A Debate Or A Shouting Match?
Two Tuesdays from now, the two major presidential candidates are set to have a debate. At this point it seems more likely than not that both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump will actually show up, although the details are still being hashed out between the two camps. The biggest sticking point seems to be whether the microphones will be live throughout the entire evening or whether they will be muted when the other candidate speaks. What is rather mystifying is that the positions have been reversed in this squabble -- it is Harris who is arguing for live microphones, while Trump wants them muted. Which leaves me to wonder whether we'll get a real debate or whether it will devolve into a shouting match.
Trump, of course, has always abused the debate rules whenever he's had the chance. He does not respect other candidates' time to speak, he just blurts out anything he feels like, anytime he feels like saying it. This happened over and over again during the 2016 Republican primary debate season. Trump rudely shouted down the moderators and shouted down his opponents, which was not normal behavior (up to that point, at any rate). Trump debated Joe Biden in 2020 and did exactly the same thing -- just bulldozed ahead with no regard for the rules. Trump declined to participate in this cycle's Republican primary debates (which, admittedly, didn't hurt him politically at all). When the general election phase began, Biden's team demanded that the microphones be muted while the other candidate spoke, in an effort to avoid Trump's incessant bluster.
But what happened, of course, was a disaster for Biden, and it wasn't because the microphones were on or off. Biden had a terrible night on his own -- Trump largely just stood back and watched Biden's self-destruction. For the most part (until they started talking about golf scores, towards the end), Trump actually shut up while Biden spoke. The dynamic of the debate was different than just listening to Trump rant and rave the whole night.
But now Harris and her team are demanding a return to the earlier free-for-all format of having live microphones for the entire night. There are really only two tactical reasons I can come up with for why they would make this seemingly-strange request. The first is that they think Trump will be seen negatively if he just tries to shout everyone down again. The second is more interesting, though -- perhaps Harris wants to shout down Trump?
Most of the attention during the first debate was on Joe Biden and what a terrible job he did (for good reason). The debate has already earned itself a place in political history for being one of the most significant presidential debates ever, since it led directly to Biden bowing out of the race. But a little-noticed dynamic during it was that because Trump was essentially forced to shut up while Biden spoke, he appeared a lot more "presidential" than he did in any of his free-for-all debates. Perhaps this is what spurred Team Harris to try to change the rules back?
As a general rule, Donald Trump does not do well when challenged by a strong woman. And he really loses his cool when he is challenged by a strong minority woman. Facing Harris is going to be a challenge for him, because he is so prone to saying truly nasty things in such a situation. This probably will be true no matter whether the microphones are muted or not, because he could always unleash some vile playground insult during his own allotted time.
But the optics of him trying to shout down Harris while it is her turn to talk would be worse, of course. Harris already has a large lead among women voters, and Trump being his usual bullying self would probably boost her numbers even more in this regard. It certainly wouldn't look "presidential" in any way, that's for sure. So perhaps that's the reason Harris wants to tempt Trump -- to try to goad him into his usual loudmouthed bluster (which might backfire spectacularly on him).
But Harris is no shrinking violet herself. She is entirely capable of taking command in a shouting match. Take a look at her questioning witnesses in Senate committee hearings if you need a reminder of this. And she's already even got a tagline to use: "Excuse me... I'm speaking!" She deploys this with the same sort of brash attitude as Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy ("I'm walkin' here!"). So maybe that's what Team Harris is hoping for? A way for her to verbally dominate him, instead of the other way around?
There's another possibility as well. Donald Trump is the personification of the old joke: "How can you tell he's lying? His lips are moving." He lies like a rug, constantly. Either he has completely deluded himself into believing things which are demonstrably not true, or he is just a fan of the "Big Lie" concept (if you forcefully repeat a lie enough times, people will start believing it is true). Either way, he is entirely predictable.
Trump lies so often and so quickly that even journalists (or debate moderators) cannot hope to keep up with them all. They might pause and try to fact-check one or two of his more blatant lies, but even when this (rarely) happens, another four or five lies slip through unchallenged. There's really only one way to effectively fight back against this firehose of falsehoods, and that would be to call him on each of his lies right when they happen.
