This poll is fascinating: at the beginning of the poll, people oppose overturning Roe v. Wade 55 percent to 34 percent. Then, the pollsters ask a series of questions delving into the specifics of abortion. At the end, the pollsters ask again how many people support overturning Roe v. Wade, and by then a lot of people have changed their minds. The numbers then are 48 percent to 43 percent (the majority is still opposed to overturning the law).
A few quick thoughts.
1)The Church’s position — that abortion should be legal in some extreme circumstances — is widely supported and seems logical.
2)In addition to educating people on abortion, it is also true that this poll shows the importance of how questions are asked in polls.
3)The amount of misinformation and lack of understanding regarding the abortion issue is amazing to me. My liberal friends all say the same thing regarding abortion — they support a “woman’s right to choose.” But when you start discussing the issue with them they will admit that abortion is a horrible thing and that there is no getting around the issue of human life being snuffed out, certainly in late-term abortions. When I discuss this with my liberal friends, we usually end up in about the same place — abortion should be restricted in some cases and permitted in others. Obviously we disagree on some of the areas in which abortion should be permitted and restricted, but we are not that far apart on the issue at the end of the day.
It’s sad to me that Roe v Wade has caused 34 years of unnecessary contention over abortion: appealing to the the democratic process through state legislatures would have been so much more appropriate.
From: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
48,589,993 total abortions in the US since 1973
Also see:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm
I have a theory: Part of our economy’s “demand” for illegal aliens is that we are “missing” 48 million citizens. Would we have such an employment need for immigrants, illegal and otherwise, if we had not killed off over 48 million of our own babies since 1973 ?
Interesting poll. It’s hard to me to tell how people rationalize these answers. Only 17% feel it’s OK to abort a baby if you want another gender, but 32% thinks it’s OK to abort if you want neither gender? Almost double? That sounds to me like nothing more than personalization of the question.
“Well, GIRLS are just as good as BOYS. How awful to abort a GIRL.”
Alison, good comment. People really are very nonsensical when it comes to abortion. I think the anti-abortion movement is partly at fault for this by insisting on the “all abortion is always murder” argument. There is a very emotional response most Americans have to attempts to completely outlaw all abortion (as the country of Nicaragua recently did, btw). So, most people will say, “abortion should be legal, I’m pro-choice.” And then you ask them, “should it be legal if the mother’s life is in danger,” and most will say, “yes.” Well, should it be legal if the woman doesn’t like the sex of her baby? And lo and behold 79 percent say, “no,” which is of course logical. What a horrible thing to allow a parent to abort their boy baby because they want a girl or vice versa. But under current law, you can abort for whatever reason you want. What a morally confused world we live in.
Abortion is such an emotionally charged issue on both sides, it’s hard to know how to approach it without devolving into a shouting match. I’m a bit more guarded when it comes to discussing politics, even issues that have a moral implication like abortion.
Bookslinger:
What’s really interesting is the drop in the crime rate due in large part to the abortion rate. I think it was in the 90s when Clinton was president. No one really knew what to think about it and why the crime rate dropped instead of increasing. We now know it was due in part to an increase in abortions. I’ll see if I can dig up a citation.
One could also argue, depending on one’s political/philosophical disposition, that the poll shows that the electorate is too easily manipulated and can be convinced to change their opinion … and so one shouldn’t leave decisions up to the electorate or their representatives.
Would you have cited this if the study was, say, an exercise in determining if people changed their views to agree with gay marriage after listening to a series of intermediate questions?
Queuno, I definitely would have cited this study if it supported mine — and the Church’s view — that SSM is not appropriate for these times. 🙂
But more seriously, that is often the POV you hear from liberals regarding Roe v. Wade. But even then the most introspective and knowledgeable about the law will admit that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, poorly argued and written and cobbled together with little thought about its constitutional implications. Clearly, one of the purposes of the courts is to balance the whims of a fickle electorate. And clearly there are times when this is necessary — imagine, for example, a Supreme Court that overturned the decision to put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during WWII. History would be kind to such a decision.
History has not been kind to Roe v. Wade, and the more you study it the worse it looks.
My first question, when people start criticizing Roe v. Wade, is whether they have actually READ that court decision. As one might expect, those who have are few and far between. When you consider that the Supreme Court justices are mere mortals, and that it is not their job to advocate a particular religious view, Roe v. Wade is actually an incredibly well-written legal (note I said “legal,” not “moral”) decision.
As for myself, I simply can’t support the idea of leaving the most intimate, personal family decisions to the government. One doesn’t need to approve of elective abortion for the purpose of birth control, in order to see the dangers inherent in letting government make these decisions.
