Hickenlooper sticks his neck out on a liberal Democratic issue:Planned Parenthood

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Hickenlooper dings Romney at Planned Parenthood rally

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, never one to identify himself too closely with controversial or partisan causes, gave a short speech defending a woman’s right to choose Tuesday afternoon at a rally organized by Planned Parenthood ahead of Wednesday night’s first presidential debate here.

A late addition to the slate of speakers at the group’s “Ask Mitt” rally on the Auraria Campus, Hickenlooper criticized Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who stated earlier this year that he wanted to “get rid of” Planned Parenthood.

“I imagine when Mitt Romney comes back and looks at some of the positions he’s taken in this campaign, he’s going to have a hard time rationalizing that with pretty much everything he’s spoken and stood for for the rest of his life,” Hickenlooper said…

Hickenlooper…began his speech describing his mom, an ardent supporter of women’s rights.

“My mother raised four kids by herself and she was very focused on her household, but also focused on what kind of a world was out there for us,” Hickenlooper said.

“There wasn’t a lot of money left at the end of the week, but at the end of the year, she’d get all of us together and make three contributions. One was to the college she’d gone to. One was to the local relief organization that helped homeless folks.

“And the third one – every year, she gave to Planned Parenthood.”

For someone who does try to follow the center line and not stick his neck out, this is big in two ways: Hickenlooper expending political capital in a controversial area, and doing so in a potent partisan manner.

The “Ask Mitt” rally was part of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Votes plan to paint Denver pink in the days leading up to the first presidential debate, one of many protests and political actions planned for Denver.  Hickenlooper was preceded by CO CD-1 Representative and chair of the House Pro-Choice caucus Diana DeGette, a fiery Senator Micheal Bennet, and some local citizens who spoke about the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and contraception used for medical purposes, and was followed by PPAF President Cecile Richards.  The college students in the hall were fired up as were the three or four anti-choice protestors trying to raise a ruckus outside.  

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet went even further, saying the choice is between Obama, who supports a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions: “And the other ticket that is to the far right of their party, they do not represent the views of Colorado’s Republicans.”

The Obama Campaign has been borrowing a page from Bennet’s 2010 playbook, when he squeaked out a win by painting his Republican opponent, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, as an extremist on social issues. The campaign seems to be hinging a large part of its Colorado strategy on this, especially in TV ads that have been blitzing the airwaves here since Paul Ryan joined the Romney ticket.

This seems like it could be a safe strategy for Hickenlooper as Planned Parenthood has huge favorability locally and nationwide, Personhood has been shot down twice at the ballot box and aborted before the ballot this year, and the  “Bennet Playbook” has proven successful already.

But for someone who is rumored to harbor ambitions to higher office, is the Governor stepping into shark-filled waters?

Hickenlooper sticks his neck out on a liberal Democratic issue:Planned Parenthood

( – promoted by ClubTwitty)

Hickenlooper dings Romney at Planned Parenthood rally

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, never one to identify himself too closely with controversial or partisan causes, gave a short speech defending a woman’s right to choose Tuesday afternoon at a rally organized by Planned Parenthood ahead of Wednesday night’s first presidential debate here.

A late addition to the slate of speakers at the group’s “Ask Mitt” rally on the Auraria Campus, Hickenlooper criticized Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who stated earlier this year that he wanted to “get rid of” Planned Parenthood.

“I imagine when Mitt Romney comes back and looks at some of the positions he’s taken in this campaign, he’s going to have a hard time rationalizing that with pretty much everything he’s spoken and stood for for the rest of his life,” Hickenlooper said…

Hickenlooper…began his speech describing his mom, an ardent supporter of women’s rights.

“My mother raised four kids by herself and she was very focused on her household, but also focused on what kind of a world was out there for us,” Hickenlooper said.

“There wasn’t a lot of money left at the end of the week, but at the end of the year, she’d get all of us together and make three contributions. One was to the college she’d gone to. One was to the local relief organization that helped homeless folks.

“And the third one – every year, she gave to Planned Parenthood.”

