I bet it was a surprise to see those numbers, wasn't it? If it was within the margin of error then we'd see just as many contrary results. But in fact the margin is consistent. Women tend to me more likely to be pro-life than men.

"Pro-life" means being opposed to abortion being available. That is what the question was. There are lots of people who would not have an abortion themselves but aren't opposed to it being available for others. Those are not pro-lifers.

There are a lot of virulent pro-lifers, and I agree that a lot of them are men. And a lot of them have other agendas, some of them anti-woman by any definition. But that doesn't make them wrong. Anyone who sticks to saying, "If they were REALLY pro-life they would also be in favor of . . . etc. . . etc . . .", is just avoiding the issue. Being a creep doesn't make you wrong. By the same token, being correct about other issues -- access to birth control, help for poor mothers, opposition to the death penalty -- doesn't make you right.

To call abortion a women's rights issue is to fly in the face of demographics, and of history.

Salon needs to go back to paid subscriptions. That way it will learn that continuing to post sophomoric-contrarian pieces like this one are a sure way to lose subscribers (and money).

With only the brief introductory pop up ad, people can pick up Salon for free with no effort, and will continue to do so, though not to be informed but out of curiosity. Salon will get more and more frivolous, but with little or no decrease in the number of "hits" and therefore no incentive to exercise some editorial judgment.

Well I suppose, if you're going to lump transgendered persons into the mix, we'll just have to concede this point to the Religious Right, won't we!

It is no answer to say that sometimes choices are "forced" upon us. To say that one is "forced" to have reassignment surgery, or that a man is "forced" to dress like the a woman at work, borders on the frivolous. These are not serious people. Or at least they don't know what real oppression is. If my great-great-grandparents were slaves I'd never stop laughing at this.

Abolishing the Electoral College will mean amending the Constitution. This means either: three-fourths of the states ratifying an amendment, or: calling a Constitutional Convention.

Three-fourths of the states are not going to ratify it because most (not just one-fourth) of the states are "small states" who already have disproportionate representation in the Electoral College. This is because every state, no matter how small, has two senators, which counts into the number of Electors.

And a Constitutional Convention isn't going to happen either because you need two-thirds of the Senate to call it. Also, everyone knows a Constitutional Convention is a dangerous idea because it might "run away" and produce all kinds of amendments in the heat of the moment, amendments that would be binding as soon as they vote on them.

The problem is the two-senators-per-State system in the senate. That can't be changed because that is the one provision of our Constitution that CANNOT BE AMENDED. Go ahead, read it. The Constitution itself says that that provision cannot be amended.

All this is in Article V of the Constitution, a very brief provision that the author of this piece could have read in thirty seconds. Of course, then he'd be stopped dead in his tracks because he would know his piece would be a waste of time. Sort of like proposing a manned mission to Betelguese, without bothering to check that Betelguese is 400 light-years away.

Read my post, and Greg's in FL's post. It is mathematically and Constitutionally impossible to abolish the Electoral College. Now go on to other things, folks, and stop wasting your breath.

Odd that nobody is asking: what do actual Indians think of this?

Is this a parlor game to see how virtuous we are? Or does this have anything to do with the dignity and status of certain real-life people?

You know, the folks who are indigenous to this continent, the ones the Cleveland team is named after. We might like to call them "Native Americans", but on their own they still prefer the name bestowed on them by that lost Italian explorer.

It could be that they are, for the most part, not offended by Chief Wahoo. After all, his team tries to win and they're finally winning. I'll follow their lead.

Why doesn't anyone ask THEM?

It's not about YOU. It's about THEM.

To have an Indian mascot banned because it offends white people, but not Indians, would be elitist, as well as bizarre.

. . . if there is only one person loving and wanting you, and that is by design.

I agree with everything "E" said.

. . . and the fear of litigation. Also, too much listening to psychologists/social workers who see nothing but incest and dysfunction in their professional lives and can't imagine that holding hands, or a comment about a bra strap, might be entirely mundane. Related to the old saying that it's the censors that have the dirtiest minds.

That's what caused these overreactions.

About "feminism", and then asked about "equal rights and opportunities for women", you would get two different responses. Because the "f" word, particularly among those women who identify as such, got disconnected from the second phrase some time ago.