Can of Worms


Again, I'm choosing a topic that has been in the news (March for Life, Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad, etc.) recently.

As with many of my other Can of Worms topics, this is one that I think it's easy to say initially 100% one way or the other, but when you really sit down and think about it, is it that simple?

I say it's not.

I feel very strongly that abortion is one of the saddest things that exist in this world.

I also strongly feel that Roe v. Wade is a law that should be upheld.  Yes, that is right, I believe Abortion should remain legal.  Do I believe the law is perfect as it is written?  No.  More on this later.

I want to make one thing very clear here.  I think abortion used as an after-the-fact birth control simply to get rid of an 'unwanted' baby is horribly wrong.  I think any procedure performed where the goal of the procedure is to end a life is horribly wrong - murder, capital punishment, abortion.  (Let's leave the end-of-life to treat or not to treat discussion for another day, ok?).

So, that should mean it's clear that abortion should be illegal, right?

But, what about the case where a woman's life is legitimately in danger and the stress of a traditional labor or c-section is life threatening?  Or when a woman is pregnant and diagnosed with cancer that can be treated now with chemo/radiation, but if left to wait, will be terminal?  By telling a woman in one of these situations that the life of her unborn baby is more important than her own, what are we saying to women?  Is our sole responsibility to procreate, no matter what the risk to ourselves?

So, I've laid out two extremes.  Where do you draw the line?  Do we really think that if we make abortion only legal for those who must undergo a procedure that will, unfortunately end the life of an unborn child that loopholes won't be created?  That records won't be altered?  That illegal abortions won't take place?

And what about cases of rape or incest?  I think it's easy to say 'adoption', but is it really that easy?  Think about it for a minute - you are pregnant with a child, fathered by your father.

This is why I say it is not government's place to make this distinction either.  Now this is the point where the argument that if government can't say abortion is illegal, why can it say that murder is?

My argument is this, and leads into the changes I would like to see made to Roe v. Wade:  A murderer can buy a weapon and kill without ever discussing it with someone else.  S/he can murder without ever speaking the words of their intent.  An abortion requires assistance.  A woman cannot have an abortion without the assistance of a doctor, nurse, or in the case of 'the morning after pill' a pharmacist.

So what do we do in the cases of abortion being used as an after-the-fact birth control?

First, I think we need to focus our efforts on preventing unwanted pregnancy.  Whether you believe in Birth Control (chemical or barrier methods) or not, research as proven that simply speaking abstinence to teens does not work.  So if you are completely against birth control, including barrier methods (which then allows for STD transmission, but that's for another day), I would assume you believe that Natural Family Planning (NFP) works, so why not educate yourself (or your teen) on NFP?  I would venture to say that through that process, a teen may learn to respect her body and why abstinence isn't such a bad idea and a married woman may find that the child she doesn't want isn't so unwanted at all.

But what to do with those unwanted pregnancies (non-life threatening to the mother) when they occur?
First and foremost, I think a woman should be given all of the information about her unborn child, fetus, whatever term you want to use, BEFORE she is even permitted to schedule an appointment for an abortion.  All of the information includes an ultrasound/sonogram and a review of the baby's development to date with a medical professional.  Second, I think counseling should be available to women who find themselves pregnant as a result of a trauma - incest, rape, etc.  And I'm not talking a one-time-quickie session to meet the requirement of counseling.  I'm talking legitimate counseling with realistic supports for the woman should she choose adoption and after.

I challenge that if we actually educated women about the power of our bodies, about choices other than abortion, AND followed up on this education with counseling and support rather than judgement and stereotypes we would see abortion naturally decrease.  And, when a woman must undergo a procedure to save her own life that is going to result in the death of her baby, rather than condemn her and criticize her, we should support and empower her.

And, for those women who do choose an abortion.  I challenge that love and forgiveness and support rather than guilt, condemnation, and judgement would go a long way.

{As I'm finishing this up, I realize I didn't speak to the fact that some women choose abortion as a way to terminate pregnancy that will result in a child with a disability.  As a former special educator, this makes my stomach turn and I include it in with an unwanted pregnancy that does not have an impact on the mother's life.}

The Can of Worms has been opened.  What do you think?

