No, it's "Pro-Birth", not "Pro-Life".

Like we need another example?

Once again, the Bush demonstrates that his compassion for you hangs on whether or not you're one of the "unborn". This time, he's decided that funding for programs that support disabled children falls into the "unnecessary spending" category.

On a related note, should anyone be wondering, I haven't written about the sickening legislation coming out of South Dakota (or its twin working it's way through Missouri's state congress) because I honestly can't find the words. If you haven't caught them, there's some well articulated rage here and here.

Some argue that in taking the case, SCOTUS (namely Bush's appointees) would be seen as doling out payback to Bush, and since Roberts et al don't want to appear blatantly untoward, they'll decline... for now.

I desperately want to agree with those that believe, if the case should make its way to SCOTUS, that it will effectively force the court to come down on the side of choice, given the egregiousness of the SD bill in its current form. Such a ruling would serve to reinforce precedent; precisely what the ProBirthers don't want.

More cynically, however, I worry that every gloomy prognostication about Scalia, Alito and Roberts will come to pass, they'll take the case, and decide that the "undue burden" rule laid out in Casey and the "privacy" right laid out in Roe are frivolous readings of the Constitution and overturn the whole lot.

As for my rage that state legislators and their fawning sycophants apparently have no qualms whatsoever about codifing women as nothing more than chattle.... again, I don't have the words right now.

Instead, I'll simply ask these zealots to consider the scenario recently described by Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand:

If a murderer gets out of prison and rapes a woman, she's forced to have his child. If a father brutally rapes his daughter, she is forced to have his child. "You present those arguments to women voters, they are going to be outraged," he says.

If this seems like a histrionic hypothetical, go ahead and visit any number of sex-offender registries available online and pop in your zip code. Then, imagine one of the worst of them paying a little late-night visit to your wife, daughter, sister, mother. Then consider that in some states, rapists can assert parental rights. This, of course, is to say nothing of their recidivism rate. What say you, if said rapist were also a pedophile? Are you so confident in your self-righteousness to dismiss the possibility that such an evil creature would NEVER attempt to, say, abduct the child? Or worse?

I saw somewhere (forgive my faulty memory) a gag on SD's Tourism Board's new ad: "Protecting Rapists' Rights since 2006!". Oh, and don't miss the new logo.