For those in favor of women's rights, the first 100 days of the Obama administration has been like a honeymoon. We've continually been reminded why we fell in love in the first place. Coming off an eight-year abusive relationship (to put it mildly), none of Obama's kindnesses are lost on us. He seems to be the kind of guy who does what he says he's going to do, another relief. And his gifts have not just been for the pro-choice movement either. Nearly all of Obama's actions on reproductive rights to date have focused on preventing the need for abortion, one of his "common ground" issues. And while he's won no fans in traditional pro-life groups, it's an approach the majority of pro-life Americans want.

Here's a report card of the Obama administration's work on reproductive rights in the first hundred days.

International:

Obama's first gift was global. In his first month in office, with a stroke of his pen, Obama lifted the Global Gag Rule, a Reagan-era policy that withheld funding from any group that referred a woman for an abortion, most of which were family planning providers.

Lifting the funding ban will restore these NGO's access to USAID-supplied condoms and other forms of contraception and result in dramatic improvements in women's health for those living in the most desperate regions on earth. Despite anti-abortion operatives claims, the policy change will not increase abortion rates since the funding was never used to provide abortion services in the first place. In fact, we expect just the opposite. Johns Hopkins researchers estimate that every million dollars spent on contraceptive care prevents 150,000 abortions, 360,000 unintended pregnancies, 11,000 infant deaths and 800 maternal deaths .

The Stimulus Package:

There was, to continue the honeymoon metaphor, our first lover's quarrel too. Obama quickly folded once the Republicans picked a fight over inclusion of a family planning provision in the stimulus package. In Obama's defense, passage of the package was too critical to hold up for a minor provision that could be included elsewhere. But the concession came easily, a little too easily. Why not stand up to the bullies who happened also to be lying to the American public about what the contraception provision was? Obama could have pointed out that, despite claims to the contrary, there was no $200 million budget line for contraception in the stimulus package. That figure represented the projected cost savings to the states if a simple administrative, non-budgetary proposal were adopted. It gets complicated, but sadly the unchallenged final message was "contraception has nothing to do with economic recovery." The last few months have certainly proven otherwise. There's been a surge of American's getting contraception, and long-acting methods at that. Clearly, pregnancy prevention has a lot to do with individual economic stability. It's also proven that Republicans are deeply out of touch with what struggling Americans need to protect themselves during tough times, as if we needed more evidence.

Appointments:

With the key positions that impact women's health and rights most, Obama has appointed wisely. Hillary Clinton overseeing foreign policy will impact women's health worldwide. She is the possibly the strongest pro-choice advocate we've ever had in government and there was no better display of her pro-choice backbone than an exchange she and anti-abortion/anti-contraception Senator Chris Smith from NJ had last week.

Without question, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the most important federal agency for American women's health issues. That's one reason why the chief of staff to one of Bush's heads of HHS, Tommy Thompson, described it as "ground zero for the ideological wars in this country." HHS includes the FDA (approves new reproductive health drugs), the Title X program (nation's contraception program for the poor), the Office of Medicaid (pays for 1/3 of all US births and the largest health payer of contraception services for the low-income;) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (oversees STD prevention programs.) For this post Obama chose Governor Kathleen Sebelius who was confirmed yesterday. During her confirmation hearings, the anti-abortion movement, in true Rove form, attempted to portray the exceedingly moderate Sebelius as an extremist on abortion. Very little of what HHS does has to do with abortion rights, though, so the charge was not only false but irrelevant. Sebelius, through her role, is likely to make contraception more available, implement the most effective sex education programs, and focus on preventing the spread of STDs: all strategies the traditional anti-abortion establishment has historically opposed. Of course, it was better for them to say she's an abortion nut than a prevention nut.

Common Ground:

But not all pro-lifers were opposed to Sebelius' nominaton. One of the most revolutionary and inspiring events to emerge from the election of Obama's has been real common ground partners in a growing segment of the pro-life movement. These are people who while disagreeing on some fundamental issues have agreed to seek points of agreement with pro-choice activists. Catholics United is one such pro-life common ground group. Among many of their cutting edge campaigns was Catholics for Sebelius, which defended her nomination by arguing that her policies have led to dramatic declines in the unintended pregnancy and abortion in Kansas. Several other pro-life groups, like Pro-Life Pro-Obama and Realabortionsolutions.org, as well as a handful of pro-life leaders, have risen to answer Obama's common ground call. These groups and leaders believe that rather than focusing on banning abortion, which has never had a significant impact on abortion rates, Obama's prevention policies hold the greatest promise for those seeking tangible pro-life results.

