Feeling an inevitable attack from Joy Behar's progressive lips coming on, Elisabeth backpedaled a bit, saying the decision is "never an easy one, mark my words."

Joy did have something to say - it just wasn't what Elisabeth was expecting.

For some people, believe it or not, Elisabeth, it is a very easy decision. I know that's hard to understand, but there are people who do not think anything of it.

Speaking from personal experience, that's true. At the same time, just because someone doesn't get all precious about terminating a pregnancy doesn't mean that she did it for "superficial reasons". Or that she should be forced to look at pictures of, well, anything.

New York Times scribe Monica Davey had this to say about how many anti-abortion Roeder supporters were in evidence at Tuesday's hearing.

But only a small cluster of observers sat in the courtroom on Tuesday, and at least seven were uniformed law enforcement authorities in the tightly screened gallery. Dr. Tiller's family was not seen there, nor were the best-known leaders of Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups here, which have denounced the killing.

Upon reading that, I had the impression that the law enforcement presence — and Tiller's absent family — were part of an overabundance of necessary caution, but that the crazies and the antis were avoiding.

But Amie Newman hears from Carolyn Marie Fugit of The MAD Voter something rather different, in the comments of RH Reality Check:

I attended Roeder's hearing yesterday, and while Operation Rescue was not officially in attendance, I can say people who support [Operation Rescue] were. They talked casually about Troy (Newman, pres of OR) and Mark (Gietzen, Kansas Coalition for Life). And just as casually about knowing "Scott" for several years and reading "Paul's" book (first names, no last). I was sitting amongst the groupies! One even shouted out for a wave from Roeder. At least one traveled from out of town, and they all seemed to have known each other for years. It was mortifying, to say the least.

Fugit, by the way, is a local political blogger in Wichita (and one of the ones followed by the Wichita Eagle as one of their favorite area Twitter users).

So, Roeder has a fan base, and they're at his trial to support his murder of George Tiller, which is probably the biggest reason for the overt police presence and the obvious familial absence. But any trial lawyer will tell you: for the sake of a prosecution, you want the jury to be able to see the victim's grieving family in the gallery. How safe are Tiller's relatives going to feel knowing the audience is full of people that feel the murder of their father is justified, and who are glorifying the actions of his murderer?

Shocker! Tiller's Murderer Going to Trial [Feministe]
Roundup: Scott Roeder is Going to Trial [RH Reality Check]
Witness Tells of Doctor's Last Seconds [NY Times]

Related: The MAD Voter
The Eagle On Twitter [Wichita Eagle]

Earlier: The Devil, The Details

A Wichita court charged Roeder with first degree murder, and with aggravated assault for waving his gun at other churchgoers when he shot Tiller. Because of the requirements of Kansas law, Roeder won't be eligible for the death penalty. Police also say that a man who looked like Roeder was caught pouring super glue into the lock of a Kansas City abortion clinic door the day before Tiller's slaying. Clinic workers saw the man's license plate, which matched Roeder's, and said he kept repeating phrases like "baby killer." As to whether the police or FBI should have responded more quickly to this act of vandalism, potentially preventing Tiller's slaying, a worker at the Kansas City clinic said, "I wish I was smart enough to answer that. He wasn't one of the ones I worried about most."

One person who did think Roeder was someone to worry about was his ex-wife, Lindsey Roeder. She says he took his son to see Star Trek the Friday before the killing, unusual both because he rarely went out with his son and because he usually rested in honor of the Sabbath beginning Friday at dusk. "Looking back, I think it was a way of saying goodbye to his son," she says. Lindsey Roeder also told reporters that her ex-husband was capable of murder. "He was determined that if the abortion doctor killed the baby, then he didn't have any right to live either," she said.

Disturbing evidence continues to mount that Roeder had ties to extremist groups. He may have been involved with the Freemen, a Montana-based anti-government group. In 1996, he was arrested for carrying a fuse cord and gunpowder in his trunk (his ex-wife says he planned to blow up an abortion clinic then), and at the time his license plate proclaimed that he was immune from Kansas law, a claim associated with the Freemen.

