• Home
  • About
  • BIO
  • Conferences
  • Contact
  • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
  • Speaking

Coming Home

Dr. Gerard M. Nadal: Science in Service of the Pro-Life Movement

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« ACLU’s Full-Throated Embrace of Gender-Selective Abortion and the Elimination of Down Syndrome Babies
Caiaphas Then… and Now »

The Legal, Ethical, and Tactical Challenges of North Dakota’s Personhood Amendment (Part I)

March 23, 2013 by Gerard M. Nadal

tightrope

Yesterday North Dakota became the first state in the Union to pass a personhood ammendment that covers humans in their embryonic stages of development. Read it here at HuffPo. For all the work involved in getting to this day, the easy part is over, and the real fight lies ahead.

The lesislation, SCR4009, states:

“The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.”

While this amendment is beautiful in its absolutist elegance, it presents the Pro-life Movement with a constellation of challenges in selling this proposed amendment to the North Dakota voters who must now vote to ratify it. That won’t be an easy sell when the voters move past the noble principle and consider the specific applications in the lives and reproductive health of North Dakota’s women.

The first objection that will need to be overcome is what is to be done in the case of ectopic pregnancy, which occurs at a rate of 19.7 per 1,000 in North America. This is no small question, as even pro-lifers are split on the approach to this potentially fatal condition. All would agree that it is out of tyhe question to sit back and let nature take its course. Read here for a good article about ectopic pregnancy.

While many case spontaneously resolve, with the embryo being resorbed by the mother’s body, many do not. In the case of tubal pregnancies there are two basic approaches, only one of which is morally acceptable to Catholics. The first, and morally unacceptable method, is to treat the mother with drugs such as methotrexate, which target the baby for death. Proponents of this method prefer it, as it preserves the Fallopian tube for future pregnancy.

The direct targeting of the baby is morally unacceptable to Roman Catholics, leaving salpingotomy (removing the tube with the baby inside), as the only morally acceptable solution. This approach satisfies the moral principle of Double-Effect, which according to the David Solomon article just linked states:

four conditions [need to] be met if the action in question is to be morally permissible: first, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be “proportionate to” the bad result.

A question that arises is whether Catholic pro-lifers are willing to endorse methotrexate over salpingotomy in the case of ectopic pregnancy. If not, count on the other side arguing that we are trying to force our morality on the public through this amendment. When asked, how will we respond?

Will fidelity to our moral compass fracture the absolutist tone of the amendment’s language? If so, what other concessions will be sought and made? How rapidly will personhood be eviscerated?

These questions require answers now, today, as North Dakota voters are forming their impressions as we speak.

More potential objections and exceptions in Part II.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Personhood | Tagged double-effect, ectopic pregnancy, North Dakota, Personhood | 34 Comments

34 Responses

  1. on March 23, 2013 at 3:18 PM RandomThoughts

    Isn’t the result of “salpingotomy (removing the tube with the baby inside)” the same as that of methotrexate: the developing baby dies? It seems to me that in both methods the goal is saving the life of the mother; were her life not at risk neither course would be necessary. So I’m not really grasping how one course of treatment is preferable over the other inasmuch as both have the same purpose: saving the life of the mother at the regrettable expense of the life of the developing baby.

    It seems to be that being able to retain a fallopian tube and thus a greater potential for future conceptions would be more ideal than removing the tube, but maybe I’m unclear on all the variables (I’m assuming that the fetus developing in the fallopian tube can not possibly develop fully and be born alive).


  2. on March 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM robert berger

    Dr. Nadal,   do you really think these foolish,misguided and dangerous laws in North Dakota will do anything to stop abortion there or anywhere in America? If you do, you are  unbelievably foolish . They won’t !   Women will STILL have illegal abortions, and there will be no way to stop them.   Get in touch with reality for  a change,please !

    ________________________________


  3. on March 23, 2013 at 4:04 PM California Yankee

    Robert, you are correct! I’m glad someone else sees how dangerous these laws are to the profits of Planned Parenthood and other abortionists!

    Dude, really.

