Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Strossen Debate, Round 3 [SK]

My apologies for not posting on my debate with Nadine Strossen (President of the ACLU) last Wednesday night. I missed almost two night's sleep and I'm way behind getting ready to embark on a 13-day mission trip to the Dominican Republic. (I'm taking my two oldest sons and three of their friends.)

Thankfully, Amy Hall at Stand to Reason attended the debate and has a summary. Meanwhile, Jivin J's thoughts from a former Strossen debate apply here as well.

I'm glad Amy beat me to the punch because I'm mentally tired right now, too tired to write constructively. I'll post something on the exchange in a few days when I'm more refreshed.

Personally, I thought the event went very well....

Friday, May 23, 2008

Re: What's Wrong? [SK]

Jay,
I would suggest only one small change to your excellent post: The title should be "What's Wrong with the Church?"

I rarely--very rarely, in fact--say critical things about the church. My preference is to equip Christian leaders rather than criticize them. Yet you've raised a good point: If you talk to any pro-life group reaching out to students, you'll soon learn it's now axiomatic that with rare exception, campus fellowship groups want nothing to do with the pro-life movement. Generally speaking, they are too afraid they might turn people off if they get involved saving innocent human lives.

Well, at Cal Poly, the response of Christians to the abortion controversy did in fact turn-off at least one non-Christian, but not for reasons campus fellowship groups might expect. One of the students responsible for organizing the debate expressed her dismay that Campus Crusade would not attend the event or get behind promoting it with its members.

She asked me directly why I thought that was so. She thought for sure the Christians would show up and she was puzzled that they didn't. Their refusal to get involved turned her off.

I didn't know what to tell her. Perhaps CC had good reasons for not attending and I hold out hope it did, though it's hard for me to imagine what those reasons might be.

As Joe Carter suggested a few weeks back, one reason for the church's non-involvement is that Evangelical leaders by and large aren't all that troubled by abortion. It's simply not a priority for them:

If evangelicals--and Christians in general--truly cared about this issue, abortion on demand would not be the law of the land....Imagine if every pastor in America had the courage to stand in the pulpit and deliver the Gospel-centric message that God abhors this slaughtering of the innocent and that for the church to tolerate this sin is a fecal-colored stain on the garment of Christ's bride.

But it will never happen because the evangelical church isn't committed as the church to rectifying this grave injustice. We never have been.
As I've said before, Christian leaders have it all wrong. My own experience suggests that far from turning people off, a persuasive pro-life case, graciously communicated, suggests to non-believers that maybe, just maybe, the Christian worldview has something relevant to say to the key issues of our day. But when we fail to even put in an appearance at key debates, the message to non-Christians is that we simply don't care about the big stuff.

And then we bemoan the fact that few people take us seriously.

Wasn't it Woody Allen who once said that "eighty percent of success is just showing up?"

What's Wrong with the Pro-Life Movement: Exhibit A [Jay]

The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and are not reflective of any organization with which I work. As my mouth is getting me into trouble more and more lately, please direct any irritation over my opinions to me. THX, Jay.

Scott Klusendorf, our fearless leader at LTI Blog, debated Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), at California Polytechnic State University (CalPoly) on Wednesday night in front of hundreds of students and faculty members as described here in the CalPoly school paper write up. In reference to the title of my post, this is not a bad thing but a good thing.

The day of the debate the MustangDaily.net ran this story in preparation for the event. In it they discuss that the student body was polled on what topic they would most like to see addressed in this format. Abortion was the overwhelming winner receiving 29% of all votes versus a mere 9% represented by the topic that came in second. That means with the choices of gun control or the Middle East peace process or others not mentioned the student body of CalPoly overwhelmingly wanted to address the issue of abortion through a civil and intellectual debate. This is not a bad thing but also a good thing.

So what is the bad thing promised? Where is the “Exhibit A” mentioned in the blog post title? Well for that we must go to Jamey Pappas, campus director of Campus Crusade at CalPoly. That’s right, our Christian brother and head of the organization committed to bringing Christ and to the student body of CalPoly is quoted as saying the following:

"I think it's a great thing to come to campus," … However, he said most of Cal Poly's Crusaders probably won't make it to the debate because the group's weekly meeting coincides with the event.