I do not think I need to say this, but just in case someone new comes by:  As always, a gentle reminder to be respectful in the comments.  You don't have to agree with me or others, but if you wouldn't say it face to face, please don't type it.


  1. A can indeed.
    You know, I had a really long comment here....um, ok, it's still long.

    Ultimately, my opinion of these discussions is that they are rarely worth having. This is the sort of issue where people set up in their camps and cross their arms and harumph.

    My feelings on some of your points:
    Woman's life is in danger: If a woman would be swayed to abortion because her life is in danger, then most likely she's just not cut out to be a mom anyway...raising children is a dying to self every minute of every day. If a woman isn't interested in dying for her children (no matter what state of growth), then she really probably shouldn't be partaking in the action that got her pregnant in the first place. Of course, we live in a society that wants to partake in sex any time, any day, any way...it's not treated as the serious and holy gift that it is. It's treated as an entitlement that everyone is owed (but heck, we live in a society that is very entitlement-minded on many things).

    However, my personal feelings aside on the type of woman who would choose her own life over that of her child's...

    There is no way of knowing if the woman's life is in danger absolutely. Why is it that our legal system is predicated having it be better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man wrongly.....but we have no absolute certainty to whether a woman might die...but we still condemn the unborn baby to die 100%? In this instance, I remember St. Gianna Molla...who was diagnosed with a fibroma in her uterus during the 2nd month of pregnancy. She ultimately died once her baby was born and she said even then, "if you must choose between me and the child, save the child, I insist on it, save him."

    The world says, "What a foolish woman, she left children motherless."

    Jesus says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).

    My husband knows that if something ever goes wrong in the labor and delivery of a child of ours, the doctors are to do all they can for BOTH the baby and me...if I die in the process, then I will be happy to go and meet our Lord. Killing our baby, under ANY circumstances is an idea that literally repulses us.

    Rape and Incest are horrible things that happen and can/do (roughly 5% of the time) result in pregnancies.

    However, the life created...is it less of a life? Who determines that?

    Is that baby's life less worthy of living than a child conceived with a mental disability?

    Honest question? Why is it that you deem the life of the potentially disabled baby more worthwhile than the life of the baby conceived through an unfortunate instance like rape or incest?

    Both babies in both circumstances are innocent bystanders.

    The baby itself...is independent of the circumstances. The baby could be the best thing that ever happened....to someone.

    As someone who grew up in less than ideal circumstances...I will never believe my life was worthless.

    Check out this link...


  2. Cont...

    One of the reasons I hesitate to write these posts is because I worry that what I write will be misconstrued/misunderstood. Your question about what makes a child's life with disabilities more important than a child born of incest or rape for one. I absolutely do not consider any one child's life less or more important. In fact as I read your question, my stomach turned because I did not mean it to be that way at all. Going back, I do see how it can be read that way.

    I think allowing a pregnancy to be terminated purely because the child has a disability is a very slippery slope to terminating because it is going to have brown eyes instead of blue (for example). While, sadly I know children are already aborted because of their gender, it's just one more step down a very scary road.

    In also thinking about rape/incest I think these are the instances where counseling is so important and the woman can learn that whether it is in her home or another home, the baby can be the best thing that ever happened to someone (even if it's not her). I guess I just don't see how I can tell another woman outright what she HAS to do - I can educate, offer facts, support, and guide, but ultimately we were given free will. That is where I come to the choice matter. I am very much ANTI-abortion; and PRO-Life, but I am also PRO-Choice.

    I think most of the larger 'pro-choice' organizations are more pro-abortion and encourage woman/girls who are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy to have an abortion because it is the only reasonable thing to do. I disagree with this. When a woman can walk into a clinic, be given a pamphlet and schedule an abortion, something is very wrong with how both her life and the life of her unborn child are being treated. Many women never recover emotionally from this and if they were given all of the information ahead of time, they very well may have made a different choice.

    I agree with you on many points. Our society has gone down the road of sex anytime, anywhere, anyone and unfortunately children are paying the price. Both by having their lives terminated (and NO life is worthless) and by being brought up in unloving homes where they are seen as either trophies or problems. We are very much an entitlement society and I go back to education on the miracle of sex and a healthy baby is where we need to start. I think if we spent more time and energy BEFORE the fact, we would see less and less abortion AFTER.

    Anyway, I think this comment is as long as the original post...

