The reports from Washington are unambiguous. Health care reform was actually war on Roe:

The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment that would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans now offer. The amendment goes beyond long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies.

Wow. I suppose advocating for smaller, less intrusive government ends at womens' wombs.

Obama left the abortion issue unmentioned Sunday when he appeared in the White House Rose Garden to give brief remarks congratulating the House on its "courageous" passage of the bill. "Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people," he said. "And I'm absolutely confident that they will."

Other issues remain unresolved. The House bill's primary new revenue source to pay for the bill is an income tax surcharge on families earning more than $1 million; the Senate bill will probably rely on a proposed new excise tax on costly insurance plans. The House and Senate also differ on a government-run insurance plan to be offered on the new marketplace where small businesses and people without employer-provided coverage — about 30 million in all — would buy coverage. [...]

The bills also differ in their requirements for employers to provide coverage — the House's language is tougher — and in the subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage, which are larger in the House version. Both bills deny subsidies to illegal immigrants, but the Senate version goes further by also barring them from buying coverage on the new marketplace with their own money.

So, let's recap:

1. No public option
2. We have an exchange that assumes a relative definition of "affordable"
3. Somehow, they managed to work this so that even women who were paying for their own care got conned out of abortion coverage
4. Undocumented workers can't access this plan, even without subsidies, though they - like other human beings - get sick and need treatment like everyone else.

Ladies and gentlemen, we got hosed.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment (which I am highly tempted to rename Stupid-Shits) was considered to be the way to compromise and move the bill forward. Senator Claire McCaskill is trying to hedge on behalf of the allegedly pro-choice Dems who voted for the bill, saying:

the amendment in the House health care reform bill is narrow, barring any insurance plan that is purchased with governments subsidies from covering abortion. The vast majority of Americans would not fall into that category, she said.

Nope. Poor people, you get what you get and you will be grateful.

The right-leaning Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, doesn't mince words:

The House's 11th-hour change to its health bill removes abortion coverage from millions of insurance policies that consumers would get under the legislation, including from private insurers.

Anyone who receives a new government tax credit to buy health insurance couldn't enroll in an insurance plan that covers abortion. A proposed government insurance plan also wouldn't cover the procedure. That's a sharp reversal from the original bill, which included abortion coverage in the public plan and allowed those with a tax credit to enroll in a plan that covers the procedure.

Abortion-rights supporters say the change would likely prevent any insurer who sells policies on the new government insurance exchanges from covering abortions, regardless of whether the purchaser is using a tax credit. [...]

Private plans inside the exchange would still be able to sell policies that cover abortion to anyone who isn't getting a tax credit. But they would have to create a special policy for that group. Insurers may be reluctant to do so because it could complicate how they pool risk and force them to label policies in a way that could draw attention from abortion opponents.

Those who receive an insurance subsidy and want coverage for abortion would need to buy a separate rider policy. "What woman would buy a plan for an unplanned pregnancy?" said Ms. Rubiner of Planned Parenthood. She said only a handful of states currently allow for such a policy.

In addition, NARAL Pro-Choice America is convinced that this amendment doesn't pass the sniff test:

• The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
• Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

On November 6th, before the announcement of Stupak-Pitts, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend published an op-ed in Newsweek, urging Catholic leaders to re-examine their push to end access to abortion through health care reform:

The current House health-care bill expressly prohibits federal funding of abortion and excludes the procedure from the minimum benefits package. It includes provisions that existing state laws and conscience laws will be respected. The House bill makes buying private health coverage affordable by offering tax credits to families with modest incomes. Moreover, the bill proposes a common-sense solution to ensuring that federal funds are not used for paying for abortion. The bill creates a mechanism for segregating private dollars from public funds to ensure that only private dollars go toward abortion coverage. This is a common practice in negotiating the role of religion in the public square. Similarly, Catholic schools receive federal funding for nonreligious services as long as those funds are separated from the school's religious work. If this solution is good enough for Catholic schools, then it is certainly good enough for health-care reform, and it reflects well on the tolerant and pluralistic society we have created. Most importantly, the bill does what the president promised health-care reform would do-it ensures that no one loses benefits they currently have.