    Dr. Nadal, with his prolific work for the pro-life cause, is enormously in touch with reality. You? Not so much.


  4. on March 23, 2013 at 4:06 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    RT,

    The difference here is one of intent and who/what is the target of therapeutic intervention. One may never do evil that good may result, so in targeting the baby directly with methotrexate we demolish that principle. The baby is not the enemy here. The problem is the defective tube.

    Morally, one may remove the tube with the unintended consequence being the death of the baby.

    Yes, the end result is the same in one respect, that there is a dead baby. However, there are several end results that differ between the two approaches. First, the parents have either taken the approach that the baby must be targeted, as opposed to targeting a badly damaged and potentially death-inducing organ that happens to contain the baby. That mentality matters. Also, a tubal pregnancy is often the result of a severely defective tube as a result of pelvic inflammatory disease, etc. Leaving it in place after methotrexate raises the probability of recurring tubal prgnancies.

    Second, the medical establishment either practices traditional Hippocratic medicine, and honors the ancient oath to not give a pregnant woman abortifacient drugs, or it goes down a road from which it is difficult to return (Why not Plan B for rape victims, or women suffering the violence of poverty?). Life and Health become subjective definitions. Having established the principle that it is acceptable to directly target babies leads to absolute chaos on BOTH ends of the life spectrum.


  5. on March 23, 2013 at 4:16 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Robert,

    Have you ever pressured a woman to abort one of your children? Have you ever had anything to do with abortion? Did some woman abort one of your children without your knowledge or consent? I ask because your vitriol betrays an interest in the topic that goes way beyond the academic, or some pathetically whipped guy groveling at the feet of his feminist mistresses, trying to prove his enlightenment.

    You’re right, women may well procure illegal abortions. But then we’ll have the ability to lock the backalley butchers away.

    BTW, drop the sarcasm here and watch your tone or I’ll ban you.


  6. on March 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Thanks, Yank. You’re beautiful!


  7. on March 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM Sean

    Equal protection under the law must include the removal of any threat that will almost certainly lead to the death of the patient. In this one, tragic case, the removal of the tube is the only reasonable course of action. Women have already died from the killer drugs themselves, such as Holly Patterson in California – and others.

    We know that abortion never saves a woman’s life or cures any disease, as the International Consortium on Maternal health has already concluded. But in this one case, they did indeed discuss this one exception when they said that the life of the mother should always be treated as of equal importance to her child. The third alternative – doing nothing – leaves both mother and child dead..

    As always, defending a proposed new law based entirely on the teachings of one particular religion is a mistake – although perfectly valid on a blog that makes no attempt to say that it is not passionate about the superiority of Canon Law over state and national laws.


  8. on March 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Sean,

    This blog does not plug the superiority of Canon Law, but of the Catholic moral tradition. No other religion or system of jurisprudence on the planet is as liberal in its embrace of the human dignity of every person on the planet as is the Catholic Church. Therein lies the superiority.


  9. on March 23, 2013 at 4:39 PM Sean

    Robert,

    Slavery and rape still continue, all over the world. So does child sex trafficking, something Planned Parenthood was rather enthusiastic about helping some people out with on videotape in 6 different locations. Your appeal to circumstance has no merit. Your side is still the ones who end up with all these dead corpses to get rid of. Pretend they are not there if you wish. None of us must engage in your purposeful denial of reality. The bottom line is that you support beheadings – in the year 2013. We do not.


  10. on March 23, 2013 at 4:58 PM Sean

    Ankrom v. State of Alabama will provide a better, more direct, and hopefully more timely challenge to Roe v. Wade in the SCOTUS.


  11. on March 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM PS

    Dr. Nadal, this conversation is important but seems way, way premature. Abortions cannot actually be banned without a change in the U.S. Supreme Court or a federal constitutional amendment. The courts would not let the North Dakota measure go into effect. Perhaps you plan to discuss this in Part 2.


  12. on March 23, 2013 at 11:21 PM Melissa

    Dr. Nadal,

    “The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.”

    EVERY human being. That includes the mother too.

