"The legalization of private, consensual, adult sodomy in the US hangs by the thinnest of threads. All it would take would be a switch of TWO votes on the SCOTUS to reverse Lawrence. TWO VOTES."

It won't happen. Although one wouldn't know it from the tone of the article, the prevailing momentum in this country is in the direction of more toleration for private personal conduct, not less, and it's been that way for more than a generation.

That said, I'm not convinced that the side that's victorious in the Lawrence v. Texas case is helping to secure their status by continuing to publically highlight an issue that's recently been ruled to be a non-issue, on the basis of privacy rights.

It's just my unlettered layperson's opinion, but I think the legal basis for the Roe v. Wade ruling is much shakier than Lawrence v. Texas. The legal points of contention of Lawrence v. Texas aren't nearly as complicated, or morally fraught. Lawrence v. Texas is an individual privacy rights ruling in a way that's much more unchallengable and unambiguous than Roe v. Wade.

In fact, I think a lot of the energy put into making support for Roe v. Wade a litmus test for Supreme Court justices has to do with the unspoken acknowledgement that its legal underpinnings aren't all that secure.

I'd like to see the pro-choice lobby not rely solely on Roe v. Wade as the foundation of their argument. They could also seek to negotiate some compromise on the issue, one seeking to address the rational concerns of those who hold an anti-choice position. I think that medical technologies currently exist so that no women should require a second or third trimester abortion except for dire medical necessity. Unfortunately, I think that all too many of those at the forefront of advocacy on both sides would rather play political demonization games with their opposition.

In any case, Supreme Court precedents aren't easily overturned. I've been hearing about dire warnings about the "death throes" of the Roe v. Wade decision for many years now.

But I digress...

That quote from Twain had a lot of truth to it- up until the advent of the Internet.

From the column:

"call it out and counter it as soon as we see it"

Absolutely. Get right up to the net and stuff those shots.

Do that, and after a while it gets downright demoralizing for the slanderers, libelers, and cheap shot artists. Especially when they got nothing else.

Reading stories about sex that focus on evolutionary biology is like reading stories about food that focus on the mechanics of mastication and digestion-

with the significant difference that articles on the biology of food consumption don't need to lean on speculative just-so stories and pseudoscientific pop anthropomorphism garbed as profound insight to provide the main body of their content.