For someone who does try to follow the center line and not stick his neck out, this is big in two ways: Hickenlooper expending political capital in a controversial area, and doing so in a potent partisan manner.

The “Ask Mitt” rally was part of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Votes plan to paint Denver pink in the days leading up to the first presidential debate, one of many protests and political actions planned for Denver.  Hickenlooper was preceded by CO CD-1 Representative and chair of the House Pro-Choice caucus Diana DeGette, a fiery Senator Micheal Bennet, and some local citizens who spoke about the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and contraception used for medical purposes, and was followed by PPAF President Cecile Richards.  The college students in the hall were fired up as were the three or four anti-choice protestors trying to raise a ruckus outside.  

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet went even further, saying the choice is between Obama, who supports a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions: “And the other ticket that is to the far right of their party, they do not represent the views of Colorado’s Republicans.”

The Obama Campaign has been borrowing a page from Bennet’s 2010 playbook, when he squeaked out a win by painting his Republican opponent, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, as an extremist on social issues. The campaign seems to be hinging a large part of its Colorado strategy on this, especially in TV ads that have been blitzing the airwaves here since Paul Ryan joined the Romney ticket.

This seems like it could be a safe strategy for Hickenlooper as Planned Parenthood has huge favorability locally and nationwide, Personhood has been shot down twice at the ballot box and aborted before the ballot this year, and the  “Bennet Playbook” has proven successful already.

But for someone who is rumored to harbor ambitions to higher office, is the Governor stepping into shark-filled waters?

Masturbation

In case you missed it, the Catholics Bishops have a war on nuns, as well as a war on Girl Scouts.

The nuns are not taking it lightly, and are going to Rome for a tete-a-tete with the Cardinals.

Most recently they censured “Just Love: a Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics,” by Sister Margaret Farley, for daring to suggest that being fruitful meant one’s life’s work, not bearing a quiverful of children, and sex for pleasure, homosexuality, divorce, and masturbation could be ethical and godly acts.

While I find her often to be shrill and superficial, and on TV seem all too convinced of her own brilliance, I think Maureen Dowd nails it in her latest:

The denunciation of Sister Farley’s book is based on the fact that she deals with the modern world as it is. She refuses to fall in line with a Vatican rigidly clinging to an inbred, illusory world where men rule with no backtalk from women, gays are deviants, the divorced can’t remarry, men and women can’t use contraception, masturbation is a grave disorder and celibacy is enshrined, even as a global pedophilia scandal rages.

I can sit back and watch watch the internecine struggle within the Catholic Church with  schadenfreude; Dowd writes as someone who grew up in the church, and knows of what she writes.

Which is your favorite Catholic no-no?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Greedy Doctors/Physician Compensation not the driver behind high healthcare costs

(Have you hugged your doctor lately? (Er, it’s flu season, please don’t, but feel free to direct health care questions and e-hugs to Daft in the comments thread here.) – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)

Some poorly informed individuals like to maintain that “greedy doctors” constantly raising their rates are part of why health care costs so much.  While this may appeal to a stereotypical emotional notion of doctors being rich beyond what they deserve, the facts say otherwise.  Physicians are paid according to Medicare and Medicaid formulas, and by Insurance companies under contract as a set percentage of Medicare rates.  

I could start charging $20,000 for a hysterectomy tomorrow, but United Health Care is still only going to pony up $1500 (Medicaid $1000.)  Physicians are prohibited by law from bargaining collectively, and our supposed national lobby, the AMA, is more interested in preserving the income stream they make from their CPT codes than representing physicians.  Most lobbying is therefore done by specialty associations who have their own parochial and occasionally conflicting interests.

For a long time, physician compensation has not kept up with inflation, and of course, the biggest expense driver of any medical practice/small business, particularly those that care to retain quality employees, is healthcare benefits, which any dolt knows have been increasing faster than inflation.  Of course, since medical care is so expensive, the potential liability awards in malpractice cases also become more expensive, and those rates have outstripped inflation as well.Does that sound like a sustainable business model?