  3. Michelle,
    Thank-you for your comments - I appreciate the time and thought it took so much!

    I agree, all too often people just fold their arms and refuse to discuss this subject. That said, I think it's a good thing when it can be discussed, rationally and respectfully. I know I have learned a lot from listening and reading differing views that are based in fact, not just propaganda (from either side).

    I had seen that link before and heard St. Giana's story before and I love both! I think it's an important message to get out - that LIFE, all LIFE is important. I guess where I divulge from your point of view is that while I agree whole heartedly with your decision that if it comes down to an absolute must of saving only mother or child, it is certainly what Jesus teaches to save the child. And there are plenty of examples where a mother was told her life was in danger, only to have a healthy mom and baby after the fact. (My mom and Nan are actually an example).

    That said, I can think of a specific situation of a blogger I've come to read. She was pregnant with twins, developed severe eclampsia (not pre-eclampsia); one twin had died and the other was dying as was she. The other twin was not going to make it and putting her body through the stress of labor or a c-section would have cost her her life. Her doctor even said to her, 'this is the worst day of my medical career.'

    When I think of a mother's life is in danger, I think of this example. Not just, an either/or situation but rather a save one or save none situation. In this situation, where the mother was saved and she now has a beautiful daughter - who would not be here had the doctor not been willing to save the only life he could save. None of them, mother or either twin would have survived had she gone through labor/c-section. (I need to send this post to her and ask her permission to link to her - she gets some pretty nasty comments as I'm sure you can imagine. I know those of you who regularly stop by here wouldn't leave unkind things, but I don't want someone to stumble by here and then on to her.)

    I guess what I'm saying is that I see a very limited number of times when an abortion would be okay, but if we make it illegal, except - then who is deciding the excepts and couldn't that lead to more shame, more mis-use than already exists? Just a thought.

    (cont. below, first time it was too long)

  4. I believe that people that sit on one extreme or the other fails to understand one very simple thing - people are educated differently, people are raised differently, people are brought into faith and religion differently.

    On my last point, religiously based extreme positions can never understand that others do not always FEEL the strength and love they speak of with regard to their Lord, or the purpose of why we're here on Earth as a people. To use a religiously charged argument to persuade falls on deaf ears to one who does not feel what they feel. Unfortunately, most people who live their life and make choices based on religious do-rights can never speak generically to one who may not believe. They cannot comprehend NOT believing just as a non-believer can necessarily comprehend believing.

    Those who have experienced more formal education generally have also received more scientific and health conscious lessons than those whose education was limited or extremely derailed by socio-economic issues. As "mainstream" as we consider STD education these days, there are parents who still do not acknowledge this as a necessary discussion, there are those who don't "believe" in its extreme effects, and there are those who will always feel invincible until proven otherwise.

    Lastly, everyone is raised differently with different priorities set before us. Whether our parents directly or INdirectly influenced us to pay attention to certain aspects in our life and our surroundings, we are influenced. Period. There are and always will be people who do not put sexual experiences and exploitations on a pedastal. Simply put, it's an act that is mustered from deep within our human psyche and while some people believe it should be capped and contaned, others feel that it's a very natural experience to partake in.

    A great number of people have found many actions in our human history to be acceptable at one point or another. People made lynchings a regular picnic event. They used to gather to stone one another. Abortion and murder fall into this category for me, to some extent. Some use it as a casual action in their day, others see it as horrid and unthinkable. All I can do at the end of the day is know where I stand, what I feel is right and wrong and what I'm willing to die with on my conscience.

    I love your can of worms posts. :)

  5. Oh Rebecca...I think that is bound to happen with such a topic.

    I could totally get what you're saying about the "illegal except" issue. I have often had people bring up the issue of tubal pregnancies and whether we are just supposed to let the tube explode potentially killing the mother and the baby will die regardless.

    in the situation of the woman with eclampsia, I know those exceptions exist...however (with limited information) wouldn't an early induction/c-section at viability be an option? There are babies born at 24 weeks that go onto leave the hospital and live with their families... I'm not familiar with the example you cited, but that was just a thought I had regarding that exception.

    I know you and I are closer than we are far apart on the issue, but I am a big believer in Pro-Woman, Pro-Child, Pro-Life. Being Pro-Choice means we're not thinking of at least one side of the equation.