Unfortunately, this reasonable approach is under attack from some Roman Catholic bishops who object even to the use of private dollars for women to exercise their conscience. They are determined to make abortion illegal, even if it derails health-care reform entirely-no matter the cost to women and children-and regardless of whether it would actually have any impact on the number of abortions in this country. (In fact, comprehensive health care could well reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions.) In politics, this is called using abortion as a "wedge" issue. And it's simply not right. It is not right to jeopardize health care for the millions of women and children who need it most by inserting abortion politics into the debate. As a Catholic, I admire the bishops for their dedication to social justice, but cannot understand why they would put the health of so many women and children at risk when there is not a single federal dollar being spent on abortion services. It's a view I believe many of my fellow Catholics share. I urge the bishops to recognize that the House bill contains a familiar and genuinely American solution to the challenge of weighing differing religious beliefs in the realm of public policy.

As I've said before, I consider myself "pro-conscience." Women do not make the decision to have an abortion lightly, but it is absolutely critical that they have the means to make this decision and access to the care they need, no matter what their choice. Anything less would be turning the clock back on the progress we have made on advancing women's health.

It isn't just the Catholics on this one, but I'll heartily cosign Kennedy Townsend's pragmatic, women-focused take on health care. Reducing or removing access to abortion is not an effective strategy because it doesn't work - as we've written about before, it just makes the stakes higher.

While I'm sucking on the bitter pomegranate seeds of disappointment, I will try to look on the health care bright side. For one thing, the Republicans from Louisiana are an interesting bunch to watch:

So on Saturday, [Republican Anh "Joseph"] Cao, the first Vietnamese American elected to Congress, surprised Democrats and Republicans by becoming the only one of the 177 House Republicans to support the health-care bill.

"I felt last night's decision was the right decision for my district, even though it was not the popular decision for my party," Cao told CNN on Sunday.

The decision, he said, was a lifeline to the poor and uninsured in his district, rejecting the idea that it had anything to do with reelection hopes. Members of both parties privately said, however, that Cao's prospects are doomed unless a large number of Democrats in his district embrace him. [...]

"I know that voting against the health-care bill will probably be the death of my political career," Cao told the Times-Picayune this year. But he added: "I have to live with myself, and I always reflect on the phrase of the New Testament, 'How does it profit a man's life to gain the world but to lose his soul?' ''

(The bitter seeds also compel me to mention that Cao waited until the Dems had a majority and then decided to cast his vote. He also made abortion restrictions a provision of his aisle crossing.)

Bipartisanship doesn't seem like so much fun anymore. As Paul Begala points out at the Daily Beast:

Obviously, passing major laws with bipartisan support is preferable. But not always. Twenty-eight House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats voted for the Bush tax cut in 2001. Coupled with the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which also had some Democratic support, that vote ran up $2.5 trillion in debt. And for what? They didn't create jobs or reduce poverty or raise incomes for the middle class. In fact, median income fell by about $2,000 per family. Sure, the Bush tax cuts were bipartisan. But they were disastrous policy.

So, a good thing is that bipartisanship will hopefully be used in service of the greater good for all, instead of just a nice term to trot out at press conferences.

And Ann at Feministing points out things we should love about the bill, once we finish seething over the amendment:

*Expands Medicaid "to reach a wider range of poor households up to 150% of the federal poverty level.
36M additional Americans will now be eligible for Medicaid."

*Bars discrimination in health care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

*Acknowledges LGBTQ Americans are a population likely to "experience significant gaps in disease, health outcomes, or access to health care." This will hopefully ensure that LGBTQ people are included in future data collection, and that grant programs will focus on their specific health needs.

*Ends the "unfair practice of taxing employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, allowing thousands upon thousands of LGBT people to obtain domestic partner health benefits for their partners and families without having to pay a tax penalty through the nose."

*Allows states to cover early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs. (Currently, states are only allowed to use Medicaid money for patients with full-blown AIDS.)

*Funds comprehensive sex-ed programs.

So there are some silver linings to this storm cloud but I'm beginning to wonder - even with the good additions - if we should have left fucked up enough alone.

Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill [Washington Post]
McCaskill: Abortion amendment no poison pill [Politico]
Late Change Drops Abortion Coverage [Wall Street Journal]
House: Yes to Extreme Anti-Choice Politics, No to Women's Health and Privacy [NARAL]
A Call to Catholics [Newsweek]
A vote to make or break a career [Washington Post]
Forget Bipartisanship [The Daily Beast]
Good news in the health care bill [Feministing]
39 Democrats voted against the Affordable Health Care for America Act #HCR [Culture Kitchen]

Earlier:

NYT: Filipinos Fight For Reproductive Justice

Terry fell afoul of Operation Rescue in the late '90s and early '00s, when lawsuits bankrupted him (many of them over his illegal blocking of clinics) and he left his wife for a much younger woman. Now he hopes to found a new organization, Operation Rescue Insurrecta Nex ("Insurrection Against Death"), and apparently wants to use the Sotomayor hearings as a springboard. He says,

If child killing is going to be ended, the road goes though this capital, and I intend to be a part of that movement. "And I intend to lead — to be a key leader of that movement. And I am.

Terry has always seen himself as the rightful center of attention — he founded Operation Rescue after a "vision" in which he saw himself on Donahue. And his methods have always been gruesomely theatrical — he had a dead fetus mailed to President Clinton, and he and his followers sometimes chained themselves to abortion equipment. Now, his props of choice are fake blood — smeared on copies of the Roe v. Wade decision and on baby dolls — and a sickle, completing the outfit of a fellow protester dressed as the Grim Reaper in judge's robes. "You gotta admit," says Terry, "the Grim Reaper sickle is a good effect."

To most, Terry's antics probably seem both offensive and opportunistic. But Dahlia Lithwick of Slate finds them refreshing. At least, she argues, the anti-abortion protesters at the hearing are saying what they mean. (There have been five arrested so far.) She takes Lindsey Graham to task for smiling and proclaiming that he "likes" Sotomayor, while asking questions that imply he "feels that Sotomayor wants to take the law away from him and give it away to other, different people." And she says Sotomayor "dodges, hedges, and evades her way through softball and hardball questions alike," though she acknowledges this is "to be expected." Of Terry and his ilk, on the other hand, she writes,

The reason I like the abortion protestors so much is that they come into the hearing room all stealthy and then yell precisely what they feel. It's true, everyone in the press corps now watches each new crop of civilian spectators like hawks as they rotate in; we're all wondering which sweet-faced person will erupt in a torrent of hate and rage and get dragged away. The protesters are, in a way, the mirror image of the nominee who must nod and smile sympathetically as she is insulted and second-guessed. But we'll never know what she's really thinking or even what the senators are really thinking. We all just smile and talk.

Sincere as he may be, we should recognize Terry for what he is — a failed bigot trying to crawl back into the spotlight any way he can.

Old Mission, New Life [Washington Post]
Decades Fighting Abortion [Washington Post]
Honesty At Last! [Slate]

•  A recent study has found that alcohol has no effect on one's ability to judge age, which is bad news for anyone who wants to claim being drunk as an excuse for sleeping with a minor. Also: alcohol had a "significant impact" on making older faces with a lot of makeup appear more attractive to participants. • A North Carolina State University design team is working on making new, less revealing, and hopefully more comfortable, hospital gowns. • New research suggests that there may be a link between perfectionism and binge eating. • Ever wondered what a pro-abortion diet would look like? World of Wonder has the answer. • Today's New York Times profiles Allannah Thomas, who works with a nonprofit group to help low-income women achieve their full potential through math classes. • Meet Jennifer Fearing, the "rising star" of California's animal rights movement. Despite her fear of birds, Fearing has worked to improve the lives of farm raised chickens across the state. •  Police in Tracy, CA have received dozens of calls from people who simply cannot believe that Melissa Huckaby, as a woman, was capable of raping and murdering someone else's daughter. • Click here to watch a strange and disjointed time-lapse video that explains how babies are really made. • Is Katie Price (more commonly known as Jordan) a feminist icon? We're going with no, but the Times makes an interesting case for the famous glamor model. • More than 20 polo horses died this Sunday in Wellington, Florida. 15 of the horses died instantly, while the rest lingered for almost an hour. Experts are still searching for the cause of death. •

The Pope's statement, made as part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit — which goes further than the Church's previous statements on the subject — was:

"His Holiness," the statement read, "took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

So the Pope just called upon judges to be — horrors! — activist judges and create, rather than interpret, law. For a "strict constitutionalist" like Scalia — or his Catholic conservative colleagues John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — the very idea is supposed to be an anaethma.