    If a mother’s life is at risk from pregnancy, then the decision of what to do is between her and her doctor. Honestly, if your non-Catholic physician friend told you that he aborted a woman’s ectopic pregnancy with a shot of methotrexate, would you make a big deal over it? Would you report him to the law?

    Please, please don’t get into the salpingectomy/salpingostomy debate. All that will do is give abortion advocates ammunition: “See, they really don’t have women’s best interests at heart. They would FORCE her to undergo SURGERY when a simple drug would take care of the problem.”

    The salpingectomy debate is for hardcore Catholics, and hardcore Catholics alone.

    I imagine there will still be a few doctors in North Dakota who would perform an elective abortion for cash. But most doctors in ND would follow the law. If there is a dispute as to how the law should be applied, it will be resolved between the North Dakota medical association, the North Dakota doctors, the North Dakota media, and the North Dakota courts. We don’t need to go in there and tell them “Thou shalt treat every ectopic pregnancy with a salpingectomy; thou shalt never use methotrexate because that is immoral.”


  13. on March 24, 2013 at 1:39 AM Melissa

    Btw, Dr. Nadal, here is a local news source from North Dakota. Please read it before commenting on this issue further.

    http://mobile.jamestownsun.com/page/article/id/182421/


  14. on March 24, 2013 at 4:05 AM Gerard M. Nadal

    Hi Melissa,

    Rather than providing the other side with ammunition, I am simply reflecting back the same arguments I’ve already heard from them. I know plenty of pro-lifers who are taking victory laps when in reality we’ve only won the first round in a 15-round heavyweight fight.


  15. on March 24, 2013 at 9:03 AM Bill Fortenberry

    Dr. Nadal,

    I would very much like to get your opinion of my research on ectopic pregnancies. I seem to have uncovered evidence that such pregnancies can be allowed to continue to 28 weeks of development and then surgically delivered with a successful outcome for both the mother and the child. I have made my research available online at: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html


  16. on March 24, 2013 at 9:28 AM Melissa

    Perhaps you are right, Dr. Nadal, but I would be more inclined to trust local papers to have a better sense of the public opinion on the ground, rather than to go by the opinions of rags that have a definite agenda. We are the aggressors on this bill. Naysayers are the ones who have to defend why they don’t believe that all human beings have an inalienable right to life. That is a hard position to defend.


  17. on March 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM glorifyhisson

    I hope this will provide a little impetus to try moving embryos who implant ectopically. So little work has been done on this, but it’s clearly possible because of cases where a tube with an ectopically implanted baby has ruptured and the baby has implanted elsewhere. If the baby could be cut out of the tube and moved into the uterus–or if the tube could be cut open (so it wouldn’t rupture) and moved so that the placenta could grow into the uterine blood supply–that would be so much better than this mentality of “We have to kill the baby, now let’s figure out how to kill the baby such that it’s least like killing the baby.” I am convinced there is so little work done on this because the easy recourse to a “solution” of abortion, and no one seems motivated to find a solution that saves the baby…. Of course, the pro-“choice”rs would not want it to be an option because it ruins the whole “life of the mother” meme for the most part… It’s not “choice” if the choice is “which way do you want to kill your baby?”


  18. on March 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM personhoodinitiative

    There have been hundreds of verified reports of children being born from ectopic pregnancies, and I would very much like to hear Dr. Nadal’s opinion of my research in this area. My work can be found online at: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html


  19. on March 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM Sean

    Melissa,

    On what basis and with what logic do you refer to a drug that has already killed people and severely injured others as “a simple drug?”


  20. on March 24, 2013 at 3:09 PM Melissa

    Sean,

    Oh, I know that methotrexate isn’t a simple drug. However, if I were a non-Catholic woman with an ectopic pregnancy, I’m not sure that I would be willing to undergo surgery if a drug would fix the problem. Surgery has risks too, and people are also severely injured and killed while under the knife.

    Here’s my question for you: if a physician aborts an ectopic pregnancy with a shot of methotrexate, should either the physician or the woman face some kind of sanctions? Should there be a law saying that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the only treatment that should be legally available is salpingectomy/salpingostomy?

