I never expected to see the day that Kate Michelman, past president of NARAL, would write, “all sorts of well-educated and progressive people are comfortable calling themselves pro-life.”

Michelman’s opinion piece in the Washington Post is fascinating not only for her openly acknowledging the eroding support for her movement (she says recent polls shows 51% of Americans identify with the label “pro-life” and only 44% with “pro-choice”; the pro-life number would be a historical high), but by how hamstrung she feels defending abortion.

She attributes the shift in public opinion primarily to technological progress: “[s]cience played a big role, making the fetus more visible. Today, the first picture in most baby books is the 12-week 3D ultrasound, and Grandma and Grandpa have that photo posted on the fridge.” Read that again. Michelman acknowledges that support for the pro-choice movement benefited from people’s ignorance of human development and the reality of the preborn person. This admission could scarcely be more heartening to those of us working for fetal rights. I’ve observed the phenomenon she mentions first-hand, and it is real. On two separate occasions at our former fetal imaging studio, Baby Insight, men who appeared to be in their 60s, who I assumed to be grandfathers of the new baby, came out of the studio where they’d spent 30 minutes watching their new grandbaby on a 70″ projection screen, and say to no one in particular, “Well, it really is a baby.” From the context it was clear they were speaking private thoughts out loud. They’d known there was controversy about exactly what is in a woman’s womb, and now they’d seen for themselves and were beginning to internalize the new knowledge. These comments confirmed one of our key objectives in starting Baby Insight, and encouraging mothers and fathers to celebrate their babies before they were born: to chip at the powerful cultural paradigm that our real lives begin at birth.

I suppose Michelman doesn’t believe her laugher, referring to the Tebow ad, that “abortion is as tough and courageous a decision as is the decision to continue a pregnancy,” or she’d be proposing ads like the Tebows’ that highlight how courageous a particular mother was to let her child die. Presumably Michelman includes this absurd fabrication to bolster the spirits of her most loyal donors who, because of their personal history, are emotionally invested in viewing abortion as a noble act. Not that I have any desires for abortion apologists save their utter failure, but women who have aborted probably do listen to Michelman, and I believe that women who have aborted are better served by messages like Naomi Wolf’s, that characterize abortion as a necessary evil, but a real evil nevertheless. That perspective resonates more genuinely with women struggling with their abortion, and that is most of them. Most women who have undergone abortions know the date of the abortion and the baby’s due date. Framing abortion as an heroic choice may have resonated as an act of female empowerment in the bra-burning 70s, but with all of the stories and surveys of women who have chosen abortion that we’ve heard since, we know the women believe differently. They perceive their abortion as an evil act that circumstances left them no options but doing. They certainly don’t want to trumpet their abortion as an example of courage to a Super Bowl audience.

Even though it’s been yet another horrific week for human fetuses in America, around 20,000 of them starting the week with beautiful beating hearts but dead by Sunday, it signals hope for the fetal rights movement (the term I continue to believe pro-lifers should insist the media use for the movement, rather than anti-abortion, as abortion is only the best known issue of concern to those who believe the preborn are equal members of the human family). Tim and Pam Tebow are telling a billion people that they’re glad Pam didn’t abandon Tim when he needed her most, the VP of NOW plays right into the media hype by going unhinged and calling the Tebows’ message one of hate, and now Kate Michelman’s gone on record saying that science is turning the tables against abortion apologists.

The drum beats as America continues its long march toward its founding ideal: to recognize the self-evident truth that all men are created equal.

I’d like to hear what you believe to be the most coherent justifications for the church’s proposition that it’s essential that the church be able to set the moral character of its apartment complexes or enterprises, and choose for itself whether to hire or house gay couples in its properties, and at the same time that it should be illegal for Mormons, who strive to live the standards of the church, to be able to set the moral character of their apartment complexes or enterprises, and choose for themselves whether to hire or house gay couples in their properties.

Why should Christians be called to be “an example of the believers” in only some regards?

If the reason were related to humility or pride then we’d expect that Christians would be encouraged to hide all of their good acts under a bushel.

As someone who thinks our society should be more generous, and less concerned with our own comfort and convenience, and less driven to consume in order to demonstrate our social standing, I wonder why the selfless people we should most want modeled are told to cover their light. If people who served missions, did their home teaching, or married in the temple were told not to let anyone know about it, fewer people would serve missions, home teach or marry in the temple. Because Christians who give to charity are told not to let anyone know, Christians probably give less to charity. They’ve seen less modeling and receive fewer social rewards. Which probably means that the poor of the world are worse off because Christians are rewarded with attention at church when they buy a new toy or show up with vacation stories, but not when they give that money to a needy family.