Some anti-abortionists, too, have expressed that they knew Roeder and even respect what he did. Kansas City anti-abortion protester Regina Dinwiddie recalls speaking with and even hugging Roeder, and says she is "glad" Tiller is dead. Dave Leach, publisher of the magazine Prayer and Action News, says that while Roeder "has not inspired me to shoot an abortionist, [...] he will be the hero to thousands of babies who will not be slain because Scott sacrificed everything for them." And although Operation Rescue has condemned Roeder's actions, the phone number of the organization's Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger was found in his car.

Though many in the anti-abortion movement have condemned Roeder as a crazy fringe element, it's clear he was not alone in his views, and the fringe may be far wider than some claim. Hunter at the Daily Kos writes,

The extent to which violent figures within the movement know each other and interact seems worthy of substantive investigation. Perhaps it will prevent the next murder, one which no doubt will also be called an "isolated act."

Meanwhile, Tiller's clinic remains closed. The Tiller family has issued a statement that,

There is currently no plan to immediately reopen the clinic, and no patients are being scheduled at this time. The Tiller family's focus, of course, is to determine what is in the best interests of the employees and the patients.

George Tiller's Clinic To Reopen, 'Resume Normal Operations' [UPDATED] [Huffington Post]
Suspect Charged In Slaying Of Abortion Provider George Tiller [LA Times]
Suspect In Doctor's Killing Tied To Vandalism Case [NY Times]
Alleged Shooter's Ex-Wife: He Was Capable Of Murder [CNN]
Concerns Mount That Suspect In Abortion-Doctor Shooting Had Extremist Ties [Christian Science Monitor]
Scott Roeder's Network Of Support [Daily Kos]

The staff at abortion clinics earn less than other medical staff, and face greater risks. Sally Burgess, chairwoman of the National Abortion Foundation, says, "you work in abortion, it will affect who you will date, the parties you will be invited to." More frightening are the frequent protests and ever-present threat of terrorism. Former clinic director Tina Welsh recalls being the only person allowed to open her clinic's mail, because she was the only one insured against letter bombs.

Another recruitment problem for abortion clinics is the lack of enthusiasm among younger women. "Younger women have always had access to abortion care," says Burgess, so "they don't fully appreciate the battle that was fought to have it available to them. And more important, I don't think they know how precarious the option is at this point, even with Obama's election." While it's not quite true that all younger women have access to abortion, at least it's legal today. And it's in a strange position — common enough that some women might forget the need to fight for it, and stigmatized enough that plenty may not want to.

Where to Pass the Torch? [NYT]

She starts, as far too many people start, with blaming her mom.

My mother - a film-maker - was a hippy who kept a pile of dusty books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bedside. (Like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning.) She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation.

As a result, I fought with my older brother and won, and at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.

But, at nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. Now, I want love and children, but they are nowhere to be seen.

So, first she suggests her mom never even read her feminist tomes but imbued her with "choice, equality and sexual liberation," which caused her to get into fights (presumably physical?) and outdrink the boys in college. While I'm all for getting into fights and outdrinking boys (I like to call that "Friday nights"), I wouldn't call those the epitome of "feminist" values, either. In fact, I don't do them at all because I'm a feminist — I just make choices, assume my equality with others and behave sexually as I see fit.

When I was growing up, I was led to believe by my mother and other women of her generation that women could 'have it all', and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end, I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dream of being a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.

Ten years ago, I wrote a play called Paradise Syndrome. It was based on my girlfriends in the music business. All we did was party, work and drink. The play sold out and I thought: 'This is it! I'm going to have it all - success, power - and men are going to adore me for it.'

What? I mean, first off, it depends on how one defines "all," but having a career doesn't mean forgoing having a family, and having a family doesn't mean not having a successful career. It's all in how one defines those things. I'm not single because I was career-focused in my twenties: in fact, as a card-carrying participant in the rat-race for the entirety of it, I went from one very-serious-long-term-relationship to another (2 years, 3 years and 4 years, respectively) and it's only now in my 30s that I sit around in my pajamas writing random things on the internet all day that I have been happily single.

I didn't lay anything on the altar of my career — not my friendships, nor my family nor my relationships with 3 men that I loved very deeply — and nothing about feminism or being career-oriented required me to. I also didn't expect (and don't expect) that money, power or success would ever make me adored by men. I mean, who but the most shallow, immature person expects that those things will net him or her healthy, loving relationships? Let alone the statement that all she did was "party, work and drink." What happened to getting to know people? Building friendships? Self-introspection? Growing as a person? I mean, great, if you want a boy-toy to run around with and spend your money on, good on you, but you can't look around at 37 and say, "Wait, why is is that my shallow relationships make me so unfulfilled? Must be feminism!" Feminism and shallow narcissism are not the same thing, thanks.