Nick, I actually took an undergrad law course in which Roe v Wade was studied extensively. I have read the decision.
Justice White’s dissent, written in 1973, still has incredible applicability today:
“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
Interestingly, the liberal law professor from whom I took the undergrad course agreed with Justice White’s dissent way back in 1982 when I was in college. Basically, his concern was the precedent of the Supreme Court taking the same approach on other issues which he favors. For example, he was concerned the court could invent a new right to “economic security” in the Constitution that overturns property taxes and decreases government revenue. If you’re concerned about the government interfering in your personal decisions, imagine if we gave the Supreme Court to invent new rights (as Roe v Wade does) at its whim. What about a “governmental right” to stop homosexual sex in the interest of increasing fertility, which some could argue is a national security issue? Can you see how dangerous it is for the Supreme Court to start inventing new rights willy-nilly? My law professor felt way back in 1982 that the Court should have let the states decide this issue and the result would have eventually been to legalize abortion in most states anyway.
I would suggest that everybody do a lot more reading about Roe v. Wade and consider carefully the role of the Supreme Court in inventing new “rights.”
One thing to consider is how the justices came to this decision. You may want to read this:
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/roe/woodward.html
Who are these liberals? I am a liberal. I have read Roe and think that it is very well reasoned and argued. Now I come to this question as a political philosopher and not as a lawyer. However, my observation is that very few liberals have issues with Roe, even though conservatives (and maybe a few moderates) like to say that “even liberals do not like Roe,” this is almost always news to liberals.
I do not think that it is inconsistent for one to feel that abortion is “a horrible thing” but that it should be left up to the woman to choose.
I appreciate your thoughtfull post. (I am have problems with the textbox so I hope this comes through clearly)
Nick, regarding your number 7, I have a question for you:
Do you think it is moral or right for a mother to kill her week-old baby because she is tired of all the crying? If the answer is no, which I hope it is, then I would ask you why you care about the “intimate, personal family decisions” between a mother and her baby.
Do you think it is moral or “right” (and laws are based on society’s perceptions of morality) for a woman to abort a baby at eight months because she has suddenly decided she is tired of being pregnant and doesn’t want to have a baby because she is going out with a new guy who doesn’t like children?
Add to this: would it be moral or “right” for this same woman to still go through with the abortion knowing that there is somebody in her same town who would immediately adopt the child after she gave birth?
Continuation of #10:
I give this most extreme example (which obviously makes up a tiny, tiny percentage of all abortions) to illustrate that there are clearly some cases where abortion is wrong morally and should be wrong legally.
I also accept that there are some cases when abortion clearly should be legal (r-pe, inc-st health of the mother). So, the point of this post is that if we step back and look at this issue we will find that there is an acceptable middle ground that would decrease the contentiousness of this debate.
Personally, I would be a lot less exercised about abortion if it were only legal in the first two months, for example. I probably would still oppose “abortion for any reason” but you would not see me posting about it on M* very much because the law would make more sense.
#10 and #11 are one comment. I curse our software!!!!
In respone to Geoff in #8:
But the Supreme Court did not expand the governmental right to stop howmosexual sex. It in fact did the opposite. The court is on its stroungest footing when it protects (expands as you call it) individual rights. Individual liberty should not be a question left up to legislatures and that is why we have a bill or rights and the 14th amendment. I am glad to see that conservatives are so worried about the state of democracy. However, they only seem to worry about it when they think that the idea of majority rule will allow them to restrict rights and liberties that they do not like. So, democracy is good if it restricts liberty(?). I feel that democracy is the ideal as long as individual liberty is protected.
Chris H, you may want to consider this:
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”
This was written by a former clerk to Blackmun who is still a liberal. A lot of liberals agree with him.
Here’s the link for that quotation:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html
“The Church’s position — that abortion should be legal in some extreme circumstances — is widely supported and seems logical.”
So far as I know, the Church has never taken a position on the legality of abortion. (One reason that the pro-life community considers LDS to be unreliable allies.) Did I miss something?
JrL, the Church does have an official position on abortion, although it doesn’t take sides on this issue in terms of legislation.
Here it is:
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=9bc1d93c8688f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
• Pregnancy results from r-pe or inc-st, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
M* is not letting me post comments. You all have a good day.
Chris H, you need to consider the possibility that over time the members of the Supreme Court may change, the societal conditions may change and that the safest thing for us all is to keep to the Constitution, which clearly limits the role of the Supreme Court.
Lately, the Supreme Court has done a lot of things that liberals like. But consider in the 1930s when the Supreme Court stopped all of FDR’s New Deal policies because it was dominated by conservatives. The situation got so bad that FDR tried to “pack the supreme court” by increasing the number of justices.
