"If you are a closeted Republican, we hope to out you. If you are a closeted Democrat, you're safe from us."

Why? Aren't there plenty of Democrats who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act? Who support "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Who oppose the normalization of homosexual marriage?

Are those Democrats deserving of special consideration because they are Democrats? The policy differences are far from clear. The only clear difference is the letter after their names and before the state they represent.

The hypocrisy of Salon, and the rest of the Republican-hating left on this issue is far more interesting to me than Mark Foley, who has been rightly pushed out of the Republican Pary, and Larry Craig, who might also be rightly pushed out of the party.

If there is a Democrat whose policy positions include support for the Defense of Marriage Act, opposition to full gay marriage rights in her home state, and wavering support for the military's policy of "Don't Ask/Don't Tell", does that Democrat deserve to be outed if she is a closeted lesbian?

Yes or no.

If no, why does she get immunity from the 'hypocrisy' attack on her privacy?

You responded:

"If there is a Democrat whose policy positions include support for the Defense of Marriage Act, opposition to full gay marriage rights in her home state, and wavering support for the military's policy of "Don't Ask/Don't Tell", does that Democrat deserve to be outed if she is a closeted lesbian?"

Well, if she engages in activity that results in breaking public indecency laws, I guess there's no question about it. Rule of law and all that?

She doesn't "deserve" to be outed for the sake of being outed, but if there is such a Democrat, and something like this comes to light, she "deserves" to be ridiculed for her hypocrisy.

Gotcha. Now, distinguish what you say from Rep. David Dreier, who is a "target" of Mike Rogers' out-the-Republicans campaign. Dreier holds mainstream Republican positions on gay rights. He has no history of lewd acts in public, nor any public indecency, or otherwise illegal behavior. I don't recall him using any particularly hostile anti-gay language. But he votes as a Conservative Republican should, and thereby in a way that makes Mike Rogers mad. As do some Democrats, we have now agreed.

So in the end, we have an essentially private Republican who holds policy views that might be regarded as anti-gay. And we have an essentially private Democrat who holds policy views that might be regarded as anti-gay. Mike Rogers chooses, apparently, to pick on only the Republicans. No other credible distinguishing principle exists.

So who's the partisan hypocrite?

I just want it to be clear that if a Democrat with an imperfect record on gay rights is nominated, and if in about late October of 2008, that nominee is shown to have had homosexual contact, then it will be fair game for the political debate. Sounds like you all agree that it will be.

It sounds to me as though you are questioning my patriotism...

Or that you are engaging in a name-calling attack...

Or that you are practicing the politics of personal destruction...

Whatever.

Anyone with half a brain who reads this story (and Salon's readership displays a proclivity for appearing to be half-brainless) will think, "Gosh, how could those attorneys have the nerve to ask for patient records, exposing all those innocent patients' names, identities, personal stories, etc., to a cold and cruelly indifferent world."

I might think that, too, if that is what they asked for. But they didn't. And Catherine Price, following the the radical feminist agenda of these pages, did her best to keep you from knowing that fact.

What was requested in the civil discovery, was a compilation of identity-purged records. All names and personal identifiers blacked out. And the reason to ask for it was not to harass any particular patients, but to seek to do what only access to the whole body of recurds could provide -- that there was a pattern at that office of providing abortions in defiance of a parental notification law. The records would only be used in pursuit of information relating to patterns of possibly illegal beahvior by Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati. They'd probably be kept under seal, with all copies destroyed as soon as that phase of the litigation concluded. (That would be a typical court order under similar circumstances.)

Thanks, Catherine, for providing us with a real good example of Salon-style, ideology-based 'journalism.'

...is Melanie Sloan, and Melanie Sloan is a former staff lawyer for those paragons of ethics, John Conyers, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden.

No word yet on whether she got a Thanksgiving turkey from Conyers, or whether one of her Biden projects was touching up his resume.

The Roes’ case required them to prove wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood with respect to Jane Roe only.

No. I am not sure about the details, but my understanding is that in fact, the "Roes" were indeed required to prove MORE than the details of activities related solely to the minor Jane Roe's case. After all, they can get those particular records on demand.

As I understand it, one of the essential elements in the cause of action at issue is that "there was a pattern" of wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. Which is why the requested records became relevant. The burden is on the "Roe" family to prove a "pattern" and they can't prove any "pattern" without all the records. And they were willing to follow any required guidelines for court-ordered protections of those records.

Glad we agree, however, on what a hack-job it was that Catherine Price did on this story...