Lewis then blames Madonna — and her divorce — for fooling women into thinking that they can have it all when, in the end, Madonna can't. I mean, what the fuck? Maybe Madonna is happier divorced? Maybe she has a full life with people who love her unconditionally and isn't lonely and bitter. Or maybe she doesn't and maybe she isn't — but was she supposed to stay in Detroit, marry a guy who worked at the auto factory, pump out a couple of kids to be happy? Bitch, please.

What Lewis apparently believes now is the good life that her feminist mother deprived her of — settling down early, not pursuing a career, not trying to be the equal of the men around you and having kids — is a guarantee of happiness. Does she not know any divorcées? Any people who ought to be divorced? Any stagnant, unhappy housewives?

But at least she sort of recognizes that it might just be her:

Perhaps I am just a spoilt middle-class girl who had a career and who has now changed her mind about what she wants from life. But I don't think so.

I would argue that women's libbers of the Sixties and Seventies put careerism at the forefront of women's lives and, as a result, the traditional role of women was trampled underneath their crusading Doc Martens.

I wish a more balanced view of womanhood had been available to me. I wish that being a housewife or a mother hadn't been such a toxic idea to middle-class liberals of those formative decades.

Increasing numbers of my strongly feminist contemporaries are giving up their careers and opting for love and children and baking instead. Now, I wish I'd had kids ten years ago, when time was on my side. But the essence of the problem, I can see in retrospect, is not so much time as mentality.

It's about understanding what is important in life, and from what I see and feel deep down, loving relationships and children bring more happiness than work ever can.

And here's the problem: feminism never told women to forgo loving relationships or kids. Feminism didn't say that careerism was the only choice for every woman. Maybe some of the women around Lewis did — although, since Lewis acknowledges that her mom took time off from her career and chose a less career-heavy track to take care of her kids, it doesn't exactly sound like it. Lewis is, however, right that being a self-absorbed twit obsessed with power and being loved for her fame and fortune might have led her to be less fulfilled in her personal life at 37 than she was at 25. But that's not feminism's fault.

Naturally, however, that little epiphany lasts about as long as it took to write it, and then it's back to stereotypes.

Because, as my generation have discovered to their cost, men don't appear to like strong women very much.

They are programmed to like their women soft and feminine. It's not their fault - it's in the genes.

Holly Kendrick, 34, who holds a high-status job in theatre, agrees: 'Men tend to be freaked out if you work as hard as them,' she says. 'It's like being the smart kid in the class: no one likes them.'

This is why many of my girlfriends are still alone. Perhaps men haven't accepted women's modernity. (By modernity, I mean being the strong alpha woman who never questions her entitlement to the same jobs, fun and sexual gratification as men.)

Right, men don't like strong women. That's why we're all single, because all men like exactly one type of woman, so us smart ones ought to just toss our hair and fake being stupid to catch a damn man already in order to have more fulfilling relationships. Because, really, the core of every fulfilling relationship is deception.

I mean, and "it's in the genes"? If there is any remote evolutionary science to this — and there's not — women that were "soft and feminine" probably would've been ripped to shreds or died in childbirth, resulting in a race of strong, hardy womenfolk that didn't need to be carried around and catered to like housepets. Nature's ugly, folks, and it's mean. It doesn't tolerate wallflowers well.

Anyway, it's great how Lewis stereotypes men as air-headed, genetically-driven assholes who all want the same thing from their lives and their relationships — someone weaker and more girlie. Shocking that with such a dim view of penis-holders, she might not have a really deep, fulfilling relationship with one. Guess what? Some of us don't want to be in relationships with men that require that we pretend to be stupid in order to maintain them, and thus find men that like strong, capable women and date those guys instead. And sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't, like every other romantic relationship in the world.

I am extremely capable, I really don't need a man. Seriously - it scares me how much I don't need a man. But that doesn't mean I don't want one. I am lonely, and terrified of being alone.

I have tried everything to stop the clocks, to stall time and find my ideal partner. I've considered the whole 'Let's adopt a baby from an African orphanage' thing. I have even had my eggs frozen (yes, really!) in the hope that if I do meet the right man, I will be in a position to have the children I now long for.