Kmiec notes that in a 2002 essay that Scalia wrote:

a judge, I think, bears no moral guilt for the laws society has failed to enact"

His problem with Roe v. Wade, supposedly, is a legal one — he believes that it is not a Constitutionally protected act but a states-rights issue (supposedly). While his technical opposition to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds might seem to square with the Church's opposition to the decision and its new charge to the faithful to use their positions to enact anti-abortion laws, Kmiec disagrees.

No doubt Justice Scalia would insist that since abortion is not in the constitutional text, disavowing an abortion right would square Scalia and the other Catholic jurists with the Church. But not so fast; Justice Scalia says abortion can be legislatively permitted or not as the people choose, and he will enforce whatever is democratically chosen. That's hardly what the Church is hoping from Catholic jurists, is it?

Yeah, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons doesn't exactly square you with God, if I recall correctly.

Kmiec argues that the Pope's new charge to Catholic judges should obligate Scalia to resign for two big reasons:

1. That his moral responsibilities to the Church are now in direct conflict with his oath to uphold the Constitution.

If the Holy Father is pointedly telling not only President Obama and Congresswoman Pelosi but also judges that they all must use their offices to undo the legal protection for abortion, how is this consistent with their judicial oath, or with the fact that the Constitution in Article VI puts religious belief off-limits for selection or qualification for office, including judicial office?

2. When discussing the Church's opposition to the death penalty — a punishment allowed by the Constitution that Scalia has promised to uphold and swears he wants to strictly interpret — Scalia said:

"[I]n my view, the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be immoral is resignation, rather than simply ignoring duly enacted, constitutional laws and sabotaging death penalty cases. He has, after all, taken an oath to apply the laws and has been given no power to supplant them with rules of his own. Of course if he feels strongly enough he can go beyond mere resignation and lead a political campaign to abolish the death penalty - and if that fails, lead a revolution. But rewrite the laws he cannot do."

If abortion is the law of the land, Kmiec is arguing, and the Catholic Church is ordering him to "supplant" that law with "rules of his own," then by Scalia's own logic, he should resign.

Both of those, Kmiec implies, should additionally apply to Roberts, Alito and Thomas, if we're going to get all strict and Constitutional about it.

So, the ball's in Justice Scalia's court. He's got his marching orders from the Pope — the very thing that caused so many non-Catholics to be concerned about the wisdom of electing a Catholic to the Presidency way back in in 1960 — and those from the Constitution he's sworn to protect. Is he going to follow Benedict and his own judgment and "lead a political campaign to abolish" abortion? Or is he going to ignore his strict constitutionalist principles and legislate from the bench? Increasingly, the Church seems to be giving American Catholics less and less of a choice (and encouraging them to pay that forward).

Catholic Judges And Abortion: Did The Pope Set New Rules? [Time]

