Campus Progress has the transcript of the above video:

BOXER: There's nothing in this amendment that says if a man some days wants to buy Viagra, for example, that his pharmaceutical coverage cannot cover it, that he has to buy a rider. I wouldn't support that. And they shouldn't support going after a woman using her own private funds for her reproductive health care. Is it fair to say to a man you're going to have to buy a rider to buy Viagra and this will be public information that could be accessed? No, I don't support that. I support a man's privacy, just as I support a woman's privacy.

That was all well and good, and fitting for a Congressperson. But you know what she really wanted to say was, "It Ain't None Your Business!"

What' s the matter with your life? /Why you gotta mess with mine? /Don't keep sweatin' what I do/'Cause I'm gonna be just fine!

Can we formally vote to make this the pro-choice anthem? Just saying.

At any rate, Senator Nelson of Nebraska seems to want to make it his business to keep bringing up old stuff. The Guttmacher Institute did a comparison of Stupak-Pitts and Nelson's Amendment and confirms what we all knew going in - the bills are the same shit, different day:

"As with Stupak-Pitts, this amendment would restrict abortion coverage well beyond the status quo and could have profound implications even for coverage in the private market, paid for with private funds," emails Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate of the Guttmacher Institute. "It also, like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, takes what had been even-handed language respecting and protecting the conscience of providers on both sides of the abortion divide and turns it into biased language that allows for discrimination against health care providers willing to provide or refer for abortions."

Amy Sullivan of Time is letting Nelson have it over at Swampland:

What is it about those Nebraska governors-turned-senators? Did they not get enough attention as children? Do they chafe at being told they hail from a "flyover" state? Does that unicameral legislature leave too few adoring supporters? Bob Kerrey was infamous for waiting until the verrrrrry last moment to make up his mind on important pieces of legislation, waiting until he'd been courted and wheedled and begged. And now it appears Ben Nelson is looking to make himself similarly indispensable to the Democratic effort to pass health reform legislation.

So what happens when the Nelson amendment fails? Last week, Nelson was threatening to filibuster health reform if his abortion language was not included, but he's since walked that back. Even a Nebraska attention-seeker can only go so far, after all. Democratic leaders have said they're working on other compromises to win Nelson's support for the final bill, but it's unclear that he was ever willing to vote for health reform, even if his amendment were to pass. And other pro-life Democrats—like Bob Casey, who is a co-sponsor of Nelson's amendment—have not said the issue will determine their vote.

Casey has talked about introducing parts of his Pregnant Women Support Act in order to insure that the bill contains measures to reduce abortion rates. But such a move would be almost entirely for his own comfort, and not to bring more pro-life senators aboard or placate the Catholic hierarchy. Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' secretariat of pro-life activities, told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend that compromise in the wake of a defeat of the Nelson amendment was "not a negotiation we're prepared to have," adding, "I really don't know how you compromise further."

Another factor arguing against additional abortion amendments is the fact that if Reid cannot count on Nelson to get to 60 votes, he will have to pin his hopes on Olympia Snowe, a strong supporter of abortion rights. Snowe's main stated concern about health reform is the public option. But stronger abortion restrictions would only make her less likely to sign on to be that crucial last vote to pass reform. Which is why as of Monday night, Democratic leaders were much busier crafting a public option compromise than worrying about abortion negotiations.

Speaking of the public option compromise, some of the initial news is in: Senators are backing away from a public option and instead are looking at expanding the scope of existing programs.

After five days of intensive talks among five moderates and five liberals, the outlines of a compromise aimed at appeasing both ends of the Democratic political spectrum were emerging: a plan designed to expand insurance coverage without creating a new government-run program.

Under the compromise, the public option would be removed from the bill and replaced with a new government-administered national insurance plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which serves members of Congress and federal workers.

To sweeten the deal for liberals, people 55 and older would be able to "buy-in" to Medicare and purchase coverage in the popular government program for the elderly. Liberal Democrats such as Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia have been pushing the idea for years.

It's currently unclear how much this plan would help, particularly considering what passes as an increase:

The negotiating group is also looking to expand Medicaid to cover people with incomes 150 percent above the poverty line, up from 133 percent under the Senate bill, and to impose stronger regulations on private insurers.

This doesn't seem to be good enough for Republicans, who trying to throw monkey wrenches into the process however, and whenever, they can. When Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor yesterday comparing the stalwart stance of the GOP to the opponents to abolishing slavery, desegregation, and suffrage for women, the GOP complained they were being smeared.

Then, RNC chair Michael Steele sent a message to Obama to "delay" health care reform, saying:

"Congress can't afford to throw the American people further in debt now and splurge on a risky health care bill when we may need all the resources at our disposal next year to rebuild a sagging economy," Steele wrote in a letter than will be sent to the White House on Tuesday.

