Guess what? I am not going to even try and defend Barack Obama against today's Purity Troll on the rec list. Why? Because, frankly, I see it as a anthill sculpted into a real life model of K-2, complete with a frozen sherpa at the top named dhonig.

But if access to safe, legal abortions and the continuance of Roe Versus Wade is the issue  you vote on, the hill you are prepared to die on, then know this ...

They love to tell us we live in the GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH... but like VICTORY IN IRAQ they never bother to explain what exactly that phrase means.   Greatest.... greatest what?  Greatest land mass?  Greatest economy?  Greatest quality of life?  Greatest number of millionaires?  Greatest concentration of wealth?  Greatest military power?  Greatest nuclear power?  

I think we all agree life here is generally good.  Certainly beats the crap out of Haiti or Yemen or Sudan or Zimbabwe.  Hell, we are nowhere near Nigeria in mortality rates (~20%) from botched abortions.  Here abortion is still legal and safe.   There it is illegal.  However, when I was growing up we set the bar a little higher.   We talked about the strength of our economy ... although we worried about the national debt.  We talked about the strength of our schools ... although we worried about the Russians and the Japanese.  We talked about our overall health... and didn't worry about much of anything.   Well, Russia has turned into a kleptocracy, Japan is suffering a long-term economic funk (after a real estate bubble like ours) and now we learn, life expectancy is decreasing in America for men and women...

John McCain makes the case for why pro-choice undecided voters should support Barack Obama:

(Also on my blog.)

 I was walking through the neighborhood today and came across this car.  A diehard Bush fan.  A hardcore Republican who voted for Ehrlich for governor, and supported Steele's run for the Senate.  (I couldn't fit the Steele bumper sticker in the shot, but you see the start of it on the far right.)   But that's not why I am sharing this.  No....

It's the Obama sticker on the upper left!  I blurred the vanity plate because it's the woman's name.  

So why the conversion?  Why did this hard-working Escort driving Republican decide she is not only going to vote against McCain, she is going to ADVERTISE the fact of her conversion?  Simple.  "McCain means no choice for women!"   I couldn't have said it better myself.   I realize this is totally anecdotal, but you know there are many like her flying under the radar and even more ready to convert.  They just need to hear McCain speak:

John McCain has fundamental problems with women:

"I cannot see a more counterproductive candidate for women," said Jillian Manus-Salzman, a leading California Republican activist and generous GOP donor in the nation's most populous state, an ATM for presidential campaigns. "I cannot vote for McCain."

Susan Eisenhower - granddaughter of the late GOP president Dwight Eisenhower and a Washington D.C.-based expert on foreign policy and national security issues - said today she is backing Obama over McCain because the Democrat shown more understanding of how the Iraq war, the economy, and other key issues affect their daily lives.

And Harriet Stinson, the 82-year-old founder of Bay Area-based Republicans for Choice, said that - after 60 years of Republican registration - she has finally re-registered as a Democrat.

"I couldn't take it anymore," she said, arguing that on issues like funding birth control and supporting sex education, McCain "couldn't be worse."

He's on the wrong side of the issues, and people are figuring it out.

In yesterday's post on a case of an ambulance driver's "moral refusal" of taking a woman in severe pain to a women's clinic, a frequent criticism came up: "But wouldn't the EMT get in trouble if she died?  Surely they could revoke his license?"

This, sadly, can no longer be assumed.  In at least one state--Mississippi--the scenario of an EMT conducting a "moral refusal", the woman dying as a result, and the EMT getting off scot free is an unfortunate possibility.

Even worse, Mississippi's law is now considered a model "moral refusal" statute--as we'll see below.

What does John McCain’s voting record, and what do his public statements, suggest about his views on women and families? It’s a pretty lengthy, damning, and devastating list...

In Part 2 of the miniseries which we began yesterday, we discuss how "moral refusal" clauses are increasingly going far beyond just doctors and pharmacists, and are now extending to the most basic thing we associate with healthcare--the trip in the ambulance to have emergency surgery.

Yes, you're reading this right--dominionist ambulance drivers are now refusing to take people to women's clinics just because the woman needs a medically necessary abortion.

And at the end of the post--because I never like to just bring bad news without discussing ways to fix what's broken--I present some possible solutions to the problem of "moral refusal".

You walk into a pharmacy and pass the pain relievers, deodorants, and shampoos.  But when you get to the spot where the condoms normally are shelved, there's nothing.  And don't even think about asking to fill a prescription for birth control pills -- you'll get turned away and frowned upon in no time.

Where are you?  A "pro-life" pharmacy.