• With today being the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the anti-choicers are out in full frontal crazy mode. One particularly dick protester smashed his SUV into a Planned Parenthood in St. Paul this morning. The damage was minor. • Two sixteen-year-old British girls were banned from school for being "too blonde." The school's dress code states that there should be no "unnatural" hair color on students. • The man charged with spraying Afghan school girls with acid says that he was paid by a major in the Afghan intelligence unit for the attacks. The girls continue to attend school undeterred. • Adolf Hitler Campbell's mother has told newspapers that "we would never abuse our children," and "I want my children back." • Mariana Bridi da Costa, a finalist in the Miss World competition, had her hands and feet amputated after being diagnosed with a urinary disease. • A new survey has found that professional women are more likely to drink alone at home than men or women in "routine or manual" occupations. • Two women whose sexual harassment accusations led to the resignation of an Ohio attorney general have reached a settlement and will receive over $200,000. • A man from Nevada shackled his 15-year-old daughter to her bed and beat her with a stick because he thought she was overweight. • In other awful parenting news: A 52-year-old Denver woman has been accused of binding her 10-year-old daughter's hands and feet each night because she suspected she was sneaking food. • Two teens from Minnesota have been arrested for abusing the elderly residents of a nursing home where they were employed part-time. • A town in Brazil where one in five pregnancies result in twins may have been the site of Nazi Dr. Josef Mengele's post-war experiments. Mengele was obsessed with twins, and some speculate that he "found the secret of twins." • Men's Health has named the worst food in America. This year it is the 2,600-calorie Baskin Robbin's large chocolate Oreo shake. • The Cat House in Parlier, California, is now home to 700 stray cats and even a few dogs. The owner of the 12-acre shelter says: "There was no place else for all of these cats, and I had all of this land." • Josef Fritzl's trial is set to begin March 16. He faces chargers of murder, rape, false imprisonment, and enslavement. • Polygamous communities in Canada are using the recent legalization of gay marriage as evidence to help overturn laws against polygamy. • Want to know what life looks like for your pet? For $50 you can buy a little camera to attach to their collars. Or you could just crouch down and see for yourself, but whatever. • Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Islamic leaders have condemned comments made by an Australian Muslim cleric who said it was OK to beat and rape your wife. • A British woman living in Dubai lost her appeal to have a sentence for adultery reduced from six months in prison to three. She also faces deportation. • A new study suggests that women suffer from worse nightmares than men because they are more likely to carry emotions from daily life into their sleep. • An 83-year-old man missed his bus back to Indiana because he was busy dancing with a young lady at the inauguration party. He has since found his way home and will be alright. • Head honchos at the San Fransisco Sentinel are trying to sell ad space by advertising their (attractive) female account executive. • A former manager of Hawaiian Tropic says that her boss bribed her to lie about her 2006 rape by a supervisor. • The Swedish National Library apparently has a large collection of child pornography dating from the 1970s, when it had not yet been made illegal. • 

Professional jealousy? Not really, but anti-abortion activists are concerned that the sheer absurdity of Burton's law and the eventual challenge to it could undermine their years of work convincing Americans that they aren't all crazy. They're even more scared that the eventual challenge to the underpinnings of Roe V. Wade they've been ginning up for when the Supreme Court gets that last, coveted conservative will be naught but a dream if Burton succeeds and then, at the Supreme Court, fails.

The problem with Burton's amendment is that it wouldn't just eliminate abortion (or enshrine a particular religious Weltanschauung into Colorado's constitution), it would also make illegal: certain kinds of birth control — from the Pill to IUDs to Plan B; the destruction of unused embryos from in vitro fertilization (if they get to remain unused at all, if the practice even remains legal since it generally involves the loss of some fertilized eggs); and research on embryo-initiated stem cell lines. Would they stop me at the border and forcibly remove my IUD if I chanced to have sex in Colorado? Force you to check your birth control pills at the border? Burton doesn't say — but she doesn't much care, either, because the Protection of The Unborn is more important than any right that the Supreme Court might have offered American women in Roe v. Wade or Griswold v. Connecticut. Oh, that's right! Burton's law, if upheld by the Supreme Court, wouldn't just invalidate Roe, it would dismantle Griswold, which protects our right to birth control — which the fundies know most Americans consider settled (and important) law.

Clark Forsythe, the president of Americans United for Life, opposes Burton's bill because he thinks the time isn't ripe for a Supreme Court challenge to Roe (since he doesn't have his last required judge) and because he recognizes that most Coloradans are going to think it's just a little crazy for the state to start outlawing methods of birth control:

"If it's defeated 60-40, or even 70-30, what does that say to lawmakers?" says Forsythe. (A mid-October poll shows 35 percent of the voters support the amendment, 55 percent oppose it and 10 percent are undecided).

They're afraid Burton's eventual defeat will actually set them back further in their efforts to convince you to let the government tell you what you can put into your body or take out of your uterus, or that it might convince the Supreme Court to reiterate its stance on Roe in a way that makes it nearly impossible to challenge in their lifetimes. So, ironically, Burton may do more good for the reproductive choice movement than it's ever done for itself. Funny that.

Roe v. Wade v. Kristi [Newsweek]

Related: They Just Won't Quit [Wonkette]

STEVE: Shalom and here we go. It won't be the first time I've talked about something I didn't actually see.

