To paraphrase Charles Foster Kane "If the girl is smart enough, it makes the cover smart enough!".

Oh, and I have always thought that Maggie Gyllenhaal was gorgeous - not sure who the writer above has been looking at. Traditionally "celeb-boring-pretty" no, but average!?!? Never average.

This whole "18 or over" arguement doesn't make any sense in any case. Is there a single state in the union where the age of consent is strictly above 18? I don't think so - all of them are 16 (or less), assuming the participants are within few years of each other's age. Since the laws already clearly state that this age is approriate for engaging in sex, then certainly the age for preventing (note, not ending) an unplanned pregnancy CANNOT be any less.

Since "we" (and by "we", I mean "them") are in favor of states rights, shouldn't the age to buy over the counter emergency contaception be determined by the minimum age at which it's legal to have sex in a state? In many states this age comes out to 12 years old. I assume that the pharmacist does not need to confirm that girl's partner 16 not over 16 before determining whether or not a specific sale is legal.

Or are we trying to encourage teen pregnancy these days? I get confused about that.

I've been reading the "Blogging the Bible" series over on Slate (yes, I know, I know, but I finish all the articles on Salon before I go there to read...) and have found the bits of information related to abortion that have come up so far very revealing. The three big ones are that the Bible says pretty clearly that life begins when you first draw breath, that if a man harms a woman and causes her to miscarry, he owes her husband money, but does not suffer the penalty for murder, and the ritual specified for "purifying" a female adulterer sounds a lot like adminstering pennyroyal as an abortficant.

Seems pretty straight forward to me - the authors of the bible are fine with abortion. Of course, the authors of the bible were also fine with god killing off generations of first born son's multiple times to punish their parents, so you probably can't really look there for any sort of, you know, moral compass.

To find out how much it would take to get Jake in one of the promotional onesies for my cult...(http://www.cafepress.com/shinracult.52716972)

Anna,

You are absolutely right - this is not an over the counter solution. Interesting that any child can walk into a Walgreens and buy a pack of "Chasers" hangover remedy (which, from my understanding of the FDA's reasoning) should only be available behind the counter to persons 21 or older, since it's a solution to a problem that they are not old enough to have.

After doing a little more research I discovered that the age of consent in here in Colorado (as of law passed in 2000) is so flexible that it's okay for 14 year olds to have sex with 10 year olds, or technically, 4-year olds to mate with 1-year olds (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/2002/research/issuebrft02-10.pdf), so really why are we putting any limits on access to emergency birth control at all? It looks like all girls, of all ages need to have access to it - at least in Colorado. I guess I can see that the 1 year old probably doesn't need it, but the 10 year old sure as hell might.

I have to say that taking your toddler to the spa seems a little strange to me. I'm not surprised by it though, what with the constant negative body messages that everyone gets beamed into their brains 24/7 by marketers.

For me, at least, there it is still a big jump from spa treatments and over-sexualized children, though I can see how some people might percieve it as a slippery slope. My main problem with it is that it's one more thing that girls are learning they need to be concerned with instead of, oh, I dunno, learning physics.

Apparently a "Thong Party" is a night at a club where women wearing thongs are allowed in for free (thanks Google). Sort of like Ladies Night, but you know, without being a lady.

Does anyone happen to know what Joe's net worth is? I'm wondering because everytime the media mentions Ned Lamont, it always seems to be "Millionaire Businessman, Ned Lamont". I'm pretty sure that Joe's net worth is in the millions as well, so shouldn't he be referred to as "Millionaire Senator, Joe Lieberman"?. For that matter, shouln't most political figures be referred to as "Millionaire *insert title here*, *insert name here*"?

I for one, will be glad to see him gone. If I never hear one more Lieberman report on the dangers of video games to kids (who's parents shouldn't let them play the games he complains about) I've still heard 10 too many. USA out of my Playstation!

Anomalous male seeks abberant female for unusual relationship.

I'll notify the lactation-fetish community right away. No doubt all those websites will disappear in the next 24 hours.