The problem is this: now I have decided I am ready for a new relationship, I am well prepared and I am totally efficient at running my life. But efficiency is not a very endearing quality; men find me daunting, and I can see that.

It's not as if I'm famous or anything. It's just - like other women of my age - I seem to know it all. I do. And that's a massive turn-off for a bloke.

Oh, honey, it's not just "blokes" that are turned off by your pretense that you know it all! Also, I'd suggest that your deep loneliness, terror of ending up alone and desperation to have children aren't doing you any favors with finding a HUSBAND TO GIVE YOU BABIES RIGHT NOW AND NEVER EVER LEAVE YOU. That might be part of the problem. What happened to loving yourself (without being a pretentious narcissist) and finding ways to make yourself content? I find that's generally more attractive to the people I'd generally like to spend time with, anyway, male or female.

This is why I say: do it early, girls - do it before you get cynical and jaded. Do the whole 'falling in love thing' when you honestly can embrace that joie de vivre. And, for goodness' sake, have children when you are young enough to enjoy them and to have more if you want them.

Right, because all women who are single and childless in their thirties are cynical and jaded and incapable of enjoying falling for someone, and all older mothers (like my grandmother, say, who was 48 when she had my father) are incapable of enjoying time with their offspring.

Oh, and there's this, of course:

I feel a great pressure from other women of my generation who have husbands and children to join their club. In their eyes, I am not the trailblazer but the failure.

Ooh, peer pressure! Great reason to get married and breed! Did she ever hear of the phrase "misery loves company"? Or, God forbid, think of getting herself a new class of friends that don't get all Judgey McJudgerson over her life choices in regards to marriage and children? She is, of course, surrounding herself with people that are reinforcing her vision of a failed life.

Apparently, I am a failure in my own eyes. Somewhere deep inside lurks a women I cannot control, and she is in the kitchen with a baby on her hip and a ball of dough in her hand, staring me down.

She is saying to me: 'This is happiness. You can't deny it, this is what it's all about.' It's an instinct that makes me a woman; an instinct that I can't ignore, even if I've tried to for 15 years.

Had I had this understanding of my inner psyche in my 20s, I would have mentally demoted my writing (and hedonism) and pursued a relationship with vigour.

There were plenty of men and even a marriage offer from someone with whom I would have happily settled down. But no, I wasn't prepared to give up my dreams, the life I had been told was the right and proper one for a modern woman.

I mean, first off, this is why therapy was invented — to help people understand themselves better. I don't think the 37-year-old version of Lewis understands herself any better than the 25-year-old version. She's just grasping at extremes, painting mental pictures of this alternative reality that exists outside of her own life. She's got a ball of dough and a baby, but no particular husband, just any old bloke she could have slotted into that role of Husband like her life is another one of her plays. But life is messier than that, and people are messier than that. Would she be happier with the dough and the baby and the divorce papers on the entryway table and her husband's mistress in the car pulling out of the garage? Or with him dead of a heart attack? Fighting all the time over every little thing because they "settled down" or, in her case, "settled"?

I wish I had been given the advice that I am now giving to my sister, who is 22. If you find a great guy, don't be afraid to settle down and have kids because there isn't anything to miss out on that you can't go back and do later - apart from having kids.

Actually, you can't ever go back and do anything. You can only live your life in one direction.There's a lot of things I wouldn't have done if I took this shitty advice. If I'd married one of my college boyfriends, I wouldn't be the person I am now, and I wouldn't be able to become her, either. I might be an military wife and mother, or a schoolteacher on sabbatical with the kids someone really wanted me to stay home with, but I don't expect that either of those things would make me happy with my life. I could have swallowed a lot of pride and pain and stayed with the boyfriend that cheated on me, or the one who didn't love me enough to change a single thing about his daily life to spend any time with me, but as much as it hurt to walk away from those relationships — and, yes, accept that I might very well end up without a life partner — I don't think I'd be magically happier just because there would be a dude in my life. In fact, I walked away because I knew and, in one case, learned through a lot of much-needed therapy, that I would, in fact, be unhappier. And if I had stayed in those relationships, I probably wouldn't be blogging, or freaking out about my next paycheck. I wouldn't have made the friendships I have made in the last 18 months (including one of those exes) that actually make me really happy. I wouldn't have traveled to Europe or to Asia the way that I did, I might not have gotten my Master's degree, I wouldn't have learned that I could stand on my own two feet no matter what happens to me — and maybe, frankly, I wouldn't have even learned how if I did need to.