What?!! Let me get this straight. You are the leader of a group that wants to reach your campus for Christ and presumably help transform the culture of the college life for the students. Abortion is most often sought by women who fall into the age demographics of college students. (On Average 45% of all abortions are performed on women 18 – 24 Years of age per Guttmacher) Your campus has overwhelmingly spoken out that this is the topic they are most interested in discussing and has brought in a passionate and articulate Christian man to defend the pro-life position versus the president of the ACLU. Your response to this is that you have a WEEKLY MEETING and you cannot go?!!

I have no way of knowing whether or not Jamey and his friends did or did not attend the debate, but this is the type of truly missing the point that makes this fight so much harder. Lets keep our eye on the ball people. And if you are planning on muffing this badly as an organization, whatever you do, please don’t tell the local reporter about it before hand.

Lest you think that I am picking on this one chapter of Crusade and Jamey Pappas let me be very clear. They may have changed their mind and gone to support the event. But this type of inability to engage in real concrete terms by the body of Christ on the most important moral issue of our age, what it means to be a human being, is indicative of a larger problem. On behalf of people that are fighting to see the end government endorsed abortion in the United States in our lifetime I want to say the following to some of our brothers and sisters who are sympathetically pro-life. Sometimes supporting the effort means you actually NEED to show up.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Patrick Lee Soundbite [SK]

Ryan Anderson reports on a bioethics forum featuring Peter Singer, Patrick Lee, Robert George, and others at Princeton University. The topic of the forum was, "Is it Wrong to End End Early Human Life?" and Ryan's piece does a great job summarizing the arguments presented. I love how he summarizes Patrick Lee's opening shot:

Patrick Lee opened the panel in good philosophical style with a thought experiment: Would it be wrong, he asked, to kill someone after a surgery that would irreversibly erase all his memories and leave him unconscious for several months? Yes it would, he argued, even though he would be in the same psychological position as a human embryo or fetus. For he would still retain, as a human being, the basic natural capacity for personal acts—even if the immediate ability to perform them would be delayed. Similarly, the human embryo or fetus has that same personal nature; she just needs time to develop herself to the point where she can exercise it. Lee summarized his argument in three simple steps: 1. We are intrinsically valuable from the moment we come to be. 2. We are essentially animal organisms of a rational sort, so that all human beings are persons. 3. Human organisms come to be at fertilization. Conclusion: Every whole human organism (meaning human beings, not human parts)—including embryos—is intrinsically valuable as a subject of rights.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Embryonic Stem Cells Obsolete? [SK]

I won't go so far as to say they will never work, but Nature has this to say about Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (skin cells reprogrammed to function like ES cells):

The ten-year head start human ES cells got on human iPS cells has effectively shrunk to zero, says Thomson, because so much of the legacy of ES cells — reagents, culture media, hands-on expertise and experimental history — is transferable to iPS cells.
But as I've said before, don't expect the liberals in Congress to care one bit. They are determined to spend your money killing human embryos, no matter what science tells us.

HT: Jivin J

Monday, May 12, 2008

GRTL Responds [Jay]

I will post more on this later, but I wanted to quickly share something in regards to my last post. Dan Becker, the President of Georgia Right to Life, called me today and graciously spent two hours on the phone with me answering the questions that I asked while explaining the process that GRTL went through leading up to the failed advancement of HR536.

I will briefly say that I am encouraged by the work that was done by GRTL leading up to this and understand more fully how all of this happened. They did have reason to be optimistic that HR536 would pass and as such it is not fair to characterize the endeavor as foolish or not thought through. They are also in the midst of a campaign that though it was not designed for failure in the Georgia House, the plan did anticipate the possibility and has a clear series of progressions to continue toward a specified goal. While I am still not certain that this plan will have the results the GRTL wishes that was never the point of my confusion.

As to his answer on the timing of the Glenn Richardson press release, he acknowledges that he would have preferred that it not initially come forward through hearsay, but that Dr. Alveda King is now giving her first person accounts of the events and he was honestly trying to do the right thing as a Christian in alerting the public to what he had heard.