A story in yesterday's Washington Post chronicles the growing movement of "pro-life" pharmacies -- pharmacies that choose not to stock condoms and not to fill prescriptions for  the "morning-after" pill, birth control pills and other standard varieties of contraception.  The pharmacists and owners of these stores claim that they have the right to not stock products that they find objectionable, and that using standard contraception is tantamount to having an abortion.  According to the article,

From ABC's Jake Tapper:

Sen. Barack Obama hit back at Sen. John McCain's recent attempts to court women voters who flocked to Sen. Hillary Clinton's failed presidential bid in droves. "On almost every single issue that's important to women, he's been on the wrong side,"the presumptive Democratic nominee told ABC News in an interview in Flint, Mich. Monday.

"You know, he is in favor of judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He has opposed equal pay. He has opposed the CHIP [Children's Health Insurance] program, that would make children insured," Obama said.

Obama is hitting McCain hard on this for a reason. We know the polls say women are siding with Obama now. The interesting thing is polling that shows McCain's women supporters are much more at risk than is widely appreciated.

Sunday's post discussed February polling for Planned Parenthood by Peter D Hart, which showed that

John McCain’s position on women’s reproductive health issues has real potential  to cost him support among this key segment of battleground women voters. In fact, about half of women voters (49%) backing McCain in a match-up against either Obama or Clinton express pro-choice views on abortion. Fully 46% of all women supporting McCain over Obama and 47% of women supporting McCain over Clinton want to see Roe upheld, including 36% in each match-up who say they feel strongly about their support for Roe. These deep and sizable divisions within McCain’s base among battleground women suggest real potential for fracture on this issue alone.

More recent polling by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (for NARAL)¹ confirms and extends these observations.

Choice can have a real impact on the presidential race.

• Once balanced information about Obama and McCain’s respective positions on choice is introduced, Obama gains 6 points, with his overall lead in these twelve states² expanding from a net 2 points (47 – 45 percent) to a net 13 points (53 – 40 percent).

• Obama gains 13 points among pro-choice Independent women (who make up 9 percent of this electorate) and 9 points among pro-choice Republican women (who account for 5 percent of this electorate). When these groups are combined, this movement equates to a gain of 1.6 points overall in the general election race against McCain.

The memo notes that this won't necessarily be the main issue for voters, but a significant task for both campaigns is informing prospective supporters and defining the opponent. The McCain record on Roe v Wade, SCHIP and similar issues makes him extremely vulnerable in November. Polling reinforces that is so, and this memo further suggests:

Among pro-choice Independent women, pro-choice Republican women, and liberal to moderate Republican women, the issue of abortion produces a larger advantage for Democrats than the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care.

• Among pro-choice Independent women, pro-choice Republican women, and liberal-to-moderate Republican women, critiques on McCain’s anti-choice position are the strongest attacks against him, trumping attacks on the economy, the war, and special interests.

The reason you'll hear more about this is because from a philosophical point of view, it matters - and from a political point of view, it matters as well.

Bottom line: women do not support McCain now, and by November are likely to support him less. And as of now, women (54-38) think Obama will win.

I have written rather extensively on Talk to Action regarding dominionists and reproductive health--one of the larger issues being the spread of so-called "moral refusal" clauses that do not just ban medical abortion but go towards banning the pill and even go so far as refusing reproductive health services to LGBT people and refusing prescriptions outright--including for antibiotics and prenatal vitamins--because they came from a women's clinic.

Now, in an end-run against "must dispense or refer" laws in several states, dominionists are now expanding the large "parallel economy" to a new area--namely, the dominionist-run pharmacy not providing contraceptives at all...and there are disturbing indications that a prediction I made re broad "moral refusal" clauses may have come to pass.

I always enjoy reading the wonderful Frank Rich. In this lovely bit of Rich writing, he says:

There are many ways that Mr. Obama can lose this election. But his 6-percentage-point lead in the Journal-NBC poll is higher than Mr. Bush’s biggest lead (4 points) over Mr. Kerry at any point in that same poll in 2004. So far, despite all the chatter to the contrary, Mr. Obama is not only holding on to Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic constituencies but expanding others (like African-Americans). The same cannot be said of Mr. McCain and the G.O.P. base.

That story is minimized or ignored in part because an unshakable McCain fan club lingers in some press quarters and in part because it’s an embarrassing refutation of the Democrats-in-meltdown narrative that so many have invested in. Understating the splintering of the Republican base also keeps hope alive for a tight race. As the Clinton-Obama marathon proved conclusively, a photo finish is essential to the dramatic and Nielsen imperatives of 24/7 television coverage.