Obama has committed his administration to finding common ground in the abortion conflict. He's assigned his Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to work with his Council on Women and Girls on the task. Last month, the White House hosted its first conference call of leaders on each side and presented a broad strokes common ground agenda. It's decidedly straightforward and hard to argue with from both pro-choice and pro-life perspectives. The focus will "look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion." Both sides of the abortion debate have much to gain from this common ground effort. If it results in any success, which is still no certainty, the American public, particularly women, and our political discourse will be the greatest beneficiaries.

Plan B:

One of the greatest examples of the abuses of the Bush administration was the very transparent derailing of the Plan B, emergency contraception (EC), over the counter application at the FDA. Bush appointed anti-contraception ideologues to the panel reviewing the application. The majority of the panel wound up recommending over-the counter access to EC for all women and the application had support from all women's and adolescent medical groups. Still the Bush FDA denied minors over the counter access to emergency contraception. This decision is held up as a one of the greatest examples of Bush's attacks on science and the administration's misuse of agencies for purely ideological aims. Obama has set about restoring confidence in our scientific agencies. One step in that direction was sending the Plan B decision back for review and demanding the agency base it's decision on over-the-counter access solely on scientific evidence. In the meantime, Obama directed the agency to establish immediate over-the-counter access for 17 year-old women to the highly effective contraceptive method.

Obama also restored affordable birth control for college-aged women. After Bush removed college health centers from discounted drug programs, contraceptive costs increased as much as 900% for college women. Obama signed legislation to restore access to affordable birth control for college-age women who, statistics show, are most in need of it: they're the demographic with the highest rate of unintended pregnancy, the highest rate of abortion, and little disposable income.

HHS Regulations

In the final days of the Bush administration, Christian Right just about went looting. They tried to walk away with a regulation allowing healthcare workers' religious beliefs to override patient's medical decisions. One HHS regulation, which went into effect literally moments before Obama took office, was so broad and would cause such chaos in medicine establishment that even Bush's own EEOC came out against it. It would have would allowed any healthcare worker for practically any "conscience-related" reason to deny a patient any type of medical care. The healthcare worker wouldn't have had to inform the employer beforehand of the care he or she objected to and couldn't be fired for refusing to provide the service. Patients did not have to be informed of the healthcare worker's objection or that they were being denied information about their medical options. In the service of protecting "conscience objectors," the regulation threw patient rights out a window. Since ample protection already exists in law for those who don't want to take part in abortion services, it was widely understood that the goal of the HHS regulations was to give cover to those who wish to obstruct women's access to contraception. Obama rescinded the HHS regulations.

At the end of the Bush administration and ever since, as a result of its mismanagement and commitment to proven to fail approaches, abortion and teen pregnancy rates have been spiking. Obama has, in the first 100 days, reversed course in favor of the policies that have proven, wherever tried, to result in dramatic declines in unintended pregnancy and abortion rates. It'd be wrong to say only pro-choice people have reason to rejoice from this stellar first hundred days.

It's official. Seventeen year-olds now get a second chance to prevent pregnancy as easily as older women do. The FDA, per order of the White House, extended over-the-counter access to emergency contraception, also known as the morning after pill, to 17-year-olds today.

We'll have to wait until tomorrow, the morning after, to find out whether society as we know it ends. That's long been the prediction of groups like the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America who view the move to make contraception more available as something like a mandatory draft for Girls Gone Wild.

Wendy Wright, President of CWFA, wrote in USA Today in 2005 supporting a widely lambasted decision by the Bush FDA to reject all scientific arguments about the effectiveness and safety of the drug. Instead the Bush FDA sided with ideological and religious extremists to deny over-the-counter access to EC for every woman. (The decision was later revisited and EC access OTC was granted for adult women but denied for minors). In the piece, Wright accused women’s health advocates of conspiring to promote a culture of promiscuity with the intent of boosting sales of emergency contraceptives. She wrote, “In pursuit of more sales, advocates encourage multiple sex partners and frequent use, without concern for putting women at risk of STDs.”

Of course, emergency contraception has been widely available in other countries for years and so we have ample experience on which to evaluate Wright’s predictions. A 2005 study published in the British Medical Journal found “Making emergency hormonal contraception available over the counter does not seem to have led to an increase in its use, to an increase in unprotected sex, or to a decrease in the use of more reliable methods of contraception.”

