she was pregnant. She got the ticket. Why not? She should sue. Take it to the absurd limits these fools want to go to.

[rpgamerd00d]

78. Ooo, another good idea.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

80. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

What if the financial institution you choose is owned by a bunch of rightwingnuts? and they AGREE to sell the policy with certain caveats?
Then you have the power of the insurance industry supporting anti-abortionists.

You have to think this through VERY CAREFULLY before doing something that will backfire.

[rpgamerd00d]

81. Are you nuts? Ins companies taking losses for every failed pregnancy?

Not gonna happen.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

82. depends on the premium and the language of the policy.

by your logic, the insurance industry scoundrals know that everyone is going to die at some point. Therefore, according to your logic, life insurance would drive them into bankruptcy. And we know that is not the case.

They know just what percentile of a population will die at a certain period of time, they charge enough to cover those costs, have money to pay overhead and still have money to invest and make even more money with.

They know right now just how many fetuses die prenatally. They know by region, by class, by income, by pre-existing conditions. Do you think that they would be so foolish to ignore that data for prenates, but use it for living people? Bullshit.

All they do is apply the very same logic and actuarial tables they use on us to infant morbidity and mortality data. They can even lessen the payout until 6 mos postpartum and "double" the benefit after a live birth. (What they would actually do, is cut the benefit in half until 6 mos post partum - it amounts to the same thing, but one sounds nicer).

But you ignore the longterm impact. If some neocon conservative asshole starts writing infant policies, do you see others getting on the bandwagon showing that the critter constitutes a real life, therefore abortion is murder? I worry about that very situation, and that is why this is such a bad idea.

[Autonomy]

89. Strong argument

But I wonder, if all that is true, why are they not already insuring fetuses? Surely there would be takers, especially by those on the "fetal rights" side who want to make a political point. It just seems that if the ins co's could make more money, not only would they be doing it, they'd be promoting it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

91. Perhaps they are waiting for a Roberts Court. The time is now, and

with scAlito, and Scalia and Thomas, they may see an growing opportunity.

[Autonomy]

94. There was no reason to wait for this SCOTUS

Insurance companies can insure whatever or whoever they want. The law, as I understand it, prevents ins cos from rejecting clients, not from accepting them.

[Autonomy]

85. self-delete

[Autonomy]

84. Very smart. I've had a similar, though less compelling idea...

for a long time now. If an illegal or non-resident alien gives birth on American soil, the child is an American citizen. If a fetus or embryo is a person, then the unborn must be given American citizenship for a lifetime. That means any pregnant woman on vacation in the US... That means any pregnant woman traveling through American airspace... All granted US citizenship for a lifetime, just because the mother spent an hour flying in US airspace during pregnancy.

Yeah, I am sure Congress would revise the law to apply only to those actually BORN here, but it would certainly be struck down as unconstitutional. They could not establish a distinction sufficient to take away the rights of a "person" enough to not grant citizenship.

[Sparkman]

95. This is logic...can we expect compelling logic to sway faith based lunacy?

Don't get me wrong, I personally pray OFTEN.

[spanone]

92. Nothing like having to pay benefits to get the right to turn left.

I love that idea.

[Sparkman]

93. VERY inventive & insightful surmize! Mind if I borrow your premise?

[rpgamerd00d]

97. Public forum = no claim to copyright. :) :) :) -nt

[Bill McBlueState]

98. wedge issues

I don't know enough about insurance to really debate this, but it's the right idea.

If we can drive a wedge between the wealthy and the religiously insane, we can destroy the right-wing coalition and take American back.

[Left Coast Lynn]

99. The SCOTUS won't feel bound by consistency

Sadly.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

101. Oy vey!

:eyes:

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donkeyboy75]

103. Oh my.

You have no idea how the law works, do you?

On second thought, this will probably work if you yield your Lawsuit +12. Good luck!

[greenbriar]

104. that is actually a great idea

and an incredibilly brave one as well

[ehrnst]

107. Maybe this would work better on frozen embryos. (NT)