I wanted to be mad at Zoe Lewis for this piece as it feeds into the false pretense that giving women choices in and control over their lives just makes them unhappy, with the lovely subtext that women shouldn't have those choices, you know, for their own sakes. But, frankly, it was hard to read it all the way through because she sounds desperately unhappy, and desperately insecure and desperate to find someone or something else to blame for all of that besides herself — so she chose feminism and her mother. The terrible thing about choices, though, is sometimes you make bad ones, and you have to live with them. The great thing about choices is that you can then continue to make them, until you find the ones that make you happy.

As A Successful Playwright This Woman Should Have The World At Her Feet. So Why, At 36, Does She Feel Bitterly Unfulfilled? [The Daily Mail]

Well, according to Catherine Rampell's New York Times article today, it might well make the U.S. labor market majority-female for the first time ever.

Women are poised to surpass men on the nation's payrolls, taking the majority for the first time in American history.

The reason has less to do with gender equality than with where the ax is falling.The proportion of women who are working has changed very little since the recession started. But a full 82 percent of the job losses have befallen men, who are heavily represented in distressed industries like manufacturing and construction. Women tend to be employed in areas like education and health care, which are less sensitive to economic ups and downs, and in jobs that allow more time for child care and other domestic work.

With more and more men losing their jobs, women are becoming majority- or sole-breadwinners in even two-adult households. The question that remains, though, is who is washing the dishes these days.

While women appear to be sole breadwinners in greater numbers, they are likely to remain responsible for most domestic responsibilities at home.

On average, employed women devote much more time to child care and housework than employed men do, according to recent data from the government's American Time Use Survey analyzed by two economists, Alan B. Krueger and Andreas Mueller.

When women are unemployed and looking for a job, the time they spend daily taking care of children nearly doubles. Unemployed men's child care duties, by contrast, are virtually identical to those of their working counterparts, and they instead spend more time sleeping, watching TV and looking for a job, along with other domestic activities.

I guess more the things change, the more they stay the same!

Of course, there remain questions about the gender equity of the stimulus plan, which is intended to create jobs in industries that are shedding them — which, as Rampell points out, are most male-dominated. Jennifer Barrett at Slate thinks, like Linda Hirshman, that this could be a bad thing, but there aren't easy solutions. Barrett says:

The stimulus plan being considered by the Senate, as it's written now, may make up for some of those losses, gender division aside. But it will do little to close the 20 percent wage gap between men and women or to address the sex segregation in the labor market that accounts for much of it.

And if you thought it was expensive before, just wait until the stimulus plan tries to fix thousands of years of labor market sex segregation. Barrett notes that, while 49 percent of the jobs set to be created by the stimulus plan are expected to go to women despite the current wide disparity in job losses, most of those jobs will be in fields in which women already work (which is sort of the point of the stimulus, to get people back to working as quickly as possible). She says:

Why not require some of the estimated $800-plus billion to go toward creating more high-paying jobs in traditionally female fields rather than just any old jobs? Or specify that employers in sectors dominated by either women or men who get federal contracts make demonstrable efforts to fill 10 percent or 20 percent of the jobs with the opposite sex? Toward that end, the bill could direct more funds toward retraining women for traditionally male-dominated sectors and vice versa.

Not that re-training programs put people to work quickly, or Barrett's example of forcing women who supposedly previous worked in health care or nail salons to take construction jobs are actually desired outcomes. But it might reduce the wage gap! So it must be good, apparently.

It does make me wonder, however, if this isn't accepting a basic premise about the wage gap that men apparently already believe:

In a new Rasmussen poll, 78 percent of American women said that "men and women do not receive equal pay for equal work in the United States." Only 53 percent of men agreed. In the same poll, 49 percent of women attributed the unequal pay to discrimination while only 20 percent of men believe discrimination is the problem.

