NATION

PASSWORD

Why Utah is making men pay women's pregnancy costs

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Neu California
Minister
 
Posts: 2442
Founded: Jul 12, 2009
Left-wing Utopia

Why Utah is making men pay women's pregnancy costs

Postby Neu California » Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:27 pm

I'm not sure if this belongs in the abortion thread or not. It's in a weird area to me.

The BBC wrote:Fathers in Utah are now legally obliged to pay half the cost of a mother's medical care related to pregnancy and delivery.

Supporters of the law - which is thought to be the first of its kind in the US - say it will help alleviate the financial burden of motherhood for American women.

The legislation passed with bipartisan support - but it raises questions about the cost of parenting in the US, as well as the state's growing roster of anti-abortion legislation.

What does the law say?
Utah's Shared Medical Costs law requires biological fathers to pay half of a mother's insurance premiums - her monthly health insurance costs - during pregnancy as well as all other related medical fees, including the birth of the child.

For US women with insurance, giving birth costs an average of $4,500 (£3,254) out of pocket, according to a study in the Health Affairs journal that tracked costs from 2008 - 2015.

For those without coverage, this figure could more than double: the not-for-profit Fair Health organisation reported the average as closer to $10,000.

If paternity of the child is in question, fathers are able to delay payments until paternity is proven.

The payment process is not automatic. Similar to child support, if a woman does not seek assistance, the father will not be notified.

What's going on with US abortion rights?
Why do so many US women die giving birth?
The same financial obligation does not apply if a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy.

Biological fathers will not be required to contribute to the cost of an abortion if it is sought without their consent, except in the case of rape or if the mother's life is in danger.

The cost of an abortion, without insurance, is roughly $1,000 (£722) according to Planned Parenthood.

The law, which will take effect on 5 May, passed unanimously with bipartisan support in the state's Senate but faced Democratic opposition in the House of Representatives.

Why was it introduced?
One of the bill's sponsors, state Congressman Brady Brammer, has said that he wanted a bill that was "actually pro-life" following a spate of anti-abortion bills introduced in the state.

"You can support pregnant moms and new babies and it doesn't have to be about abortion," Mr Brammer, an anti-abortion Republican, told the BBC.

Since joining the legislature in 2019, Mr Brammer has seen a number of abortion bills introduced. Each time, "they're contentious and they're emotional", he said. But at the "core" of the issue, "there's someone in a really tough position in life, making a real tough decision in life".

"Perhaps we could make that situation a little bit easier," he said.

Many pro-choice activists reject the claim that an abortion is an act of desperation, often made by someone who is, as Mr Brammer described, "scared, alone and poor".

In the US, 24% of women will have an abortion by the time they turn 45, according to the Guttmacher Institute - a research organisation in favour of abortion access. But of these women, nearly half live below the federal poverty line.

What is the criticism?
Pro-choice advocates and women's groups have said they support efforts to lessen the costs of pregnancy and childcare.

But this law is not the best approach, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Katrina Barker told NBC News.

"Expanded Medicaid [low-income health scheme], better insurance coverage, equitable access to reproductive health care, and paid family leave are just a few ways policy makers could do much more", Ms Baker said.

And the pregnancy assistance will do little to alleviate the financial burden of having a child in the US.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, families will spend an average of $233,610 raising a child born in 2015 - a figure that does not include the cost of college.

Despite Mr Brammer's insistence that the new legislation can "support life" without being about abortion, it has still stirred up existing controversy about abortion access in Utah.

For some anti-abortion activists in his state, it is part of a legal web they hope will further restrict abortion access.

"We very much consider this a pro-life bill," Merrilee Boyack, chairwoman of Abortion-Free Utah, told the BBC. Ms Boyack has previously said her organisation's goal is to make abortion "unthinkable".

"I think a whole range of laws in this arena are going to be needed to be effective in supporting a culture of life," Ms Boyack said.

Republicans in the state, including Mr Brammer, have made it increasingly difficult to seek an abortion in Utah.

In 2019, they passed a proposal to ban elective abortions 18 weeks after conception. Women seeking an abortion before that time must receive in-person counselling regarding their pregnancy, which includes information that could discourage them from an abortion, and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided.

And last year, Utah lawmakers passed a so-called "trigger ban" that would bar nearly all abortions if the 1973 Supreme Court decision that first legalised abortion across the country were ever overturned.


