So my heart really goes out to Melinda Henneberger, whose op-ed in The New York Times today was, quite clearly, written in late-2004. ...What stunning, fresh insight! What brave, bold truth-telling!

Ouch. *That's* gonna leave a mark... :-D

After reading the atrocious Henneberger piece this morning, I turned to my husband and told him I was awarding it my own personal "wanker of the day" award. A short time later, I saw that Atrios officially did the honors.

Two points:

1. I'm especially irked by Henneberger's assumption that Dems should cozy up to the forced childbirth lobby in order to woo Catholic women. I don't know the data on this, but I bet Catholic women more often than not vote Democratic (this is likely to be especially true given that Latinos are becoming increasingly Democratic).

What I do know is that polls have consistently shown that a majority of Catholics reject the Church's position on abortion and support choice. I suspect these wanker pundits who automatically assume all Catholics march in lockstep with the Pope don't know very many Catholics. Even my devout Catholic mother, who's quite conservative, especially on sexual issues, parts ways with the Church on this one.

2. Why in god's name did the Times publish this crap in the first place? It's poorly argued and traffics in stale cliches. It doesn't say a damn thing I haven't heard a thousand times before. Why this op-ed appeared, as opposed to any number of smart, fresh and interesting op-eds that could have been published, is a mystery. I assume the writer must have an in with the op ed page editor, because otherwise I see no reason on earth why this crap would ever see the light of day.

Bravo, Ezra.

"I assume the writer must have an in with the op ed page editor, because otherwise I see no reason on earth why this crap would ever see the light of day."

Um, to attack Democrats?

Well, yeah, attacking liberals and Democrats is the point, and it's especially helpful when those groups are vilified by one of their own (and the tone of the piece seems to suggest that Henneberger thinks of herself as a pro-choice Democrat). But really, her piece is exceptionally bad -- so moldy and cliched in its arguments (if they can even be called that), and so utterly ungrounded in research and data. I mean, even given the low standards of these things, this one is especially craptastic. And it's not tied to a current event, either -- the Carhart decision was handed down a full two months ago. Even if the Times was desperate to publish yet another wankeriffic op-ed by a self-hating liberal, I'm sure they could have found many better ones. Which is why I seriously think the author must have a tight connection with one of the editors -- otherwise I can't fathom why they would run it.

The op-ed chiding the Democrats for being too "extreme" on a given issue is a consistent staple of the op-ed page.

But where are the counterparts directed at the Republicans? Where are the "moderate Republicans" to chide their own party on stem cells or any of the other, numerous issues on which they take an extreme position?

We need to start breeding our own stable of concern trolls. The idea that gee, maybe the Republicans should go back to being non-insane, simply doesn't get any air time, and it's bizarre.

This is one of the few instances where I disagree with Ezra.

By placing the abortion issue prominently within his all-encompassing "Consistent Ethic of Life", the late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, (one of the knindest and gentlest men to ever serve the Church) nearly transformed abortion into a liberal issue for a lot of Catholics having liberal on other issues. If you care about the child in the street, the Consistent Ethic of Life holds, you should care about the chld in the womb.

That's an argument that makes sense to allot of people.

It doesn't hold that a desire to see abortions reduced, translates into a wish to see abortions made illegal. "Safe, Legal and Rare" is a viewpoint on abortion held by a surprisingly large number of people.

The op-ed writer has a point that Democrats' discussion of abortion should not be monolithic nor intolerant of dissent and should recognize that the issue has profound moral implications.

The result of Carhart v. Gonzales will be trivial in terms of precluding abortions, in that the challenged statute passes the "undue burden" test only because it preserves the legality of other procedures which are available to pregnant women. The reasoning of the decision, however, is pernicious.

For one thing, the fact that a Congressional enactment banning a particular abortion procedure has been upheld keeps the matter before Congress. Prior abortion decisions had mostly involved state statutes.

Suppose the Congress decided that childbirth by vaginal delivery poses undue risks to maternal health. Under the reasoning of Carhart, a federal statue criminalizing vaginal births affecting interstate commerce would pass constitutional muster because delivery by caeserian section remained available.

In that context, the staggering breadth of potential interference in personal decision-making that Carhart would perit becomes easier to appreciate.

Moreover, many of the most ardent proponents of criminalizing abortion have an antipathy toward the very idea of recreational sex. Which of the Republican presidential candidates who would overturn Roe v. Wade would favor stopping there?

Griswold v. Connecticut begat Roe. Proponents of abortion rights should force the issue with Republican candidates. Ask, do you favor or oppose giving state the authority to impose criminal penalties for adults' use of contraception?

I've heard this "Safe, Legal and Rare" is a viewpoint on abortion held by a surprisingly large number of people. bit for a long time now, and it dies sound reasonable. I had a girlfriend some time ago whose attitude was, "Don't worry about it - I can get an abortion, no problem." It was a short relationship. Abortion should NOT be standard contraception for any number of good reasons.

Safe, legal and rare sounded reasonable - until you look at the idea that the Right NOW doesn't want contraception to be available either. It's going to have to be one or the other. These idiots are going to have to figure out that NOTHING is EVER going to get people, especially younger people, to give up sex. Nor are they going to "convert" a significant number of people to their specific version of their specific religion so they even have some motivation, though the failure rate there is pretty much the same anywhere else.

This garbage is coming from the fanatic Right end of almost-Christianity, hard-line Catholics (a shrinking demographic), and the very wealthy who don't think the rules apply to them. Because they don't.

Ian

Back in the day, Melinda relied on a psychic for her moral guidance . . . much to her mom's chagrin.

How this product of neocon parents, Notre Dame & psychics would ever become an unvetted suprise to the dems begs reason.

Mabe her psysic got religion. She hasn't changed. Maybe she became a scientologist? Maybe she's got guild issues? LSD dlashback?

Why the suprise?

Some fun!

Opera guild? NFM

RNC? Guilded pig. NFM

Gotta go. . . don't tell mom. Palm reader awaits.

Damn, you told.