My understanding about the South Dakota bill is that not only does it not make any exceptions for rape or incest, but it also doesn't allow any exceptions for her health.

I guess there must be some line that distinguishes between loss of health and loss of life for a pregnant woman, but I wonder where that is. I also wonder where on the "health" side of that line "rape and incest" must apparently fall.

Notice that the AP story about the Mississippi bill does not make the distinction at all.

Exactly! Why should we settle for less... when there are principled candidates available, who are not afraid to say exactly what they stands for?

In fact, I posted something myself about this very issue the other day, pairing Russ Feingold with John Conyers. Imagine that ticket! Two-- count 'em-- two candidates with significant experience, both unafraid to take a principled stand. Could the GOP that chose GWB over McCain possibly match that?

If you want to read the rest of my reasoning, you'll find it here: http://blogs.salon.com/0004000/2006/02/23.html#a422, along with my "litmus test."

I will admit, though, that Warner/Obama may have more charisma. Still, why not at least start the discussion with substance, and leave the horse race for later on?

Actually, Feingold is on the list (National Journal), but you have to look down into the 2nd tier, where they are unranked. I looked that far because I was curious why Feingold wasn't ranked higher. I'm thinking: Feingold & Conyers ~ A Heartland Ticket for 2008. Pass it on.

Too late. They were ahead of their time. Once... we had The Smothers Brothers and Laugh-in, censored while they were on the air, until they were canceled.

Now... we have bread & circuses: Survivor, Lost, Dancing-Skating-whatever with the Stars, The Bachelor, American Idol. [sigh] Oh, and Fox News, etc. on cable.

Embarrassing.

Talk about Faustian deals! Settling for, or even being happy about, McCain as a candidate in 2008 would certainly be Faustian. Were any of the comments from those willing to settle for McCain from women? Not likely. Especially now. First South Dakota, and now Mississippi and Missouri are up next. Imagine McCain adding another justice to the Court! Their decisions aren't just about women. Everyone's civil liberties are at stake.

McCain, unlike Bush, has never tried to imply that he is anything less than extremely conservative. That's why he would never run on a split ticket, or consider becoming a Democrat to get the nomination. So, he gets credit for ethics, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

Someone asked for other names... read the news. They're out there. However, I do have a suggestion for a "dream ticket" for 2008: Feingold & Conyers. And I even posted something about it. If you're interested, you can google it. No "settling" in that ticket. Imagine Feingold debating McCain! Hah! And Conyers v whoever the GOP could front? No contest.

Not everything is about testosterone, even though I guess that is the reason for the McCain LoveFest. However, I do have my own litmus test for candidates after the debacles of 2000 and 2004. I will only support a candidate if I am convinced that he or she will support my/our/your right to vote and have that vote counted. Which is why I dreamed up Feingold and Conyers.

Who else has cast the votes proper for an opposition party, held the hearings (even if in the basement), spoken truth to power, including calling for Bush's impeachment? Not even McCain, for all of his obvious machismo, has been consistent when his values have come up against what we must still refer to as the Bush Administration.

Napoli's "exception" not withstanding (and I saw that interview "live" on the NewsHour and was stunned by his callousness) ...very few news reports have noted that the lone exception is only for a woman's life, that it does not include her health. Pity the poor doctors who now have to divine that line between a woman's health being merely compromised and the loss of her life.

Nor, as one of the other (appalled) SD legislators pointed out, was an exception based on the "viability" of a fetus allowed. Just think about that one for a minute. I'll bet it sure makes the Santorums mighty happy.

As for Napoli... what if the woman is a young newlywed-- i.e., hardly "used" at all-- and the rape or incest is not really brutal. Tough luck? She and her husband are supposed to bear and raise the child, and still allow visitation with either the family "member" or the rapist, as the case may be?

...the rights of unborn women to determine their fate-- by exercising control over their bodies-- end at puberty.

Not so for men.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this was the first time that the best male actor award preceded the one for the best female. In the past, it's been: best supporting male actor, best supporting female; best female actor, best male actor.

I always thought that the guys got a little more glory by having their award closer to the big "picture" awards at the end.

...is the intention of a woman to carry it to term.

And that is exactly what has so many folks, especially men, up in arms: that a woman could choose to have a baby-- or not-- when they are convinced that god alone can decide to make a baby-- just like in that virgin birth scenario they invented.

Surely-- simple, human, women cannot be trusted with such awe-inspiring responsibility. No, they must submit and allow men to set the rules in this, as in so many other areas of life, where they are performing so justly and competently, and have made the world so much better for so many.