Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: U.S. Supreme Court views Partial-birth abortion as infanticide.

Peach Bud





Posts: 42
(42 all sites)
Registered: 12/1/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2007 at 04:28 PM
Supreme Court OKs Abortion Procedure Ban



Apr 18, 3:48 PM (ET)

By MARK SHERMAN

(AP) Anti abortion demonstrator Joshua Alcorn stands outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday,...
Full Image



Google sponsored links
HBO Addiction-Tarzana - Addiction Information and Treatment 24 hours. Call 1-800-996-1051.
www.Tarzanatc.org

CycleBeads - Natural family planning made easy. More than 95% Effective!
www.cyclebeads.com







WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.


(AP) National Clergy Council President Rev. Rob Schenck holds a copy of the Supreme Court's decision on...
Full Image


Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

Kennedy's opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench.

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."


(AP) Republican Presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, carrying his BlackBerry unit, walks...
Full Image


Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how - not whether - to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Said Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures - the medical term most often used by doctors - were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method - dismembering the fetus in the uterus - is available and, indeed, much more common.

In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision in part because it lacked a health exception.

The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.

But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.

Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

Kennedy acknowledged continuing disagreement about the procedure within the medical community. In the past, courts have cited that uncertainty as a reason to allow the disputed procedure.

"The medical uncertainty over whether the Act's prohibition creates significant health risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude ... that the Act does not impose an undue burden," Kennedy said Wednesday.

While the court upheld the law against a broad attack on its constitutionality, Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.

The law allows the procedure to be performed when a woman's life is in jeopardy.

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070418/D8OJ7CL00.html

 
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16489
(16489 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2007 at 05:02 PM
Seems like they made the right decision if you ask me.

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

Peach Bud



Karma:
Posts: 42
(42 all sites)
Registered: 12/1/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2007 at 05:10 PM
quote:
Seems like they made the right decision if you ask me.




So do I !

 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 171
(171 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2007 at 07:08 PM
one small step in the right direction

 

____________________
Apparently after 3 days here im now a racist troll! whoopie! I get that a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Well!!!!!!!,check out the new myspace page
ive been told i can add ignorant to the above!!that puts yall a step up from everywhere else!!!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19426
(20204 all sites)
Registered: 3/13/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/19/2007 at 01:39 PM
quote:


Dear linda,

We already knew how important this election was for every American. Yesterday, the Supreme Court raised the stakes even higher.

The Court took a dramatic departure from decades of rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Let's be clear: this allows the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with this decision and warned, "This cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

When the Senate debated the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I spoke out on the Senate floor about the danger they posed to our constitutional liberties, including the right to choose. I urged my colleagues to reject them, and I voted against both of them. Yesterday, unfortunately, we saw the consequences of failing to stop their confirmations.

The decade of work that the far right has done to chip away at our rights was paid off in this Supreme Court decision. They worked hard to gain the presidency and the Senate so they could shape a Supreme Court that rewarded them by putting a narrow ideology above our constitutional rights. In their ruling, the conservative majority even used right-wing code language, referring to obstetricians as "abortion doctors."

There's one way we can respond: redouble our efforts to win the White House and more seats in the House and Senate. We need a president who understands that the best way to protect women's health and reduce the number of abortions is to expand access to family planning -- not to threaten doctors and patients. We need a Congress that will say no to rolling back the rights of women.

And here is my promise to you: As a senator, I will do everything I can to make sure women can protect their health, and when I am president, I will treat the health and well being of women and our constitutional rights once again as true American values.

I hope you'll pass this message along to your friends and talk with them about why this issue is important to you. I'll follow up with you soon with ways you can take direct action to protect our right to choose.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

____________________
you know there just ain't no telling

what a satisfied girl will do.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18447
(18913 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/19/2007 at 05:32 PM
If you ever see the video or even just the diagrams of what this is, you would not approve of partial birth abortion. What happens is the doctor manipulates the fetus before it comes out into the world, turns it around so that the feet are delivered first, they pull the body so that they have access to the brain stem (spinal cord) they then insert scissors into this to access the area that leads to the brain, I won't get too graphic but I will tell you that the skull is collapsed as the brains are sucked out of the fetus. The fetus is then delivered dead with a collapsed skull. They call it partial birth because the feet come outside of the woman while the head does not until the skull collapses and the rest of the fetus is forcibly removed with forceps and discarded, after the placenta and blood are covertly saved for the pharmaceutical companies and their stem cell research.

No one should support this as an abortion procedure, it is one of the most sadistic things done. Abortion itself should not even be necessary, if you don't want it, or can't take care of it, let someone adopt it; there's plenty of people out there who want children but cannot have them.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16489
(16489 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/19/2007 at 06:04 PM
Wasn't this just a vote to uphold the partial birth abortion ban?

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18593
(18594 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/19/2007 at 06:23 PM
quote:
What happens is the doctor manipulates the fetus before it comes out into the world, turns it around so that the feet are delivered first, they pull the body so that they have access to the brain stem (spinal cord) they then insert scissors into this to access the area that leads to the brain, I won't get too graphic but I will tell you that the skull is collapsed as the brains are sucked out of the fetus. The fetus is then delivered dead with a collapsed skull.
Not too graphic, huh? Not sure what else you could have added here.

