I don't know anything about the family that brought this lawsuit (seeing as they go by the name "Roe").

But here's what we do know: a thirteen year-old girl ("Jane Roe") had a sexual relationship with her twenty-one year-old soccer coach, resulting in a pregnancy. Jane and soccer coach lied on numerous occasions to Planned Parenthood to skirt Ohio's parental notification laws. Planned Parenthood complied with parental notification laws and forms (but based on the false information and phone number supplied by Jane and Coach). Jane had the abortion.

Of course the Roe parents are hurt, angry and out for blood. Their little girl was violated by a twenty-one year-old man. A 13 year-old cannot consent to sex with a 21 year-old. And, as a child, she had to go through a pregnancy and an abortion without the advice and support of a trust-worthy, loving, adult family member or friend.

The Coach was convicted of seven counts of sexual battery. Main bad guy down. A teacher at Jane's school overheard Jane discussing her relationship with the Coach and reported the suspected sexual abuse to the police. So no one to blame at school.

So then the Roes set their sights on Planned Parenthood for failing to notice the lies and abuse and failure to protect their little Jane. I think they're wrong (and so did the Court of Appeals) but their actions are understandable.

To seek to do what only access to the whole body of recurds could provide -- that there was a pattern at that office of providing abortions in defiance of a parental notification law. The records would only be used in pursuit of information relating to patterns of possibly illegal beahvior by Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati.

This is precisely the problem. The Roes filed a civil case (hence John and June Roe vs. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region not “State vs. Planned Parenthood”). This was not a class action lawsuit. The Roes have zero standing to access to these other patient records. The Roes’ case required them to prove wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood with respect to Jane Roe only. And even the Jane Roe records do not prove this. The Roes were overreaching, as were the judges in the case that was ultimately repealed.

But I agree that Price’s reporting of the whole story was woefully lacking.

Do you believe that every gay who is not openly out is self loathing?--No, although some are.

If not, how about those who are out to family, friends and adult children but not to the community?--I think there's a reasonable element of self-preservation. You can be happy with the person you are and your sexual orientation but still realize being "fully out" could jeopardize your job or even your life in certain communities. Plus, there's nothing inherently wrong with not sharing "all of yourself" with the wider community. Your sexual orientation is but one aspect of your core self.

Also, do you believe that a gay supporting DOMA loathes everybody or just himself?--Technically, this gay person could just be a true conservative who believes gay marriage should be decided individually by the states and thus supports DOMA. But I imagine that's a small group. Otherwise, I think there's an element of self-hatred in being gay and supporting DOMA. And taking a broader view, he who does not love himself doesn't really love anyone else either (or is at least handicapped in his ability to love others).

"We know that services and policy-making processes that put women first have the capacity to lift families and whole communities out of misery. This wisdom should inform response to future natural disasters and, for that matter, the larger work of social change."

Well said. By reaching out to women, you not only reach 50% of the population, you also reach single-parent households (which are primarily led by women). And especially in a place like New Orleans, women who work in the hospitality industry are disproportionately impacted. Smart work.

Care packages often include useless stuff meant to entertain the recipient. So I don't have a problem with the "Wounded Warrior Care Packages" for that reason.

It's that they've done useless and entertaining so badly: Puzzle books, candy bars and cookies are good. Beef jerky, camouflaged handkerchiefs and flag pins suck. They're in the military. I'm sure the soldiers have plenty of military-themed paraphernalia already. How about some travel board games, playing cards, $10 gift cards for the local grocery, pharmacy or gas station (could also help their families)?

And it 30 bucks, it's outrageous. Especially when the wounded at Walter Reed need so much more than useless and entertaining.

"And so it's -- my attitude is this: New Orleans, better days are ahead. It's sometimes hard for people to see progress when you live in a community all the time. Laura and I get to come -- we don't live here, we come on occasion. And it's easy to think about what it was like when we first came here after the hurricane, and what it's like today."

Um, so New Orleans looks better to Bush because he's never there?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070829-5.html

Miss Upton's response that she didn't hear the question seems reasonable. Having not heard the question, she decided to throw in all of the appropriate beauty pageant answer buzzwords: "Education. Iraq. South Africa. Our Children. Our Future."

The only one she was missing was "9/11." And "world peace."

It reminds me of that scene in Miss Congeniality (2000) with Sandra's Bullock's character Gracie Hart as a pageant contestant. Everyone else asked this question has answered the same way...

Stan Fields: What is the one most important thing our society needs?

Gracie Hart: That would be... harsher punishment for parole violators, Stan.

[crowd is silent]

Gracie Hart: And world peace!

[crowd cheers ecstatically]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212346/quotes