Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69

Thread: Reproductive Rights Assaulted

  1. #16
    Forum Veteran krulltime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Manhattan - UWS
    Posts
    4,208

    Default

    Quotes from Freedom Tower.

    And if she is likely to die from giving birth, a partial "BIRTH" abortion will probably also kill her!
    WRONG!!!

    How could you compare that at all! When a woman gives birth she is pushing for the most part to give birth. If she is likely to have health problems or die is more likely to happen when she is engaged in the pushing process. Ask a doctor!

    In Partial birth abortion (Yes the fetus does have human characteristics) if the baby was taken out alive he will not survive. The baby hasn't develop the ability to survive outside on his own yet. The baby will die anyway and there is no way to save it.

    The baby is removed like you describe vividly. (the head is suck out because they need to remove it since the part is bigger and they don't want to mess up the womans organs or her health complications. I don't want to go into too much details like you had I am afraid. But the woman is save from any health complications or death because she did not had to PUSH.

    It is nonsense what you said about a woman is going to die in birth-partial abortion since the process is intended to save her. :roll:

    If you need to understand more about this before posting things you don't understand you should go to your local Planned Parenthood or do some research. Dont listen to people who are not experts but just have beliefs on life.

  2. #17

    Default

    It just doesn't make any sense though. If they can pull the baby out far enough to see its feet, legs, body, and head so they can kill it without hurting the mother, why can't it just be delivered that way for special cases? Like i said, the baby is nearly delivered in a partial birth abortion. Why would just going a little further kill the mother?

  3. #18
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    FT, I think you are basing your opinions on the anti-abortion information that has been provided. they are likening, incorrectly, a PBO to "Killing of an Infant". Read the court ruling.

    In a PBO, they let the baby, underdeveloped, come partially out of the birth canal. In order to get the rest out, they do that brai-suck thing, which is kind of gross. But this is not done to an 8 month old kid.

    This is to make it so that surgery is not needed to remove the fetus. It also does not cause damage to the birth canal (which may be one of the reasons that the birth could be fatal to the woman).

    It is not a "happy" procedure by far, but it is not as anamalistic as the anti-abortionists would have everyone believe.

  4. #19

    Default

    Well I am glad it is not as horrible as I originally heard. Although it is awful let me explain to you what I heard a PBO to be. From what I have read it sounded almost as if a live baby were born, and killed as it exited the mother. I was envisioning a very disturbing scene. I still am against abortions myself, but I'm glad to hear that babies aren't killed after being born. That does not happen does it? Would a doctor kill a baby that was just born?

  5. #20
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    I believe that in all the PBO's performed, only a tiny portion are performed on late-term pregnancies.

    But the situation has to be dire to warrant it, such as non-viability of the baby or severe risk to the mother.

    The act of using it as a last minute "I don't want it" is viewed even by the pro-abortionists as barbaric and it is not approved, but sometimes the truth is not what is used to argue a political opinion.

  6. #21
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    PBO (as it has been dubbed by anti-choice zealots) is a rarely performed medical procedure. The term "partial birth" was devised by religious anti-choice fanatics for the sole purpose of generating exactly the kind of response Freedom Tower has shown.

    It is a medical procedure, not an alternative to birth control. It is administered late in a pregnancy. As it is a medical procedure, it is probably fair to say there are issues surrounding the decision to administer the procedure that we will never know. We can't presume to make a blanket decision that is simply "wrong" based on a graphic, overly dramatic, emotionally charged description of the procedure.

    Regardless of the propaganda, I don't know anyone who takes these procedures lightly or anyone who has undergone abortion procedures and comes out unaffected. Women, as a group, are not idiots. I would be incensed if anyone tried to limit my medical options. There's no argument, because the folks advocating overturning reproductive choice and these medical procedures cannot know the situations and facts of each case.

  7. #22
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Whoops on that one.

    I did not mean to give the impression that the PBO was something that was performed EARLY early on...

    I was just trying to move it a step or two away from the idea that they were somehow taking a fully functional baby and killing it while it was being born.

    that is what is being implied by the Anti-Abortionist lobby, and that is just not right.

    Thanks BR.