He's right (and not just because you've heard it before from me). The media narrative, which you will be familiar with if you are a regular reader here, loves conflict and ignores Obama's solid gains over the past few weeks. More specifically,

But while the McCain campaign apparently believes that women are easy marks for its latent feminist cross-dressing, a reality check suggests that most women can instantly identify any man who’s hitting on them for selfish ends. New polls show Mr. Obama opening up a huge lead among female voters  —  beating Mr. McCain by 13 percentage points in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls and by 19 points in the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey.

How huge is a 13- to 19-percentage-point lead? John Kerry won women by only 3 points, Al Gore by 11.

The real question is how Mr. McCain and his press enablers could seriously assert that he will pick up disaffected female voters in the aftermath of the brutal Obama-Clinton nomination battle. Even among Democrats, Mr. Obama lost only the oldest female voters to Mrs. Clinton.

Obama leads women by 12 points in the latest Rasmussen polling (including leaners) and McCain has a 3 point lead among men (subscription required for crosstabs). In 2004, it was the opposite (Bush 11 point lead amongst men, Kerry 3 points with women.) In 2004, 54% of voters were female.

Now, anyone who followed the WSJ/NBC poll here (and not on network news) would be aware that Obama beats McCain 52-33 with women, and 61-19 with those who say they voted for Clinton, making Clinton supporters a stronger demographic for Obama than women in general.

But what about the 33% of women that support McCain? Ah, that's where different polling data helps us, and John McCain's reproductive rights stance helps us more. Back in March, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. was commissioned to study this for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (survey data from February, 2008¹). According to Hart,

Women voters in these likely battleground states will be a critical swing audience in the presidential race. At this point in the campaign, these women voters are divided fairly evenly intheir presidential choice, with a small marginal preference for either of the two Democratic candidates; these women give Obama a five-point margin over McCain (41% to 36%) and Clinton a three-point margin over McCain (43% to 40%).

and more significantly

John McCain’s position on women’s reproductive health issues has real potential  to cost him support among this key segment of battleground women voters. In fact, about half of women voters (49%) backing McCain in a match-up against either Obama or Clinton express pro-choice views on abortion. Fully 46% of all women supporting McCain over Obama and 47% of women supporting McCain over Clinton want to see Roe upheld, including 36% in each match-up who say they feel strongly about their support for Roe. These deep and sizable divisions within McCain’s base among battleground women suggest real potential for fracture on this issue alone.

Whay would that be? Because John McCain says

Overturning Roe v. Wade

   John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

   Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

In fact, Obama has a 100% pro-choice voting record and McCain gets a 0% from NARAL, a fact McCain is proud of.

More of McCain and Obama's positions can be found here, and here. Hart again:

Half (51%) of all women in these battleground states say they do not know enough about McCain’s views on abortion to say whether he is in step or out of step with their own outlook. This misunderstanding is acute even among McCain’s sizable audience of pro-choice women voters. In fact, about half of these pro-choice McCain voters (50% in a match-up against Obama and 52% in a match-up against Clinton) volunteer that they do not know enough to even describe McCain’s position on abortion and roughly another one in four (23% in either contest) mistakenly presume that he is in step with their own views. Thus, more than seven in 10 pro-choice McCain supporters in either a McCain- Obama race (73%) or a McCain-Clinton race (75%) have yet to learn that McCain’s position on abortion is directly at odds with their own; this represents about 36% of all McCain women voters in battleground states (regardless of
which Democratic candidate he faces).

Hart is right. The more people find out about McCain's stance on reproductive rights, the less attractive he will be. Of course, this discussion is about narrative, not facts, so don't expect the facts to sway everyone. They never do. So, here's a better narrative from the late Ann Richards' daughter Cecile:

It's our time to put a president in the White House who cares about women's health, take back our country, and move once again with progress and commitment to the future. That's  what Hillary Clinton said when she suspended her presidential campaign and that's what my mother Ann Richards would say if she were alive today. When Mom lost her reelection bid for governor of Texas to George Bush in 1994, she didn't just get over it, she went on with it -- on to campaign with gusto for hundreds of women and other progressive candidates across the country.

That's a narrative you can take to the bank.

So, while the national horse race polling will fluctuate, some of the fundamentals supporting the numbers will not – wrong/right track, presidential popularity, perceptions of the economy, how Americans feel about Iraq.

One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.

Some, like women's knowledge and perception of the candidates on reproductive rights, will still be evolving.  And if all of that keeps up, even our media, who love conflict and false 'balance', will begin to notice. On balance, that's not especially good news for McCain, who has an enthusiasm gap already. That's why the public perceives (by ~60-40) that Obama will win and McCain will lose. That does not make it a lock. But Obama having any kind of lead is another story the media will avoid, just like they avoid what is really happening with women.