I maintained that the overall misunderstanding was due to a failure to effectively communicate these ideas and that as I took my information from an individual that was officially representing Georgia Right to Life then GRTL is ultimately responsible for that miscommunication. Dan acknowledged that this was a problem. It is a colossal understatement to say that talking to Dan Becker was a different experience than the lunch meeting I attended. It is almost inconceivable that they were both communications from the same organization.

Dan also rejected the idea that incrementalism is responsible for 50 million dead unborn human beings and identified himself and his organization as incrementalists. Ultimately, Dan and I agreed on the overwhelming majority of things and we were left with an honest disagreement as to the timing of HR536. I will post a more detailed account later, but I want to prayerfully consider all that Dan shared with me before doing more than clarifying where he honestly addressed my areas of concern.

Friday, May 9, 2008

Georgia Right to Life and HR536 [Jay]

Let me preface this post by saying that I have met many people at Georgia Right to Life over the years and have never walked away from those meetings doubting for one moment their dedication to the cause of life or the honesty and spirit in which they seek to advance their agenda. In everything that I say following this statement my confusion is one of tactics and not one of a personal nature. Also, this post represents my personal opinion and is not representative of any institution or organization with whom I am affiliated either professionally or personally.

I recently attended a meeting with Mike Griffin who has worked this past Georgia congressional legislative session as the Legislative Director of Georgia Right to Life. That is particularly important because this past session was when Georgia Right to Life spearheaded the campaign to pass House Resolution 536 otherwise known as the Personhood Resolution or The Human Life Amendment. You can read their own material on this resolution here, but in brief the resolution says that all human beings are persons from fertilization through death and that all considerations and rights afforded to persons ought to extend to all those human beings not currently protected under Georgia law.

This particular meeting was to discuss why this resolution failed to advance and ultimately died in committee without coming to the floor for an up or down vote. Mr. Griffin gave 4 reasons to explain:

1 – The Republicans were not unified on this issue.
2 – Georgia House Speaker Glenn Richardson was against the resolution.
3 – The resolution was sent to an unfriendly committee that was certain to bury it. (Judiciary)
4 – Pro-lifers were not unified on this issue.

Everything I am about to write here I said to Mr. Griffin at the meeting, so I am not sniping at him or Georgia Right to Life. If we look at those four reasons as given by GRTL I think we can sort them out a little more easily. Issue 3 is a byproduct of issue 2. The House Speaker was against the resolution and so he made certain that it was placed in an unfriendly committee. That means there are now three major issues that undermined the resolution. The House Speaker was working against it, the Republicans were not unified, and the pro-lifers were not unified.

But are these really three separate issues? Let’s set aside the House Speaker and whether or not his resistance on this issue was foreseeable and focus on issues 1 and 4 on our original list. Are all Republicans passionately pro-life? Of course not, and even some of the Republicans that are pro-life in sentiment do not support restrictions on abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Do I agree with their position? Again, of course not, but I am aware of these dynamics and understand that politicians respond to their own consciences and external pressure. The less external pressure applied on any given issue the more you are dependent upon their consciences to influence them to vote pro-life.

I loathe discussing politicians as if they were not pro-lifers by classification. Some of our congressional representatives are passionately pro-life and ought to be included in all discussions as functioning members of the pro-life family. To that point we get to issue 4, the pro-life community was not unified on this issue. You see the obvious connection here on issues 1 and 4. If pro-lifers were not unified then Republicans by definition were not unified. This clearly undermines the external pressure to support the resolution which means that you are relying on the consciences of the representatives to do the majority of the work and you already know that some of them are not sympathetic to your full mission.

So here is my confusion and what I asked Mr. Griffin at this meeting:

Jay : “You have stated the 4 reasons that this resolution failed to pass. I think that issue 3 logically follows issue 2 so unless you or anyone else here objects let’s say there are actually 3 major issues. If you could not foresee House Speaker Richardson’s objections, did you or GRTL have reasons to believe that the pro-life movement or the Republicans would be unified on this resolution?”

Mr. Griffin: “There was a lot of work that went into this prior to my coming on board and I was just here for the legislative session.”

Jay: “I understand that you came on board in the midst of this push, but in GRTL’s evaluation have you heard anyone say that they had good reasons to believe that the Republicans and the pro-life community were unified on this issue?”

Mr. Griffin: “I do not know.”