    Additionally, I have worked with post-abortive women...the picture is never rosy and more of them turn out to be very ANTI-ABORTION than anything else.

    I commend you on your post. I have never really thought of doing a big post on abortion on my blog...mainly because I figure most people that read me know where I stand. :)

  6. oops! I meant to say about the tubal pregnancies....that that baby will not live and most likely dies before the tube bursts anyway...science has borne that out...so I haven't ever really lumped what they do to treat tubal pregnancies in with abortion... (sorry...got a bit scatter-brained there!)

  7. Tooj - I completely agree with your point of view, that is actually why I try to write these posts from as much of a non-religious point of view as I can. I realize that all of those I am talking to do not have the same belief system I do and that by simply saying 'God says' or 'The bible says' will cause some to just immediately walk away and that is not the intent of these posts. It's a challenge for me at times, because it really causes me to think about the reasons behind what I think and do I think it because that's what someone told me growing up or because it's what I really think.

    Michelle - I agree, many post-abortive women become totally anti-abortion and I think that is just one more testament to why it's so important to educate women BEFORE they choose an abortion as to why it's not the right choice. I like your point of pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life. It does indeed encompass both of our points, especially considering how far 'pro-choice' has gone down the road to being 'pro-abortion'.

  8. I guess I'd like to apologize for using a faith-based point of view. I have tried explaining things from the secular viewpoint and I can get there...but it is always so much more meaningless for me, I guess. Something to work on I suppose.

  9. Michelle - NO need at all to apologize about using a faith-based point of view. I think it is important to include it, it's just not where I choose to come from in writing these posts because I know all of my audience does not share my faith and I want to speak to everyone. I appreciate your faith-based point of view and I think it is important to add to the conversation, thank-you!

  10. Since my opinions are pretty much right on with Michelle's I won't say anything else BUT... I love how this discussion is so respectful and kind! It is an obvious fact that not everyone will agree on certain subjects, but if more people approached differing opinions like this....well I think the world would be a much better place!

  11. I'm glad to see it didn't break into all out war on here over this subject. :D

    Rebecca, I pretty much fall in the same camp as you, but I would never be able to express myself so eloquently. That's why I tend to stay out of debates about abortion.

  12. Rebecca, I admire you for your willingness to put yourself out there with your can of worms posts. You handle them and your comments so well... and I thought about writing what I believe, but basically, my views align with Michelle's on this, too, so I'll just concur with her rather than re-writing what she said.

  13. The story sited here is mine (yes, of course you can link to it, sweetie). My surviving son was only 22.5 weeks along, not 24 weeks, and was significantly smaller than a fetus that age is usually due to a combination of factors, the primary one being that he was a twin.

    This is the reason that we didn't do an early induction; the doctors hoped by admitting me to the hospital and attacking the eclampsia with every weapon in their arsenal, they could slow down the progression of the disease enough that they could keep me pregnant until it was safe for my son to be born. Unfortunately, in less than 24 hours, my disease progressed quickly and did not respond to treatment.

    My blood pressure topped out at about 220 over 160. Doing a c-section would have caused me to bleed to death in moments, thanks to the high blood pressure. Inducing labor would have brought on seizures and would have taken time I didn't have; remember, the disease would have continued to progress while I was waiting for the induction to work.

    I have to also say that the first comment here saying that because I chose to live, since there was no chance of saving my son, means I am not cut out to be a mother. I have to say, my three and half year old daughter would disagree. That is a needlessly hurtful comment made from a position of being unwilling to believe that women like me actually exist.

  14. Hi Rebecca! Thanks for posting this; you're brave! :) I think that the position you hold is a reasonable starting place. I'll try to avoid writing a novel on here, but I want to add a few things.

    1) In true life or death cases, the doctrine of double-effect is present. This states that in any true life-threatening circumstance (like the one you mentioned), any measure that is taken to save the life of the mother, even if it results in the death of the child, is permissible, as long as the baby's death is not a desired outcome of the situation. In other words, an evil act can occur as a second effect of a good act, and that evil is permissible so long as it is not willed as an end of the act.
    So in true life or death cases, such as St. Gianna's -- she could have chosen to have the hysterectomy and that procedure would not have been considered a procured abortion.

