Mom gives birth to twin boys at 60 as FDA approves new "no periods" birth control pill
by Nordette

I am a mom and I love my children. Sometimes I think it might be cool to see grandkids one day, but when I heard this story about a New Jersey woman giving birth to twin boys today at age 60, my stomach flipped. Frieda Birnbaum is being called the oldest woman to give birth to twins in the the United States:

The babies were delivered at Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, N.J., by caesarean section.

"Baby A" weighed 4 pounds, 11.4 ounces, and "Baby B" weighed 4 pounds, 11 ounces.

Birnbaum said she felt great after delivering the two boys. "This is so wonderful, I feel so relaxed. It has been a great experience," she said.

Birnbaum, who is a psychologist, and her husband Ken, a Manhattan attorney, have three other children — a 6-year-old son, a 29-year-old daughter and a 33-year-old son. (FOX News)

According to this FOX News New York story, the mother and father have been married 38 years and are leaning toward the names Jarred and Jake for the twins.

Whenever an older woman gives birth, debate tends to rise about elderly couples with young children and whether there's such a thing as too old to be a mom. I'm in my 40s with one grown daughter and a teenage son. Personally, I don't want to imagine starting over with a baby, and I know I mean that because as I was coming out of my divorce I met a very appealing, successful male who told me he wanted a child. I told him, "You have the wrong lady."

I may feel that way, but the 60-year-old Mrs. Birnbaum seems happy about the birth of her twins. According to the FOX report (this blog was updated to reflect this new information because I heard the story first on another station), Mrs. Birnbaum achieved pregnancy through in vitro fertilization. She had to go overseas for the procedure because doctors in the United States prefer not to perform in vitro fertilization on mothers over 50, reports WABC.

A 59-year-old mother gave birth to twins in Great Britain in 1993, and her story became controversial when sources revealed that the woman received donated eggs:

Three days after a 59-year-old woman gave birth to twins in a London hospital, doctors and politicians have become snarled in a thickening ethical debate: should governments and doctors limit the age at which a woman may become pregnant through fertility treatments?

The London woman, who has not been identified but is described as wealthy, gave birth after eggs donated by a younger woman and fertilized by the older woman's husband were implanted in her at a private fertility clinic in Rome. Doctors in London had earlier refused to perform the procedure because they believed she was too old to face the emotional stress. (New York Times)

Would you want to bear a child in your sixties? If conception can only be achieved through artificial means, do you think older women should be denied fertility treatments or the opportunity to bear a child through donor eggs? Should the government honor reproductive rights regardless of age?



FDA approves new menstrual period-free, birth-control pill

Ironically in the same newscast about Mrs. Birnbaum's delivery, another report aired about a new birth control pill that's being hailed as "a medical breakthrough for women." According to the news story, the FDA has approved a birth-control pill that eliminates menstrual periods:

The FDA on Tuesday approved a new birth control pill that would make having a monthly period a thing of the past.

Developed by New Jersey-based pharmaceutical company Wyeth, Lybrel is the first oral contraceptive that would block menses indefinitely. (Lybrel story)

A company survey suggests, however, that women may not clamor for "no period" as much as the pharmaceutical company hopes. "Half of all women said they welcomed their periods as a sign they were not pregnant," the article reports.

The only thing I have to say about this new pill is I'm glad Wyeth stuck with a name that sounds like a pill unlike that other pill they bought off that French company. I remember the day I went to the doctor to confirm my second pregnancy and the nurse placed me in a room where my name was on everything. Even the baby-blue stirrup covers said "Nordette."

Already my unborn son was sucking away my brain power. Not having heard of the birth control pill that shares my name, I thought somehow Kaiser Permanente had personalized the room. Oh, this is so nice, I thought, but how much are they charging me to have my name on everything?

Links

  • Birth Control Pill Halts Women's Periods


    • Nordette Adams' personal blog is Confessions of a Jersey Goddess

    Submitted by Nordette (view blog) on Tue, 05/22/2007 - 17:14
    Posted In

    Comments

     

    Fertility treatments, public health and
    private investment

    Nordette, this question of yours is a zinger:

    "Would you want to bear a child in your sixties? If conception can only be achieved through artificial means, do you think older women should be denied fertility treatments or the opportunity to bear a child through donor eggs? Should the government honor reproductive rights regardless of age?