Physician compensation must be measured against the opportunity cost invested in the years of medical training as well as the financial expense.  Becoming a doctor is expensive and time consuming, more so than any other profession. Your prejudices may support the notion that doctors are greedy, but  no honest commentator would say they are dumb and lazy.

The question is would paying these smart hard-working people less solve our health care cost crisis?  Consider that physician compensation represents 8% of all US healthcare spending, you could zero out all pay to “greedy doctors”, and you’d cut health care costs from 15% of GDP to 13.8%.

While doctors’ pay represents a small percentage, 100% of remaining costs are produced by the most expensive piece of medical technology that exists, the doctor’s pen.  How we order tests and procedures, and how we do them effects costs greatly.  Some docs can achieve the same quality of result at a lower cost than others, and there ought to be a way to reward them better than their  peers who get worse results or spend more money.  This would be geared toward the “more procedures=more money” mindset that the fee for service model engenders.

Of course if you want to enlist doctors in spending less on health care and making rational decisions in the patient’s best interest, demonizing them as greedy bloodsuckers more interested in their own financial well-being is a surefire way to incentivise those same smart hard-working people to go into business or law.

DeGette Defends Planned Parenthood from “Republican Vendetta”

( – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)

Ever since the tea infused congress almost shut down the government over Pap smears for poor women, the pro-choice movement has been waiting for the other shoe to drop, and Planned Parenthood to become the ACORN of 2011.

In a letter written in his authority as chair of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which rehashes almost verbatim a press release from Americans United for Life containing a variety of debunked lies  about the organization, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fl) demanded internal audits of how much Planned Parenthood received and spent in government money from 1998 to 2010. Stearns also requests any state audits of PPFA for the last 20 years that have not been made public, as well as a description for how “segregation between family planning and abortion services is accomplished,” and how the practice is monitored for compliance.

Representatives Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the ranking member of the panel’s Oversight subcommittee, and Henry Waxman (Calif.), senior Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee fired back:

Planned Parenthood is being singled out as part of a Republican vendetta against an organization that provides family planning and other medical care to low-income women and men…

We are aware of no predicate that would justify this sweeping and invasive request to Planned Parenthood.  The HHS Inspector General and state Medicaid programs regularly audit Planned Parenthood and report publicly on their findings.  These audits have not identified any pattern of misuse of federal funds, illegal activity, or other abuse that would justify a broad and invasive congressional investigation…

It would be an abuse of the oversight process if you are now using the Committee’s investigative powers to harass Planned Parenthood again.  Your fervent ideological opposition to Planned Parenthood does not justify launching this intrusive investigation.

Cecile Richards, CEO and President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America added:

“At a time when the American people need jobs, some members of Congress are instead misusing their political power to go after health care access for the most vulnerable women in the country, we are certain that the millions of women and men who count on Planned Parenthood will make their voices heard and speak out, just as they did during the budget battle in the spring.”

Of course this fight is not about birth control or STD testing, it’s about abortion; As noted Republicans like to say, “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does”, even if that is not meant as a factual statement.  Or as Representative DeGette said at her September 2009 town hall, “legal medical care, and tell me why poor women have any less right to legal medical care than anyone else.”

Because Republicans hate abortion so much, they’re willing to neglect the facts:  For over 90 years Planned Parenthood has operated as a non-profit at hundreds of health centers around the country. Well over 90% of the services they provide are preventive in nature, including life-saving cancer screenings, confidential counselling, and prevention and treatment of STD’s.  One in five women has used Planned Parenthood’s services at some time.

This partisan witch hunt will amount to nothing, besides wasting money on high paid DC lawyers.  It reminds me of the Personhood initiative which has no chance of passing, but causes donor fatigue from financing its opposition.

https://secure.ppaction.org/si…

Big news on the PPACA front – Free Birth Control!!!

(PPACA stands for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — saved ya a Google, if you hadn’t heard the bill’s official name recently enough for the acronym to ring a bell. 🙂 – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)

Institute of Medicine report: Insurers should cover birth control as preventive care

One of the important aspects of healthcare reform is that preventive services must come at no out of pocket cost to the insured.  A $2 copay shouldn’t prevent you from getting your cholesterol checked or your mammogram. The political struggle is in what’s considered preventive.