Welcome to the ice age. McBush's vision of America includes many little Scalia's steering the court. Yep, the same Scalia that believes the U.S. Constitution is worth snot. It's obvious McBush could give a rats ass about reproductive rights for women. The question is, why would any women vote for him?

Fellow kossack clammyc's excellent diary that takes on most of these issues:

clammyc's companion piece from earlier today

I recommend reading it! Thank you clammyc!

Hi Daily Kos Friends.
At least half of McCain's women supporters are not aware of McCain's radical anti-choice votes and views. Planned Parenthood Polling revealed the fact that 36 % of McCain's women supporters would strongly consider changing their vote if they knew that fact. As Cecile Richards stated, the difference between Senator Obama and Senator McCain on these issues is as vast as the Grand Canyon. We must get this out. Please pass this on!!! Thank you!!!

John McCain's stance on women's issues and reproductive rights is abysmal. From SCHIP (McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion) to HIV and condoms ("Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"... McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy") to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (McCain: "I don’t think you’re doing anything to help the rights of women, except maybe help trial lawyers and others in that profession"), McCain is in lockstep with George W. Bush on disrespecting women (and men and children, which is quite a triple play).

Joe Conason, writing in Salon, notes

Nowhere is the gap between "straight talker" and pandering faker more obvious than on questions of reproductive freedom and sex education. Usually obscured by his image as a "maverick" Republican and (former) critic of the religious right, his actual record infuriates many women when they learn what he believes -- and how he has voted.

From a March DNC memo that Conason links to via Marc Ambinder:

Women panelists in the focus groups reacted surprisingly strongly to the fact that Senator McCain opposes requirements for health plans to provide contraceptive coverage and favors abstinence-only sex education. Even among women who described themselves as pro-life, those aspects of Senator McCain’s record cast him as someone who is "unrealistic," "out of touch," and "stuck in the past." Many of the women in the groups were resentful when they learned that Senator McCain favors overturning Roe vs. Wade, and were disappointed because they expected him to be more moderate on this issue.

Put more bluntly:

You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality.

The next president will be the decider on whether women's emancipation from the slavery of the womb will continue in this country. We are on the cusp of losing the right to control our bodies and determine our family size. McCain promises as much.

From EMILY's list and Debbie Wasserman Schultz(D-FL):

"We are now moving into general election mode," Malcolm said, "and it's quite clear there are vast differences on the issues between Sen. Obama and John McCain. ... We are focused on the goal, to change the direction of this country, and we will do that."

McCain is "wrong on issues that matter to us most," Wasserman Schultz added.  "There is a real fear that John McCain is dangerous for women. ... The last thing that women need to do is to vote for John McCain."

There'll be more on this topic... much more. McCain's computer illiteracy can't shield him from his own words. The interesting thing is many voters don't know this about McCain's positions on reproductive rights.

They will by November.

We can all agree McCain is right to say, "Elections have consequences."  He uses that line whenever he talks about the Supreme Court.  He knows Supreme Court appointments are the most enduring legacies presidents can leave behind.  After that is where we part company.  

With 4 conservatives already on the court, this recent Wall Street Journal article raises an interesting point:

A March poll of 1,200 women in 16 battleground states, commissioned by Planned Parenthood, showed that about half of the women who backed McCain also support abortion rights.

Given McCain's solid anti-choice voting record, it is not suprising the poll found:

Half of the women surveyed in the poll also said they didn’t know "enough about McCain’s views on abortion to say whether he is in step or out of step with their own outlook."

Time for some consciousness raising...

How do you know you're talking to a Hillary supporter? They think Barry can't win.

How do you know you're talking to a Obama supporter? They think Barack can't lose.

How do you know you're talking to a Bush supporter? If you can find one, they think that Barack Hussein Obama is a secret Muslim who hates America.

How do you know you're talking to a McCain supporter? They hate the Clintons but covet her voters.

Perhaps the most unusual theme so far in this early (now that we have nominees from both parties) fall election cycle is the idea that an inspirational candidate makes you lose your anchor with reality. Republicans, of course, don't have that problem because McCain is no inspirational candidate. That's not a guess, that's an observation supported by polls:

Obama’s bounce can be seen in his favorability ratings as well. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters now give the Illinois Senator positive reviews. Just 40% have an unfavorable opinion. Those totals include 35% with a Very Favorable opinion and 26% with a Very Unfavorable opinion. As for McCain, he is viewed favorably by 54% and unfavorably by 43%. Opinions about the presumptive Republican nominee are less firmly established. Just 16% have a Very Favorable opinion of McCain and 18% have a Very Unfavorable view

Right now, the anchoring to reality needs to be done on the Democratic side. Obama's no sure thing by any means (he can lose it), but he most assuredly can win (all the polls have him ahead in both horse race and electoral vote, though that means little in June).