MEGAN: Well, you saw it but in true Jezebel fashion, you saw it intoxicated. This is the first one I actually watched stone-cold sober because I couldn't stop typing long enough to drink the bottle of wine I opened.

STEVE: My insights are admittedly influenced by the haze of a nice, Australian Cabernet-Shiraz blend. Yes, "that one."

MEGAN: So you do remember some things! But, basically, Obama won and nobody asked anything that wasn't pre-screened because they didn't want to get yelled at by Tom Brokaw like he kept yelling at Obama and McCain.

STEVE: Yes, I remember mostly the focus group that Katie Couric did after, and the undecidededs didn't like "that one" very well. Maybe, as Maureen posited this morning, it was a cross between "the one" and "that woman," but it seemed dismissive and odd.

MEGAN: I mean, it's actually something you say to, like, your kids, isn't it? I thought it was very infantilizing.

STEVE: I wouldn't know about kids, but my friend Suzanne is here and says she'd never really talk to her kids like that. I would, however, sometimes talk to a boyfriend like that. And that's not a good sign.

MEGAN: Wait! Wasn't it you that sent me that magazine cover of them kissing?

STEVE: YES I DID and you didn't pick it up. I thought it was going to be a big deal. But maybe the progressives won't get mad at The Progressive?

MEGAN: It was just a little too... something.

STEVE: I'm not even sure what that was supposed to mean. But I can say, without a doubt, that I wouldn't kiss any man who pointed at me and called me "that one" in public.

MEGAN: You know, I did kiss a dude who later called me "that one" in public in what he thought was a jocular way. I accused him of using his brother's terminal illness as a way to get pussy, so I guess I didn't appreciate it.

STEVE: Speaking of our rights to kiss anyone we want, I thought it was a little odd, and disappointing, that not a word was said about the Supreme Court last night, two days into the new term and with at least two judges barely holding on.

MEGAN: Well, but Sarah Palin covered that, right? [I crack myself up some times]

STEVE: Every swing state voter I know - and I recently met a mom in Ohio who WANTS to vote GOP, but is really being persuaded by the high court argument.

MEGAN: Because of Roe? That's interesting. On the other hand, if the Democratic Party can win the Presidency on the economy and the Republican can't gin people up on social issues like abortion and gay marriage because independent voters have realized that it's craven and whatever, that's not a bad thing, right?

STEVE: I really think the court issue is ALMOST as persuasive as the "Jesus the stock market crashed 500 points again" issue. You know, Bill Maher said on Friday, and I agree, that it almost always requires a national catastrophe to get progressives elected. BUT DO AMERICANS NOT GET THAT THE SUPREME COURT COULD BE A NATIONAL CATASTROPHE TOO?

MEGAN: Well, 54 percent of the country thinks abortion should stay legal and the more they put the crazies on TV, the more people go, um, those people are cray-cray. Like, they should give that crazy anti-gay guy from Kansas more press.

STEVE: I bet Fred Phelps votes based on the Supreme Court!

MEGAN: Totally! But everyone hates him. Harley riders hate him. He's the antithesis of everything the anti-gay movement is trying to pretend to be, which is faux-tolerant. You know, like Sarah Palin. It's okay if you, like, have to be gay, but the government shouldn't do anything special for your heathen, social-norm defying self. That would be giving you "special" rights. Because the right to, say, marry or to have equal protection under the law is "special."

STEVE: Sarah says she "tolerates" the gays. Does that make us feel better?

MEGAN: Like, she doesn't want to gas them or anything! It doesn't make me feel better. What is there about gay people to "tolerate"? It's not like gayness is something that might rub off or something.

STEVE: OK and so if they spent 60 minutes on the economy last night, we should spend a few minutes on it here. Angela Merkel is on the front of the NYT business section today, looking very stressed.

MEGAN: Well, I think I know why.

STEVE: And as someone who was raised by a single mother and appreciates the (much better) grasp that women have on pocket book issues than men, I get worried when they look panicked. I mean, a friend emailed last night to tell me that he and his boyfriend decided not to buy expensive, designer jeans after the 500 drop yesterday. And when the gay men stop pumping money into the economy for lavish, unessential items like Italian jeans, we have problems.