Jay: “You see the problem here? When I first heard about this resolution a year and a half ago my first response was that it will die in committee because there is no unity on that bill amongst pro-lifers and that means there is zero political pressure for the Republicans to support it against their reservations of conscience. If I could see that then others could as well, which means that 66% of the reasons that you say this resolution failed to advance were problems that were obvious BEFORE pursuing it.”

Mr. Griffin: “So you are saying I was sent on Pickett’s Charge?”

Jay: “Absolutely, I am saying that most of what killed this resolution was known prior to pushing it and that it was an errand that was designed for failure.”


Whether or not I support this resolution on its merits, which I currently do not, the tactical approach is fundamentally flawed. Why intentionally fail? What possible good can that produce? Not to mention all of the political ill will that has been stirred up as a result of this plan. Georgia Right to Life is publishing articles denouncing House Speaker Richardson as a racist eugenicist who wants black babies aborted. That charge is an inflammatory personal attack on Richardson that does not seem likely to persuade him that his position is wrong and win his support for future legislation. In fact, it smacks of the kind of divisive rhetoric and tactics that have so long tainted this discussion.

The Georgia pro-life movement must do better and I hope that Georgia Right to Life as the most visible representative of that movement thinks very hard before setting into motion another plan that relies solely on a miracle from God to succeed.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Jessica Valenti's Curious Attack on Pam Stenzel [Jay]

Women who use birth control are more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases than women who do not use birth control. Presumably because people who use birth control are likely sexually active and they may or may not be taking similar precautions to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases as they are against pregnancy. Also, reducing the likelihood of pregnancy is easier than stopping the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. People who contract a sexually transmitted disease are at risk for the resulting physical damage that can be caused by such diseases including sterility and death. If you give your children birth control to protect them from pregnancy you are not doing them a favor based on this dynamic but may be encouraging a false and dangerous sense of security. Also, some young women suffer from emotional side effects after having an abortion and among those side effects encountered by one trained and experienced counselor are depression, eating disorders, and suicidal tendencies.

That looks like a pretty straight forward statement that clarifies a position. The person who disagrees with this position has many areas to address and can pick the statements they wish to rebut and begin the honest intellectual work.

Unless of course you are Jessica Valenti at Feministing and you are responding to a YouTube video of Pam Stenzel. If you are Jessica you mount a confusing and misleading “liar liar pants on fire” attack and then sit back and soak in the adulation of your adoring, obscene, and apparently vacuous supporters. You twist her argument and claim that Pam thinks and teaches that birth control itself sterilizes and kills women. You exaggerate her statements that recounted her experiences as a counselor and claim that Pam said that abortion causes anorexia, depression, and suicide nearly universally. Pam is an evil yet seductive harbinger of anti-choice misinformation that is funny, enjoyable, and despicable.

When Jivin Jehoshaphat points out (here and here)to you that you are mistaken in your analysis, you make it clear that you do not want people who disagree with you posting on your website and get vulgar with him. Despite your impressive resume of degrees and accomplishments you make a silly appeal to numbers as your defense against Jivin’s accusation that you are apparently not accidentally mistaken but intentionally twisting Pam’s presentation to suit your purposes. One can only speculate as to why you would do this, possibly you had a deadline that you were not prepared for or you just woke up and needed to write a vitriolic screed against the first “anti-choicer” that crossed your path.

Don’t worry Jessica. Your fans will continue to pour out their obscene support no matter how silly your position is. Just keep refusing to engage the arguments and hysterically screaming about anti-choicer trolls and you will be just fine. Stick your fingers in your ears, paint everyone who disagrees with you as dangerous, and whatever you do please do not answer the actual statements of those “anti-choice” loons. Even when someone like Pam Stenzel opens her presentation by being very clear that no one can make these choices for the young people that she is talking to but that they must be informed so that they can make the best choice for themselves you just keep telling your fans that pro-lifers want to control women’s bodies. After all, that is so much easier than thinking.

HT: JivinJehoshaphat

Phil Johnson Doesn't Have the Goods [SK]

I like Phil Johnson (not to be confused with Phillip E. Johnson, the ID guy) and read his excellent blog Pyromaniacs regularly. He's got great insights on The Emerging Church, theology in general, and, of course, Spurgeon, where Phil, more than anyone, has introduced thousands to the greatest Baptist preacher of all.