 

____________________
"Come on down to the Mermaid Cafe and I will buy you a bottle of wine, and we'll laugh and toast to nothing and smash our empty glasses down..."

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16489
(16489 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/19/2007 at 06:55 PM
And some say that a womans rights are being taken away with a procedure like that.

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 171
(171 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/19/2007 at 09:32 PM
you know its sad that in our country this is considered a controversial decision, in fact its sad that this decision has to be made at all. Its sad that in this country we beleive that a woman has the right to end the life of an innocent baby, yes baby, not fetus, at all, at any point during the pregnancy.

 

____________________
Apparently after 3 days here im now a racist troll! whoopie! I get that a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Well!!!!!!!,check out the new myspace page
ive been told i can add ignorant to the above!!that puts yall a step up from everywhere else!!!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 12:11 AM
I notice the men are the most vocal here. I volunteered for a while in a woman's clinic and I observed two things...first, I never saw a woman who had a procedure and took it lightly. Each had arrived at her decision for many reasons....I never met one who considered it a legitimate form of birth control. Second thing I observed is women being turned away because the pregnancy was too far advanced. Partial birth abortions have been performed by and large for medical reasons, not to get rid of a viable fetus. And when the choice has to be made, I would choose the life of the mother over the baby, especially when there are other children who need her.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 171
(171 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 06:08 AM
quote:
I notice the men are the most vocal here. I volunteered for a while in a woman's clinic and I observed two things...first, I never saw a woman who had a procedure and took it lightly. Each had arrived at her decision for many reasons....I never met one who considered it a legitimate form of birth control. Second thing I observed is women being turned away because the pregnancy was too far advanced. Partial birth abortions have been performed by and large for medical reasons, not to get rid of a viable fetus. And when the choice has to be made, I would choose the life of the mother over the baby, especially when there are other children who need her.




i understand doin whats best for the mother. But not when it requires killing the baby. The mother, nor the doctor has no right to murder.

 

____________________
Apparently after 3 days here im now a racist troll! whoopie! I get that a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Well!!!!!!!,check out the new myspace page
ive been told i can add ignorant to the above!!that puts yall a step up from everywhere else!!!

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1130
(1130 all sites)
Registered: 7/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 09:00 AM
Well, it's good to know that Sam, Dutch, and Dicket won't be forced to have this procedure.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19426
(20204 all sites)
Registered: 3/13/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 09:22 AM
gina was that really necessary?

i think we can all agree that it can be pretty barbaric killing anything.

Not only is your detail unnecessary, tt is disturbing that you would even type something like that out.


 

____________________
you know there just ain't no telling

what a satisfied girl will do.

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18593
(18594 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 09:48 AM
My point exactly, Linnie

 

____________________
"Come on down to the Mermaid Cafe and I will buy you a bottle of wine, and we'll laugh and toast to nothing and smash our empty glasses down..."

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 11:13 AM
i understand doin whats best for the mother. But not when it requires killing the baby. The mother, nor the doctor has no right to murder.

I don't know of any reputable physician or clinic that will perform that procedure. Perhaps you know more about the disreputable side of this than I...I'll take your word for it.

A question to all the men in here who have stated their opinion.....if your daughter was raped at the age of 13 or 14 and became pregnant....would you require her to carry that child and give birth?

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 11:52 AM
quote:
quote:


Dear linda,

We already knew how important this election was for every American. Yesterday, the Supreme Court raised the stakes even higher.

The Court took a dramatic departure from decades of rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Let's be clear: this allows the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with this decision and warned, "This cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

When the Senate debated the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I spoke out on the Senate floor about the danger they posed to our constitutional liberties, including the right to choose. I urged my colleagues to reject them, and I voted against both of them. Yesterday, unfortunately, we saw the consequences of failing to stop their confirmations.

The decade of work that the far right has done to chip away at our rights was paid off in this Supreme Court decision. They worked hard to gain the presidency and the Senate so they could shape a Supreme Court that rewarded them by putting a narrow ideology above our constitutional rights. In their ruling, the conservative majority even used right-wing code language, referring to obstetricians as "abortion doctors."

There's one way we can respond: redouble our efforts to win the White House and more seats in the House and Senate. We need a president who understands that the best way to protect women's health and reduce the number of abortions is to expand access to family planning -- not to threaten doctors and patients. We need a Congress that will say no to rolling back the rights of women.

And here is my promise to you: As a senator, I will do everything I can to make sure women can protect their health, and when I am president, I will treat the health and well being of women and our constitutional rights once again as true American values.