Will Harris attempt to do so? Is this the real reason she wants live microphones -- so that she can talk over him? She could do this in a number of ways, either indignantly ("That's a damn lie!"), or persuasively ("The facts are not on your side, sorry"), or even sneeringly ("There he goes again -- lie after lie after lie!"). There are really a number of ways she could do so, and stopping him in the middle of one of his rants would be a pretty jarring experience for him, since he is not used to it happening at all.
The other thing about Trump's campaign lies are that they are so predictable. He latches onto a lie and repeats it whenever he is asked about the subject. On abortion, for instance, Trump regularly deploys two outlandish falsehoods. He insists that "everyone" -- even liberals and Democrats -- "wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, so it could be sent back to the states." This is just not true at all, but to date nobody has ever effectively called him out on it. This is one of those lies that Trump may have deluded himself into actually believing, in fact. The other one is equally absurd -- "Democrats want to make it legal to abort a baby even after it is born." This is not true in any American state, and precisely zero Democrats support the concept. But Trump doesn't care -- he just repeats the lie in an attempt to paint Democrats as the ones who are the "extremists" on abortion.
Kamala Harris knows full well that neither one of these lies is true. She should be expecting Trump to make these claims during the debate. If she isn't, she is delusional herself, because Trump always makes these two claims when speaking about abortion. So Harris can prepare in advance exactly how she will respond to both of them. And she might just do so by indignantly interrupting Trump when he spouts them.
This is just one issue that Trump predictably lies about, mind you. There are a whole passel of them to choose from, on all kinds of issues. Trump can't help himself -- he is so used to using these lies as big applause lines during his rallies that he's convinced that everyone else believes them to be true too.
So I wonder if this is what Team Harris is trying to set up, by insisting on live microphones. If both Harris and Trump try to out-shout each other it might make for some lively television, that's for sure. Harris dishing out Trump's own tactics right back in his face might be highly entertaining, you've got to admit. It'd be incredibly risky to attempt this, because it certainly wouldn't look all that "presidential," but it would indeed be fighting fire with fire. Donald Trump's one trick during debates is to try to verbally dominate the stage. He wants to control the flow of everything, on his terms. To date, nobody's really come up with an effective way to counter this. Could Kamala Harris beat Trump at his own game? That is indeed an interesting question, which is why I wonder if that is exactly what she is trying to set up by demanding live microphones throughout the entire evening.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Or, perhaps, a yawn-fest?
Here's a thought on how Harris could handle it. I'd have her bring a bidding paddle with the word LIE printed on it. As the orange thing indulges in a spew, she should raise and lower the paddle multiple times. I just love the image of that eye-catching motion, though I get that the camera may show only the designated speaker, but, hey, I get to write my own scenarios.
Once it is her turn, she should:
1. Point out that he didn't answer the question
2. Pick one nugget from the spew that's on her list of prepared rebuttals and briefly address that lie
3. Say "To speak to your question" and use the rest of her time to give her response.
Which leaves me to wonder whether we'll get a real debate or whether it will devolve into a shouting match.
Who says it can't be both?
So since you were wondering, I'll give you my take on what (I think) is going on here.
The Harris/Walz campaign is trolling Trump individually and Trump's campaign collectively because the fact is that near everyone in America knows Convicted Felon Donald Trump cannot stop himself from ignoring rules and breaking laws on a regular basis (see Trump violate Federal law prohibiting political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries by using multiple graves at ANC of Americans KIA as political props), up to and including the simple rules of a political debate.
Knowing full well that Donald cannot act presidential for even 10 minutes, let alone a 90-minute debate, it's Trump's handlers (not Trump himself) who wants the microphones muted because they know full well that their canine will dig himself a huge hole and not stop digging if he isn't put on a short leash and muzzled into self-abasing abject silence.
But now Harris and her team are demanding a return to the earlier free-for-all format of having live microphones for the entire night.
You keep using that word "demanding" when they are seriously simply requesting that microphones remain live for both candidates in order to troll Trump for hiding behind his muted microphone and for Trump's own team forcing him to shut up his face so he will appear humanlike versus barking like a mad dog.
There are really only two tactical reasons I can come up with for why they would make this seemingly-strange request.
The way to defeat a narcissistic bullying con artist like Trump is to reel him in, laugh in his face, mock him relentlessly, and troll him until he invariably pops. Then he'll obviously become unhinged and "say" something stupid on his American Pravda ripped off social media platform or maybe a debate or wherever... then lather, rinse, repeat. :)
MyVoice
2
Exactly all this!