    The only easy answer for me is to the first question: Would I want to bear a child in my sixties? I do not know. I think I'm done having children and plenty busy caring and financially providing for the ones we have already. But -- what if I had a family member who needed me to carry a child for her? I do have two sisters. I would do anything for them. I just can't rule anything out.

    Your other questions find me in an uncomfortable position of honoring other peoples' personal freedoms while believing we have to have some spending limits on public health coverage. If conception can only happen artificially, I don't think the government should have any say about what I do with my body. If I choose to undergo infertility treatments as a senior citizen, that's my right. As long as I pay for it.

    Because I don't think -- with all the other health care emergencies this country faces among our uninsured, that the cost of this extraordinary effort for an elderly person should come before preventing suffering and improving the lives of people suffering from ill-health today. In the past 24 hours, I've had an uninsured friend contract appendicitis and met a two-year-old whose baby teeth are already rotting from neglect (he has a teenage, unmarried mother). These folks need public investment in health care first. And second come couples half or two-thirds this woman's age who are struggling with infertility and have a greater likelihood of conceiving at a much lower cost and less invasive effort.

    I welcome your thoughts about holes in my logic...

    Lisa Stone
    BlogHer Co-founder
    Surfette

    Submitted by Lisa Stone on Tue, 05/22/2007 - 21:10
     

    Good points

    When I asked about the government honoring reproductive rights for the elderly, I didn't even think about the possibility that someone who couldn't afford the treatment might want it. LOL. I was thinking in terms that you can't find a doctor who'll do in vitro for women over 50 in this country and wondering if that was a violation of their rights. This debate is so foreign to me that I can't judge. I have two children and don't want more at my age.

    I suppose doctors rights must also be considered. A doctor shouldn't be forced to perform a procedure he/she believes is too dangerous or unwise. Actually, who would want a doctor to operate on them if he/she didn't want to?

    Considering that life-expectancy is 75, I think that any woman going to great trouble to have a child in her sixties to raise herself must be highly optimistic about her own personal future. It seems like you're bringing a child into the world who has a high probability of becoming someone else's responsibility other than yours before it's an adult.

    However, if we're for freedom of choice, then how can we be against another person's decision to have children at any age? It seems this is one subject that challenges beliefs on several levels.

    "Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

    Submitted by Nordette on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 08:23
     

    Biological Clock

    To be perfectly frank, my biological clock was ticking along there mighty steady until my early forties. Then it developed a hiccup and by the time I hit my mid-forties a spring broke. As the Germans put it, “kaputt”! I don’t think I could physically or emotionally go through another pregnancy at this point (Almost Fifty).

    Like Lisa said, there are always extenuating circumstances and we have to recognise and respect the fact that we all tick differently.

    lia from luebeck, germany

    Author of the media safe 101 page on the Red Tent Blog and the personal yum yum cafe

    Submitted by Lia on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 03:59
     

    Baby fever at 42

    I remember the biological clock still ticking here too. My mother had my brother when she was 40. Then like you, something switched and I realized I'd love to hold someone else's baby, but not my own. I don't think I could handle bearing a baby emotionally, physically, or mentally either. However, how many women thought they were ready the first time they did it?

    "Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

    Submitted by Nordette on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 08:30
     

    Not me!

    My mom had me at 41 and my younger sister at 44 (unplanned and the old fashioned way), so I spent my 40s in fear of conception. Now that I'm 55, the thought of caring for an infant, a toddler, a teen... makes me want to lie down with a cold compress on my forehead. But if other women want to do it and have the resources to make it happen, be my guest! (But don't ask me to babysit.)