I hope you'll pass this message along to your friends and talk with them about why this issue is important to you. I'll follow up with you soon with ways you can take direct action to protect our right to choose.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton



Many of the Democrats who are railing against the decision actually voted for the ban that was upheld. This is why I am sickened by the hypocrisy of our so-called leaders today.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 11:55 AM
quote:
quote:
I notice the men are the most vocal here. I volunteered for a while in a woman's clinic and I observed two things...first, I never saw a woman who had a procedure and took it lightly. Each had arrived at her decision for many reasons....I never met one who considered it a legitimate form of birth control. Second thing I observed is women being turned away because the pregnancy was too far advanced. Partial birth abortions have been performed by and large for medical reasons, not to get rid of a viable fetus. And when the choice has to be made, I would choose the life of the mother over the baby, especially when there are other children who need her.




i understand doin whats best for the mother. But not when it requires killing the baby. The mother, nor the doctor has no right to murder.


That's a pretty extreme position. You'd save the fetus and kill the mother? Most abortion opponents would agree with exceptions to save the life of the mother.

I myself personally find abortion repulsive but I support keeping it legal. At the same time, I don't think the right is to be found in the constitution. I think the states should pass laws. For that matter, I don't think Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate abortion within the states and would have struck the law down on that ground, not Roe v. Wade.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16489
(16489 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 01:55 PM
quote:
i understand doin whats best for the mother. But not when it requires killing the baby. The mother, nor the doctor has no right to murder.

I don't know of any reputable physician or clinic that will perform that procedure. Perhaps you know more about the disreputable side of this than I...I'll take your word for it.

A question to all the men in here who have stated their opinion.....if your daughter was raped at the age of 13 or 14 and became pregnant....would you require her to carry that child and give birth?


I would rather she carry to term and give the child up for adoption. of course it would be her choice but that is what I would advice her to do.

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 02:44 PM
At 13?!!! I can't tell if you're man or woman....but if you're a man, do you have any idea what is involved with carrying a child to term? Do you realize what it could do to a child that young to go through labor and delivery, much less how it would screw with her mind to have to carry the child of a rapist???? Holy cow!!!

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 171
(171 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 03:32 PM
quote:
i understand doin whats best for the mother. But not when it requires killing the baby. The mother, nor the doctor has no right to murder.

I don't know of any reputable physician or clinic that will perform that procedure. Perhaps you know more about the disreputable side of this than I...I'll take your word for it.

A question to all the men in here who have stated their opinion.....if your daughter was raped at the age of 13 or 14 and became pregnant....would you require her to carry that child and give birth?


yes i would

 

____________________
Apparently after 3 days here im now a racist troll! whoopie! I get that a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Well!!!!!!!,check out the new myspace page
ive been told i can add ignorant to the above!!that puts yall a step up from everywhere else!!!

 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 171
(171 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 03:33 PM
quote:
At 13?!!! I can't tell if you're man or woman....but if you're a man, do you have any idea what is involved with carrying a child to term? Do you realize what it could do to a child that young to go through labor and delivery, much less how it would screw with her mind to have to carry the child of a rapist???? Holy cow!!!

just because something was done wrong to her doesnt giver her the right to do murder a baby, of a fetus if that would offend you less

 

____________________
Apparently after 3 days here im now a racist troll! whoopie! I get that a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Well!!!!!!!,check out the new myspace page
ive been told i can add ignorant to the above!!that puts yall a step up from everywhere else!!!

 

Peach Head



Karma:
Posts: 171
(171 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 03:34 PM
quote:
At 13?!!! I can't tell if you're man or woman....but if you're a man, do you have any idea what is involved with carrying a child to term? Do you realize what it could do to a child that young to go through labor and delivery, much less how it would screw with her mind to have to carry the child of a rapist???? Holy cow!!!

just because something was done wrong to her doesnt giver her the right to do murder a baby, of a fetus if that would offend you less

 

____________________
Apparently after 3 days here im now a racist troll! whoopie! I get that a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Well!!!!!!!,check out the new myspace page
ive been told i can add ignorant to the above!!that puts yall a step up from everywhere else!!!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 03:37 PM
Well, you certainly make my point for me...you'd care more for the unborn than for the child here and now....but as I said.....my body, my decision. If we're all called to account before God for our actions....I will be the one accounting....no one else.

By the way.....for all those who believe abortion is murder and yet support the death penalty....how do you justify that stance?

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/20/2007 at 03:58 PM
quote:
Well, you certainly make my point for me...you'd care more for the unborn than for the child here and now....but as I said.....my body, my decision. If we're all called to account before God for our actions....I will be the one accounting....no one else.

By the way.....for all those who believe abortion is murder and yet support the death penalty....how do you justify that stance?


I don't think abortion is murder and I am basically pro-choice (but oppose Roe v. Wade as I mentioned) and I also favor the death penalty. Now then, I can answer the question. To a person who feels abortion is murder, it is no different than shooting a person in the head. Now surely you see a distinction between the state executing a convicted killer after full due process and shooting an innocent person. Under American jurisprudence, murder means the pre-meditated killing of a person without justification or excuse. I respect those who feel that all killing is always wrong (I don't agree) but there is a definite distinction between the death penalty and abortion to the person who believes abortion is murder and the positions are consistent.

 

____________________

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com