Behind all of the arguments against EC over-the-counter access lurks a persistent notion that women, and now in particular teens, are engaging in irresponsible behavior. Wright and her anti-contraception colleagues, though, talk themselves into a corner (the problem when you reject reasonable answers). On one hand they appear to view teens as completely unable to make responsible decisions for themselves i.e. the availability of contraception will make them run wild. At the same time, teens apparently have it so together that they will be both determined and quick-acting in order prevent an unintended pregnancy. Seems like those teens most likely to use emergency contraception are, by definition, taking responsibility for their actions.

In a statement released today, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood of America summed up that view perfectly, “The US has the highest rate of teen pregnancy among the most developed countries in the world. Providing birth control, including emergency birth control, to young women helps them make responsible decisions and avoid unintended pregnancy.”

Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council have clearly huddled on talking points. Another thematic in their press statements about the Obama decision is emergency contraception is unsafe. Yet, the 2003 application to the FDA to grant the over-the-counter access to Plan B won unanimous support from all leading medical groups, including the most prestigious medical groups representing adolescents such as from The Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Pediatric Association not to mention all women's health groups. Even Bush's own FDA panelists noted that Plan B was the safest drug they had ever considered to grant to over-the counter status. No matter. According to Concerned Women for America, in a statement released today, "Parents should be furious that the FDA is putting their minor daughters at risk." The Family Research Council continued the refrain, "Furthermore, the FDA-approved label for Plan B gives no clear indication that repeated use of Plan B in a short period of time is not safe."

The era during which the likes of the religious Wright (pun intended) held sway on what should rightfully be medical and scientific decisions are, thankfully, over. And no group seems more relieved than the non-ideological researchers who’d watched years of hard earned effort for scientific integrity wasted in a matter of months. It’s telling that no one at the FDA has voiced a problem with the unprecedented mandate from the President Obama to overturn the decision. Conversely, senior staff resigned from the FDA over the political/ideological handling of the application during the Bush years and the Christian right’s destructive influence on agency policy.

A new day is at hand. Vindication is the order of business. Today we have prevailed and 17 year old women are the victors. We’ve always known Wright is wrong. The sweetest victory is her new found irrelevance.

Last week, a leading “pro-life” blogger Jill Stanek made a cameo appearance in the comments section of a blog of mine, “The Call for Common Ground on Abortion,” on Huffington Post. My post basically reported on, and offered perspective about, a conference call the White house organized for pro-life and pro-choice groups. It took the opportunity to announce the administration’s intent to explore common ground in the abortion conflict. In my post, I pointed out that it’s clear Obama’s team wants to make progress on an issue that has divided and damaged us as a country for too long. They had explained the areas they hoped could unite pro-choice and pro-life people: reducing unintended pregnancy, including teen pregnancy, making adoption a more accessible choice for women confronting unintended pregnancy, and supporting struggling families with wanted pregnancies. They want to move forward, and have set up a common sense framework to do so. It’s hard to demean such earnest intent.

But many veteran leaders in the “pro-life” movement are immovably stuck in their positions. They appear deeply invested in rehashing the same, seemingly eternal arguments, in continuing what even to a staunch pro-choicer like myself seems like a tedious fight. The natural inclination of rational Americans pining for common ground, as most of both persuasions on the abortion issue are, might be to zone out the heckling. But listening to this increasingly out of the mainstream arguments by people like Jill Stanek helps to understand the reason we have suffered from intransigence for so long. Too many of the most committed people, and here, the pro-choice side is not immune, feel that anything the opponent agrees to must be suspect. Bloggers like Stanek, those speaking into the echo chamber, are apparently so invested in continuing the fight that they won’t budge. One suspects their incalcitrance is based not just on morality, but self-interest as well. If the vitriol isn’t high enough they worry their base might drift away.

Jill is the perfect example of the unbending culture warrior. The one committed to fanning the flames of the ethereal, abstract side of debate and belittling or ignoring the common sense, brick and mortar proposals for problem solving. Jill is no doubt a smart chick. Her posts are always engaging even for those of the pro-choice persuasion like myself. If only she used her abilities not to undermine common ground efforts. Obama’s common ground pledge (and my piece about it) did not muster any interest in Jill in finding a solution. It did inspire her to return for the billionth time to the well-worn arguments. She writes,

“Cristina, the basic questions: Why care about reducing the need for abortion? What's wrong with it?”