    The Blog: Red Nose
    The Other Blog: Center Ring
    The Book: Girl Clown

    Submitted by maryrwise on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 05:08
     

    Cold compress at the thought

    Hah! We're on the same page. :-)

    "Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

    Submitted by Nordette on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 08:31
     

    my parent's were 40 too

    My parents were 40 when they had me ( 2 years after my older sister died) I have always felt they didn't have the patience for me, that they were somehow already done in their minds. I never had any toys with multiple pieces, just learning games. I think since the age of 10, I felt like I was a replacement. I resented their old way standards all through school. They were stricter than most parents, I don't know if it was their age or that they already lost one daughter. I don't think I was a horrible teenage girl, just a typical girl. To this day, my father especially tries to force his views into my life. I just think if they had been younger, our relationship wouldn't still be so outdated. I always said I would be done having children by my 26th birthday. I made it by one day, my twins were born the day before. I do not regret not having more, I am just the right age to understand what it was like being a kid and old enough to want them to learn from their own mistakes and being open enough with them to talk to me about everything. And, no we are not friends, I am MOM and they are the kids. We all know our place in the family.

    Submitted by jrtjosey on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 10:59
     

    unnatural

    I don't want to get started on the whole having-babies-in-their-sixties thing. I am sure I'll tick someone off with my knee-jerk response.

    Regarding stopping your periods:

    It just seems like a bad idea. Our bodies were made a certain way for a reason. Hormones affect far more than whether or not you have a period. Tinkering with the body's natural balance for long periods of time doesn't seem wise.

    Plus, reportedly 18% of women using this treatment experience breakthrough bleeding, which is unpredictable. I had occasional, breakthrough bleeding in college. It happens in the worst circumstances. Hardly seems worth it.

    Wheat Among Tares

    Submitted by Terri987 on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 06:26
     

    Terri, I agree with you about tinkering with
    hormones!

    Messing with the monthly cycle? Only for medical reasons. And even then, I think a second or third opinion is a must. In a phrase: Luna-cy. ;)

    Lisa Stone
    BlogHer Co-founder
    Surfette

    Submitted by Lisa Stone on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 07:58
     

    My adult daughter

    My 26-year-old read this post and she didn't like the idea of missing periods at all even though she tends to have cramps. She asked, "How would you know if something had gone wrong and you were pregnant?" It seems like someone didn't think through Lybrel.

    You make a good point about breakthrough bleeding.

    "Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

    Submitted by Nordette on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 08:34
     

    too many risks

    As if birth control pills have no risks normally, now we are really gonna mess with mother nature??? I wish the commercials would really emphasize the risks of causing blood clots!! It is a real risk, I see it working the medical field. I had the worst periods, more like tidal waves that made it hard to even work some days, and you never knew which ones a head of time. The pain was terrible, but I stayed focused and worked through it. The risk of messing with the natural cleansing cycle, cannot possibly be known yet. And what happens when they become pregnant and the pill causes birth defects. Having a prescription for the pill and taking the pill the same time everyday are too different things. The lower the does of birth control, the more regular you must be with the time you take it each and every day! This scares the crap out of me and the cardiology field.

    Submitted by jrtjosey on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 11:14
     

    It's also dangerous

    I completely agree with you Terri! (And how often do I gett to say that!?!?) I have polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), and my ovarian cysts interfere with my period to the point where I don't get it at all unless I take the pill. I was told point blank by multiple GYNs and endocrinolgists that it is critical to get your period at least four times a year, otherwise a woman is at significantly higher risk for uterine cancer. I can't understand why the FDA would approve this drug.

    What? Money is to be made? Oh, never mind. My bad. Such is the state of health care these days...

    Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
    Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

    Submitted by Suzanne Reisman on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 22:11
     

    Suzanne, I'm surprised

    Suzanne,

    I'm surprised that I disagree with you so strongly because it's probably the first time. I'm also surprised that as someone who is such a fierce advocate for women and for choice that you'd offer such a judgemental pronouncement.

    I would agree with you completely about the dismal state of health care and the appalling profit motive involved in our system but this issue is not about money grubbing by pharmeceutical companies. It is, in part, about allowing women choices in how they manage their health and control their bodies. And women like me who want to go the continuous use route are not dumb dupes of big pharma. This is an issue I've followed for several years and I know that women have asked for this product and that several women doctors and researchers have been at the forefront of making continuous use products available to those of us who want them. One example.

