Well Wasilla isn't sending their best. Bet that guy has some skeletons.

They were not kidnapped because Russia wanted to exterminate them, they were kidnapped because Russia has a population crisis as they wanted to take them out of Ukraine, and take anything Ukrainian out of the kids. The kids were destined to become loyal Russians willing to serve Russia, and not feeding and caring for them would have made the kids more stubbornly Ukrainian, not less.

I don't think they were shortened because they sound better, that is what I said. They were shortened because it was easier to type. Remember having to hit a number key three times to get a "C" or an "F"?

Nope! Mid 50s.

Nah, they are shortened because it's easier to thumb type a short word and to add, now that autocorrect is so prevalent many people are losing the knowledge of proper spelling.

No, proper words will still be used, just not as casually.

Cotton PJs.

Lol at unmolested. What the truth is that a fertilized egg must "molest" a host to achieve anything. Leave it in a petri dish and see what happens, I'll wait.

It's you, not the headline. You are so focused on your silly narrative you can't see it makes perfect sense. As the headline states, this law cannot be used to prosecute doctors for abortions. That has absolutely no effect on the other laws (like malpractice) that a doctor could be prosecuted under. It most certainly does not say that a doctor can't be charged under any law, just that they can't be charged with violating this one, pre statehood, law.

We watch this one while opening presets.

I recently saw a docu about that studio, amazing story there.

I loved the book so much I felt the movie couldn't hurt me. I knew already, and was awash in the nostalgia of my childhood grief and the affirmation that wasn't alone in my loneliness.

Can't be too careful with round planes of glass though. Anyone breaks and it could take out the rest with the loose bits.

I thought JFK would be at least one step higher. But I suppose there are so many options in the area they can't really get over the top.

"When has it ever been okay for an adult (other then the parents/ guardian) to talk about gender..."

How is this question not about gender?

It's always been ok. How old were you when you were taught about gender? I remember teachers sorting us by gender. I remember "Sugar and spice and everything nice, that's what little girls are made of. Snips and snails and puppy dog tails, that's what little boys are made of." How old were you when you were first introduced to the idea that Mommy and Daddy were married? Attended a wedding? Should we ban children from being ringbearers and flower girls because they is participating in socially sanctioned sexual expression? It makes as much sense as banning a book where Timmy has two dads or firing a teacher for mentioning their same sex spouse.

I agree. We need to ban every single book that mentions mommy and daddy being married. Or even just having a mommy and daddy at home what could the kids learn? That mommie and daddies might share a bedroom? How awful!

Kids are not stupid. They may be ignorant, they may be irreverent, they may be awful. But they aren't stupid.

Barring a second grade teacher from being able to even mention their legal marriage is not about education, it's about erasure.

LPT, don't have kids. Instead, have small adults that have the ability to reason and weigh long term consequences.

It's well known that offenders in the Church are protected. Not so much the secular institutions that offer similar access and those certainly don't have the global reach to shelter them, the social control to force silence or "forgiveness", or the deep pockets to harass or pay off victims and their families.

Not just escape, they can offend over and over and still get forgiveness, absolution, protection, and further access to new victims.

Legal definition? I don't know if they actually do what you are looking for here. There's a statute for forcible rape and one or more for non forcible. They are left vague so they they cover many situations, and the prosecution has the opportunity to decide which fit best.

Some people don't believe that certain situations are "real rape". I have heard arguments that if the victim was unconscious then it wasn't "rape rape" because she didn't know it was happening. Same for those in a medical facility raped by a caregiver while they were sedated. It's horrifying to hear this argument. Some people think that consent can't be revoked, that going outside agreed parameters (like wearing a condom) isn't a violation of consent, etc.

What do you mean?