  8. #23

    Default

    November 20, 2004

    Negotiators Add Abortion Clause to Spending Bill

    By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and CARL HULSE

    WASHINGTON, Saturday, Nov. 20 - House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year.

    The provision may be an early indication of the growing political muscle of social conservatives who provided crucial support for Republican candidates, including President Bush, in the election.

    House officials said Saturday morning that the final details of the spending measure were worked out before midnight and that the bill was filed for the House vote on Saturday.

    The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection'' to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

    "It's something we've had a longstanding interest in," said Douglas Johnson, a spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee. He added, "This is in response to an orchestrated campaign by pro-abortion groups across the country to use government agencies to coerce health care providers to participate in abortions."

    The provision could affect millions of American women, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, who warned Friday that she would use procedural tactics to slow Senate business to a crawl if the language was not altered.

    "I am willing to stand on my feet and slow this thing down," Ms. Boxer said. "Everyone wants to go home, I know that, and I know I will not win a popularity contest in the Senate. But they should not be doing this. On a huge spending bill they're writing law, and they're taking away rights from women."

    Ms. Boxer said that she complained to Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but that he told her that House Republican leaders insisted that the provision, which was approved by the House in July but never came to the Senate for a vote, be included in the measure.

    "He said, 'Senator, they want it in, and it's going in,' " Ms. Boxer recalled.

    A spokeswoman for Mr. Stevens, Melanie Alvord, said on Friday that her boss would have no comment on the spending bill because House and Senate negotiators had not settled on the final language.

    Some lawmakers and Congressional aides interpreted the House leaders' insistence as reflection of the new political strength of the anti-abortion movement and of Christian conservatives, who played an important role in re-electing Mr. Bush this month.

    "They are catering to their right wing doing this," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. "It doesn't make it right. I think this is the first step."

    Mr. Harkin said he intended to try to force a vote next year on support for upholding the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which legalized abortion. "I think it is time the women of America understand what is happening here," he said.

    The spending measure, called an omnibus bill, was the main reason Congress returned to Washington after the election, and members of both parties say that despite Ms. Boxer's warnings, it is likely to pass with the abortion language intact.

    The alternative is to let government funding for a wide array of agencies - like the F.B.I., the National Park Service and the Environmental Protection Agency - run out, in effect causing a partial government shutdown.

    Lawmakers in the House and the Senate intended to vote on the omnibus bill on Saturday, when a stopgap spending measure is set to expire at midnight. Congress failed to pass 9 of its 13 required spending bills before its election recess, leaving much of the government - with the exception of the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security - to operate under the interim measure.

    The 11th-hour controversy over the abortion language capped a long and chaotic day Friday. In the House, the ethics committee ruled that a Democratic lawmaker had brought exaggerated charges against Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority leader, a finding that provoked another round of bitter recriminations between Republicans and Democrats.

    In the Senate, the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his re-election bid, delivered a poignant farewell speech that brought him a standing ovation.

    "It's had its challenges, its triumphs, its disappointments," Mr. Daschle said of his 26-year career in Congress, which included a decade as the Democratic leader. "But everything was worth doing."

    Mr. Daschle is the first Senate party leader in more than half a century to lose a re-election campaign. His emotional talk, in which he also urged his colleagues to find "common ground," was attended by nearly all of the Senate's Democrats, who gathered him in their arms and hugged him afterward.

    But only a few Republicans showed up, and Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, who broke with Senate tradition to campaign against Mr. Daschle in his home state, South Dakota, did not appear until after Mr. Daschle finished speaking. The scant Republican showing provoked Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, to speak out. "I don't know why, why in the closing days, some element of comity, some element of grace, some element of respect for a human being, could not have gotten some of our friends out of their offices," Mr. Lautenberg said.

    Outside the Senate chamber, the common ground Mr. Daschle spoke of seemed hard to find. House and Senate negotiators were still trying to salvage a reorganization of the nation's intelligence agencies. And Ms. Boxer was trying to negotiate changes to the abortion language, she said, with little success.

    Louise Melling, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has opposed the provision, said it would effectively strip states of their right to "enforce laws that were designed to protect women's health."

    For instance, she said, there are four states - Hawaii, Maryland, New York and Washington - that pay for some abortions for low-income women through their Medicaid programs. Under the language included in the omnibus bill, hospitals would not have to comply with those requirements.