    When you are on the pill you don't have a period. You have bleeding due to not taking hormones for a week. Seasonale the pill which reduces fake periods to four times a year set four times a year for marketing purposes the same as pills which have you bleed every 28 days did. It's just too freaky to most women to not bleed. It's not likely that Lybrel is a money grubbing ploy given that Seasonale isn't a big hit because it is unappealing to so many women since periods are a sign to many of health, "natural" body function (though it is not when you are on the pill) and reassurance of non-pregnancy.

    For those of us who see our periods as most unwelcome visitors for whatever reason happily welcome the ability to use a "sanctioned" method of continuous use and not forcing women to furtively cobble together packets of sample pills slipped to them by sympathetic doctors.

    I have no idea what issues are involved with PCOS so concerns may be different for you, but in general the pill significantly reduces the risk for uterine (endometrial) cancer (because the pill suppresses the thickening of the lining not because it's shed during the withdrawal bleeding) and the longer you take them the greater the benefit. (read more here and here) Additionally there is some thought that increased cycle suppression may confer some health benefits similar those of women who have fewer cycles due to multiple pregnancies.

    And, of course there's always a Blogher's take on the issue... The Well Timed Period

    Some women view their periods as symbols of fertility and health. Others don't. Ergo, those who don't...wait for it...loath their period. You don't say. Also, the fact that different women view their period differently isn't evidence of women carrying on a complex love-hate relationships with their periods. Rather, it's evidence that women are sentient beings who don't all hold the same view on this one particular topic.

    I'm not suggesting that you should reconsider your decision not to take Lybrel or continuously supress your cycle. I am encouraging you to reconsider your blanket statement that it is in fact dangerous, will increase your risk for cancer and instead respect other women's choices and encourage them to make an informed decision in consultation with their doctor that is right for them.

    Submitted by Maria Niles on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 09:14
     

    This was in consultation with my doc(s)!

    My statement came from consultation with too many doctors over too many years, and unanimously they agreed that women need to get their period at least four times a year to be healthy. I know how the pill works, and I know that it is important for most women to not constantly be on artificial hormones. And of course women should make their own decisions, but they should be informed decisions with full info just like any other decision.

    I'm not saying this new Pill is of no benefit to anyone. I know that for some people, periods have very unhealthy consequences. But the idea that a woman should just take a pill to stop her period because it is not convenient is messed up. Unless I misunderstand, that is how the drugmakers are marketing it.

    (Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this, but ironically, I've been sick...)

    Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
    Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

    Submitted by Suzanne Reisman on Mon, 06/04/2007 - 12:38
     

    No and Yes

    I cannot imagine any circumstance whatsoever under which I would want to bear a child in my sixties. I don't think the government should prevent older women from seeking fertility treatments and I agree with Lisa that there are much more important public health funding needs. It would be wonderful if our healthcare system was so fabulously comprehensive and childcare and family support systems so excellent and widely available that it would be a non-issue of whether or not to support such choices but we're too far from that day.

    And as soon as I can switch from Seasonale to Lybrel I will.

    Extremely heavy periods are a problem in my family - to the point of hospitalization, myself included when I was a teen and before I started taking the pill. Taking the pill already messes with hormones and the periods you have on them are not "natural." The hormones are relatively low now, there are some health benefits that come from taking the pill including a reduced risk for some cancers, women have been continuously suppressing with pills for many years with the blessing of their doctors, a lot of the push towards supporting suppression has come from female doctors. For me, I've been taking the pill for decades so I can't imagine that a bit more hormones for a few more years will significantly change any risk to my health they might pose and they may have significantly improved my health.

    Submitted by Maria Niles on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 08:45
     

    Wait til they are teenagers!

    Hi Nordette: I am new to BlogHer and thus to your blog.

    This question fascinates me. My husband and I adopted children in my 30s, his 40s; and then, after I turned 40, we ended up pregnant with our youngest child, who is now 14.

    I am 55 and definitely feel as if I'm supposed to be DONE with the child-rearing thing by now! In fact, I dote on my stepdaughter's baby girl, our granddaughter.