First, that it doesn't really exist — that it's about the choices women make, on average, and there's certainly some of that — and that it's not due to discrimination. I can't speak for all women, but I know that, in at least two jobs in which I replaced men in the same capacity, I made on average about 20% less than my predecessors after a similar period of time in the position while significantly expanding the scope and responsibility of the position. And I left both jobs because of it. But, technically, now I make less doing something I enjoy more. So I've been on both ends of that spectrum, and while I may have one of the most female-dominated jobs around (know many male bloggers who write for women's websites?), I can certainly tell you that I wouldn't trade it for a construction job with better pay and benefits. There are some wage gaps I don't ever care about making up.

Slowdown In Male Earnings Leads To Smaller Gender Wage Gap [Economic Policy Institute]
As Layoffs Surge, Women May Pass Men in Job Force [New York Times]
More Stimulating [Slate]
78 Percent Of Women Say Men And Women Do Not Receive Equal Pay For Equal Work [ThinkProgress]

Earlier: No, Barack Obama's Economic Plan Is Not Discriminating Against Women

• Just to prove to American voters that they are really unfeeling, the Republican National Committee released word today that the California Republican Party is filing an FEC complaint against Barack Obama for his visit to his dying grandmother, who passed away today. Is anyone home over there? [Washington Post]
• If you weren't already aware, Barack Obama doesn't want to see your underwear. Panty-flinging should remain metaphorical. [Politico]
• Sarah Palin is definitely not releasing her medical records. I want to be angry about this, but I wouldn't want reporters pawing around my gynecological exams either. [CNN]
• Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, having lived the last 8 years with his head firmly up his ass, thinks that the U.S. will "lose a lot of stature throughout the world" if we elect Obama. [Politico]

• Speaking of embarrassing America, the KKK is recruiting again in Ohio because of Obama. [The New Republic]
• In other embarrassing news, robocalls have gone out to voters in Toledo to try to convince them they can avoid long polling place lines by voting by phone. I'm sure they're totally not Republican-funded. [Rolling Stone]
• Calls telling Democrats to vote on Wednesday have been made to voters in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, too. [Huffington Post]
• And Republican Senator Roger Wicker is so worried that he'll be voted out of office he's handing out sample ballots telling Mississippi voters he's a Democrat. [Huffington Post]
• Republican groups have started hitting Obama on his support for reproductive rights again through commercials, which will totally change the race for McCain. [Time]
• As will neocon Fred Kagan's idiotic weekend editorial that voters need to stop paying attention to the American economy, Wall Street and Main Street and start voting on what's happening on Baghdad's Haifa Street. Spencer Ackerman's got video of what Kagan knows about pretty much any street, which is to say "nothing." [Attackerman]

So, my concern for my own health is extreme, huh? My life is less important than the one I might hypothetically at some point bring forth from my womb? I mean, I know that your VP candidate, Sarah Palin, is supposedly very convincing, but did anyone tell you that her "no abortion ever in a million years, not that the Earth has been around that long" position on abortion only flies with about 10 percent of the population? Or were you too busy staring at her tits? I mean, it was pretty obvious that you weren't listening to Obama when he talked about reducing the number of abortions through common-sense ideas like improving sex education, the opportunities for adoption and supporting women who want to have the children and keep them. But what the fuck, dude, for real? The fetus is more important that the woman in which it resides? Really?

I mean, it's not like maternal death is startlingly uncommon in America — as US News reported yesterday, 1 in 4,800 women in America dies in childbirth, compared to 1 in 48,000 in Ireland. So it is actually not outside the motherfucking question that it could happen to me someday, but it's good to know that you'll take a potential future motherless voter over a current voter any day of the week.

And, even if I give try to you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you were just talking about late term abortions during the debate last night, well, I can go read Gretchen Voss's story about hers — why she had one, how it wasn't avoidable and how ridding the world of such procedures would have made her life much harder. And then I'm back to wondering where you — and I — went wrong.

In short, I'd like you to take your cancer-ridden ass, remove your head from it and insert this [very NSFW] in it instead. And when you're done making one of your stupid faces, maybe you can notice that women are more than just fetus-incubators and make your own damn sandwich.

McCain Mockingly Suggests That Concerns For A Mother's Health Are Extreme [Huffington Post]

Related: Safe, Legal, And Boring [Slate]
McCain's Falwell Flip-Flop [Salon]
McCain's Abortion Flip-Flop [TPM Muckraker]
Abortion and Birth Control [Polling Report]
Too Many Infants — and Moms — Die at Birth [US News & World Report]
My Late-Term Abortion [The Boston Globe]

Facing Reality: Choice [Fox News]