I love his stuff.

Until, that is, he starts talking about evangelicals devoting too much time and energy to politics.

Then, he loses me completely.

According Phil, evangelical "obsession" with politics (which includes pro-life efforts) is distracting the faithful from our primary mission, evangelism:

How did the evangelical movement get so far off track? I wouldn't suggest that evangelicalism's recent obsession with political activism is the only factor, but I do think it's a major one. If the same energies and resources that were poured into failed political efforts had been channeled into evangelism instead, I'm convinced that would have been instrumental in producing more spiritual good and hindering more of society's evils than all our lobbying, demonstrating, and voting combined.
I'm curious how he could know such a thing.

Indeed, if one is going to claim that evangelicals spend too much time with political activism, at a minimum I would expect the person making the claim to provide the following:

1. A reasonably clear definition of what "political activism" means and how such activity distracts one from evangelism
2. A distinction between acceptable political activity for evangelicals and non-acceptable political activity, with reasons given why some activities are okay and others are not
3. Examples, backed up with evidence, of how evangelicals are spending too much time on non-acceptable political activities
4. Evidence that evangelicals as a whole are spending more money on political campaigns than they are on world missions and evangelism
5. Evidence that evangelicals as a whole are spending more time lobbying their Congressmen than sharing Christ with friends at work
6. Evidence that evangelicals as a whole are talking with their friends more about Republicans than they are Jesus Christ
7. Evidence that a majority of evangelicals are politically savvy enough to know how a bill gets introduced in Congress and how to either defeat it or affirm it with coordinated lobbying efforts
8. Evidence that a majority of evangelicals could tell you the current political state of affairs on key issues like abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning (for example, what does Roe v. Wade and it's companion case Doe v. Bolton really say? What are the two competing cloning bills before Congress for the last three years and how do they differ?)
9. Evidence that a majority of evangelicals could convey the moral logic of the pro-life position to friends and neighbors
10. Evidence that a majority of evangelicals could name their Congressman, two federal Senators, and, where applicable, their State Senator and State Representative.
11. Evidence that a majority of evangelicals actually vote in most elections
12. Evidence that even 1 percent of evangelical churches with 500 members or more are equipping their people to persuasively defend a pro-life worldview in the secular marketplace of ideas and then encouraging them to engage the culture politically

Phil doesn't present one shred of evidence that speaks to even one of the items listed above. From my vantage point, it's far from obvious that evangelicals are spending too much time and effort on politics--unless, of course, you simply judge the entire movement by what Pat Robertson says.

Thankfully, Joe Carter calls Phil on his unsupported claim:

Aside from the false dilemma and the assumption that energy and resources that produced a failure would have been successful had they only been applied elsewhere, Phil's contention fails for the simple reason that his premise is based on a myth.

Contrary to what many secularists claim--and many Christians believe--we evangelicals are not all that politically involved. Sure, like most Americans we talk a lot about politics, especially in an election season. But the claim that we are involved in actual political activities--lobbying, organizing, campaigning, etc.--would be difficult to support with actual evidence.

I say this not only as a self-professed (and self-critical) member of the "religious right" but as one who has direct observation post on the political battlefield. From my vantage point it is easy to see that the commitment--much less the influence--of Christians in politics is wildly overstated.
Joe then provides an example of how evangelicals like to talk about politics but do little about it:

[The] Family Research Council (FRC)--the premier lobbying organization of the Christian right in Washington, D.C.--has been attempting to collect signatures on an online petition asking President Bush to approve new Title X regulations ensuring that no taxpayer money goes to subsidize the abortion facilities of groups like Planned Parenthood.

To date, almost one million emails have been sent to Christians asking them to do nothing more than add their name. This is about as minor a level of commitment or involvement as it gets yet only about 3% have done so. More Christians voted for the 5th place contestant on last week's American Idol than have petitioned to defund abortion mills.

This is the typical reaction at the grassroots level to almost every political initiative in the "religious right." Lot's of talk; little to no action.
Joe notes that although the FRC and similar groups attempt to rally evangelicals for action, they are unable to lead an alleged army of politically engaged evangelicals because no such army exists!