Recently, the Supreme Court expanded the power of local government to take a private home through eminent domain. This is all well and good — as long as the home is not yours. The Supreme Court has a tremendous amount of power, and you need to consider the possibility that it may not always make decisions with which you agree.
Chris H, the software is very frustrating. There are certain words that get blocked. I have found the words “r-pe” and “inc-st” are blocked. You probably have words like that that are being blocked. Please look through your post and see if that is the case.
Sorry. Someday this will get fixed.
Never mind, I best get back to corrupting the youth.
What frustrates me about the American abortion debate is that it is so bizarrely legalistic. As far as I know, throughout the history of the world and across every culture women have had abortions with little regard for the “legality” of the procedure. Abortions happen because our social framework for dealing with unwanted pregnancies in a productive manner has broken down, not because they are legal.
The only way I can read the Supreme Court’s supposed constitutional right to privacy in a way that makes sense is to assume that the right to privacy is an administrative rule of convenience rather than a real constitutional right. Because an abortion can theoretically be done in an entirely private manner, criminalizing the procedure would treat the women who do and don’t get away with it differently. It’s also hard to see how a patchwork of different state laws would reduce the current level of abortions if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
It seems that what many conservatives who are framing this debate would logically want is not just for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, but for the court to determine that a fetus has a constitutional right to life – so that abortion can’t be legal.
Lief, excellent comment. Thank you. Speaking as a conservative, there are two main reasons I oppose Roe v. Wade:
1)It created a new “right” out of thin air, and this is extremely dangerous. As I say above, I don’t think liberals would want a conservative court to invent new “rights” that are conservative in nature.
2)It led to the legalization of abortion for all reasons and any reason. My primary concern is late-term abortions, which clearly are manslaughter in my opinion.
It is extremely likely that if Roe v Wade is overturned abortion would continue in 75 percent of the states in some form or another. And the women who lived in states where it is illegal would simply travel to another state to get abortions. I would be OK with that and would oppose, for example, laws prosecuting women for traveling to other states to get abortion.
If abortion were only legal in the first two months (“oops, I had sex and got pregnant — I better get an abortion quickly”) I would have fewer problems with it. I am in favor of “emergency contraception,” for example, which is abortion in the first 24 hours. But it is obscene that we are killing babies that are eight months along in this country — that simply has to stop.
“The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals … concerning abortion.”
My point exactly. You had said that the Church’s position is “that abortion should be legal in some extreme circumstances.” That statement is philosophically consistent with the Church’s position, but it is not the Church’s position.
Geoff, I thoroughly agree with your point #1 that the “right” to privacy was conveniently discovered between the written lines of the constitution and that it probably wasn’t conceived of in that way by the founding fathers.
That said, I think that Roe v. Wade is an extremely useful interim rule, even if it does provide a veneer of legality to a procedure I find morally repugnant.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned and there was a significant amount of trafficking in abortion across state lines, I think that there could be pressure for congress to re-federalize abortion on interstate commerce grounds. I just think that this result is much messier than the status quo supreme court fiat legalizing abortions with some restrictions, and additional restrictions added on by some states (and many have – I hear that it is nearly impossible to get a legal abortion in Mississippi, for instance).
Lief, what about the issue of late-term abortions?
You make a decent point in #24 about the interstate commerce issue. This is where extreme right-to-lifers shoot themselves in the foot. They need to concentrate on the real issues rather than scaring people who see that abortion should be legal in some instances.
JrL, point taken in #23. You are correct. I misunderstood your point, and it is a good one. Thanks.
Geoff, I’m confused about late term abortions. Although it’s been 7 years since I read Roe v. Wade in ConLaw, I remember that it had detailed discussions about the various trimesters and the opinion was that abortion is only legal through the second trimester. Am I wrong?
There could be exceptions similar to the church’s famous 3 – but what does the church say about late term abortions where the health of the mother is in jeopardy?
Interesting post. I’m not sure why the focus remains exclusively upon Roe when Planned Parenthood v. Casey and USSC decisions subsequent to Roe expand and clarify the “right” to abortion. For example, the trimester framework in Roe has been replaced by the “viability” standard articulated in Casey. And abortion rights are no longer grounded solely in a vague constitutional penumbra of privacy rights – as Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart:
“Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.
Lief, this may help:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib13.html
ECS is also correct that other cases are equally relevant, but the whole ball got rolling with Roe v Wade. If the court had followed Justice White’s opinion in 1973, this whole situation could have been avoided. Abortion would have been legalized in many states (which was already happening anyway). A lot of contention could have been avoided.
