Just a small correction.

As far as I understand this South Dakota bill, it also "innovates" by removing the provision (standard in many similar statutes) that the mother's health is an exceptional condition (permitting abortion).

This means that if a pregnancy threatened a woman's health--imagine that it might render her sterile, e.g.--then she'd be without recourse.

A body of criticism from Mark Crispin Miller and others is building.

Here: http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

I hope Mr. Manjoo will defend his piece, or if necessary, concede his own mistakes.

This is an important topic that Salon has followed consistently.

It would be a shame to think that Mr. Manjoo took a contrarian position just to raise eyebrows.

Dave

Regular readers will know that we're all for giving Coulter the what-for -- but also that the wrath of the reasonable really ought to be directed at the hairdos who give her a stage on national TV and the Republicans who do nothing to distance themselves from her when she advocates, say, the assassination of a member of Congress.

Amen, amen, amen. How is it possible, one wonders, for advertisers to want to support news shows that are pandering to the likes of Coulter? She's not at all backed by most Americans--so why do those who want to make a buck want her on the TV?

This may be evidence that the media is not dominated by corporate, capitalist interests but by ideological sympathy with present conservative leaders.

Not good for business, not good for anything.