I answered,

“Hi Jill, nice to hear from you. I think it's the same reason to reduce teen parenthood and to reduce the need to place a child for adoption. If any woman in one of those circumstances were to be asked, "if you could go back in time and avoid being in this predicament, would you?" nearly all would say yes. I think we should reduce teen parenthood and the need for adoption too. These are each often tremendously difficult choices that ideally no woman should have to face. Adoption, abortion, and parenthood are all the results of unintended pregnancy and I believe women should have access to each of these options legally and safely. But it’s unintended pregnancy that's the real problem here. That's what we need to work to avoid.

“Sorry to not give you the "gotcha" moment you were looking for. For Huffpo readers, Jill Stanek is a leader in the anti-abortion movement and probably the most popular blogger on that side of the issue. Jill, here are my questions for you: Why are you opposed to preventing unintended pregnancy and access to contraception as one vehicle toward that end? Why do you pursue the outlawing of abortion even though it has failed to reduce abortion rates wherever it's been tried? Why not institute the policies that result in the lowest abortion rates on earth? So what if it's the most pro-choice countries that have the lowest abortion rates, aren't "pro-life" results what you're after?”

She replied,

“Christina, seriously, thanks for the kind words on my credentials.

But you didn't answer me. You may consider my question a "gotcha," but it's foundational. How can we devise solutions when we haven't defined the problem? What exactly is the problem with abortion? Why is it "a tremendously difficult choice[ ] that ideally no woman should have to face"?

“What is wrong with abortion? Is it or is it not morally neutral or even superior, as new Cambridge Episcopal Divinity School pro-abort President Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale tagged it - "a blessing" and "holy work"?”

I replied,

“Well, actually, if you read what I wrote again, you'll see I was referring to adoption and teen parenthood as "often tremendously difficult choices." Sure, abortion can be a difficult choice for some women too (though or some women it is accompanied by no grief, though, just relief) and studies show that the more religious a woman is the harder struggle she has with it. So possibly, it's the culture she's in that creates guilt with her decision.

“Regardless, my point is that all choices accompanying an unintended pregnancy can be (but aren't always) difficult, but that's no reason to outlaw any of them. Based on your logic, it's grief that is the measure of what the "right" decision is. Then a woman who suffers grief after placing a child for adoption made the wrong choice, an immoral choice, right? Why not ban adoption then? Why not tell her that the reason she's feeling bad is because she made the wrong decision, one that God does not condone? That would be a terrible thing to do with women choosing adoption, and it's a terrible thing to do to women choosing abortion too.

“I've attempted to answer your question twice. You have not answered my questions even once. Please do. Why can't we agree to try to help women avoid having to make these decisions in the first place? Tell me Jill, honestly, what do you think are the areas we can agree on? Because I think there's a bunch.”

In the end, Jill never once attempts to answer any of my simple questions, which is typical. I’ve noticed this tactic used often by those pro-lifers who work in the movement. Whenever the discussion gets off ethereal principles and onto the problem solving, they revert back to airy lectures. They continue to want to talk about the morality of abortion and are desperate to change the subject when it’s about solving what they consider a moral crisis. They’re the ones who have a problem with abortion. Why is the pro-choice camp the only side trying to come up with solutions, often successfully, to their problem? President Bush didn’t promise to attempt to reduce abortion rates during his Presidency and, early indicators suggest, he lived up to that disinterest. The decline in abortion rates slowed during his administration, teen birth rates spiked, and the economic nightmare he left us in seems to already be causing an uptick in abortions. All that is traceable to Bush policies and mismanagement.

Meanwhile, the dramatic declines in abortion rates brought to us by President Clinton and the Obama administration’s promise to deliver the same results elicit sneers and ire from the “pro-life” movement. (I put “pro-life” in quotes because you can’t really be pro-life if your actions create more of the abortions you profess to hate.) Bill Clinton, if based on results alone, was the most pro-life president we’ve ever had and the pro-life movement hates him for it.

This is why the Obama team needs to look past the old-guard culture warriors. People like Jill Stanek approve of the rhetoric of the “culture of life” but are not interested in reducing the need for abortion. She’s seems more interested in attracting eyeballs to her site. Looking for common ground solutions from operatives like her is like turning to Michael Vick for dog-training tips.

The common ground movement Obama is hoping to advance will come about because of people who want real solutions, whose livelihoods don’t depend on the conflict continuing, people who believe we deserve a better national dialogue and better leadership on this issue. We’ve finally got an administration willing to moderate a productive discussion. It’s time to get the hecklers out of room, and get on with the work.