    On Friday, nine female senators - eight Democrats and one Republican, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - wrote a letter to Senator Stevens asking that the language be changed and complaining that it had not gone through committee or to the Senate floor for a vote.

    Ms. Snowe called the language "a bad provision" that would "adversely affect reproductive health access for women across the country." She added, "It is an ill-advised policy that is clearly harmful to women."

    The bill generally holds spending to the level sought by the White House. The huge measure also contains scores of home-state projects sought by lawmakers.


    Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

  9. #24

    Default To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade

    I have long been amazed at those who defend Roe vs. Wade and their complicity in the subjugation of our Constitutional system!



    "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."---Federalist Paper No. 45


    Why do these people, the supporters of Roe vs. Wade, advocate a system of government in which the SCOTUS is free to impose its whims and fancies upon the people of the various states without the people’s consent and approval via an appropriate amendment? Where have the people agreed to delegate authority to the federal government to regulate the terms and conditions acceptable in terminating a pregnancy within a particular state’s borders?

    Do the supporters of Roe vs. Wade not realize the case is very similar to the recent Kelo decision in which the SCOTUS likewise used its position of public trust to ignore the limited powers of the federal government, and ignore the meaning of “public use“ as related to eminent domain under the various state constitutions, and that the Court, without the people’s approval, extended the meaning of “public use” to now mean for “commercial use” which now allows the rich and powerful across our union to steal the property of the less influential?

    Do the supporters of Roe vs. Wade not realize their advocacy of Roe vs. Wade supports the same thinking used by the Court in Gonzalez (Ashcroft) v Raich which was not about “medical marijuana“ or the use of drugs as portrayed by the establishment media? The case was once again about the unauthorized exercise of power by the rich and powerful via the federal court system and their undoing of the limited power granted by the people to Congress to regulate commerce “among” the states, not within.

    What these cases all have in common is, the SCOTUS ignoring the intent and beliefs under which We the People adopted the Constitution and can be documented from Madison’s Notes, the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, Elliot’s Debates and the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress [documenting the intent and beliefs under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted].

    Roe vs. Wade is in fact just one case in a series of cases in which our folks in Washington, our public servants, have taken it upon themselves to set aside what the people agreed to, and have decided to do for the people what the people have not willing agreed to do for themselves. They have decided to impose their personal predilections upon the people without the People’s consent!

    But Hamilton tells us:

    .“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.”

    Hamilton, Federalist 78


    Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute, through taxation, to a gangster government which ignores our most fundamental laws----our state and the united State’s Constitutions!

    Only domestic enemies of our constitutional system would support such tyranny, which includes those who would not joyfully overturn Roe vs. Wade!


    The incontrovertible truth is, the words of our founding fathers, as found in Madison’s Notes,the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot’s Debates, [including the Congressional Globe], and which express a consensus of the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, is the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system, and acts to expose the evil nature of our domestic enemies, right wing militants and left wing militants, who claim the Constitution may mean whatever they wish it to mean.

    JWK
    ACRS


    "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"---Justice Story

  10. #25
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,298

    Default

    Much like how the SCOTUS was overstepping its boundaries with Brown v. Board of Education?

    I really hate the new editing format.

  11. #26

    Default

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-113005scotus_lat,0,1419176.story?coll=la-home-headlines
    Justices Stay Evenhanded on Abortion Case

    By David G. Savage
    Times Staff Writer

    11:52 AM PST, November 30, 2005

    WASHINGTON The Supreme Court justices sounded as though they were in surprising agreement today on how to fairly resolve a New Hampshire abortion case without making a major change in the law.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., hearing his first abortion case, led the way in proposing a means to protect young girls in cases of medical emergencies while preserving the principle that a parent must be notified nearly all the time.

    Two years ago, New Hampshire lawmakers said doctors must notify a parent of a girl under age 18 at least 48 hours in advance before they perform an abortion. An exception was included for a girl whose life was in danger.

    Abortion rights groups challenged the law as unconstitutional because it did not permit doctors to act quickly in the face of a medical emergency that could endanger the health of the woman, though not necessarily her life.