Now I know this will draw out the usual suspects, but this makes perfect sense to me personally. Having a baby is expensive, and having a father who contributes nothing to that process, either through helping pay medical bills or paying child support is just ridiculous to me (which is the same reason I'm opposed to paper abortions. A woman aborts, no one pays to take care of the dead fetus, whereas if she doesn't it shouldn't be on her alone to take care of the baby while the father is allowed to wander off without any responsibility). It's also nice to see someone actually trying to make pro-life about more than abortions and make it opt in, just in case.
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little"-FDR
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist"-Dom Helder Camara
Aspie and proud
I'm a weak agnostic without atheistic or theistic leanings.

Sources for n green I'll trust (especially the splc), sources in red and grey are lying until proven otherwise

User avatar
Cetacea
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6270
Founded: Apr 27, 2012
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Cetacea » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:00 pm

Yeah its entirely fucked up that women in the US have to pay anything at all to give birth, but since the US medical system is so stupid then I like the idea of both parents having to contribute to the health of their child.

I’d be happier if medical care for new babies was free (Ok, provided by the state)
Last edited by Cetacea on Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Punished UMN
Minister
 
Posts: 3424
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:50 pm

It makes it more fair but the system should have universal coverage and the price-fixing power of hospitals and doctors should be broken.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on in it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
-SARS-
Envoy
 
Posts: 297
Founded: May 02, 2020
Tyranny by Majority

Postby -SARS- » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:58 pm

This law sounds kind of meh, but it is refreshing to see this:
"You can support pregnant moms and new babies and it doesn't have to be about abortion," Mr Brammer, an anti-abortion Republican, told the BBC.
This nation is made with pure 100% all-natural SARS. Non-GMO, gluten-free, and ZERO ADDED SUGAR!

User avatar
The New California Republic
Post Czar
 
Posts: 33657
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:44 am

If there was UHC then this shit wouldn't be happening in the first place.
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36440
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:02 am

I am...not sure what I think about this. My initial reaction was it is better than nothing, but then I wondered about men who do not want to be a father while the mother is unwilling to have an abortion.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Miku the Based
Diplomat
 
Posts: 570
Founded: Dec 03, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Miku the Based » Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:04 am

Neu California wrote:
The BBC wrote:Fathers in Utah are now legally obliged to pay half the cost of a mother's medical care related to pregnancy and delivery.

Supporters of the law - which is thought to be the first of its kind in the US - say it will help alleviate the financial burden of motherhood for American women.

The legislation passed with bipartisan support - but it raises questions about the cost of parenting in the US, as well as the state's growing roster of anti-abortion legislation.

What does the law say?
Utah's Shared Medical Costs law requires biological fathers to pay half of a mother's insurance premiums - her monthly health insurance costs - during pregnancy as well as all other related medical fees, including the birth of the child.

For US women with insurance, giving birth costs an average of $4,500 (£3,254) out of pocket, according to a study in the Health Affairs journal that tracked costs from 2008 - 2015.

For those without coverage, this figure could more than double: the not-for-profit Fair Health organisation reported the average as closer to $10,000.

If paternity of the child is in question, fathers are able to delay payments until paternity is proven.

The payment process is not automatic. Similar to child support, if a woman does not seek assistance, the father will not be notified....
--snip--

Makes sense to me, but I still don't understand how less then 9 months of being in a bed with a ekm, brought food, and electricity and AC somehow cost 10 grand. Must be big pharma's fault. Both parents should bare the consequences of thier actions and at least pay for the child wether it be through generalized taxes to subsidize the Maternity ward and rasing the child through foster home or directly.
Abortion is really irrelevant here, news like to put out partisan yellow papers like this and I suggest not reading news.
January 8th, 2021 - I vow not to respond to anyone OOCIC/OOC I'm 100% serious
Do not ask me my opinion of LGBT. the mods don't approve.
Yes, I'm Homophobic, Transphobic etc. not stop incessantly responding to me and then have the audacity to claim I am the one "trolling". If I don't respond to you most likely I'm on your foe list. If one is hypersensitive I recommend putting me on your foe list
Socialism Cockshottian Economic Pan-aftrica DPRK Hamas Belarus CCP Kazakhstan Maxim Gorky National Bolshevikism jim profit free thought and expression thereof | Susan Sontag Critical Theory New-Left Cub/Ven. Socialism Smashie Drugs USculture NPA Corrupt Moderator Unruley Moderators anglos thought crimes/police

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36440
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:31 am

Fillygreed wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:I am...not sure what I think about this. My initial reaction was it is better than nothing, but then I wondered about men who do not want to be a father while the mother is unwilling to have an abortion.