Ginsburg’s comment in #28 is frightening in the way it completely ignores the issue of the right of the baby, imho.
Geoff – that may be so. The point being, however, that some justices view abortion as fundamentally protected by the Equal Protection Clause – not by the nebulous right to privacy. Further, the Roe decision did not create the “right to privacy”. People who disparage the right to privacy as a judicially created doctrine extrinsic to the U.S. Constitution need to recognize that many freedoms they enjoy (including using birth control) are then constitutionally unsupportable.
Geoff #8,
I understand your point, Geoff. I happen to look at it differently, however. In my estimation, the justices wisely realized that they were entirely incapable of determining when human life began. They couldn’t justifiably do it on the basis of someone’s religion. Science didn’t have a satisfying answer. Without a secular, objective answer to this question, they “erred” on the side of freedom.
As I have read many other Supreme Court decisions, I find Roe to be one of the very least politcal. Generally speaking, the Court decides politically what they want to rule, and then goes about finding legal excuses. The writing reflects that strongly, IMO.
Geoff #10-11-12:
I would hope you and I agree on the morality of the choices you present. To me, however, the question goes well beyond morality. Most of the United States thought plural marriage was “immoral,” and the Court justified stripping the right to practice one’s religion almost entirely.
The idea that it is government’s “job” to “protect” the fetus by denying an adult woman the ability to legally choose to end her pregnancy is one which many obviously accept. I can understand it, on many levels, and even agree to a point. That said, giving government the power to make such choices makes me very uncomfortable. Even some of the exceptions noted by LDS doctrine would be entirely illegal, if the “moral majority” of Americans had their religious views codified and legislated.
Geoff #16:
Not to threadjack, but isn’t it interesting that the LDS church thinks gay marriage is such a moral threat that they should take a public and high-spending position, yet they DON’T consider abortion to be of similar importance?
Nick, I think you are making a point that exactly fits my argument: ie, the reason the Church doesn’t spend any money and/or political capital on abortion is that it has been unconstitutionally taken out of the legislative process and decided by judicial fiat. There is nothing the Church could do to directly effect change in the area of abortion beyond trying to get presidents elected who will nominate constructionist judges to the Supreme Court who will eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, there are still things that can be done on a state by state basis in the area of stopping gay marriage. In addition, the FMA would prevent the Supreme Court from inventing yet another new “right” out of thin air.
The Church’s position on this makes perfect sense and it has nothing to do with not thinking abortion is important. In fact, you could argue that the Church is acting on gay marriage precisely because it learned from the sad experience of Roe v Wade.
Let’s be honest, Geoff. Rhetoric about the Supreme Court “inventing rights out of thin air” is merely code-speak, just like “activist judges.” All it means is that the speaker disagrees with the Court’s ruling.
Regardless of Roe v. Wade, the LDS church could do much to promote constitutionally limited legislation on abortion.
Anyone remember back a year or two ago when South Dakota was talking about banning abortion?
As far as I know, the issue hasn’t been resolved yet, but back when it was on the news radar, I heard a very interesting side story that I’m not sure many other people caught.
One of the indian reservations in South Dakota made a public statement that if abortion were indeed made illegal in South Dakota, they would be seriously considering opening abortion clinics on tribal lands.
Kinda like the ca(s)ino thing I suppose…
Just think about how many reservations there are on tribal lands throughout the United States, a large proportion of which are on traditionally conservative states. Those tribal lands are sovereign nations and there’s little any governor or state legislature can do about it.
The pro-abortion camp may have the political equivalent of an inside straight tucked away beneath the table (to use another blogger’s term).
But I do agree with Geoff that the legalistic framing of the whole abortion question is crippling any rational debate of this issue.
Because the issue is part of the realm of the courts, each side becomes more and more polarized. Any move one way or the other along the spectrum of abortion regulation, however reasonable, is immediately seen by the other side as the beginning of a slippery slope to an awful world of legislation.
Thus “pro choice” folks look at a partial birth abortion ban as the beginning of the end of the world, and likewise “pro life” folks see birth control as the first step to a world where we kill people at will.
Each side views any move one way or the other as the proverbial camel sticking “just his nose” in the tent.
I don’t think a fertilized egg is a human life. Nor do I think that a fetus that resembles a fish more than a person is the moral equivalent of my infant son who is asleep in the next room. I’m also just hunky-dory with embryonic stem cell research. No qualms whatever. I think the morning-after pill is a great idea, and generally support birth control.