    A state judge could waive this requirement, but the challengers said girls facing a medical crisis should go to a hospital, not a courthouse. Because the law failed to deal with health emergencies, lower courts struck down the entire New Hampshire law as unconstitutional.

    The case came before a closely split high court today, and it threatened to reopen a divide on how judges should deal with disputed abortion regulations.

    Instead, the justices seemed most interested in resolving the narrow issue before them, rather than taking on a larger battle over abortion.

    "What's wrong with a pre-enforcement challenge brought by the physicians?" Roberts asked a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

    The doctors could seek a court order that would allow them to act quickly when they were faced with a health crisis that called for an immediate abortion, he said.

    "This is a problem that arises only in emergency situations," he said. "The vast majority of situations don't involve emergencies."

    By the end of the hourlong argument, most of the justices, including its strong supporters of abortion rights, said that solution made sense.

    "Why wouldn't that be entirely adequate" to resolve the case? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. "There would be no regulation of medical emergencies, and you would have no complaint," she told Jennifer Dalven, the ACLU lawyer.

    Dalven replied that the New Hampshire lawmakers should have written a constitutional law. "They could have enacted a medical emergency exception, and we could have all gone home," she said.

    Roberts was not alone in devising a direct solution to the New Hampshire case.

    U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the Bush administration, proposed a similar idea in the brief he filed with the court. He argued that the judges had made a mistake in striking down the entire state law mandating that abortion doctors notify the parents of a minor girl.

    Instead, Clement said the judges should have told the ACLU lawyers to seek a court order that targeted medical emergencies.

    He repeated that argument today, saying there is nothing unconstitutional about requiring doctors to notify a girl's parents in most situations. "It is literally a one in 1,000 situation" where a doctor will need to perform an abortion without taking the time to notify a parent, he said.

    Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire attorney general who appealed the case to the high court, said she agreed that in the "rare case" of a medical emergency, doctors should be allowed to act quickly to perform an abortion.

    Currently, six of the justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer have voted to uphold a woman's right to have an abortion. O'Connor has announced her retirement and will leave when President Bush's next nominee wins confirmation by the Senate.

    Two justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas want to repeal the right to abortion set in Roe vs. Wade. Roberts has yet to take a stand on that issue.

    The justices will meet privately to decide on the case of Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood, and the tenor of argument suggested that most of them will agree on a compromise solution.

    It would call on judges to reinstate New Hampshire's law on parental notification, but call for a court order that would exempt doctors whose young patients faced a medical emergency.




    Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

  12. #27
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,298

    Default

    What about in cases where the girl was raped by her father? Would she need parental notification then, or would that be considered a case where her life was in danger?

  13. #28
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Hawaii Supreme Court:
    The Unborn Are 'Not Human Beings'

    By Rev. Mark H. Creech
    The Right Frame of Mind
    December 5, 2005

    http://headlines.agapepress.org/arch...fa/52005mc.asp


    (AgapePress) - Wednesday, November 30, the Supreme Court of Hawaii overturned the manslaughter conviction of Tayshea Aiwohi. The 32-year-old woman had been previously found guilty for causing the death of her newborn son by smoking crystal methamphetamine three days before his birth and on the morning he was delivered.

    The State's High Court unanimously ruled that Aiwohi's son was an unborn fetus at the time she abused crystal meth, and therefore not a person. WorldNetDaily rightly characterized the decision in this fashion, saying that in Hawaii unborn children are "'not human beings,' and therefore women cannot be prosecuted for causing the death of babies by harmful behavior during their pregnancies."

    According to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, Hawaii's penal code states that a person is defined as "'a human being who has been born and is alive.' Most states allow for the prosecution of a person for violence against a pregnant woman resulting in the death of her child after birth. Thirty-four states have 'fetal homicide' laws allowing prosecution of a person for causing the death of a fetus. Most infamously, Scott Peterson faces the death penalty in California for his conviction of two counts of murder for the deaths of his wife, Laci, and their unborn child."

    But in Hawaii there is no such law. And so open-ended is the matter in Hawaii, Justice Paula Nakayama wrote "that 'the logical implication' from the Aiwohi ruling is that a person who attacks a pregnant woman, causing the child's death after birth, 'also cannot be prosecuted [for the child's death] under the manslaughter statute, inasmuch as the Legislature has not included fetuses within the definition of the term 'person.'"