It would seem obvious that contraception is preventive, but nothing stops the anti-contraception folks from raising a stink. To much anticipation, the Institute of Medicine issued their report, recommending such a designation.  

 

The recommendations went further than contraception though:

“This will cover current gaps in existing guidelines,” said Adam Sonfield, a senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute. “This is going to have an important impact on health and well-being of women at all stages of their lives. This will level a playing field for women who cannot afford more expensive, longer lasting forms of contraceptives and allow for a choice of methods that works best for them. This will improve effective use of contraception and prevent unplanned pregnancies.”

The report also recommends complete insurance coverage – without co-pays – for lactation counseling and equipment, domestic violence screening and counseling, screening for gestational diabetes, human papillomavirus testing as part of cervical cancer screening for women over 30, counseling on sexually transmitted infections, and counseling and screening for HIV.

Critics chimed in with predictable arguments,

But abortion opponent groups argue the recommendations go too far and will violate the “conscience” of those providers, who for religious beliefs, oppose artificial forms of birth control. They argue consumers who do not wish to have their insurance plans include birth control, and emergency contraceptives will not have the choice to opt out. Finally, they say certain forms of emergency contraceptives have “chemically abortive properties.”

And supporters of the decision answered:

“Emergency contraception is not an abortion causing drug, it prevents fertilization,” said Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood.

“This report, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, helps to move this country in a direction where we value prevention and not just acute care. And that is what we value at Planned Parenthood,”

The delegation from Rome had their say as well:

“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the (United States Conference of Catholic) bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “But the Institute of Medicine report treats them as such.”

This decision, which must be formalized by HHS Secretary Sibelius putting it in the final regulations, represents a big win for those in the reality based community who work in sexual/reproductive healthcare.  For those who base their views in this area on the transcribed commands of the all-powerful sky daddy it’s a big poke in the eye.

It also goes at complete odds against the Republican view that healthcare should be a commodity governed by some sort of “free market” principals:

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said he does not think there should be any “free” services provided by insurers, adding, “All of health care should have some out-of-pocket cost sharing. One reason why health care spending is at the level it is is because a lot of people perceive it to be free. That’s a utilization nightmare”

Clearly the partisan divide is aimed at two entirely opposite ways of controlling costs.  On the one hand we have the argument that the way to reduce healthcare costs is to reduce utilization by disincentivizing access, on the other the notion that lowering medical costs is best achieved with more up-front expense on preventive care.  We’ll see how things turn out.

Arizona continues to use tax credits to advance far right wing agenda.

Last week you read about the Supreme Court decision which held that taxpayers do not have standing to sue against government tax credits which fund religious education because tax credits do not count as government spending.

This week, Governor Brewer signed HB 2384 which, in addition to prohibiting any state funding for abortion training (a sticky issue at the OB/GYN residencies at least at the U of A hospital I imagine), prohibits any charitable organization which participates in the Arizona Working Poor Tax Credit program from doing abortions.

It’s ironic to consider the language used in these two cases:

From Justice Kagan’s dissent in Winn v. ACSTO:

One STO advertises that “[w]ith Arizona’s scholarship tax credit, you can send children to our community’s [religious] day schools and it won’t cost you a dime!” Another urges potential donors to “imagine giving [to charity] with someone else’s money. . . . Stop Imagining, thanks to Arizona tax laws you can!”

And from the Arizona Planned Parenthood site:

Your generous donation can be applied to the Arizona Working Poor Tax Credit. What this means to you is that in addition to a federal tax deduction, if you itemize your deductions and you contribute to Planned Parenthood in Arizona, you may be eligible for a dollar-for dollar state tax credit

Now, consider that in the first amendment jurisprudence that the SCOTUS eviscerated last week, the operative Flast decision allowed standing and access to the courts for taxpayers to sue the government over possibly unconstitutional expenditures in support of religion.  This is a more liberal view of standing than taxpayers generally have to sue.  Now that liberal standing disappears, under the holding that giving a taxpayer a tax credit for a religious donation is not the same as the government collecting that same money in taxes and then giving it to the same organization.