Here's a thought on how Harris could handle it. I'd have her bring a bidding paddle with the word LIE printed on it.
Obviously, the paddle is the color orange and maybe shaped like Trump's tiny little hand.
As the orange thing indulges in a spew, she should raise and lower the paddle multiple times.
Like she is swatting at a fly... except it's a lie-swatter. When a fly lands on his head...
I just love the image of that eye-catching motion, though I get that the camera may show only the designated speaker, but, hey, I get to write my own scenarios.
It's perfect. :)
Go after him for what all is in Project 2025 and wait for Trump to claim that he knows “nothing” about it; then ask him why he still has not bothered to look it up to know what he is being excused of! Trump has been questioned about Project 2025 for months…how does he still know nothing about it??? Even if I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he first claimed to know nothing months ago, he should know something about it now. Trump cannot STILL claim not to know anything about Project 2025 without answering how that can possibly be true! Is he the dumbest person to ever run for office?
[2] The debate rules do not allow props.
Which leaves me to wonder whether we'll get a real debate or whether it will devolve into a shouting match.
I don't know if we'll get a shouting match, but we won't get "a real debate". I presume that "a real debate" refers to people talking about the subject they've been asked about. Politicians generally don't do that and Short Fingers doesn't even come close. He talks a lot, but he doesn't respond to questions.
Every time the orange one pukes up some word salad, VP Harris should just point at him and say "It's time to turn the page on that. We're not going back."
I would like to see her troll him with something like this:
"Donold's poll numbers are sinking like Truth Social stock.".
It's a three-fer that would make him angry and impulsive. She should refer to him as Donold at all times.
AKA Vance held a rally in Erie yesterday. At one point, he bellowed out that weird noise that he seems to believe approximates the sound of laughter. Then he tried to insult VP Harris by saying that he didn't need a teleprompter because he's got "thoughts in his head". Then he called Abbey Gate Abbey Road. The teleprompter probably would have gotten that right.
He's not very good at this. He should not be reminding people about those weird alien lizard thoughts in his head.
AKA Vance also said this:
You guys in the media, you're acting like Donald Trump filmed a TV commercial at a grave site.
More gaslighting. Maybe he filmed an internet commercial? I certainly hope this latest crime is considered by the judge when Convict Donold is sentenced in NY.
ListenWhenYouHear
5
Trump cannot STILL claim not to know anything about Project 2025 without answering how that can possibly be true!
You'd think this would be obvious to everyone, wouldn't you?
Is he the dumbest person to ever run for office?
Is this a trick question? ;)
Yes, he's the most ignorant person to run for the presidency in modern times. The hallmark of his ignorance is his seeming belief that the vast majority of Americans are dumb enough to fall for his endless pathological lying.
Even some of his supporters are well aware of Trump's prolific lying, but they're obviously hypocrites and couldn't care less unless it's a Democrat lying... even then, they don't really care about a lying Democrat as long as it's in service of their Orange Crush. We know this because their lips are all locked on RFK, Jr. now in the service of the "liberal lunatic" (Trump's words, not mine).
It's hysterical to watch Trump and Vance and the MAGA cult minions falling all over themselves in praise of a Kennedy, even if it is the family's "lunatic."
John From Censornati
6
[2] The debate rules do not allow props.
Props?
And Arlington National Cemetary is not the Haunted Mansion at Disney World and does not allow campaigns to use the graves of the deceased as political props, and a related civilian cannot give a politician or his campaign the permission to ignore Federal law so their candidate can spread out over multiple graves and give the thumbs up while wearing a shit-eating grin like they enjoyed the ride.
So... props.
We are problem solvers here: Write "LIE" on the palm of her hand and carry on with the plan. :)
John From Censornati
9
"Donold's poll numbers are sinking like Truth Social stock.".
Oooh, yes... that DJT pump-and-dump stock is 19.84 at the present time and sinking... but still higher than Trump's IQ.
John From Censornati
10
At one point, he bellowed out that weird noise that he seems to believe approximates the sound of laughter.
And this idiot makes fun of her laugh.
Then he tried to insult VP Harris by saying that he didn't need a teleprompter because he's got "thoughts in his head".