    The question is ridiculous, isn’t it? Of course there shouldn’t be that kind of law. Those kinds of decisions are best made in private between a woman and her doctor.

    Because, ultimately, abortion is a decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor. I’m just thrilled that, in North Dakota at least, the unborn baby will be considered as a person who has a vested interest in the decision.


  21. on March 24, 2013 at 5:30 PM glorifyhisson

    “personhoodinitiative”, thanks for sharing that great resource.


  22. on March 24, 2013 at 8:34 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Personhoodinitiative,

    You have good data and weak data along with some conclusions I find questionable. I’m with family now, but will respond by Tuesday. God Bless.


  23. on March 24, 2013 at 9:20 PM Lena

    I was thinking the same thing as Glorify His Son: why can’t the embryo be moved?


  24. on March 25, 2013 at 7:12 AM personhoodinitiative

    Lena,

    Dr. C. J. Wallace successfully transplanted an ectopic embryo from the fallopian tube into the womb in 1915. He wrote that:

    “when we do find an early case, where the tube is still in a healthy condition, not too badly distended, and all things favorable, I think we should make a supreme attempt to save the life of the growing child by opening the tube carefully and dissecting out the pregnancy intact and transplanting it into the uterus where nature intended it should go. It can be very quickly done. It does not endanger the life of the mother and may be her only chance to bear a child.”

    Dr, Wallace then recounted his success and performing this procedure and concluded that:

    “I have not the least doubt that many such transplanted ectopic pregnancies will be reported in the near future.”

    Unfortunately, at that time in medical history, it was very difficult to diagnose ectopic pregnancies at a stage early enough for such a transplant to be possible. Dr. Wallace came upon his case entirely by accident. The mother didn’t even know that she was pregnant, and Dr. Wallace was operating on her to remove “a fibroid in the posterior wall of the uterus” when he discovered the tubal pregnancy. He decided to transplant the small child into the womb which he had already opened in order to remove the fibroid. The mother made a full recovery, and the child was born “fully developed and without a scar” on May 2, 1916. At that time, it was very difficult for doctors to diagnose ectopic pregnancies at such an early stage, and Dr. Wallace’s method seems to have been abandoned because of that impracticality. With today’s technology, however, I see no reason why his method should not be pursued.

    You can read Dr. Wallace’s report online at this link:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=5aUCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA578


  25. on March 26, 2013 at 4:34 PM North Dakota Passes Slew of Pro-Life Measures « Pro-Life Hotline

    […] Other pro-lifers, however, have expressed misgivings about North Dakota’s personhood amendment, including Dr. Gerard Nadal, […]


  26. on March 29, 2013 at 2:30 PM Pro-life blog buzz 3-29-13

    […] Coming Home, Dr. Gerard Nadal begins a series on the challenges of the North Dakota personhood amendment, […]


  27. on March 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM Navi

    Good post. I must, however, respectfully disagree with your conclusion on the ethics of terminating ectopic pregnancies with methotrexate. I think there are cases where it’s morally acceptable to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human being. As Philippa Foot once wrote, “The Catholic doctrine on abortion must here conflict with that of most reasonable men”. Consider the following two scenarios:

    1. A cave explorer becomes trapped when an innocent fat man is lodged in the mouth of the cave. The floodwaters are rising, and the only way to get out alive is to blow him up with a stick of dynamite. If the dynamite is not used, both will drown.

    2. Conjoined twins are born, and only one has a working heart and lungs (which both rely on). If they are not separated, both will die within six months. But the only way to do this is to sever the weaker twin’s artery, killing her.

    I don’t expect Catholics to condone directly taking life in either of these cases (especially the second one, which the bishops did object to when it took place in Manchester). However, they do show that a non-Catholic can support abortion when the mother’s life is threatened without also accepting it for other reasons (rape, poverty, etc). After all, removing this feature would drastically change the conclusions (we would not fatally separate the twins if the alternative meant both could live, and blowing up the fat man would be wrong if the cave explorer could survive a different way).