Joe then hits the nail on the head when it comes to the topic of abortion:

I would argue that the truly bitter irony is that this is perceived as the "number one" political issue for evangelicals when it really isn't one of our top priorities. If evangelicals--and Christians in general--truly cared about this issue, abortion on demand would not be the law of the land....Imagine if every pastor in America had the courage to stand in the pulpit and deliver the Gospel-centric message that God abhors this slaughtering of the innocent and that for the church to tolerate this sin is a fecal-colored stain on the garment of Christ's bride.

But it will never happen because the evangelical church isn't committed as the church to rectifying this grave injustice. We never have been.
Amen!

In short, Phil Johnson has it all wrong. Why should anyone suppose that pro-life advocacy detracts from the biblical command to go make disciples? Simply put, the answer to a lack of evangelical fervor for the Gospel is not to withdraw our political advocacy for the weak and vulnerable; it’s to encourage Christians to do a better job presenting the gospel. We don’t have to stop rescuing the innocent to do that.

(My own thoughts about evangelicals working to reform culture can be found here.)

Monday, May 5, 2008

Rocking The Vote Boat [Bob]

It is easy to become dismayed and frustrated in observing the general apathy and lack of urgency that seems to prevail within the general public toward the cause to which Scott Klusendorf and Jay Watts have dedicated their full-time professional lives. Jay's poignant post (here) reflects the anguish that comes in dealing with the general disinterestedness we have all observed. Regardless, we must continue to minister, educate and multiply the forces that do both. We each have to make the case for human personhood at all stages of life in our own little corners of the world. But what is the prognosis for the project of moving the culture at large? I want to make two observations, one here, another in a separate post ...

Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President Bush, in his discussion (here) of the media’s hope-filled frenzy regarding the impending “crack up” of the modern evangelical movement, brings up some statistics that, when considered alongside some other pro-life thought, may offer pro-lifers some optimism. While Wehner is more concerned with the pure political and electoral implications of the changing evangelical movement, buried in his essay are some promising facts:
  • According to a recent Pew poll, 70 percent of evangelicals age 18-29 favor making it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion compared with 55 percent of evangelicals 30 and above

  • Younger evangelicals are more suspicious of big institutions and skeptical of big government

  • Most evangelicals still care a great deal about the advancing culture-of-life agenda; abortion remains their most consistently important and galvanizing issue. Yet more and more evangelicals are showing concern for environmental issues like global warming; human rights issues like religious persecution and genocide; and “social justice” issues like poverty and AIDS. The evangelical movement’s longstanding concern about abortion isn’t receding; the area of concern is enlarging.
Included in this enlarged area of evangelical concern are issues that, though not specifically pro-life, share characteristics that cross political boundaries: sex trafficking in Africa, AIDS, tribal genocide, the plight of Tibet … and the list goes on. If Wehner is correct in his assessment of the concerns of younger evangelicals, they share these as pressing issues even with their secular peers. And while we conservative evangelicals rightly (no pun intended) knee-jerk to labeling many of these as left-leaning issues, they are at their core human rights issues that are considered important among the young.

To add to that, I can only offer concrete numbers from Super Tuesday but, exit polling showed that the youth vote (under 30) was up 84% over 2000 in Ohio and nearly quadrupled in Texas (from 172,228 voters in 2000 to an estimated 620,384 on March 4, 2008). Anecdotal evidence throughout the primary season suggests that the involvement of the young in politics is on the increase -- maybe even dramatically so.

The point: Youth voters see abortion as a human rights issue and they are voting in record numbers. This is good news for pro-life causes and candidates.

LTI does not argue the pro-life case on strictly religious grounds. Though his case is grounded in moral and theistic realism, Scott does not directly invoke the precepts of the Judeo-Christian faith to argue what the fetus is. At its root his case is a philosophical and moral case for personhood at all stages of life. The pro-life case is, in other words, an appeal to human rights that should resonate with the young.

This is not to dismiss potential problems, not the least of which is that the only pro-life candidate in this year's presidential race is 72 years old, while the youth vote seems to be magnetically attracted to the pro-abortion Obama. Nevertheless, it seems that this should have significant political impact in the future and that the pro-life movement needs to capitalize on the trend.

Unfortunately, ESCR is a different issue. More on that later ...

News on the Matter

Loading...