Whateverhisnameis succeeded in insulting his running mate's intelligence because Old Man Trump definitely uses a teleprompter. Connecting the dots is not their strong suit.
Then he called Abbey Gate Abbey Road. The teleprompter probably would have gotten that right.
Heh. Abbey Road .
He also made up some bullshit: "If she wants to yell at Donald Trump because he showed up, she can go to hell," when the fact is that Harris has made zero comment whatsoever (as I write this) about it.
"Nice" Catholic boy making up lies and putting words in people's mouths that he just pulled out of his own ass and that are also in direct violation of:
*
Maybe his running mate will sell him one of those $1000 Bibles with his signature that he's hawking to the clueless rubes.
John From Censornati
11
More gaslighting.
Yes, sir. As per usual and SSDD. Pathetic gaslighting.
Maybe he filmed an internet commercial?
The political ad his campaign filmed at Arlington National Cemetary is running on TikTok. In the political ad, Trump continues to lie that no one died in Afghanistan in 18 months while he was president, and the morons actually believe this ridiculous drivel and repeat it all over social media sites and blogs like absolute dumb asses.
You cannot have any military experience whatsoever and believe the utter asinine claim that no one died in 18 months in Afghanistan (a country the approximate size of Texas) unless you're dumber than stupid... so like I've said, Trump's demonstrable ignorance is his belief that the vast majority of Americans are dumb enough to believe his repetitive lies and totally invented propaganda bullshit.
Kick,
And Arlington National Cemetary is not the Haunted Mansion at Disney World and does not allow campaigns to use the graves of the deceased as political props, and a related civilian cannot give a politician or his campaign the permission to ignore Federal law so their candidate can spread out over multiple graves and give the thumbs up while wearing a shit-eating grin like they enjoyed the ride.
Yet Trump’s campaign did just that and he’s allowed to do so at his whim, for some reason. Is this one of those federal laws that says you cannot do something but forgets to include a way to enforce said law? Or does Trump just know something that allows him to act in such criminal ways without fear of being held accountable? I know that sounds all CONSPIRACY Channel-ish, but Trump’s complete disregard for our laws has got to come from something! Trump’s too much of a coward to act so boldly without being certain he won’t face being made to answer immediately for his crimes.
Is that what passes for an in-depth interview? Wow. I call it a squandered opportunity for the Harris campaign for president.
Her message on the economy was, ah, less than spirited and rather, well, deflated. On this front, apparently, there is no hope. If she fails to win this thing, it will be on economic grounds and she will have no one to blame but herself.
maybe it was a feint, asking for it as a way to convince Donald not to budge on the muted mic
ListenWhenYouHear
17
Is this one of those federal laws that says you cannot do something but forgets to include a way to enforce said law?
Yep.
Or does Trump just know something that allows him to act in such criminal ways without fear of being held accountable?
Maybe in the past, but not anymore. Trump has spent decades buying his way out of legal trouble via campaign contributions to those who could hold him accountable. Those days are gone.
I know that sounds all CONSPIRACY Channel-ish, but Trump’s complete disregard for our laws has got to come from something!
Doesn't sound like that at all, and it comes from decades of believing you can either buy or countersue your way out of anything because it's worked well for you up until now.
Trump’s too much of a coward to act so boldly without being certain he won’t face being made to answer immediately for his crimes.
"Immediately" never happens when you pay to delay. As the judgments rendered against him are beginning to pile up, reality seems to be setting in for him... so watch Trump flip-flip on the issues and backpedal and "say anything" on the issues if he thinks it'll get him elected.
Elizabeth Miller
18
Is that what passes for an in-depth interview? Wow.
No.
I call it a squandered opportunity for the Harris campaign for president.
So you're blaming the Harris campaign for the stupid questions? Wow.
Her message on the economy was, ah, less than spirited and rather, well, deflated.
She answered the dumb questions she was asked that she didn't get to choose. There were only a few questions that weren't "what do think about this accusation from Trump?"
On this front, apparently, there is no hope.
Based on one interview? Heh.
If she fails to win this thing, it will be on economic grounds and she will have no one to blame but herself.