Anti-contraception extremists are again putting confusion to good use in trying to trick the public into supporting their cause. Fresh off a decisive defeat of their "Personhood" bill that would have granted fertilized eggs full constitutional rights and set the groundwork to ban the most commonly used forms of birth control, Colorado's anti-family planning operatives are it again. Since the personhood bill attempted to reclassify common contraceptive methods as abortion, women's health advocates this session introduced a bill that would clearly define what contraception is and what it is not based on actual science and fact. Even though the bill explains that RU-486, mifepristone, or “any other drug or device that induces a medical abortion” are not contraceptive methods, the anti-birth control folks claim that the bill is "dangerously broad." What exactly is dangerously broad about it? It does not reclassify contraceptive methods as abortion. "Dangerously broad" was how their personhood bill was described because it would have laid the groundwork for banning not only abortion and contraception but stem cell research and IVF treatment. The anti-contraception crew know an effective talking point when they're defeated by it and so, voila, the category formally known as "contraception" is now suddenly "dangerously broad."

It was also revealed this week that researchers at the University of Iowa feel good about the chances they will soon develop a birth control pill for men. According to news reports, researchers are studying a mutation in a gene critical for normal sperm movement. The mutation has been found in at least two families with fertility problems. Researchers believe blocking this gene might be one way to create a contraceptive for men. In a related story, anti-birth control researchers are hard at work designing an argument that this yet to be developed contraceptive method for men can cause an abortion.

A Virginia high school student, with the full consent of her parents, took her birth control pill at school last week. As Kerry Howley at Slate points out, she might as well have been free-basing. In fact, had she instead been doing illegal drugs on school grounds she would have only gotten a five day suspension. For some bizarre reason, the penalty for taking a controlled substance, like birth control, at school is far worse, considered equivalent to bringing a firearm with you. The prevention-minded student was given a two-week suspension and was also "recommended for expulsion." This wasn't a situation where school bureaucrats were beholden to enforcing some broad and generic regulation while recognizing the inappropriateness of such punishment in this instance. Apparently, the Washington Post reported, a "long table full of school officials weighed her case at a hearing." Wonder if the officials would react the same way if a pregnant girl had taken a prescription pre-natal vitamin at school. Considering the strong message they've now sent discouraging diligent contraceptive use, we may just get the chance to find out.

By the way, my interview with Dr. Ted Green, of the Harvard School of Public Health, about the Pope's anti-condom comments is in the final stages of being transcribed (it was a loooong interview.) I'll be on vacation next week and so expect to see it here sometime the week of the 20th. In the meantime, here's another take on the Pope's anti-condom stance:

Some historic moments are short and sweet. That was the case last Friday with a call the White House organized on common ground in the abortion conflict. In a never before attempted event, the Obama administration merged dozens of leaders from the pro-choice and pro-life movements onto one conference call line and, wisely, muted us.

The team to which Obama has assigned the task of shaping a civil discussion and exploring common cause within the abortion conflict enthusiastically laid out a profoundly sensible plan forward. Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, kicked off the call explaining that their goal is not to change minds on the dug-in issue of abortion. Rather, she explained, the intent is to focus on the areas in which, theoretically, both sides share a common interest. And there are many: preventing unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reducing the need for abortion, strengthening supports for struggling families with wanted pregnancies, making adoption an option as accessible as any other, and saving lives by improving maternal and child health.

Barnes introduced the team that will help recruit people to the common cause: Tina Tchen, Executive Director of the Council on Women and Girls (she is also Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House) and Rev. Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Tchen explained that they would take the next few months to meet with leaders on both sides to discuss various common ground proposals and to gather new ones. They will focus on projects that can be funded in the 2011 budget, as well as legislation and grassroots efforts that could be duplicated elsewhere.

The 15-minute call concluded with Barnes explaining that the President believes in common ground. This is the post-rant and, supposedly, post-culture war president. Common ground has become his way of framing his approach, a fundamentally optimistic view that if people of goodwill come together they can find ways to work together. Only the future will tell if that will be. But clearly the eminently rational Obama is betting that if reasonable people use reason they can get somewhere.

They promised to be in touch. The nasal-y conference call operator voice came on to signify the end of the call and the culture warriors retreated to their bunkers, awaiting further contact.

