wow. Both sides of this coin would benefit from accepting that the other has the right to their opinion, and leave it at that.

People certainly have the right to their opinion. Equally, other people have the right to their opinions about that opinion. (And so on.)

Really? Men aren't allowed to not want children? Men are the ones pushing this concept of "evil, unnatural women that want to be non-parents"? Men are the sole instigators of this? This is what I object to, it is not just men, and the contention that it is detracts from the whole of the article.

I'm not sure what article you're referring to, but that certainly wasn't Ms. Harding's contention.

1) The quality of medical care from the Indian Health Service almost certainly has far less to do with the fact that the government runs the service than the fact that it's politically safe to underfund and ignore it.

2) Granted that there is some fraud and waste involving Medicare/Medicaid. Of course, it's not nearly the amount of fraud and waste that's in commercial health insurance. But it's not gummint fraud and waste, so I guess that's okay.

Absolutely there should be measures to minimize fraud and waste, but to use the existence of fraud and waste as an excuse to shut down -- or not start up -- a system is disingenuous. There will be fraud and waste in any human system. The reasonable goal is to minimize the fraud and waste while still having a functional system.

AANAL, but if a doctor performs a reasonably common procedure like this at an adult patient's request, what would be the possible grounds for a lawsuit?

But at the same time, because it represents so many of America's medical professionals, the organization could play a pivotal role in whatever reform does get done.

They represent far fewer medical professionals than they used to -- I've read that only about 20% of US physicians belong. And some of those seem to belong only out of some grudging sense of professional obligation.

Is 21 too young for a woman to decide to have a child?

Is 21 too young for someone to join the military? How about 18?

People are going to make decisions that they may later regret. (The gods know I certainly have -- including one major one at ~35.) Part of being an adult is dealing with that. Trying to "protect" adults from that is condescending.

It cuts both ways, though

You say that "vitriol directed at childfree women looks so much like anti-abortion rhetoric" and I believe that 100%. But I also see the same sort of vitriol from the left towards women with large families. Let's quit pretending that only one side of the cultural war ever misbehaves.

Who's pretending? The dynamic you speak of was specifically mentioned by Ms. Harding in her second paragraph.

I have read a number of articles by childfree women (and some men), and they all seem to go out of their way to insist they don't hate children (like on Jezebel - I don't want children, but I love children, I work with children blah blah blah). Maybe they would get less vitriole if they were more willing to own their views.

There are, in fact, many different reasons for choosing to not raise children.

As astonishing as it might seem, not everyone thinks Exactly Like You.

This is an Iranian problem and they'll have to sort their way through it. I love the way that the US issues pronouncements about something we don't actually know enough about to have a valid opinion.

"The US" very carefully hasn't made any pronouncements about this.

Some individuals have made pronouncements, in the US and elsewhere, sure. And yes, some folks express their opinions with more certainty than is warranted. That said, I've been mildly pleased by the number of people who have been measured in their "pronouncements" -- admitting that they're working with inadequate information and couching their opinions in appropriately tentative language.

It's nice to have an Administration that knows when to keep the bull out of the china shop.

Shouldn't the most minimal standards of political debate prevent them from parading around as guardians of the lives of American troops and reverent followers of the pronouncements of military leaders?

Well, there you go. The US media/ocracy doesn't meet the most minimal standards of political debate. Not news, alas.

People like Hannity also claim to be defenders of Christianity. If people are willing to twist the words of Jesus Christ himself to suit their own biases and agendas, why would they hesitate at doing the same with MLK?

Liz Cheney: "We've now seen several different occasions when [Obama]'s been on the international trips, where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe unequivocally, unapologetically, America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today.' Instead we've seen him do what we saw him do in the speech in Cairo, which is sort of, 'on one hand this, on the other hand that,' and then attempt to put himself sort of above it all. I think that troubles people.

"That troubles people"? The only people it troubles are the people who "believe in American exceptionalism" to the extent that being an exceptional nation -- which the US is, in many ways -- also means that we can freely engage in behavior that we condemn in other nations. That's an ethically screwed-up point of view, and -- considering the issues we face -- a very dangerous one as well.

I find Obama's professed attitude toward other countries encouraging rather than troubling, though his(/our) actions haven't yet matched our talk.

... it's hardly necessary to suppress evidence of civilian deaths, is it? Everybody just oh-so-politely averts their eyes.