And didn't use a condom because "it's like taking a shower with a raincoat on" or perhaps their partner never said "I'm 100% certain I didn't miss my pill".

Hmm. Well they're pretty much screwed aren't they? They're taking the consequences of something that just happened, just the way anti-abortionists demand pregnant women do. Except it's less: half the money rather than all the money plus health consequences.

If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 113209
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:52 am

It is an interesting idea. Provides support for the mother and is a positive alternative to abortion.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Odreria
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1799
Founded: Jun 15, 2020
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Odreria » Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:54 am

That's the job of the state.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 13837
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:06 am

Hmm... well providing financial support for the woman (at first glance) seems like... something. However, throwing the expense onto the man (who also may not have the money for this kind of expense) seems like a poor alternative.

Women are already at an increased risk of domestic violence in pregnancy, and forcing some men to pay for the upkeep of unwanted pregnancies seems like it might increase that risk.

Also, as men do not have to fund if the woman aborts... this raises the question of what happens if the pregnant woman plans to keep the pregnancy but then (due to medical emergency) requires an abortion -- will she be forced to provide a refund for the medical care she received?

In addition, if a woman chooses abortion due to economic hardship, she has probably factored in longer-term expenses and difficulties than just those 40 weeks of her pregnancy.

This really seems like a small, rather ineffective sticking-plaster.

Really, it would be better all-'round if the government funded this. Or just brought in free universal healthcare... Or, all those things that the representative of Planned Parenthood suggested.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Borderlands of Rojava
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11715
Founded: Jul 27, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby Borderlands of Rojava » Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:22 am

Honestly it makes sense. It takes two people to make a baby fr.

The government could just provide poor families the money tho. This seems like Utah put a bandaid on a bullethole.
Last edited by Borderlands of Rojava on Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Leftist, commie and Antifa Guy. Democratic Confederalist, Anti-racist

"The devil is out there. Hiding behind every corner and in every nook and cranny. In all of the dives, all over the city. Before you lays an entire world of enemies, and at day's end when the chips are down, we're a society of strangers. You cant walk by someone on the street anymore without crossing the road to get away from their stare. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. The land of plague and shadow. Nothing innocent survives this world. If it can't corrupt you, it'll kill you."

User avatar
Unstoppable Empire of Doom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1607
Founded: Dec 18, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Unstoppable Empire of Doom » Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:27 am

This should have already been a thing.
Whoever said "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink" has clearly never drown a horse.

RIP MF DOOM

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 144797
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:54 am

Two people can probably manage the costs of pregnancy related healthcare more easily than one. But you know, I bet that even more people could manage the costs even more easily. Maybe you could even cut out the insurance provider middlemen.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Regular Thorough Handwashing For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Mask Wearing That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Social Distancing
He/Him

You've got a lonesome road to walk, and it ain't along the railroad track, and it ain't along the black-top tar you walked a hundred times before.
I'll tell you where the real road lies: between your ears, behind your eyes. That is the path to paradise, likewise the road to ruin.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 36440
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:17 am

Fillygreed wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).


There is a way that neither will have to pay: government pays 100%. There, that was easy.

That would be nice but is not happening any time soon.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 3424
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:29 am

Makes sense, though things like this should not be paid out of pocket.

User avatar
Anagonia
Minister
 
Posts: 2724
Founded: Dec 18, 2003
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Anagonia » Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:35 am

I support this, growing up from my background. If you helped create the life, you dang well better take responsibility for it - if you're even aware of it.

User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 67303
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Genivaria » Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:50 am

Wow American politicians are absolutely desperate to find anything other than instituting a proper healthcare system.
Liberal Social Democrat. Vague leftist, growing more cynical as each day passes.
The DNC is better than the GOP like Manslaughter is better than Murder: Seems like a lesser crime, but the victim can't tell the difference.

User avatar
The Republic of Fore
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1427
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Republic of Fore » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:10 am

Fillygreed wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).


There is a way that neither will have to pay: government pays 100%. There, that was easy.

Or the woman can pay. If It's her body her choice, then It's her body her problem to pay for it. Condoms can break and have holes poked in them. This just seems way open to abuse. No way should I be forced to pay for a child I don't want.

User avatar
Punished UMN
Minister
 
Posts: 3424
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:11 am

Neutraligon wrote:
Fillygreed wrote:
And didn't use a condom because "it's like taking a shower with a raincoat on" or perhaps their partner never said "I'm 100% certain I didn't miss my pill".