"We are asking you to delay your efforts to push your health care bill through Congress by the end of the year," Steele continued. "Until we are sure job creation has begun in earnest, we should put aside our differences on health care. We should watch our spending. We've got an economy to rebuild and restore."

Funny that Steele's pronouncment comes as the health care reform process is inching toward a close. That argument may have had a shot before the townhall meetings, and before the Republicans allowed fear-mongering to define their talking points on health care reform. Now, it just seems like too little, too late.

Boxer's message to men who support abortion riders: How would you like it if we singled out Viagara? [Think Progress]
Guttmacher: Nelson Abortion Amendment Virtually Identical To Stupak [TPM]
The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux [Time]
Public option compromise takes shape [Politico]
GOP erupts over Reid slavery, segregation remarks [Politico]
Michael Steele to President Obama: Delay health care [Politico]

Physician, social scientist, and Harvard professor Dr. Nicholas Christakis believes the fear of allergies has gotten out of hand, according to a new piece in Time. Christakis wrote a commentary on the problem in the British Medical Journal after a bus in his child's school district was completely evacuated after a single peanut was found on the bus floor.

Christakis argues that our fear of nut allergies is disproportionate to the actual problem. Roughly 3.3. million Americans have nut allergies and only 150 die of allergy-related causes every year, numbers on par with the 100 Americans who are killed by lightening every year. For comparison, 45,000 die in car crashes and 1,300 are killed in gun accidents.

Between 1997 and 2007 the number of children with food allergies increased 17 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control, but many doctors are questioning whether the numbers are rising because more patients are getting tested for allergies that otherwise would go undetected, or if our overly hygienic lifestyle is actually increasing the amount of allergies because the body can't build up its immunity. "There are kids with severe allergies and they need to be taken seriously," Christakis says, "but the problem with a disproportionate response is that it feeds the epidemic."

Christakis cited an article that compared Jewish children living in the U.K. and Israel and found that among Israeli children who were exposed to peanuts since infancy, only 0.17% developed a nut allergy, but in the U.K. where children rarely encountered peanuts, 2% developed an allergy. But, another study out this morning recommends that pregnant women avoid exposing themselves to nuts, peanuts, and shellfish during pregnancy to reduce the risk of their child developing a food allergy. But how much does the daily obsessing over what pregnant women eat or whether children are exposed to the occasional peanut actually help? "The reality is that the vast majority of kids — 95% plus — have no potential to get peanut allergies no matter what you do," says Dr. Robert Wood, chief of the Pediatric Allergy and Immunology department at Johns Hopkins Children's Center, "and there's one-half to 1% who are going to get it no matter what you do."

Have Americans Gone Nuts Over Nut Allergies? [Time]
Prenatal Nutrition, Postnatal Allergy Protection [Washington Post]

Probably the former. Yes, families where both parents are present in the children's lives are more stable and ultimately create a better environment for children, but Grove is implying that parents need to not only be married for children to thrive, but the man needs to be working and providing ("responsibility") for his young while the woman stays home and cares for them. Why not promote a society where single mothers can provide for their children on their own? Grove says that the Conservative government will provide a maternity nurse service for families who need help during the first days after childbirth, but there is no mention of this service being available to single mothers (or fathers) who have a newborn. An emphasis is placed on the relationship between the father and mother, implying that they are together.

And what does Grove think of women's magazines? While he condemns lad mags' presentation of a "narrow conception of beauty and a shallow approach towards women," he praises women's magazines (and their publishers) for addressing their readers "in a mature and responsible fashion." So, being obsessed with materialism, being fearful of any beauty "imperfection," and constantly being reminded that the attention of men is necessary to live a happy lifestyle is "mature"? Has this dude ever looked at a women's magazine?

Lad Mags Linked To 'Social Ills' [BBC]
'Lads Mags' Condemned Over Images Of Women [Telegraph]
Poll" Do Lad Mags Make Men Feckless? [Guardian]

Empty calories after the jump.

DailyCandy Everywhere thinks that music works better than pills for easing your problems. Ha. Fools.
DailyCandy Dallas reminds you that nuts are a healthy snack. Especially when they're coated with butter, sugar, and chocolate!
DailyCandy Dallas wants you to eat yummy chocolates even if, like, you'll then have "a long, long way to run to work those calories off." But you're soooooo undernourished right now.
http://www.dailycandy.com/article.jsp?ArticleId=31128&city=9">DailyCandy London called you a "lardarse." Right after they said you're "committing social suicide" and "have pubes down to your ankles." Ouch.
DailyCandy Los Angeles thinks that an entire store devoted to 70's pool party style is a meaningful contribution to society.
DailyCandy New York wants you to become a lardarse and is pushing a late-night cookie delivery service.
DailyCandy San Francisco thinks you get off on adorning your body with 18-karat gold and black diamond animal heads. "Yeah, they're on the pricey side," DailyCandy concedes of the taxidermy-inspired pins. How pricey, they do not say. We are sooooooooooo tempted!