    However, under the new federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act -- also known as "Laci and Conner's Law," enacted by Congress in the wake of the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, by Laci's husband, Scott Peterson -- any person who perpetrates violence against a pregnant woman and causes the death of her fetus can be prosecuted. Still, mothers are protected from their own injurious actions to their unborn child, while others are not.

    Hawaii's Supreme Court ruling in the Aiwohi case and the State's penal code clearly define personhood on the basis of functionalism. In other words, what one does defines one's status as a person; persons are defined by certain functions and behaviors. The Holy Scriptures, however, define one's personhood not by what one does but by what one is -- a human soul made in the image of God. One needn't be "born and is alive" to achieve such a status, only conceived.

    Peter Kreeft with the American Life League rightly contends that functionalism has largely arisen with the erosion of the family. He writes: "Our civilization is dying primarily because the family is dying. Half of our families commit suicide, for divorce is the family committing suicide qua family. But the family is the place where you learn that you are loved not because of what you do, your function, but because of who you are." Kreeft, therefore, further notes that consequently the new "Quality of Life Ethic" is replacing the old "Sanctity of Life Ethic." "In this new ethic," he writes, "a human life is judged as valuable and worth living if and only if the judgers decide that it performs at a certain level."

    This new approach is a matter of extreme danger in that it leads to a frightening form of despotism. For who decides the social utility of one's existence? As Kreeft argues: "When it is in the self-interest of certain people to kill certain other people, whether fetuses, or the dying, or enemies of the state, or Jews, or Armenians, or Cambodians, or heretics, or prophets, the killers will simply define their victims as non-persons by pointing out that they do not meet certain criteria. Who determines the criteria? Those in power, of course."

    Moreover, the Aiwohi case and current federal law which protects a woman's so-called "right" to choose, as well protects her from her own detrimental actions against her fetus, is remarkably reminiscent of the attitudes reflected at the time of the notable Dredd Scott case (1856-57).

    In the Dred Scott decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Negro slaves nor their descendants could have rights or be considered citizens. The Court at that time essentially said people of African ancestry were not people, but simply the property of the slave owner. Abolitionists fought for the human rights of slaves when the prevailing notion was that a black man didn't even have a soul. Blacks were neither considered human beings or persons, only chattel.

    Cecil Hook of Freedom's Ring, in an insightful article titled "Human Chattel," argues: "Who would have thought that, more than a century after the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, we would hear the infamous Dred Scott case revived so loudly and adamantly? Once it was the slave and his child who had no rights or soul; now it is the unborn child who has neither rights nor soul. In those times a master could deal with his slave as chattel; now the unborn is regarded as disposable property possessed by the mother -- a part of her body which she can destroy without conscience."

    Interestingly, when Abraham Lincoln spoke out against the Dredd Scott decision, he cited the Declaration of Independence's proclamation that all men are "created equal" with certain "unalienable rights," among which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Lincoln then went on to say that the Founding Fathers "did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all then were actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them .... They meant simply to declare the right, so that enforcement of it might follow as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all ...."

    Indeed! And may God hasten the day when the unalienable (God-given) right to life is restored for the unborn "person."


    2005 AgapePress all rights reserved.


  14. #29
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    I HAVE to disagree with this one.

    If that kid was taken out of her THAT DAY and placed on a table, it would have been alive. There is NO question in my mind that that kid was a viable human being.

    If this was 3 months before birth, the line gets a lot fuzzier (especiallyt with medical technology being able to keep kids alive earlier and earlier), but 3 days?

    She should die of an OD.

  15. #30

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bill of Rights - Status
    By BrooklynRider in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 6th, 2015, 07:19 AM
  2. Air Rights
    By Drexel in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 01:02 PM
  3. Do Fish Have Water Rights?
    By Kris in forum New York Metro
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 25th, 2004, 08:45 AM
  4. Court Decision Limits Landlords' Eviction Rights
    By Kris in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 9th, 2004, 11:52 AM
  5. Mayor Widens Privacy Rights for Immigrants
    By Kris in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 4th, 2003, 09:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software