If she fails to win "this thing," it will have a whole lot more to do than with the economy, and there will be plenty of blame to go around for her and her team. If she wins "this thing," they'll claim she's a cheater and it's rigged. #SSDD
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion has increasingly become more like a constant whining and accusatory blaming rather than an actual opinion. Also, it seems to me that what you think you know about United States elections would fill volumes, but what you actually know might fill a thimble.
Now, I could actually wait for you to ask me: "Was that really necessary?" Or I could save you some time by telling you now that I believe it was overdue. :)
Kick,
So you're blaming the Harris campaign for the stupid questions? She answered the dumb questions she was asked that she didn't get to choose. There were only a few questions that weren't "what do think about this accusation from Trump?"
No, not at all. And, I think we all expected lame questions.
The vice president squandered a great opportunity in front of a fairly large audience to outline why her administration would be far better at implementing a pro-growth tax and fiscal policy than the Republicans who have proven time and again that they only have one economic policy and it doesn't work except to lower the tax burden on the top one or two percent of wealthy Americans.
If she was more of a savvy campaigner, she would have known how to pivot from the dumb questions that journalists keep asking over and over again and talk about what she wants to talk about. This is Political Campaigning 101.
And, far from being based on one silly interview as you wrongly presumed, my hopelessness regarding how Democrats talk about the economy is based on years of listening to them talk so ineffectively about Democratic economic policy and why it is superior to that of Republicans and why most Americans should favour the Democrats over Republicans when it comes to the economy.
Elizabeth Miller
22
No, not at all. And, I think we all expected lame questions.
It wasn't Donald Trump being given softball questions from Sean Hannity, so: No, we did not all expect lame questions.
The vice president squandered a great opportunity in front of a fairly large audience to outline why her administration would be far better at implementing a pro-growth tax and fiscal policy than the Republicans who have proven time and again that they only have one economic policy and it doesn't work except to lower the tax burden on the top one or two percent of wealthy Americans.
Oh, come on, you're making her sound like Old Man Biden during the first debate! That "tax cuts for the rich" and "trickle down" prattle has been beaten to death until it's old news. CNN also edited the interview, and none of us knows how they may have sliced and diced it.
If she was more of a savvy campaigner, she would have known how to pivot from the dumb questions that journalists keep asking over and over again and talk about what she wants to talk about.
Asking over and over again? It was her first interview since she was nominated, ergo the first time any journalist asked her those questions. Be that as it may, it sounds to me like your knickers are in a twist because she didn't talk about what you wanted her to talk about.
This is Political Campaigning 101.
Heh. I'm going to be really nice and not say what I'm thinking. You're welcome, Canada.
And, far from being based on one silly interview as you wrongly presumed, my hopelessness regarding how Democrats talk about the economy is based on years of listening to them talk so ineffectively about Democratic economic policy and why it is superior to that of Republicans and why most Americans should favour the Democrats over Republicans when it comes to the economy.
I didn't refer to it as "one silly interview" as you wrongly retorted; I asked: "Based on one interview?" and was bemused at the thought.
If she fails to win this thing, it will be on economic grounds and she will have no one to blame but herself.
But if you're basing your "hopelessness" on past interviews of multiple Democrats "for years" regarding the economy, then you've just single-handedly and quite effectively blown that statement of yours above all to hell and back, and I thank you for the assist.
Seriously: If she fails to win "this thing," it will most likely not have very much at all to do with "economic grounds," it won't be based on one interview or even an entire collection of interviews of Democrats regarding the economy, and I promise you there will be a plethora of persons to blame for it besides herself. That's United States Political Campaigning 101. :)
Elizabeth Miller
22
You can also let go of the idea that Republicans "only have one economic policy," because with the China trade war and additional tariffs they've already implemented and are now promising to raise exponentially with "universal baseline tariffs on most foreign products" of 10%, including even higher levies on certain countries that devalue their currency of up to 60% (looking at you, China), Republicans definitely have more than "one economic policy," and I'll briefly mention the policy of "mass deportation now" and the sledgehammer that would be to the U.S. economy, labor force, tax base, etc.
It wasn't Donald Trump being given softball questions from Sean Hannity, so: No, we did not all expect lame questions.
Seriously!!!? I HAD been giving you way more credit than that. Or, maybe I just watch CNN more than the rest of the gang here. Heh.