Certainly the surveys show that American public pines for the kind of common ground effort Obama seems to believe in. And in the brief but pointed call the No Drama Obama team seems to have figured out where to begin. It's put off limits the dogfight issues, like restrictions on abortion. The Obama team has chosen to narrow the scope. It's a call-your-bluff moment. You say you want to reduce unintended pregnancy? Well, then here's a common sense way to move forward. There has historically been deep resistance on the right to many of the approaches Obama favors, and even some in the pro-choice community, which has largely supported the Obama agenda, appear to wonder about the wisdom of making common cause with groups seen as part of the problem. The Obama team must have wondered whether it will find willing partners for what's meant to be a shared journey. Luckily, for the moment, the mute button was pushed.

And that gave the Obama team a chance to lay out its focused definition of common ground, a vague term which had understandably been open to wide interpretation. Last Friday, in its signature all-business style, the Obama team came to the call with a meaningful, common sense agenda. They're not planning to solve the abortion conflict, and they're not pretending to be miracle workers. But they are hoping to find that, with some good will, there are the solutions to such fundamental issues as unintended pregnancy about which both sides ought not to disagree.

Just a couple of months ago, so-called “pro-life” Congressmembers stood before the press corps on the lawn of the White House snickering over the inclusion of family planning in the stimulus package. They successfully removed the non-budgetary provision—claiming it had nothing to do with helping families in tough economic times. Now, we're seeing the very real impact the economy is having in American’s reproductive lives and how meaningful greater access to pregnancy prevention would in fact be. The Denver Daily News reported this week that: “Abortion rate spikes: Some say 10% rise in Colorado may be due to bad economy.”

And if we needed more evidence of the failed policies of the pro-life camp, on Monday, Bristol Palin's baby Daddy Levi Johnson will appear on the Tyra Banks show with his sister and Mom to discuss the “most of the time” safe sex strategy he and Bristol used which led them to become teen parents and his belief abstinence-only champion Governor Palin knew they were sexually active all along.

Here’s the teaser,

In related news, some school districts are taking pro-active measures the protect teens from pregnancy and disease. In Florida, the Beacon online reports, “The [Volusia County] school system is working with the Volusia County Health Department to develop programs to teach parents how to talk with their children about sex, abstinence and contraception. Parents will be able to take evening classes at the schools. “The whole theme of this is education, to prevent pregnancies and STDs,” the county’s school health director explained.”

It’s great for sex education to finally be getting an education theme. The ignorance theme, while daring, produced some unexpected results. Just ask Levi.

Lots of news in the 'which way is up' category this week. Coming on the heels of continued debate about what "common ground" on abortion is and whether we need it, was two great examples of what it is not.

Some politicians thought to be pro-choice may be using the new framework of "common ground" abortion as a cover to appease a more right wing constituency. "Pro-Choice" Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, in the week before her confirmation hearings to head the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, signed into law a superfluous anti-choice bill that would mandate clinics offer women the chance to view an ultrasound image of the fetus before the abortion procedure. Of course, women are already allowed to view the ultrasound. The bill also requires clinics to post a notice that women cannot be forced into having an abortion. The irony was lost on the legislators and media that those championing the bill would happily force women into bringing a pregnancy to term. This bill is designed to create an atmosphere of distrust within the clinic setting. We're all in favor of women having thorough information about all of their choices--but the intent of this bill is to question women's decision-making abilities and to infer that clinics would not furnish patients with this information unless mandated by law. Sebelius should have used this opportunity to explain that women need accurate information about all of their choices. She could have, while vetoing the bill, explained that not only was the bill superfluous it was misdirected. What is in desperate need of policing are the crisis pregnancy centers that mislead women about their choices. She could have said "Bring me a bill with that included and I'll sign it."

Another example of "not common ground" was provided to us courtesy of Virginia Governor and DNC Chair Tim Kaine. This week he signed into law a "Choose Life" license plate bill which uses the state to funnel money to nefarious crisis pregnancy centers. This concession is not common ground. The mechanics of the state agencies shouldn't be used to help hoodwink women and supplant medical information with ideological propaganda. This was an easy one to veto, instead Kaine betrayed the party he now leads, the pro-choice voters who won him the election.

People speak often of “common ground” these days, since it is one of the Obama hopes. Betraying pro-choice supporters for political expediency is not what Obama is talking about. Figuring out smart solutions that people from both sides can get behind is. It’s been a bad week for women and common ground for sure.

Coming soon: This week I interviewed Edward Green, of the Harvard School of Public Health, who has recently been getting lots of attention for his comments in support of the Pope's anti-condom policy to fight HIV transmission. This past Sunday he published an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled The Pope May Be Right. Once the transcribing is complete, hopefully by later this week, I'll post my interview with him here. So stayed tuned...