MEGAN: Well, that alone explains the 500 point drop in the Dow yesterday. I have no doubt that Angela Merkel doesn't want to be presiding over an economic crisis brought on by the financial crisis and credit crunch by her personal masseur.

STEVE: I mean, when $2 trillion of retirement money is gone . . . and gay men can't buy jeans . . . is our salvation really going to be found in cutting a $3 million overhead projector for a planetarium? And, like, if they did buy the projector for the planetarium, and Sarah could see Jupiter from her seat, could we make her an astronaut and send her to the moon or something?

MEGAN: Okay, first off, I really like planetariums. I'm just sayin'. Fuck McCain for hating on planetariums. Second off, he's also going to personally renegotiate everyone's mortgages. Except mine. And yours if you had one. I mean, not really "everyone" as much as people whose houses lost value because they bought stuff for absurdist prices. And took out absurdly high mortgages. And only if they're old, to make up for the massive cuts in Medicare spending he's planning.

STEVE: And McCain's mortgage plan is totally borrowed from Hillary, which was borrowed from her history lessons on the Great Depression.

MEGAN: Also, did you get the sense that they made that up on the bus on the way there? Sort of like how McCain's all, I know how to kill bin Laden! I do! Just watch! I will go into some place I won't name and kill bin Laden quietly, because generally invading a sovereign nation goes over way better if you just hope they don't notice.

STEVE: But if you pronounce Pakistan as Pah-kee-stahn, the whole things has an air of credibility.

MEGAN: Just like "new-cue-lerr" makes it sound less scary?

STEVE: You betcha!

MEGAN: Such as!

STEVE: So Olbermann says Palin is the one palling around with terrorists — the Alaska Independence Party.

MEGAN: Well, you know, just because they advocated potentially violent secession, we sponsored by Iran and hate Our Freedoms doesn't makes them terrorists... Oh, wait, let's just call Olbermann and pinko Commie in the tank for Obama.

STEVE: The AIP founder, Olbermann says, said that, "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag"

MEGAN: Why doesn't he just go to Canada? It's, like, right the fuck there.

STEVE: Don't ruin Canada for the rest of us! I hear Montreal is quite a party.
But where is this tank everyone keeps talking about? It must be pretty crowded in there by now.

MEGAN: And kind of sexy. I mean, Olbermann's in it with Rachel Maddow and Bill Keller of the NY Times, who I saw on Saturday and is kind of silver foxy.

STEVE: Is Rachel Maddow DRIVING the tank? Margaret Cho says you gotta have a lesbian to read the map.

MEGAN: Well, I'll bet Rachel is driving and Suze Orman is navigating through the minefields.

STEVE: Are we going to end up with Suze or Warren Buffet as treasury secretary anyway? Can't Warren Buffet just bail us out of this . . . maybe with a little help from Bill Gates?

MEGAN: I know, Warren Buffet as Treasury Secretary? I was like, dude, McCain, seriously, you had a whole series of commercials about how stupid celebrity is and now you're nominating the only financier people will recognize by name as Treasury Secretary? I mean, you know he wanted to be honest and say "Phil Gramm," because McCain, too, thinks we're a nation of whiners and this is just a mental depression.

STEVE: I mean, I bank at Wachovia, or Citibank, or Wells Fargo OR WHATEVER IT IS THIS MORNING and I'd feel much more secure banking at Warren Buffet's house.

MEGAN: I'd feel more secure banking from under my mattress at this stage.
If anyone is going to fuck over my money, it really should be me.

Through most of the 1990s and until recently, the Supreme Court had a solid 6-3 majority in favor of upholding the right of a woman to choose abortion. But the margin has shrunk to one, now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retired and has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

And Justice John Paul Stevens, a leader of the narrow majority for abortion rights, is 88.

In fact, John McCain has said that he expects to have three seats on the Supreme Court to fill during his Presidency — and "Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned." But despite the fact that 54 percent of Americans think abortion should remain legal, it's not the biggest issue in the election and neither candidate tends to talk about it a lot on the campaign trail.