Oh, come on, you're making her sound like Old Man Biden during the first debate! That "tax cuts for the rich" and "trickle down" prattle has been beaten to death until it's old news.
That right there is some of the clearest evidence as to why Republicans (and the Conservatives here in Canada) are trusted more than Democrats (and Liberals) as better stewards of the economy by most Americans (many, if not most, Canadians but that trend line ain't lookin' good).
Asking over and over again? It was her first interview ...
Sigh. The context of my comment which you highlight here was clearly not restricted to the wildly anticipated (CNN) Harris interview.
This comment, in its entirety, really surprised me by its lack of rumination and apparent reliance on the capacity of broadcast journalists to adequately query a subject, especially in the context of a political campaign.
Kick[24],
Right. And, you could add reproductive rights and freedom to that list, as well. And, the vice president would be wise to talk more about all of these essentially economic policy distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, too.
Elizabeth Miller
25
Seriously!!!? I HAD been giving you way more credit than that. Or, maybe I just watch CNN more than the rest of the gang here. Heh.
So it seems you were judging one journalist based on an entire network full of them, which is generally not something I do, but I have been known to make exceptions for those like Alex Jones. I've definitely seen better interviews out of Dana Bash.
That right there is some of the clearest evidence as to why Republicans (and the Conservatives here in Canada) are trusted more than Democrats (and Liberals) as better stewards of the economy by most Americans (many, if not most, Canadians but that trend line ain't lookin' good).
Oh, I see you're also factoring in the feelings of Canadians.
Sigh. The context of my comment which you highlight here was clearly not restricted to the wildly anticipated (CNN) Harris interview.
Not restricted to the interview regarding America's presidential election and now apparently not even restricted to the United States, for that matter.
This comment, in its entirety, really surprised me by its lack of rumination and apparent reliance on the capacity of broadcast journalists to adequately query a subject, especially in the context of a political campaign.
This is really grasping deep, Elizabeth... "lack of rumination" and "apparent reliance"? On "broadcast journalists"!? Based on a comment about a single interview!? *laughing* *give me a minute* *nope, can't stop*
This ridiculous proclamation of yours based on one comment combined with your doomsday assessment of the Democratic nominee for president of the United States based on one interview by a single journalist [but wait, now based on decades of interviews of other Democrats feelings and also including Canadians] should keep me laughing for quite some time... so thanks for that.
Elizabeth Miller
26
Right. And, you could add reproductive rights and freedom to that list, as well.
Your comment was that Republicans "have proven time and again that they only have one economic policy," and I commented that you could let that idea of yours go because it's incorrect and then pointed out multiple other Republican economic policies beyond their usual lowering taxes, but I would definitely not add "reproductive rights" and "freedom" to the list of Republican economic policies.
And, the vice president would be wise to talk more about all of these essentially economic policy distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, too.
"Talk more"? Heh. And, Elizabeth Miller "would be wise" to pay better attention. :)
You enjoy looking for imprecise comments and I have a special knack for making them. :)
The point I was trying to make about abortion rights and reproductive freedom is that this issue has economic implications. Surely you can agree with that, right?
Elizabeth Miller
29
You enjoy looking for imprecise comments and I have a special knack for making them. :)
You also have a penchant for lumping people into categories and claiming to be a mind reader regarding their feelings and general knowledge. For the record, I do not "enjoy" looking for those things, I'm just trained that way because details matter... so it's all just a part of being me. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. ;)
The point I was trying to make about abortion rights and reproductive freedom is that this issue has economic implications.
To be factual, the point you were "trying to make" was in regard to "reproductive rights" and "freedom," which you've now actually altered to "abortion rights" and "reproductive freedom," which definitely helps add some clarity.
Surely you can agree with that, right?
A thousand times yes. I have commented multiple times in this very forum that forced-birth laws are an unfunded monetary mandate on women and their families, specifically on lower income Americans. Brett Kavanaugh's daughter won't be forced to have her rapist's baby, poor women in the South, however, will.
Forcing birth on a girl/woman in America with an unwanted pregnancy or who was raped by a date, a relative, a stranger, making her a victim twice isn't what I would consider "freedom," and it sure as hell isn't free of charge.
Two things for anti-abortionists:
* Don't want abortion for yourself? No one can force you.
* Don't want abortion for anyone else? Mind your own damn business.