In cases which do not have first amendment establishment issues, access to the courts is even more restricted.  I’m not saying that there’s any constitutional issue with this new piece of legislation, but I see a disturbing trend developing in which the use of tax credits will allow money which would otherwise be collected as taxes to be funneled to whatever pet project legislators desire, and there will be no legal review available to challenge it.

I wish what happened in Arizona stayed in Arizona, but the way these conservative bills flourish is as test cases in one state, and we then see them sprouting up like weeds around the country, just like the 20 week “fetal pain” abortion bans.

Arizona continues to use tax credits to advance right wing agenda.

Last week you read about the Supreme Court decision which held that taxpayers do not have standing to sue against government tax credits which fund religious education because tax credits do not count as government spending.

Today Governor Brewer signed HB 2384

One STO advertises that “[w]ith Arizona’s scholarship tax credit, you can send children to our community’s [religious] day schools and it won’t cost you a dime!” Another urges potential donors to “imagine giving [to charity] with someone else’s money. . . . Stop Imagining, thanks to Arizona tax laws you can!”

http://www.plannedparenthood.o…

Your generous donation can be applied to the Arizona Working Poor Tax Credit. What this means to you is that in addition to a federal tax deduction, if you itemize your deductions and you contribute to Planned Parenthood in Arizona, you may be eligible for a dollar-for dollar state tax credit

Supreme Court proves the lie in Republican “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion”

Today the Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge tax credits which fund religious education.  The challenge in

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn was against a law which allowed citizens to claim a dollar for dollar tax credit to organizations which provide tuition scholarships, primarily to religious schools, holding that favorable tax consideration is not tantamount to government funding.

The legal issue of standing can be complex to the uninitiated:

Standing, in lay terms, is simply the right to sue… The legal ramification is also simple. If you don’t have standing, the case gets dismissed without the merits of your claim ever being heard. And that is now the law of the land for any taxpayer who wants to try to enjoin the government from providing tax credits for religious purposes. No standing. Case dismissed.

The principle is not new. It has generally been held that taxpayers cannot sue the government over the use of tax monies. The rationale has been that an individual taxpayer’s contribution to a particular expenditure is not calculable, and if it were would be de minimus. Like all general rules, however, there are exceptions. For the past 43 years such an exception has existed by which taxpayers can bring action to prevent government subsidies for religious purposes. Flast v. Cohen (1968)…

…the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy distinguished today’s decision from Flast. The basis of the distinction was that Flast involved collecting tax dollars and expending those dollars to purchase books for religious institutions whereas today’s case involved a tax credit, where revenues were not collected in the first place, to the detriment of government revenues.

The court held

When the Government spends funds from the General Treasury, dissenting

taxpayers know that they have been made to contribute to an establishment in violation of conscience.   In contrast, a  tax  credit allows dissenting taxpayers to use their own funds in accordance with their own consciences.  Here, the STO tax credit does not “extrac[t] and spen[d]” a conscientious dissenter’s  funds in service of  an establishment, or ” ‘force a citizen to contribute’ ” to a sectarian organization.  Rather, taxpayers are free to pay their own tax bills without contributing to an STO, to contribute to a religious or secular STO of their choice, or to contribute to other charitable organizations.  Because the STO tax credit is not tantamount to a religious tax, respondents have not alleged an injury for standing purposes.

Bottom line: Favorable tax status does not equal government funding.

Now you might disagree with this, finding more persuasion in Justice Kagan’s dissent:

Assume a State wishes to subsidize the ownership of crucifixes.  It could purchase the religious symbols in bulk and distribute them to all  takers. Or it could mail a reimbursement check to any individual who buys her own and submits a receipt for the purchase.  Or it could authorize that person to claim a tax  credit equal to the price she paid.  Now, really-do taxpayers have less reason to complain if the State selects the last of these three options

As compelling as this analogy may be, the highest court in the land has spoken, and tax credits are not the same as government spending.