  28. on March 30, 2013 at 8:09 PM pt

    Blow up a fat man with a stick of dynamite? Speaking as a fat man, I would hope that you would keep trying to un-wedge any stuck fat man from the cave walls instead. If you did in fact resort to explosives, I hope the look on the fat man’s face when you stuck the dynamite in his mouth and lit the fuse would haunt you for the rest of your life.


  29. on March 30, 2013 at 8:39 PM Gerard M. Nadal

    Navi,

    pt just said it all!!

    As for your take on Catholic moral norms, you have much to learn.


  30. on March 30, 2013 at 11:02 PM Navi

    Gerard, I’m sure I do. I would however like to know what (if anything) I’ve misrepresented in my last post. I believe the teaching relevant to the problem of ectopic pregnancies is that it’s an intrinsic evil (a serious moral wrong under all circumstances) to intentionally kill an innocent human being. I tried to address this above.

    Pt, I did not mean to offend. I wasn’t trying to suggest that weight makes a person liable to be killed, in case that’s how I came across. Though as a side note, you may wish to avoid the literature on the trolley problem. You could argue that my analogy is unrealistic because in real life there is a change of successfully dislodging the man without killing him. But it can be slightly tweaked so that the cave explorer is too injured to attempt it (thus his only options are.using the dynamite or drowning).

    From a psychological perspective, I doubt anyone (aside from psychopaths) would be undisturbed by the thought of blowing someone to pieces or cutting apart a baby (or at least I hope this is the case)! However, it doesn’t necessarily follow that such actions are morally criticizable or impermissible in these cases. After all, an abortion proponent could just as easily use a similar appeal to emotion to argue for abortion in the case of rape because we don’t want to increase the victim’s suffering by making her give birth to her attacker’s child. Yet, this argument is fallacious because it implicitly denies the humanity of the unborn (after all, we otherwise wouldn’t let hardship justify homicide). So I’m not convinced that the two examples I offered in my last post, or the ectopic pregnancy, would constitute unjust killing.


  31. on March 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM Navi

    Did my last comment not go through?


  32. on March 31, 2013 at 12:01 AM Navi

    Gerard, I’m sure I do have more to learn. I would however like to know what (if anything) I misrepresented in my last comment. It seems that the teaching relevant to the problem of ectopic pregnancy is that directly and intentionally killing an innocent human being is an intrinsic evil (so it’s a serious moral wrong under all circumstances). I tried to address this above.

    Pt, I didn’t mean to be offensive. I was not trying to suggest that weight makes someone liable to be killed, in case that’s how I came across. Though just a word of advice, you may wish to stay away from the literature on the trolley problem. You could say that my analogy is unrealistic because in real life you could try to dislodge the man a different way, but we can tweak it so that the cave explorer is injured (so his only options are using the dynamite or drowning).

    From a psychological perspective, I don’t think anyone (apart from psychopaths) would be undisturbed at the thought of blowing someone to pieces or cutting up a baby (or at least I certainly hope this is the case)! This doesn’t, however, automatically mean that such actions are morally criticizable or impermissible in these cases. After all, an abortion proponent could use a similar appeal to emotion. For instance, they could ask how anyone could possibly want to force a rape victim to suffer more by carrying and giving birth to her attacker’s child, which would leave her with a constant reminder of the assault. This is a fallacious argument because it implicitly assumes that the unborn isn’t human (as otherwise we wouldn’t let hardship justify homicide). So I’m not convinced that my conclusions are wrong in either of the above scenarios, or in the case of ectopic pregnancy.


  33. on March 31, 2013 at 9:59 PM personhoodinitiative

    Dr. Nadal,

    It has been a full week since I asked for your opinion of my research and five days since your personal deadline for responding. I understand that the material requires a great deal of study and verification, but I wonder if you might be able to provide us with an update of your progress.


  34. on April 1, 2013 at 1:02 PM pt

    Navi, you need to learn your lessons through careful reading and thinking. Dr. Nadal cannot tutor you at this time. He is needed on more urgent business, for example, the pizza I ordered from him yesterday. Dr. Nadal, where is it? Having trouble with the dough? (Note to self…. must stay fat… so won’t fit in cave opening…)



Comments are closed.