    I adore our two kids still at home (ages 14 and 16) and would not have missed rearing them for the world, but when I hear the 60-year-old-new-mom stories, I am horrified for all involved. That sounds judgmental, but honestly, I'm just being practical. In my mid 50s my joints ache more, I need more sleep these days, I had the usual menopausal mood rollercoaster for a few years, and I'm honestly looking forward to retirement, although it will be some years before we get everyone through college and I can take it easy.

    People need to think through the parental-age thing. Yes, at 60 a sweet baby may be lovely. But at 75 do you want to be dealing with a 15 year old boy whose hormones have made him temporarily insane, not to mention disobedient? It's extremely stressful!

    However, this is not something we can or should legislate, IMO. Who would set that final age for childbearing? Let's just hope most women in their 50s and 60s keep their wits about them. Take in a foster child who really needs someone instead of having a baby when your bones are thinning!
    - Anne

    http://annenotations.blogspot.com

    Submitted by AnneD on Wed, 05/23/2007 - 08:56
     

    What about the kids?

    Norgette, this is an interesting post. But nowhere in here, either from you or those who responded is there any talk from the kid's perspective!

    True, we don't give birth because we're thinking about the kids — we give birth for us.

    Recently I had a wonderful talk with a 16-year-old daughter of a woman I know through a women's group around here. The group topic was parenting, and I asked her how her peers view parenting. Many feel that their parents aren't very present in their lives, and the ones who felt that the most had older parents.

    But then I ran into a 60ish man with a toddler, second marriage (his other kids were in their 20s and 30s), and he was "doing it right" this time. But for whom?

    If someone in her 50s or 60s is thinking about having a baby, she must consider what it will be like for the kid, who'll be a teen when she's in her 70s!

    As for periods, please check out the fascinating Museum of Menstruation. You will see that in the past, women rarely had periods!

    And thanks, Nordette, for your very thoughtful posts. I really enjoy reading them.

    Kat Wilder's My So-Called Midlife

    Submitted by Kat Wilder on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 05:59
     

    Our responsibility in initiating a life is a
    touchy subject

    You make an excellent point, Kat, and one that crossed my mind while writing this post. I didn't delve into "think about the children" because I figured a reader would bring it up and I'm glad you did.

    Prior to this twins birth, I'd been doing more thinking about parental responsibility before conception and pondering matters such as "Would you choose to have a child knowing you have a high probability of passing on an illness that's been painful for you?" It's similar to deciding not to have a child because you know you would not make a good parent.

    You're right. Humans are selfish creatures and reproducing really is about what we want and not what a child may need, which is why I get so frustrated with people who walk away from children they brought into the world for no other reason than they want to go elsewhere and "have fun."

    This is a touchy subject because I'm sure we all know people who didn't think they wanted children, had them without planning, and then turned out to be exceptional parents. We also know people who seemed to always want children, had them, and then turned out to be lousy parents. From a spiritual perspective, we don't know the things we think we know and sometimes the most beautiful, talented people come from parents who if we had to judge we'd probably say were not very good at parenting.

    Since you mentioned that you talked to teens, I have to say that I've learned from my own life and seeing children through teen years (raising a teen now) that how we feel about our parents during our teen years usually changes when we mature. I just read something the other day in a pamphlet about coping with children going through divorce that teens tend to be judgmental. "No kidding," I said to myself. LOL. I wonder how many parents would get passing grades if their teens graded them.

    Nevertheless, you'd think that adults over 40 would have started to learn not to put their needs and desires above others, which includes their children, of whom my mother always reminded me, "didn't ask to come into this world." (Well, they didn't as far as we know, and if they did who can prove it?)

    If we bring a life into this world, then we're responsible for it and how it develops. I'm surprised how many people don't acknowledge that reality and when so enlightened minimize its importance.

