But isn't the truth that the only 100% absolute guarantee to not get pregnant or an STD to abstain? I have no problem teaching how the reproductive system works, but kids should definitely be encouraged to wait, definitely until they are adults, ideally until marriage. That said, I want to TEACH abstinence, not PREACH it. The difference is that the former explains the reasons and honestly answers kids' questions, while the latter basically says, "Don't do it because it's a sin-end of discussion."

I'm glad that my earlier comment generated discussion and I actually for the most part agree with alot of what has been said in response. As plenty of us do not have access to public transit or live close enough to walk everywhere we need to go it is necessary to drive. Of course there are risks and I'm all for seatbelts and comprehensive drivers ed. This on the other hand has, as far as I can tell two reasons to engage - procreation and pleasure, and neither is necessary while still in high school, and the first of those is definitely not desirable.

As for those saying not realistic, well it worked for me and I dare say plenty of my friends. I went to a rather enlightened Catholic high school, which of course would never distribute birth control as that would contradict Church teaching. However, it taught the morals in religion class and the science in health class and in both cases there were very open discussions about this whole thing.

As long as he doesn't play favorites, religious groups that do good work in the community should absolutely have the opportunity to compete for federal funding. In my opinion it is blatantly discriminating against a group due to its religious foundations which would be unconstitutional. Please don't label all Christians as closet theocrats. Obama's Christianity is that of the United Church of Christ (link below) which is proudly inclusive and tolerant of all comers.

Your columns have consistently been of the sky-is-falling, Obama-is-no-better-than-Bush genre. I simply have a hard time believing that if things were really as bad as you say that you would be the only one reporting these. It seems that at a time that newspapers are struggling they would be chomping at the bit to break and investigate such matters. Maybe you consider yourself more a columnist than a reporter, but I for one would appreciate if you tried to get the other side of the story from the Obama people.

...that officials of our judicial branch are called judges or, in the case of SCOTUS, justices. They are called upon to exercise the very human quality of JUDGEment and to dispense JUSTICE. Statute law is a key part of this equation, but not the only part. Case law, the circumstances of each dispute, and especially for SCOTUS, the Constitution are part of it as well. Fortunately, the Bill of Rights, combined with the 14th amendment make the Constitution a rather empathetic document. Justices do need to decide what is fair for the parties provided their decisions do not directly contradict the law. We like to say we are a government of laws and not of men, but the absolute rule of law can be just as tyrannical as the absolute rule of a man. We need both laws and men to have a truly just society.

What's misleading is the idea that some have no health insurance via a real choice. The cost is prohibitive. Even my current employer offered a plan that involved taking a large chunk of my paycheck which I felt I could not afford. Just like everything else in this supposedly "free" market insurance is available to everyone for whom money is no object. I have "chosen" not to pay for insurance, but if it were handed to me on a platter like other civilized countries of course I would take it.

I also want to shoot down the notion of rationing and long waits. I was in Belgium for a class a few years ago and one of my classmates got sick. She was able to make an appointment to see the local doctor the day after she called. The appointment and the medicine the doctor prescribed were each the equivalent of 20 USD out of pocket because the state picked up the tab, no questions asked. Besides, unless it's a real emergency you're likely to wait weeks for an appointment here as well.

He should pick the best person for the job - period. There is no obligation for SCOTUS to demographically "look like America". All men, all women, all straight, all gay, all black, white, Asian, Hispanic, all Christian, Jewish, Muslim, athiest, etc., any combination of the above is fine.

...for premarital celebacy. Potential for pregnancy, STDs, the emotional toll, which while the chances can be drastically reduced by artificial means there's always a chance it won't work. My question is why is this only about women. Men would ideally save themselves as well.

The way I read this it sounds like last poll said about half were pro-choice and this poll says about half our pro-life. I would hardly call a couple of yards away from the proverbial 50-yard line substantial change in either direction.

...that Nevadans aren't impressed by Reid's Majority Leader status! Many Democrats throughout the country aren't impressed either. We need a Leader who once Al Franken is seated will insist on cloture votes, even if a few must abandon the party on the merits, and until then make the GOP actually filibuster.

...like she was trying to change the subject.

There are still those of us who don't have cable, satellite, fios, etc and watch the networks. Also, count me among those looking forward to Leno's move to 10:00, though I'm not looking forward to Conan on the tonight show. Maybe I'll check out Nightline more often.

FYI: Leno is currently just an hour long (11:35-12:35 Eastern).

This sounds like exactly the position he took on this matter in 2000.