As a result, will we see Republicans abandon their attempts to remove tax exemptions for employer provided health insurance if that policy covers abortion?  Will patients still be allowed to use pre-tax dollars in their Flex spending accounts to pay for abortion?  All of these proposed prohibitions lurk within the now-clearly-misnamed “No taxpayer funding for abortion” bill.

Of course expecting the abandonment of such efforts would require intellectual consistency from Republicans, and a much better framework to understand this nexus is that they prefer the use of government power to benefit religious institutions, and prevent women from getting abortions.  Rather than having a logical underpinning consistent with some Platonic ideal like “originalism”, conservative jurisprudence is about finding the result they want and then inventing a rationale for it.

Why won’t our Republican AG prevent our Republican Board of Education from breaking the law?

Susan Greene, opinion/lifestyle columnist in The Major Metro Daily has a column today which breaks an important story which is going unreported anywhere else.

The state’s Republican majority Board of Education has applied for an “abstinence only” sex education grant from the federal government.  HB1292 passed in 2007

Requires school districts, family resource centers, and teen pregnancy prevention programs that offer instruction regarding human sexuality to adopt science-based content standards for such instruction.

The Board of Ed received approval for their application from Republican Attorney General John Suthers after the government questioned the board’s authority to make the application instead of the Executive branch.

Critics of Governor Bill Ritter on issues of women’s reproductive freedom should know that he has been a proponent of comprehensive sex education as a method to reduce the state’s teen pregnancy rate.  His election helped Colorado step into the national controversy around the teaching of “abstinence only” sex education.  With elections of Democratic majorities in the General Assembly, and Ritter’s assumption of the Governor’s office in the election of 2006, HB 1292 was passed in 2007 forbidding “abstinence only” sex education in Colorado with the exception of one district which was grandfathered in.

The Abstinence Only movement gained a foothold in the 1996 Welfare Reform package signed by Bill Clinton.  It required that any Sex Ed which received federal funding must only discuss abstinence for prevention of pregnancy.  Contraception could be discussed only if provoked by a student inquiry, and then, only to discuss its failure rates.  It contained such controversial tenets as:

A mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity

Sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects

During the Bush administration 1.5 Billion dollars were spent on abstinence only programs, which multiple studies have shown to be ineffective.

One of the missions of the “reality based” community on human sexuality was to promote sex ed policies which empowered youth with full information, instead of religiously motivated fear.  In Colorado this took the form of HB1292 which required that any instruction in Sex Ed be science based.  It should be noted that comprehensive sex ed still teaches that the only certain way to prevent pregnancy or STDs is abstinence, but it also instructs students who are sexually active in methods which can reduce those risks.

With the Election of president Obama and Democratic majorities in both houses, the death of abstinence only education was at hand.  In an attempt to compromise with Republicans, a small stream of Abstinence Only money was put in the Health Care Reform package.

Greene, who was a news reporter prior to taking Diane Carmen’s chair as the front page metro columnist, is the only one reporting this assault on HB1292 by the Board of Ed.  WAIT, a religious abstince organization linked to anti-gay activists took the liberty of filling out an application for the state.  When the federal government questioned the board’s ability to make the request, it was approved by Attorney General John Suthers.

What’s not clear if he was making a constitutional call on whether only the executive branch has the authority to make application on behalf of the state’s schools, or if he was evaluating the legality of such instruction vis a vis HB1292.  He’s certainly aiding and abetting the state Board of Ed. in breaking Colorado statute.

Will we see follow-up pieces from Greene, or reporting by the paper’s news department, or other outlets?

This seems to be an assault on our republican form of government.

Who Gets The Penalty Box First?

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

With the new enhanced Pols Penalty Box, speculation runs rampant as to who will win the honor of the first “time out.”

Will Beej goad V, Libertad threadjacking,  or DaftPunk or Froward69 taking Jizm jokes too far make the cut?

Who will be the first in the PB?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...