But neither did I have a huge problem with the partial birth abortion ban. It seemed sensible to me. Nor do I like the idea of terminating a fetus that actually has a nose, mouth and little fingers without a good serious health issue at stake. I also think that even terminating a fetus that looks like a fish should be done prayerfully and with proper respect for the sacred pro-creative process. I’m big on inserting a sense of reverence into the whole process of procreation generally (although I don’t see many practical ways to legislate that attitude).
I’ll be honest, my litmus test is if it looks like a person, I generally oppose the abortion (with noted exceptions from Salt Lake).
Is that a valid way to judge this?
Beats me, but it feels like a more genuine response to the debate than the scientific and legalistic arguments I’ve heard.
I’ve wondered if Brown v. Board of Education set back race relations in the United States. Without an edict from on high, people through their school boards and legislatures would have continued grappling with the relevant issues and would have owned the results. Instead, change was taken out of their hands and responsibility.
My feelings on abortion are very close too Seth’s. I do wish it wasn’t such a large part of the political wasteland today. I know too many people that vote on a candidate because of how they answer one question, Pro Life or Pro Choice. At this time I believe the whole mess is too polarizing for anyone to actually make any changes without pissing off half the country.
My family used to get the Catholic Voice and I read articles in there that I think would help people to understand the horrors of abortion and especially late term abortion. I am using Pro Life as my screen name as I do identify with this issue very strongly.
If people would goggle Project Rachel, they may see that there are many people who have had serious regrets after an abortion. There is serious emotional consequences.
I have a cousin who was pretty much forced by her parents to have an abortion. She already had two children and required a lot of help from her mom to help take care of them. She was married when she became pregnant with the first two. I think the baby that she aborted was conceived after her divorce by someone other than the father of her two other children. She had talked her sister out of having an abortion years ago and had no one in the family to support her. I did not know about this until years later. She has thought about the loss of this child constantly. She had changed her mind of allowing the procedure after they had given her the anisthesia. She could not speak. All she could do was cry.
From reading the Catholic Voice, I read that the woman who filed the suit in Roe VS Wade has converted to be Catholic and is opposed to abortion now.
I have heard that the country was split right down the middle on abortion as of a statistic a few years ago. The media makes it seem like you are going against the majority if you are Pro-life.
There is a procedure that I read about in Reader’s Digest that makes the air in the incubator of a premature baby so much more like the amniotic fluid. At the time of print, there were huge obstactles to letting this be used in more than on an experimental basis. It reduces loss of life as well as complications to the child. The child in the story who had this procedure was a healthy 12 year old if my memory serves. Those who oppose approve argue that it could make women take less care of themselves when pregnant as they think it is okay to have a premature baby. To me, there is so much fallacy in that reasoning. I don’t think all those who take crack are suddenty going to change one iota and stop taking crack or keep taking crack on such a basis or any of the others who neglect their unborn children by not taking prenatal care. I believe that the reasoning behind not approving this procedure lies in not wanting a baby to be viable at an earlier age as that has ramifications in the abortion argument.
Pro Life, I think you make a good point that when people discuss “the health of the mother” they also need to consider the psychological problems many pregnant women undergo after having abortions. Again, I do not think this should trump good reasons for having an abortion (r-pe, inc-est, etc), but it should be considered by people who are “pro-choice” more than it is today.
Of course the most famous traumatized pregnant woman is “Roe” herself who was the woman who wanted the abortion and was denied in the “Roe v Wade” case. Years later, after realizing how traumatizing abortion is, she began campaigning for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
Again, I am searching for consensus on this issue: there is no denying that “back-alley abortions” are also traumatizing. My only point is that the traumatic effects of abortion on women should be considered and very often is not by the pro-choice lobby.
Interestingly, a separate Gallup poll has show a recent increase in the number of people supporting overturning Roe v Wade (full disclosure: the majority still opposes overturning it).
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjFjMWZjODI2MjA2ZWFiNWY3NTc1NjA4NzA2NTZiMTc=
Geoff, I think there actually is a consensus out there in America that is still untapped.
I’d wager that the consensus doesn’t like severing the heads of cute little fetuses in-utero.
By I also don’t thing they consider a fertilized egg to be the same thing as a person.
The problem is that the legalistic battle over the issue polarizes the camps. If I want to oppose, say, partial birth abortion, I have to politically side up with morons who think that “the morning after pill” is akin to murder.
If I want to advocate allowing a rape victim to get an early term abortion, I have to side up with people who think a woman has a right to kill a baby at any stage, even if the only difference between the “Fetus” and some people’s babies lying in cribs in cute little clothes is that one is inside someone’s stomach and the other isn’t.
Why must I side with morons to get reasonable results?