According to data available from CNN and the office of California’s Secretary of State, there are uncounted ballots in only ten of California’s 58 counties:

Imperial (96% reporting)
Votes counted: 22,653
Yes: 70%
No: 30%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: +376

Kings (95% reporting)
Votes counted: 31,915
Yes: 74%
No: 26%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: +800

Monterey (65% reporting)
Votes counted: 72,382
Yes: 49%
No: 51%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: -1130

Riverside (69% reporting)
Votes counted: 240,055
Yes: 63%
No: 37%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: +28,412

San Benito (95% reporting)
Votes counted: 7,487
Yes: 55%
No: 45%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: +137

San Bernadino (54% reporting)
Votes counted: 332,518
Yes: 68%
No: 32%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: +99,614

San Diego (93% reporting)
Votes counted: 899,326
Yes: 54%
No: 46%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: +5,360

Santa Clara (78% reporting)
Votes counted: 438,899
Yes: 45%
No: 55%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: -13,427

Tulare (98% reporting)
Votes counted: 78,297
Yes: 75%
No: 25%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: +910

Yolo (83% reporting)
Votes counted: 58,716
Yes: 59%
No: 41%
Projected effect of oustanding precincts: +2,073

According to this model, the uncounted ballots should break in favor of Prop 8 in each county save Monterey and Santa Clara, winning at least another 100,000 votes and winning 52%-48%.

Note: All percentages rounded. The “projected effect” presumes that each county’s uncounted precincts are the same average size as those already counted.

[posted 9:19 EST]
[updated 9:52 EST]

It’s hard to know why BYU would choose to prolong the Chad Hardy PR disaster. The best explanation is that BYU administrators watch late night comedy shows wondering, Why Aren’t There More Jokes about BYU? Or they sit around wondering how they can really give the Men on a Mission franchise a shot in the arm with a huge dose of free publicity. This law suit will guarantee Hardy, who’s shown he understands the media well, a half dozen news cycles over the next year or two (announcing this letter, the filing of the law suit, BYU’s response, the hearings, the ruling; the appeal, BYU’s response, the hearings, the ruling).

After BYU’s administrators help Hardy sell an extra hundred thousand Men on a Mission calendars, expand his product line and make him a national symbol of Freedom of Expression, they’ll probably realize Hardy didn’t accept their fight because he wanted the diploma.

Actually, this is in the past tense: the web is no more. I took the photos yesterday evening before giving the lawn its inaugural mowing. The lawn had needed cutting for a while, (the neighbors and passersby probably did notice that) but I’d wanted to enjoy nature’s performance art a little longer.

Maybe the spiders are busily spinning this morning, hoping to wow us again by sunset.

Before each general [Utah legislative] session, GOP and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate sit down separately with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints special affairs committee, a group made up of church general authorities, church public relations officials and their lobbyists, to discuss any items on the minds of both legislators and church leaders.

Does anyone know what other groups legislators of both parties meet with, to discuss issues of concern? Do the GOP and Democratics leaders in South Carolina have combined meetings with the Southern Baptist Convention?

Much of the food we eat has negative utility — the world would be better off if it were packed into trash cans instead of our arteries and derriers. For that reason I now throw away junk food. For example, after a party, when the cake and ice cream have served their purpose (drawing people together to celebrate) I believe the best end for the remaining half of the delicious cake is to wallow in a landfill. (I suppose that it would make decent compost for a garden, but I have neither garden nor compost pile.)

We are complicit in each other’s poor eating habits; it’s not coincidental that oversized pants aren’t randomly distributed across families or across nations. It seems we must take responsibility for the ways we make our neighbors less healthy, just as we must begin to recognize the impact we have on each other’s consumption habits (excessive debt and bankruptcies aren’t randomly distributed, either, but that’s a topic for another day.)

At least this is the dilemma I’m chewing as I consider what to give to our neighbors along with copies of Mr. Krueger’s Christmas.

[Note: The original discussion of this post can be found here.]

Romney defends faith in speech he shouldn’t have to give, Editors, USA Today

One Nation Under Mitt, Kathleen Parker, Southern Illinoisian

Boldness, Watered Down, E. J. Dionne, Washington Post

Mitt Romney Raised the Bar, Rush Limbaugh, RushLimbaugh.com

What Iowans Should Know About Mormons, Naomi Schaefer Riley, Wall Street Journal

Latter-day Speaker, Maggie Gallager et al, National Review

Faith vs. the Faithless, David Brooks, New York Times

Answering Critics — and Kennedy, Michael Gerson, Washington Post

Romney’s Achievement, Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard

I’m a Mormon: Take it or leave it, Romney says, Jessica Van Sack, Boston Herald

Mitt Romney’s Case for Pastor in Chief, Domke and Coe, Seattle Intelligencer

VIDEO: Fred Barnes, Mora Liasson and Charles Krauthamer

VIDEO: Sean Hannity with Evangelical Leaders