    "Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

    Submitted by Nordette on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 10:23
     

    Changing perspectives

    Yes, Nordette — as we get older, especially when we become parents, we "get" our own parents a little more, maybe even a lot more. So, I understand that a teen's view of her parents is skewed. Just the other day, I asked my 14-year-old if he thought I was a good parent (this is after I nagged him about — pick one or all — making his bed, cleaning up after himself in the bathroom, clearing his desk, blah, blah, blah), and to my delight he said yes, and then we both laughed about my neuroses (What? Me?)

    But what the 16-year-old girl said mirrors what I see in my community (I live in the county in which Madeline Levine, the psychiatrist who wrote "The Price of Privilege" works and lives, and it is a (mostly) wealthy (not me!), entitled, self-absorbed area in which the parents are often oblivious to what their children are doing.

    That's why I've got some anxiety — I do know what's going on!

    You don't have to walk away to not be present and engaged with what's going on in the lives of your kids, and if you're going through midlife, well, I can tell you whose needs tend to come first. And I imagine it will be the same, maybe worse, if you're in your 70s and dealing with a teenager.

    Submitted by Kat Wilder on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 14:11
     

    Oh, I get what you're saying

    I know about being there physically but not really there. My ex was present in the house for about three years before the divorce, but I didn't realize until later that our children viewed him as not really being there.

    "Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette. And here's a link to the blog.

    Submitted by Nordette on Sat, 06/30/2007 - 19:58
     

    Geezer moms

    I do a pro blog on older parent adoption, http://older-parent.adoptionblogs.com/, and at 55 have two little ones myself ... 4.5 and 2-years-old ... so have spent some time with the issue. (I also have two bio kids now 38 and 36, so a 32 year gap between numbers 2 and 3.)

    I don't get the necessity of making children from scratch when scratch has to mean donated eggs and a whole heck of a lot of science.

    With this specific case, the mother's quote I heard had me trying to grab her by the throat and shove the words back down her throat.

    "Don't get a dog, get a baby."

    Not exactly the sentiment I was hoping for ...

    Sandra Hanks Benoiton
    Paradise Preoccupied

    Submitted by Sandra Hanks Benoiton on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 08:40
     

    Don't get a dog, get a baby?

    What! Who said that?

    I enjoyed reading your comment and perspective.

    "Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

    Submitted by Nordette on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 10:31
     

    Who said, "Don't get a dog, get a baby"?

    That would be the mother, I'm afraid. It's certainly possible that the quote was lifted out of the middle of something longer and more thoughtful, but the words came out of her mouth on international TV while she cuddled her newborn twins.

    Yikes.

    And thanks, Nordette.

    Sandra Hanks Benoiton
    Paradise Preoccupied

    Submitted by Sandra Hanks Benoiton on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 20:05
     

    You've got a way with

    You've got a way with posting sensitive issues, that manage to make me think twice on nearly every subject, thus far - I love that about you!

    I am all for freedom of choice - heck, my family wouldn't be here, if not for the promise of the ability to do so - but, I believe that with those freedoms, limits must be set.

    With that said, I'll be turning 43 on Monday and - with four kids ranging from 5 to 13 years old - I've just about reached mine.

    So, big brother is saying a woman at 60 should not have a baby and I tend to agree - medically, it's dangerous for both mother and child.

    Does that mean that I should also believe I should take something and stop having my period?

    Uh-no, maybe, sometimes.

    I don't believe there is a clear-cut answer to your questions, Nordette.

    I do believe that everyone should at least be allowed to make their own choices, but it's up to each and every one of us to insure that we keep well-informed -- yes, that also means making sure that physicians and pharms are on the same page - and take a moment, or two, to consider the consequences.

    Posts like this tend to make me itch, but it helps - well done, Nordette!

    --------------------------------------------
    Family.com
    Imperfect Parent
    This Full House

    Submitted by Liz Thompson on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 13:33
     

    Thank you, Liz

    You're right. There's definitely no clear-cut answer here.

    BTW, I see you're at Family.com. My now-defunct family magazine used to be part of its network back in the 90s when the site networked with local parenting magazines. For some reason I thought Disney had folded the site. Glad to see it's still up in another incarnation.

    As you know, I really like This Full House too.

    "Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

    Submitted by Nordette on Thu, 05/24/2007 - 20:57
    BlogHer

    © Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service