Parent's should decide what sort of sex education is appropriate as far as what's taught in the home is concerned.

But in schools, educators should provide the facts supported by scientific training and research. And abstinence-only education ain't it.

I want our schools to be scientifically elitist. I want them to present evidence supported by the best scientific minds who think they know better than us because they should know better than us.

What puzzles me though is Broadsheet's characterization of the Ledbetter decision as uniquely affecting women.

The Supreme Court's horrible Ledbetter decision doesn't uniquely affect women, but it disproportionately affects women. For Lilly Ledbetter, she sued on the grounds that she was paid much less than her male counterparts--this is absolutely a women's rights issue.

As for congressional failure to right this wrong, don't blame Nancy Pelosi. The House version passed overwhelmingly almost a year ago. It stalled in the Senate with three votes short on cloture. If you're going to blame a Democratic leader for that, blame Harry Reid.

So Broadsheet's appeal to women is too narrow.

But that's what Broadsheet is--covering issues as they relate to women. But you're right that this story deserves much greater coverage outside of the women's rights community.

CrunchyFrog-McCain didn't even bother to show up (although he says he would have voted against it if he had).

And the Republican claim that "the proposal to ease the time constraints would prompt more lawsuits and lead to litigation over outdated cases" is complete bullsh-t. The Senate vote was for a Fair Pay Restoration Act to reverse the precedent-defying decision of the Supreme Court last year. If passed, it would only return litigation to its pre-decision levels.

The bill would make it easier for employees to sue companies for discriminatory pay practices

This is a terrible summary of the bill. The Senate vote was for a Fair Pay Restoration Act to reverse the precedent-defying decision of the Supreme Court last year. If passed, it would only restore the law to its interpretation before the Supreme Court ruling.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, complainants had 180 days to file. They still have 180 days to file. The difference is that now the 180 starts at the first discriminatory paycheck whereas before you could sue from your most recent discriminatory paycheck.

Do you think employees are just twiddling their thumbs, too lazy to sue for pay discrimination? It usually takes longer than 180 days to suspect you're being underpaid, let alone find proof! How many of us even know what our counterparts are being paid? Some companies even forbid talking about it!

As for the notion that "those who voted against the bill feared that eliminating this statute of limitations would bring a crippling onslaught of discrimination cases," I call bullsh-t.

If Ledbetter had passed, it would only return litigation to its pre-Supreme Court decision levels. No, this is simply a sloppy, wet kiss to big business, a slap in the face for pay equity and a great big f--k you to those nasty trial lawyers who are often a person's last chance for justice.

The Republicans who voted against this bill should be ashamed of themselves. Not that they are.

I don't want a bunch of old white men (Congress) to give me a mandatory pay raise like a child's allowence cause I'm a chick.

How strong of you to reject this "offer."

Who's offering it?

Kaspar writes, "Everyone seems to think that these tax cuts were for the rich." ----------No, "everyone" just thinks these tax cuts went overwhelmingly to the rich. Which they did.

RichEmery is dead-on with "Put plainly, it's 'McCain 2000' versus 'McCain 2008'"

EricAlaska-Ridiculous Analogy Alert!: McCain's Straight Talk Express entered Shining Time Station and they switched out Ringo Starr for George Carlin as Mr. Conductor. Or maybe the reverse. Whatever. Just who is doing the conducting in McCain's head?

The man John McCain has revealed himself to be depresses me. If a Democrat can't trounce him this year, the party should just chuck everyone out and start anew.

I'm not so sure.

Right now, most people are, at best, mildly concerned about fossil fuel quantities. When you're only mildly concerned, there's less incentive to act.

That's why George W. Bush is trying to bring us closer to the end of fossil fuels. Hastening Fossil Fuel Judgment Day, if you will. Because it is only when we're scared sh-tless that we will act.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, complainants had 180 days to file. They still have 180 days to file. The difference is that now the 180 starts at the first discriminatory paycheck whereas before you could sue from your most recent discriminatory paycheck.

The Fair Pay Restoration Act would have restored the interpretation of the law to what it was before the Supreme Court's new reading of it. Hmm, who are the real activist judges?

This wouldn't have been a campaign issue if Senate Republicans had simply supported the completely reasonable Fair Pay Restoration Act. Senate Republicans made this a campaign issue.