Hmm. Well they're pretty much screwed aren't they? They're taking the consequences of something that just happened, just the way anti-abortionists demand pregnant women do. Except it's less: half the money rather than all the money plus health consequences.

If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).

Because there are in fact consequences to one's actions and merely forfeiting one's responsibility does not make those consequences any more palatable for the mother and child.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on in it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 144797
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:16 am

The Republic of Fore wrote:
Fillygreed wrote:
There is a way that neither will have to pay: government pays 100%. There, that was easy.

Or the woman can pay. If It's her body her choice, then It's her body her problem to pay for it. Condoms can break and have holes poked in them. This just seems way open to abuse. No way should I be forced to pay for a child I don't want.

That would be fine if and only if the welfare of the child in question was guaranteed, regardless of your personal contribution towards that welfare. But that would entail things like healthcare and education being free at the point of access.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Regular Thorough Handwashing For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Mask Wearing That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Social Distancing
He/Him

You've got a lonesome road to walk, and it ain't along the railroad track, and it ain't along the black-top tar you walked a hundred times before.
I'll tell you where the real road lies: between your ears, behind your eyes. That is the path to paradise, likewise the road to ruin.

User avatar
The Republic of Fore
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1427
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Republic of Fore » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:17 am

Punished UMN wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:If women are allowed to deal with getting pregnant by getting an abortion I fail to see why men are not allowed something equivalent (and no men should not be allowed to force women into getting an abortion).

Because there are in fact consequences to one's actions and merely forfeiting one's responsibility does not make those consequences any more palatable for the mother and child.

Apply the same argument to abortion or giving the child up for adoption then. If men can't walk away then women shouldn't be able to. No double standards.

User avatar
The Republic of Fore
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1427
Founded: Apr 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Republic of Fore » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:18 am

Ifreann wrote:
The Republic of Fore wrote:Or the woman can pay. If It's her body her choice, then It's her body her problem to pay for it. Condoms can break and have holes poked in them. This just seems way open to abuse. No way should I be forced to pay for a child I don't want.

That would be fine if and only if the welfare of the child in question was guaranteed, regardless of your personal contribution towards that welfare. But that would entail things like healthcare and education being free at the point of access.

Or it would entail things like her being responsible for the child she wanted. Can't afford to support a child? Too bad, CPS will take them away and give them to someone who can.

User avatar
Punished UMN
Minister
 
Posts: 3424
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Punished UMN » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:19 am

The Republic of Fore wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:Because there are in fact consequences to one's actions and merely forfeiting one's responsibility does not make those consequences any more palatable for the mother and child.

Apply the same argument to abortion or giving the child up for adoption then. If men can't walk away then women shouldn't be able to. No double standards.

I don't think it is as much a double standard as you think it is, but I also do apply the same argument to those situations. But there is not in fact a right to "walk away", there are social duties which are universally accepted, and among those is to care for one's children.
Eastern Orthodox Christian. Prudish. Low-key bisexual. Purgatorial universalist.
Ascended beyond politics, now metapolitics is my best friend. Absolute pacifist. Proud member of the Napoleon Bonaparte fandom.
I have borderline personality disorder, if I overreact to something, try to approach me after the fact and I'll apologize.
The political compass is like hell: if you find yourself on in it, keep going.
Pro: The fundamental dignitas of the human spirit as expressed through its self-actualization in theosis. Anti: Faustian-Demonic Space Anarcho-Capitalism with Italo-Futurist Characteristics

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 144797
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:20 am

The Republic of Fore wrote:
Punished UMN wrote:Because there are in fact consequences to one's actions and merely forfeiting one's responsibility does not make those consequences any more palatable for the mother and child.

Apply the same argument to abortion or giving the child up for adoption then. If men can't walk away then women shouldn't be able to. No double standards.

Giving a child up for adoption involves arranging for someone else to take care of the child. Not really the same as just disclaiming any responsibility.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Regular Thorough Handwashing For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Mask Wearing That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Social Distancing
He/Him

You've got a lonesome road to walk, and it ain't along the railroad track, and it ain't along the black-top tar you walked a hundred times before.
I'll tell you where the real road lies: between your ears, behind your eyes. That is the path to paradise, likewise the road to ruin.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bombadil, Calimama, Conservative Republic Of Huang, Drongonia, Google Adsense [Bot], Gravlen, Great Pacific Switzerland, Intelligentland, Miku the Based, Neanderthaland, Necroghastia, New haven america, Senkaku, Tasarah, The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile

Advertisement

Remove ads