home births with midwives? what about doulas (whether at home or not)? If so either way, what do people end up paying out of pocket for these services?

I'm just curious because it seems like what some have already said about the privilege of giving birth at home entails. And while I don't think you can quantify a woman's piece of mind while giving birth, I did just get the paperwork from my OB/GYN to tell me that I can anticipate my insurance being billed for $11K for a vaginal delivery (with no complications) (or, god forbid, $20K for a C section). I mean, I can't imagine a midwife not being covered, but then again it wouldn't surprise me.

what is the evidence that KO anchoring would be the same as BO?

I mean, you can't form a news report about potential generalities (or maybe you can). What specifically did KO say that is so unfair to either Republicans or Giuliani in particular? I've tried hunting down KO's transcript from the post-debate coverage, but can't find it on the MSNBC website.

Without specifics, I'm not convinced.

And unlike Walsh, I do think the comparison (or speculating that a comparison could be made) is fair game. I would not describe KO as a news show, even though I watch it almost every day. Like another poster, when I first stumbled across it, I was thrilled at someone speaking out against the Bush administration, I floated along that high for quite sometime. Now, it isn't necessarily predictable, but the guests/commentators are and the softball questions KO throws don't help. Yes, the special comments are labeled as such, but KO also makes witty asides, especially during the main political story of the day, that aren't as mean as BO's but they are attacks on either Bush or Republicans. I don't notice them as attacks as much because I usually laugh at them or think they are smart insights, but they are attacks. And if KO want it to be news, then you don't use the clever one-liners. Don't get me wrong, I like them, but they do leave him open for concerns of bias.

I mean, just because the people on KO's show style are different from BO's (less foaming at the mouth and more fine suits) doesn't mean that the content is all that different. I think a previous poster's point about defining a set of criteria in which to compare KO to BO would be interesting.

I agree that KO is more reasonable than BO. BO could not think his way out of a paper bag and just uses theatrics to 'win' the debate (raise his voice, etc.). I mean, anyone who can't match wits with Geraldo Rivera is not fit for cable news.

I do not agree that KO is not a bigot. I don't know how you define a "practicing bigot," but KO has been critiqued by liberals for his less-than-ideal comments on women. And this recent barb about an American Idol audience member is not unusual for his questionable one-liners(taken from MSNBC website):

OLBERMANN: ...Although crying teenage girls on British invasion night might offer a motive, “Los Angeles Times” identifies her as Ashley Ferl (ph), age 13, from Riverside, California.

If ever you have been to Riverside, California, you know that that alone could be the reason she cries so much.

*********************

Uh, what's wrong with Riverside? Besides the fact that it is a rather low-income area of So Cal? He didn't exactly say "white trash" but that's clearly implied.

And I'm sure everyone can remember KO's ass-grilling for calling Paris Hilton a 'slut'.

Yes, KO's unsavory quips are less frequent and less openly hostile than BO's, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. They do, and they are insidious, which, some could argue, is actually worse.

by the socio-environment we inhabit.

Babies born to parents living in high or low levels of pollution, eating inadequate or adequate diets, or living in crime-ridden or crime-free communities, etc. all contribute to the 'design' of children. Why else would states invest in prenatal care if there weren't costly effects on the children's 'design'? The problem is we don't invest enough, and the right way, in children (and adult)'s 'design.'

Will assisted reproduction exacerbate existing social inequalities? Of course, especially since the line in the sand about what constitues 'good' design (avoiding pesticides and eating organic while pregnant) and what constitutes 'bad' design (sex-selective abortions) is so precarious. I don't think it is fair, however, to only charge assisted reproduction with exacerbating existing social inequalities when we ignore others factors (poverty being the most significant) in reproduction that affect such larger percentages of people with, I think, much dire consequences on children's 'design.'