And as far as McCain supporters go, it's fascinating to see them try and pick up Clinton voters based on the illusion that he's the John McCain of 2000. That dance requires not just McCain, but also Clinton supporters to suspend reality and play pretend. Here's an example from projo's Froma Harrup:

Hillary Clinton's blessing notwithstanding, many of the New York senator's supporters will resist the handover to Barack Obama. The sexism that permeated the recent campaign still rankles, and John McCain is far from the standard-issue Republican they instinctively vote against.

A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain's position on reproductive rights. Clinton's backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they'll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The answer is unclear but probably "no." While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue.

No one should be claiming McCain's views are 180 degrees from where they are. In other words, don't rationalize that the flip-flopper might flop the way you need, to justify a vote you want to make for other reasons.

Those "other reasons" can be legit, mind you. It might be that you have issues with Obama, or it might be that you simply prefer McCain. But if you are pro-choice, it would be despite McCain's stance on Supreme Court justices:

McCain's Judicial Plans in Lockstep with Bush

On May 6, while Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were still battling it out in Democratic presidential primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, the Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, stopped off at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina to deliver a speech about his judicial philosophy.

While McCain spoke about a number of issues related to the Constitution, including the separation of powers that it enshrines, the subtext of his remarks was red meat to conservatives. The candidate assured them that he was resolutely opposed to so-called "judicial activism", and that a McCain administration would nominate Supreme Court justices in the mould of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., both of whom were appointed by President George W. Bush.

Interestingly, McCain failed to mention the other two stalwart conservatives on the court, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who were named by Bush as judicial models during the 2000 presidential campaign but are often seen as toxic by independent voters. While the mainstream media dutifully reported on McCain's speech, they were more occupied by the political buzz fashioned by the Obama/Clinton contests. McCain's remarks were reviewed carefully, and mostly favourably, by conservative leaders.

Although still sceptical about McCain's conservative credentials, and downright angry over McCain's role in failing to insist on using the nuclear option (voting to end filibustering by Democrats in the Senate over Bush's judicial nominees), it is absolutely necessary that he convince them that he will continue their quest to control the U.S. judicial system.

Now, it's perfectly appropriate to vote for the candidate that best matches your views, but pretending a sow's ear is a silk purse is rather dangerous in terms of the implications of reproductive rights for women. John McCain says:

On "Meet the Press," McCain said he had "come to the conclusion that the exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother are legitimate exceptions" to an outright ban on abortions. "I don’t claim to be a theologian, but I have my moral beliefs." If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted. "But I would not prosecute a woman" who obtained an abortion. Source: Boston Globe, p. A9 Jan 31, 2000

"I am a pro-life person. That’s been a solid 24-year record," he said. "I have not changed my position."

More (bolded mine):

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has formed an exploratory committee for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, on Sunday at an event in Spartansburg, S.C., said he does not support Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 Supreme Court decision that effectively barred state abortion bans -- and that the decision should be overturned, the AP/International Herald Tribune reports (Davenport, AP/International Herald Tribune, 2/18). McCain also said that if elected president he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench" (Davenport, AP/Los Angeles Times, 2/20). McCain during a news conference on Monday in Vero Beach, Fla., said claims that he has changed his position on Roe are "false," adding that his position on the case is consistent with his record on abortion-rights issues (Bierschenk, TCPalm, 2/20).

Finally, how about checking McCain's own website?

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

There'll be more on this, but let's try to keep in mind that when people swear up and down that they are pro-life, and will appoint anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court, perhaps it's best to assume they actually mean it.  John McCain is solidly anti-choice. In being so, he stands on the opposite side of everything Hillary Clinton stands for. So, let's have a discussion on the issues, and let's discuss the candidates, but let's be clear where on the issues the candidates stand.

Now that the primary season is over and the Democratic Party has its nominee, we have turned our attention to John McCain. We have talked about how a McCain administration would be a continuation of the Bush administration. We have talked about McCain's plans for 100 years of U.S. involvement in Iraq and the importance of prevent him from packing the Supreme Court with regressive (it's the term I prefer to "conservative") judges. Good. That's the sort of thing that we need to be discussing.

However, I have seen a lot of different talk around here recently - the kind that is not so much about policy. Instead of attacking John McCain on his indefensible voting record as a senator and the folly of his platform, people are going after personal issues like his medical record, his marital life, and his teeth.