  • Archives

    • January 2021 (6)
    • November 2020 (1)
    • May 2020 (2)
    • September 2019 (1)
    • May 2019 (2)
    • April 2019 (1)
    • February 2019 (1)
    • April 2018 (2)
    • January 2017 (1)
    • December 2016 (1)
    • November 2016 (1)
    • October 2016 (10)
    • July 2016 (2)
    • June 2016 (1)
    • May 2016 (1)
    • April 2016 (1)
    • March 2016 (1)
    • February 2016 (3)
    • December 2015 (1)
    • November 2015 (2)
    • October 2015 (1)
    • September 2015 (1)
    • August 2015 (3)
    • April 2015 (1)
    • February 2015 (1)
    • December 2014 (3)
    • November 2014 (1)
    • October 2014 (4)
    • September 2014 (15)
    • August 2014 (6)
    • June 2014 (5)
    • May 2014 (1)
    • April 2014 (2)
    • March 2014 (2)
    • February 2014 (1)
    • January 2014 (3)
    • December 2013 (17)
    • November 2013 (9)
    • October 2013 (12)
    • September 2013 (4)
    • July 2013 (2)
    • June 2013 (5)
    • May 2013 (2)
    • April 2013 (3)
    • March 2013 (6)
    • February 2013 (2)
    • January 2013 (1)
    • December 2012 (18)
    • November 2012 (6)
    • October 2012 (13)
    • September 2012 (1)
    • July 2012 (10)
    • June 2012 (13)
    • May 2012 (8)
    • April 2012 (1)
    • March 2012 (11)
    • February 2012 (21)
    • January 2012 (5)
    • December 2011 (18)
    • November 2011 (3)
    • October 2011 (23)
    • September 2011 (24)
    • August 2011 (22)
    • July 2011 (22)
    • June 2011 (29)
    • May 2011 (8)
    • April 2011 (11)
    • March 2011 (18)
    • February 2011 (42)
    • January 2011 (26)
    • December 2010 (30)
    • November 2010 (34)
    • October 2010 (33)
    • September 2010 (16)
    • August 2010 (15)
    • July 2010 (7)
    • June 2010 (21)
    • May 2010 (33)
    • April 2010 (14)
    • March 2010 (41)
    • February 2010 (36)
    • January 2010 (59)
    • December 2009 (59)
  • Categories

    • Abortion (258)
    • Advent (26)
    • Biomedical Ethics (82)
    • Birth Control (51)
    • Bishops (87)
    • Black History Month (10)
    • Breast Cancer (65)
    • Christmas (26)
    • Cloning (4)
    • Condoms (16)
    • COVID-19 (1)
    • Darwin (2)
    • Development (6)
    • Dignity (119)
    • Divine Mercy Novenas (10)
    • DNA (3)
    • Embryo Adoption (2)
    • Embryonic Stem Cell Research (6)
    • Eugenics (29)
    • Euthanasia (8)
    • Family (44)
    • Fathers of the Church (11)
    • Fortnight for Freedom (1)
    • Golden Coconut Award (3)
    • Health Care (14)
    • HIV/AIDS (5)
    • Infant Mortality (2)
    • IVF (4)
    • Joseph (6)
    • Lent (17)
    • Margaret Sanger (19)
    • Marriage (6)
    • Maternal Mortality (2)
    • Motherhood (12)
    • Neonates (1)
    • Personhood (20)
    • Physician Assisted Suicide (4)
    • Planned Parenthood (64)
    • Priests (50)
    • Pro-Life Academy (23)
    • Quotes (10)
    • Radio Interviews (3)
    • Right to Life (34)
    • Roots (1)
    • Sex Education (25)
    • Sexually Transmitted Disease (12)
    • Stem Cell Therapy (7)
    • Transgender (1)
    • Uncategorized (204)
  • Pages

    • About
    • BIO
    • Conferences
    • Contact
    • Follow Gerard on FB & Twitter
    • Speaking

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Cancel
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: