First of all, the country has made a sharp right turn since those halcyon hippied-out days of the late 60s and early 70s, when people were more sympathetic towards women who sought abortions. Already, Hirshman notes, "Four states — Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota — [have] trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe' s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow."

But it gets worse. Not only are these "trigger laws" much more stringent than the pre-Roe anti-abortion laws, but there is evidence that states will prosecute women for crossing state lines to get abortions. "Missouri already allows civil litigation against anyone who helps a minor cross state lines to get an abortion without parental consent. Congress was well along to passing a law making it criminal to take a minor from a state requiring parental consent when the Democrats won in 2006 and stopped it," Hirshman explains.

How would they prove that women had abortions when they took that joyriding trip into Illinois, Hirshman asks? Well the border regions of ultra conservative states could turn into a modern day West Germany, as in the 80s, when abortion was severely limited, "The guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination — as West German law empowered them to do."

Obviously, that's a worst case scenario, and not the immediate chain reaction that will commence if McCain and that anti-abortion avenger Palin are elected. But the article is a stark reminder that we should not take our reproductive choices for granted. If the recent memo from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing health care workers to practice their consciences when it comes to reproductive medicine is any indication, if there is another Republican White House, the battle for choice will continue.

If Roe Goes, Our State Will Be Worse Than You Think [Washington Post]

Earlier: Roe Vs. World

The WaPo is reporting that, as Governor of Alaska, Palin slashed funding for a program that benefited teen moms.According to the WaPo, "Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers…[where, according to Passage House's website] 'young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives.'"

And since we're all on board with not prying into the circumstance of Bristol as an individual, let's take a look at the fate that lies ahead for most other teen mothers, shall we? Linda Hirshman, writing on Slate's XX Factor blog, runs through what the average American teen mom experiences, and honestly, it's bleak. "Even controlling for social and economic backgrounds, only 40 percent of teenage girls who bear children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared with the 75 percent of teens who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21" Hirshman notes. "Overall, teenage mothers—and their children—are also far more likely to live in poverty than females who don't give birth until after age 20. Two-thirds of the families begun by a young unmarried mother are poor. These families are more likely to be on welfare and to require publicly provided health care." And we know what Palin thinks about publicly provided health care: She thinks it shouldn't exist!

Even Seventeen editor Ann Shoket has something to say about Bristol's pregnancy and what it means for the American teen. "No matter how you feel about her politics, Sarah Palin is a shining example of the potential and power of women," Shoket notes in the Huffington Post today. "And in one hot moment with her boyfriend, her daughter gave away her power to make the decisions about how she wanted her future to play out."

Pretty harsh words coming from the editor of a usually soft and fluffy teen mag. And here's the thing. Individually, Bristol Palin will be fine. But despite what her mother's campaign would have you believe, the Palins are not regular folk. They are a gubernatorial family with the resources and the connections to help support a teen pregnancy. Obviously, a teen pregnancy is not the end of the world, nor is it anything to be ashamed of. However, it is something that should be prevented as much as possible, and considering Palin's stance on abortion, it seems she's only concerned about the individual pregnancy of her daughter and not the pregnancies of our nation's daughters. Linda Hirshman says it better than I can: "For the millions of women each year who do not want to make that choice, and for the parents who do not want that fate for their daughters, the cruelty of the Republican position on abortion rights is now graphically laid bare."

UPDATE: Despite some Republicans' request for privacy with regards to Bristol, the Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that many conservatives are already using this unborn child like "a political football." Coates quotes the following passage from the WSJ to illustrate his point: "Gov. Palin and her husband 'have embraced the grandchild about to be born,' Gary Bauer, a social conservative activist and onetime presidential candidate, told the Texas delegation. 'They already are teaching America a lesson about the sanctity of life,' he added, as the delegates jumped to their feet in applause.'"

The Candidate's Daughter Could Use Our Sympathy And A Lot More Privacy [Washington Post]
Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms [Washington Post]
Do As We Do [Slate]
What Was Bristol's Plan A? [Huffington Post]
And Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Program [The Atlantic]

Related: The Numbers on Teen Pregnancy [Freakonomcs/NYT]

• The Republican National Committee has finally released its speaker line-up for the convention, which McCain spokesman Rick Davis says is designed "to showcase the 'diversity' of the Republican Party." [HuffPo]
• Which is why the line-up is 75% male and 86% white. "Diversity." [Washington Post]
• John McCain's doesn't question Obama's patriotism, just his judgment, so Obama should just shut up and accept that we need to keep on keeping on with the war in Iraq. [Politico]
• Which is why McCain would be cool with having a draft again, since once we're done in Iraq we'll still have Osama bin Laden to chase down and we won't have enough troops for that. [ThinkProgress]

• Rush Limbaugh is just dying for Obama to pick Biden because Biden says stupid crap. And Rush Limbaugh knows all about saying stupid crap. [Time]
• Like this gem: "it is striking how unqualified Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." [Media Matters]
• Moe's intellectual nemesis, if you want to call Linda Hirshman an intellectual, agrees with Rush Limbaugh that Obama's critics were silenced too early and she agrees with John McCain that Obama is the new Paris Hilton. Guess we know who's decided our reproductive rights are less important than her ability to say "I told you so." [Washington Post, Washington Post, Huffington Post]

Most American women, you see, are not professors, lawyers, doctors, or even bloggers (I know, you're shocked). Many are cubicle dwellers, spending their 9-5 hours toiling under bad lighting in stale air. "When it came to interactions with different partners, the women ranked interactions with their children as more enjoyable than those with clients/customers, coworkers, and bosses," Loh reports.

Have middle class and lower class women really been the beneficiaries of what Loh called the "extended whine of a privileged, educated upper class?" In some ways, yes, but in many ways, no. I don't really buy Hirshman's trickle down feminism; I don't think that if all of those Harvard Business School grads stayed at Goldman Sachs, life would get any better for the average working woman. Loh writes, "While the economy benefits, for working-class families with young children, so much of a second income is eaten up by child care and taxes and other costs." These women are just as trapped in some ways as the unhappy housewives of Friedan's era.

Earlier this month, Hirshman wrote an essay against "intersectionality" in the feminist movement, which Moe rebutted. Moe used the example of the upwelling of support from Jezebels for those felled by honor killings in Iraq. While of course there are more glaring incidents of violence against women outside the United States, we can't forget that there is still feminist work to be done within our country. And the work isn't going to be done through hundreds of articles written by upper class, educated, white feminists attacking each others' choices in an endless elite media circle jerk (the words "women" and "opt-out" appear in over 6,000 NYT articles). Loh's article is called "I Choose My Choice," and perhaps more writers need to acknowledge that a very, very small percentage of working women in the United States have anything close to a choice in the first place.

I Choose My Choice! [The Atlantic]
Looking To The Future, Feminism Has To Focus [Washington Post]
The Feminine Mistake [Washington Post]

Like rampant fiscal irresponsibility to the greenback! Which leads me to a stupid but maybe-accurate metaphor that brings into account Maria Bartriomo's opinions on tax policy. Maria Bartiromo argues that people who make $200,000 shouldn't be necessarily described as "rich." This is because she lives in New York, but also because she must abide by the paradox that dictates that successful females invest not only colossal sums of money but roughly two hours extra daily simply to avoid the appearance of being "devalued." Of course, that investment, which is not optional, carries with it not only tremendous opportunity cost, which is devaluing in its own way, but the additional degradation of scrutiny and/or mockery re the process itself (Callan's heels, Bartiromo's Botox) and the additional nuisances of the Boy's Club, sexual harassment etc. It almost makes you want to just have kids and freelance and endure the contempt of people like Linda Hirshman, which is all fine and good, but after all that you're still stuck getting your period. So basically you're screwed either way and no wonder we are all programmed to be somewhat lesbian.

Callan, Gregory Out At Lehman [WSJ]
Becky Quick Teaches You How To "Dress Like A Financier" [Dealbreaker]

The Feminine Mistake [Wash Post]

The Journal breaks pregnant women's rights down thusly: Employers can fire, lay off and refuse to hire knocked up ladies, but they have to provide ample proof that they held men to the same standards. They also have to provide maternity leave, as they would provide leave for any other medical issue, but in 48 of the 50 states, that leave doesn't have to be paid (readers in California and Washington State, you're the lucky ones).

And then, many women have to deal with blowhard employers like Sir Alan Sugar, the CEO-star of the British version of the Apprentice, who told the Times of London that, "Companies have no divine duty to help with childcare. Companies employ people. It's the Government's responsibility to provide childcare. You pay a person a salary and they cut their cloth accordingly." Sugar also added that female bosses are more likely to discriminate against female employees, because they are "more ruthless than men. They are more conscious of not employing other women because they feel they're not going to get the value of work out of them."

In Linda Hirshman's infamous American Prospect article about the "opt-out revolution," she suggests that if women want real equality, they must major in (mostly non-liberal arts) subjects that prepare them for the job market , make money, as money is "the marker of success in a market economy," and marry a man with bleak economic prospects, as he will be more likely to stay home with the babies. It's not that I don't agree with Hirshman — I think she's pretty much on the money — but I personally don't want to do any of those things, even though I acknowledge that I'm not helping feminism by being an English major who works in a low-rent field. Many self-proclaimed feminists feel the same way, so would it be more useful to organize and change the pregnancy laws instead of berating ourselves for making the choices that Silda, and so many of the rest of us, might one day make?

Why Stand By? [New York Magazine]
More Women Pursue Claims Of Pregnancy Discrimination [WSJ]
Women Bosses Are More Likely To Discriminate Against Mothers, Says Sir Alan Sugar [Times of London]