This is an amusing concept, because it would reveal to the wilfully ignorant average American the vast numbers of everyday women who obtain abortions-- why do people never talk about how common it is? We act like it's some secret moral crime when in fact millions of women in sound mind choose it every day. Probably every person in America would see someone they love off to prison in such a scenario, and it would dawn on them that abortion is a common experience for a huge segment of the female population --ordinary people that you love, not moral criminals-- a fact which seems strangely absent from most debates about abortion, esp. now that fundies seem to have the mic in every aspect of this debate, including this ridiculous theoretical idea of sending women to prison-- even entertaining this theory is just reactionary and not worth the time of people who defend the right to choose.

I can't believe women are even going on the defensive about something so clearly essential and widespread; it shows you how much power the fundies have gained in recent years that such an essential and common procedure as abortion is even up for question, and pro-choice women are spending their time pondering a world where women go to prison for having abortions. These same ideas come from people who think god will tractor-beam them to heaven while people who question dogma and prejudice will be left to BBQ in the inferno. And we are seriously debating and entertaining their viewpoints?

I think women who support the right to abortion need to stop being reactionary to religious wingnuts who don't want to think rationally about social problems, and focus instead on reinforcing reality: women need abortions. They always will. Massive tides of unwanted pregnancy will not magically go away just because fundies deny women access to safe medical procedures. We will either provide them safely in this country, without hand-wringing and apology, or we won't. Which side would you like to fight on?

This is such a weird subject, I think-- I am really surprised that so many women are drinking the c-section coolaid and buying into this notion that vaginal births cause lifelong incontinence in any more than a tiny fraction of cases, not to mention brain damage to babies (what the--? I have a wooden nickel to sell the person who mentioned that one). The c-section rate has increased very recently in large part because of litigation and overly-cautious doctors, normalizing it statistically, and so women now see it as a "choice" or an "option" because it is so common. Which is totally fine if you want to go that way --who cares how women give birth?-- but this notion that it is safer, or that vaginal birth is "dangerous" or typically damaging to women's bodies is just simply not true.

This issue kind of has parallels to the bottle vs. breast feeding debate. There was a time when the medical community convinced women that formula was "safer" because it was created in labs, and women's bodies were defective and unable to provide for infants as well as science. Lo and behold, turns out that was a crock, albeit a profitable one for formula companies. Has anyone bothered to mention how much the medical establishment stands to gain by normalizing expensive c-section births and scaring women into doubting what women's bodies have done competently for all of human history?

I think it embarrassing that women are so ready to doubt themselves and their abilities in so many ways in the face of medical trends and pressure, this just being yet another example (plastic surgery, anyone?). I am giving birth in May, and call me crazy and risk-loving, but I am going to face fetal brain damage and lifelong incontinence by trying for a vaginal birth, on the odd gamble that my body knows what it's doing.

How surprising that a PhD from the mean streets of Berkeley would hold the position that the answer to agribusiness and poor eating habits in the US is that "people just have to dig down in their pockets and spend more for food" and "reacquaint themselves with the kitchen." Nothing out-of-touch and liberal candy land about that idea, no sir. How is it that cash-strapped working class families who work long hours didn't think of this already? Send these rubes a copy of this book!

I stand by my comment. I think Michael Pollan is an elitist and is falling back on the "ignorant unwashed masses" argument -- as other posters pointed out, that people are too stupid and lulled by corrupt market practices to make intelligent choices for their families. I also think it's intellectually weak to isolate the cost of food in consideration with other expenses families pay-- want to talk childcare, anyone? How are home prices doing in your area these days? Don't you think it's a little condescending to keep perpetuating this stereotype that uneducated American rubes are pouring subsidized corn syrup down their children's throats just to save a few bucks? Do only wealthy people care about their children? I know that sounds really compelling and lurid to people sitting around noshing on slow food and syrah and organic kale but I think it's a huge oversimplification-- sort of like saying people should just "stop having sex" if they want to avoid abortions. Makes for a good emotional sound bite, but ignores human complexities and realities.

My point is that it's lazy and presumptuous to just expect people to "pay more for food." Adding to that, it just simply isn't likely to happen, and isn't realistic for the "10%" (I doubt that number too) who simply can't afford to. A real solution should include those people too.