    That said, it is a noble and beautiful thing when a mother chooses to sacrifice her own life for her unborn child. But like you, I agree that that sacrifice cannot be mandated by the state.

    2) When it comes to rape and incest, I think someone else pointed out that these account for less than 7% of all abortions. When you think about the fact that there are roughly 1.5 million abortions per year, that is a small number resulting from rape/abuse.
    Given the traumatic nature of rape/abuse, there is evidence which suggests that having an abortion so close to a traumatic sexual event, can lead to even more trauma/feeling violated again. I think all women should, like you said, be given extensive counseling after an event like this, and if I knew someone in this situation, I would always try to help them choose life. Ultimately, though, I feel very uncomfortable making that choice for someone else. Just my opinion.

    3) As for the "birth-control" aspect of abortion, people using it as after the fact BC, that is effectively what it has become. Abortion has also become the means by which organizations rooted in eugenics like Planned Parenthood, use to convince the poor to kill themselves off.

    A better solution than abortion is emotional and financial support for women in unplanned pregnancies, along with education for young women about what a healthy sexuality actually looks like. Programs like WIC, AFDC, Medicaid etc. make it easier for poor women (or single pregnant women, who are more likely to be poor)to choose life. Yes, they cost us taxes, but we can't have it both ways as a society, if you want to be pro-life, you have to help people bring their child into the world with dignity. period.

    I personally believe that abortion is wrong in any circumstance because I believe that taking a human life for any reason but self-defense is wrong. BUT, I am willing to concede that from a practical perspective, actually making abortion safe, legal, and RARE (I'm sorry, but 1.5 million per year is not rare) would be a good place to start.

    Just my 2c.

  15. Maggie - yes, I'm grateful for the community that is growing here. There is a way to discuss issues on which we disagree with kindness, that is for sure.

    Jess and Angie - thank-you for your kind words. I feel like I kind of 'duck' as I hit publish on these posts and I definitely say a prayer that my true heart is heard; that I don't come across as a 'talking head'.

    Cecily - thanks so much for commenting! I will update the post with a link to you. (I emailed you privately as well).

    As to Michelle's comment, I think she was coming from a situation in which a woman is told only one life (her or her unborn child) can be saved and a woman chooses to save herself other than her child. In your case, from what I've read you would have given anything to save your sons and in fact came very close to giving your life. When it became clear that it was either save one life or lose three, was when the decision was made to save the only life that could be saved. As I've said to you, your story gave me new perspective on this issue.
    And I agree, Tori would say you are a great mom!

    Sarah - thanks so much for citing the Doctrine of Double Effect. Your last sentence sums it up perfectly - safe, legal, and RARE (and you are right 1.5 million per year is not rare). Through counseling and effective social programs there is a way to make it happen.

  16. Ok, just realized I didn't directly mention Cecily in the original post, but rather in a comment. To read her story about Zachary and Nicholas, and Tori too, go to www.uppercasewoman.com.

    To those of you who are frequent here, I don't need to say this to you, I know, but just in case someone new stops by: If you visit Cecily and for whatever reason you disagree, fine - read on and say nothing. Trust me, she's heard it all before and doesn't need to heart it again. The very LAST thing I want is negative to come from what has started as a very positive discussion.

  17. I would like to come back and say to Cecily, that I am sorry for the hurt that might have come from my initial comment on "life of the mother" issues with regards to this. Rebecca shared your story with me and I must say, that you have suffered something I, myself, hope to never confront.

    Honestly, when I formed my position on "life of the mother" exceptions for abortion, I was already a mother. I decided to look at my children and ask myself would I die for this child (i.e, step in front of a bullet so to speak) and when I knew in my heart that I would, I decided...why would I not risk my life to carry a child to term? That is where my words came from.

    To take my reflection and apply to your situation, I would have to look at all four of my children and ask...would I sacrifice my daughter's life for my other daughter's life while I risk my life? So in essence, if I am carrying one of my daughters and a car is about to hit another of my children, do I act immediately to step in front (even though I am carrying my other child) and put both MY life and one of my other children's life in danger in order to save that child.

    And it is there that I have a true a-Ha moment with regards to your situation and I would like to apologize for the tone of that comment.

