I am a litigator and not an economist, but it seems counterintuitive to me that insurers would not find a way to cover a relatively inexpensive procedure--early term abortions--in order to avoid significantly greater payouts later for birth expenses.

I suspect that both the bishops of RoCaMBLA and the Chicken Little abortion uber alles squawkers--as well as the professional fundraisers on both sides--would rather have the issue than the resolution here.

George Orwell wrote that where there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as if instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. Those who call themselves "pro-life", as well as those who label their opponents "anti-choice", seem not to appreciate that Mr. Orwell did not make this observation with approval.

The topic is abortion rights, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. Those who oppose abortion rights but care little about such things as appropriate pre-natal care and infant mortality, as well as government sponsored killing--e.g., capital punishment, wars of aggression--can most accurately be labeled "pro-birth". (My preferred label for these sex control freaks is blastocystophile.)

"Forced pregnancy advocates", or similar blather, is horrid and stilted--at least where the pregnancy results from unforced sex. An abortion, by defintion, includes the application of force--most often surgical implements--to end a pregnancy. Absent this induced interruption, the pregnancy would proceed to live birth or to stillbirth.

Perhaps those who regard abortion of a non-sentient being as more objectionable than pederasty should be labeled "the Roman Catholic Man-Boy Love Association", or RoCaMBLA.

Those who screech that the right to choose abortion will end if a woman must, you know, pay for this surgical procedure just as she pays for groceries should be called "Chicken Littles". Condoms cost less than $1.00 each, and if those women (and the men who whould impregnate them) who cannot "self-insure" a first trimester abortion were to stick to non-reproductive sexual practices such as masturbation and/or oral sex, the gene pool would likely improve as a result.

How much of the Roman Catholic Man Boy Love Association's antipathy toward abortion funding springs from fear of a future altar boy shortage?

How about blaming the members of Congress who genuflect in the presence the Men In The Pointy Hats?

I am puzzled as to why anyone would pay attention, on questions of moral authority, to a church that, if the tort judgments and settlements are an accurate indication, has institutionalized pedastry. Perhaps the acronym should be RoCaMBLA.

The Bill of Rights has been interpreted to guarantee several fundamental rights. Is there any fundamental right other than abortion, however, that the proponents thereof posit that the right is meaningless unless government funds the exercise of that right?

The example I initially thought of was voting. After further reflection, though, I recalled that, until poll taxes were outlawed by a later constitutional amendment (during the 1960s), even the right to vote could be made conditional based upon payment.

If I want to publish my political views, I pay a printer or an Internet service provider. If I want to sue to enforce a contract or to seek redress for another's tortious conduct, I pay a filing fee. (Payment of filing fees may be delayed for indigent plaintiffs, but is not waived.) If I want to bear arms, I pay for the gun, knife, club or other instrument with which I arm myself. If I want to travel from one state to another, I pay a fare or bear the expense of operating my vehicle. If I am charged with a crime and wish to select my lawyer, I pay a fee for that representation. (If I am unable to afford a lawyer, the State is not required to pay a fee for the services of an appointed lawyer.) If I exercise my right to use birth control, I pay for the condom.

How does the right to abortion, then, depend on government subsidies?

I should think that any self-respecting dildo would take exception to being compared to a Catholic priest.

I have long thought that the Catholic Church's antipathy toward heteros engaging in non-procreative sex springs from fear of an altar boy shortage.

Would the sex toy gatherings be called shtupperware parties?

Let's see, now. Mr. Polanski, by pleading guilty, admitted conduct which constitutes both a crime against the State of California and a tort against Samantha Geimer. Ms. Geimer has pursued her civil remedies against him, and those remedies will likely be unaffected by whether he returns or remains abroad.

Whether Mr. Polanski returns to face the criminal justice system or not, how will Ms. Geimer be affected--either beneficially or adversely--by either course of action? There will be no trial. (That is, unless the Defendant were to seek to withdraw his plea, which would be foolish in that the original, more severe charge(s) would then be reinstated.) Ms. Geimer's account of what happened has been preserved through her grand jury testimony, which would probably be admissible if she were subpoenaed and refused to testify at a sentencing proceeding. (The Sixth Amendment right of confrontation--unfortunately, in my view--does not apply with full force at sentencing.) She is of no benefit to Mr. Polanski's defense--for the defense to present her as a witness would be fraught with peril.

The media circus surrounding this case will be present regardless of whether the defendant is or is not returned, and that hype will continue to surround Ms. Geimer in either event.

How does Ms. Geimer have skin in the game as to whether Ms. Polanski returns or remains abroad?