Which is not to say that there hasn't been incremental change, or that there won't continue to be incremental changes. As a former clerk to Clarence Thomas and right-wing judicial activist Wendy Long points out, "I think the consensus is Roe will fall slowly and incrementally, not in one decision." They expect to win, and given that their strategy has been a long-term one (instead of a Chicken Little "the sky is falling" one), they have a decent chance of doing so. In favor of the pro-choice movement, though, the Supreme Court can't just wake up next January and decide to overturn the decision; it has to have a case by which to do it. That's why you see the anti-abortion movement pursuing late term abortion bans in some states, and fetal recognition referendums in states like Colorado and complete bans in states like South Dakota (both of those are on the ballot this year). They're looking to get a case before the Supreme Court right about the time they have a majority in the Court that is skeptical of Roe in the first place.

And, true, in most states, abortion would not be immediately illegal — if by "most," you mean "30." Four states have trigger laws that will make abortion illegal when Roe is overturned, another 12 have never actually changed their abortion laws since Roe, and four allow abortion only to the "extent permissable" by the Supreme Court's decisions. By comparison, only 7 have law which protects the right of women in those states to have abortions regardless of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

So, thy sky might not have fallen yet and the pro-choice movement has been ginning people up to give money and get active for years claiming that it's imminent, and the ability to have a safe and legal abortion might not end the day McCain gives his inaugural speech. But, he is set on making sure that the conservatives on the Supreme Court have the tools (i.e., conservative justices) they need to further erode women's rights, and sometimes the law is much more about luck and timing than it is about the law... or even what's right.

This Time, Roe v. Wade Really Could Hang In The Balance [LA Times]
Is McCain the Nostradamus of the Supreme Court? [CBS News]
Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe [Guttmacher Institute]

When I worked at BUST, we got this album sent to us, and we would all sit around singing "The Abortion Song" in really exaggerated operatic voices, "Freeeeeee our sisters! Aboorrrrrrtion is our riiiiiiiiiight!" laughing our faces off. It's a good way to celebrate the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

And just to experience just how wacky some of those second wavers were, you should check out their jam "So Fine."

Here are some lyrics of what they thought sucked about being women:

"We used to think we were only good for pleasing men, having babies, doing housework, having shit jobs, doing volunteer work, and, you know...sex [cue sad sound affect]"

And here are their lyrics for what they think rules about being liberated women:

"We didn't know that women could get together and play rock music, fix cars, give abortions, love our sisters, stay single, choose our own lifestyle, and, you know, SAY NO!"

I dunno, I feel like I'd rather have sex and do volunteer work any day over fixing a car and giving my friend an abortion. But hey, that's just me. Feminism isn't monolithic.

• Short men are more likely to be pedophiles, according to a new Canadian study. Maybe they're just looking for someone their own size? Kidding. [NEWS.com.au]
  
• At least there's one Supreme Court Justice who will stand up for the rights of women. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has cautioned that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, such a decision "would have a devastating impact on poor women." [Feministing]
  
• This is kind of awesome. A radiology facility in Orlando is hosting mammogram soirees in order to encourage women to get their breasts checked. [CBS News]
  
• According to the UN secretary general, violence against women in post-conflict nations has reached "pandemic proportions." This is no surprise to anyone who read about those absurdly gruesome rapes in the Congo. [International Herald Tribune]

• The WE network (aka the poor man's Lifetime) and BridesDecide.com are using their brands to get women educated about the election. That's nice, but can't they focus on getting Tori Spelling back in the mini-series business? [NY Times]
• More women are electing to get double mastectomies, even when cancer is just in one breast. Lumpectomies are still the most prevalent treatment for cancerous tumors, but double mastectomies have increased by 150%. [USA Today]
• Women who put on a lot of weight during adulthood are at an increased risk of developing breast cancer because estrogen hides out in the excess fat and encourages tumor growth. Sneaky bastards! [MSNBC]
• A man was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison for digitally raping a woman in Australia. We thought this story had to do with computers, like the guy raped her in a chat room or something, but apparently "digital rape" means he fondled her while she was asleep on a train. [NEWS.com.au]
• Lord Steel (sweet name), the British politician who campaigned for the UK's 1967 Abortion Act, says that there are too many abortions nowadays and women are, in some cases, using abortion as a form of birth control. [Guardian UK]