Having the baby doesn't toss any lives "down the shitter."

Being unable or unwilling (say, due to shaming?) to finish one's education does.

Having a baby makes life harder--society's extra burdens on the the new mother are what make it impossible.

And I've always theorized that their is a deep pathological fear and hatred of teenaged girls at the heart of much of the anti-abortion movement. Since young females are the focus of intense sexualization in our culture, it would make sense that the target of the anti-sex brigades in American culture would be those teenaged girls who represent the essence of all things sexual. The letters here and in the original article about skanks and sluts and the glee with which posters anticipate the shame, humiliation, and even physical pain of these evil, sinful girls confirms that, in my mind.

Wish Salon had an after-the-fact editor. Of course it should be "there," not "their" in the first line.

"Then you MAKE them finish their education...or take the baby away from them for being unable to support it. Gee that was hard, wasn't it."

Wow--such hatred and antipathy! Towards 15 year-old girls. What, really, is at the root of this hatred?

First, the article is about schools making it HARDER for these girls to finish their education. By refusing to give them the same excused absences that they need to recover from birth, the schools are making it harder for them to stay in school. Too many unexcused absences will probably result in suspension or expulsion, and students with unexcused absences generally have no chance to make up the work they missed. And this is a good thing for the babies--or for society--how, exactly?

As my original post stated, putting roadblocks in the way of young mothers who want to better themselves is a stupid policy based on irrational hatred of teenaged girls.

Oh, and FTR--the rate of teenage pregnancy has actually gone down in the last few decades. It reached its peak, I believe, in the 50s.

We don't, in the US, MAKE anyone finish an education. But we can, and should, make it easier for people to finish. It's in everyone's interest to do this, especially in the case of young mothers.

Going back to the original interview (and away from circulation numbers), why doesn't any mention of the sliming of McCain's daughters remind viewers of WHO slimed his daughters?

It's like the White Mountain Massacre, where the agents behind the massacre are unnamed. With the Horrible Racist Sliming incident, we hear that there was a sliming, that it was terrible, but it's all in the passive voice.

Someone who didn't read carefully, or didn't know the history, might very well assume that it was Democrats who conducted those "black baby" push polls.

No doubt John King and the rest of the fluffers realize it might reflect poorly on straight-talkin', maverickin' St. John McCain if it were pointed out that GEORGE W. BUSH's campaign was behind that irredeemably nasty, racist business. The same GEORGE W. BUSH whose ass St. McCain is kissing so ardently now.

She's welcome to go the Victorian route if that's what works.

Remember, Caitlin--NO WRITING. In fact, NO THINKING. When women think to much, you see, it heats up their brains, and since their brains are connected to their uteri, thinking damages their "female parts."

Oh, no college either. If you have daughters--or nieces, or any young women you care about, keep them home. Colleges shouldn't admit women. They just distract the men, and expose them to the risk of damaging their honor and getting pregnant. Plus all that thinking . . . well, see above.

Most importantly, teach them to be ashamed--of being female, of anything female. Oh, and if they get upset about any of this, or seem annoyed (and if the infamous "rest cure" doesn't work)--then just give them a hysterectomy. Works every time.

Yes, Caitlin. Let's return to those good old Victorian values, which of course were SOLELY concerned with making life better for women.

"probably" isn't good enough for a responsible news outlet to make an explicit accusation.

He's kidding, right?

Dan, you write

Where is the right-wing outrage over Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps whose organization has picketed the funerals of America's war dead?

I may be misremembering here, but I do seem to recall some sort of negative coverage of these things by Fox et al. near the beginning of the war; trouble was, Fox didn't do its research, and assumed the protesters were left-wingers against the war. There was, I believe, some sort of anger from their talking heads about these unpatriotic protesters at funerals who needed to get a lesson in decency, etc.

Then, apparently, somebody actually looked into the whole deal, and found out they were relio-nut "Christian" protesters. I believe one blond newscaster did get into a squabble on air with Phelps' wife, but then the whole deal was dropped like a hot potato.

To this day, I'll bet if/when these people (the ones discussed in this article) hear about protesters at soldiers' funerals, they will assume that the protesters are Code Pink Types, not Jerry Falwell types.

Yes, I've often thought Physical Education classes were one of the biggest impediments to actual physical fitness. The emphasis was always on pain, punishment, and humiliation. Over-the-hill jocks who taught the classes (I use that term loosely; holding a clipboard and blowing a whistle would certainly not be considered "teaching" in any other discipline) identified with and favored kids who were already the most physically fit. Those who couldn't compete looked upon PE as an ordeal.

I'm all for bringing in real classes or opportunities for physical activity, but only if the purpose really is helping kids find their own path to physical fitness, not bullying and humiliating kids who need the most help.