is wise to have Mrs. Clinton in a job where she serves at his pleasure and occupies a lower rung in the line of presidential succession than she would if he had chosen her as his running mate.

As for the cannier half of the Clinton team, perhaps Mr. Obama thinks of him the way that President Lyndon Johnson thought of J. Edgar Hoover--better to have him inside the tent, etc.

The criminal law is a blunt instrument, and I am thankful that pregnant women and their doctors, rather than doofuses like Rick Santorum and Henry Hyde, decide whether abortion is or is not appropriate in a particular case. I am just as glad that, in this country, the decision of whether to criminalize abortion is not left to a Man In A Pointy Hat who is so foolish or dishonest as to suggest that condom use promotes the spread of AIDS. While I think Roe v. Wade is not among the best reasoned of judicial decisions--Justice Douglas's concurrence in Doe v. Bolton is far more persuasive--I am not in the least embarrassed to support abortion rights up to the point of viability.

That having been said, why do advocates of abortion rights shy away from calling the procedure by its name? (I would be pleased to see the euphemisms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" disappear from political discussion.) The squeamishness about calling an abortion, an abortion, itself belies the notion that aborting one's offspring is an unmitigated good.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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