    And I would like to thank you, Cecily for sharing your viewpoint without completely annihilating me with words. I hope you will accept my sincere apology for the hurt I caused.

  18. Michelle - Sincerely and from the bottom of my heart (and through tears) I thank-you for these kind words to Cecily. While I knew your heart, she did not, until now, because you were strangers. Thank-you!

    And to Cecily, as it relates to your most recent post, a few more lives and hearts have now been touched by Zachary and Nicholas and while the 22 weeks you had with them were not nearly enough, they still live on through you and your words/strength.

    Again to everyone who has commented or read here so far - my sincerest appreciation for the discussion that has taken place. I am grateful. More than words could say...

  19. Rebecca, I just want to say "well done." I agree with you on some points, and passionately disagree on others. I would have to type an entire post in your comment section to address all the issues, so I think that I will try to get up my courage to copy you and really post about this myself.

    While I do not agree with you on some points, I think that your attitude is America's best hope for reducing the number of abortions. And that is nothing short of wonderful.

  20. well! I'd like to comment even though fumblingtowardsgrace basically said what I would have said.. except with more statistics, etc.

    I even would have written about double effect reasoning!

    as a theology student, one of my favorite subjects is Catholic Social Teaching. if we work towards a just society/world (where everyone is taken care of), I truly believe that the abortion rate would naturally drop. therefore, instead of working to change the abortion laws it makes more sense to me to tackle social problems. as fumblingtowardsgrace also mentioned, women tend to be The Poor, so if we would all 'help a sista out' then women would probably feel more comfortable and confident in their ability to provide for their children.

    I haven't talked about sex for the sake of sex and BC and NFP etc., but alas. I don't know what the solution is there, being that sexual morality is so tangled up with religious virtues. it's useless to preach abstinence to someone who is about to have an abortion.

    oh, here's a link to an article that I've only skimmed so far, but that is very relevant to my point of view.... it's from the National Catholic Reporter:


  21. Be careful, you are showing your intelligence. ;) Great post! You put a lot of thought into it.

    I hate to see anyone die no matter what. I agree with what you said,.. “I think any procedure performed where the goal of the procedure is to end a life is horribly wrong - murder, capital punishment, abortion.” I hate war too. I think that people killing people is horrible because we are made in the image of God and that should be greatly respected.

    I believe that people are created upon conception, and I am pro-life, but with acceptations. If the mother’s life is in jeopardy, this is a major acceptation. Then it should be her choice. But I don’t know how realistic my view is. A congressman who was pro-life switched sides because he believed that if laws changed to pro-life that there would be no acceptations. If this is true, then I would have to rethink my position. So my beliefs are not that far from yours.

  22. I do not like to comment on these type of posts, generally. But this has been nagging at me for a couple weeks now, and I think it's time I say what I think.

    For me, this comes down to this question: "when does life begin?" If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. The only only only time I would consider it conceivably okay is when the life of the mother is in question. Then I believe it can be considered a self defense of sort.

    Even these horrible, torturous circumstance such as rape and incest do not, for me, make an abortion okay. These are human beings we are talking about. These are human lives from the moment of conception, no matter how they were conceived.

    I believe that abortions are wrong, yes. I also believe that those women who have chosen that option have probably experienced a great deal of confusion, sorrow, regret, pain, angst over their decisions, even if in the end, they think it was the right thing to do. And I think they need support, love, forgiveness when they ask for it. When they need it. This is clearly not a thing that most women would take lightly, and do easily.

  23. Kristen,
    Thanks for jumping in! I do agree that life begins at conception (not at some arbitrary point after). I do not think abortion (when the mother's life is not truthfully in danger) is an OK thing to do, I just have a hard time telling someone else what they MUST do - one way or the other. Until we have good education and support for women in the circumstances of rape and incest, sadly women will see that as their only option and to rip that option away without supports in place for them would be more harmful than helpful, IMHO.

    My main argument for keeping abortion legal (though I do not agree with it) is that who decides if the woman's life is in danger and who is going to ensure those women (however few) that have been raped/are victims of incest receive the support they need. I see a dangerous slippery slope the other way of illegal abortions and insurance companies determining when a woman's life is in danger. I guess it's just a lack of faith in our government/society that we would do the right thing and help women rather than just overturn Roe v. Wade and think it's fixed the problem.