The World News reader

For roughly the cost of buying a pornographic DVD -- on sale -- you can purchase sex in London; for the cost of a hot new X-rated release, you can purchase high-risk sex, like unprotected anal intercourse.

That's according to a new report, which surveyed 921 brothels in the city and found that "full sex" costs as little as 15 pounds (about $26) and unprotected sex just 10 pounds more. Sex with a prostitute on average costs 62 pounds (just over $110) and goes for as much as 250 ($442). Researchers found women of 77 different ethnicities working in the city's brothels, although many were from eastern Europe and Southeast Asia -- both of which are known for sex trafficking.

The report bolsters Britain's fight against sex trafficking and, notably, Minister for Women Harriet Harman's campaign to criminalize the sale of sex. On Thursday, in the wake of the report's release, Harman visited with trafficked women, underscored another recent survey finding that most Brits support criminalizing johns and railed against the "multimedia misrepresentations of commercial sex as a glamorous, easy and fun career choice for girls." She added: "For most women involved in prostitution, the reality is a cycle of violence and coercion, perpetuated by poverty and inequality."

Still, I remain unconvinced that outlawing prostitution is the best approach to reducing sex trafficking or that it will better protect the workers. Last year, British Liberal Democrat David Howarth very reasonably looked at the actual effect of criminalizing sex work: "Evidence from Sweden in making prostitution illegal has shown that it doesn't help in reducing human trafficking. It, in fact, increases violence against women and makes the practice of prostitution far more risky for all involved."

Palin-mania reached a new climax Wednesday night with the vice-presidential candidate's Republican National Convention speech. To say it has been "talked about" today is to say that Palin is "kind of conservative." After several days on hotel lockdown, Palin came out with a smile, proving that, if nothing else, she can outread George W. on a teleprompter any day.

Last night's speech received rave reviews from mainstream news sources. Here's a sampling:

"She Shoots! She Scores!" the Washington Post gushes.

"Palin came out swinging!" the Wall Street Journal cries.

"Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party!" the New York Times exclaims.

For a speech that, to my mind at least, did little beyond point fingers and reinforce how damn wholesome she is, the mainstream press seems awfully impressed with her.

More from the New York Times: "Ms. Palin's appearance electrified a convention that has been consumed by questions of whether she was up to the job, as she launched slashing attacks on Mr. Obama's claims of experience," Times reporters Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper report.

Gloria Steinem, meanwhile, hit back with a piece in the Los Angeles Times about why Palin is the wrong woman with the wrong plan and support for the wrong issues. Noting that "Palin shares nothing but a chromosome" with Hillary Clinton, Steinem reinforces the belief that voting for the McCain-Palin ticket out of spite would be akin to saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs." A poll of Michigan voters supports Steinem's thoughts on Palin, showing that independent voters are unimpressed with both the lady and her speech.

Minimal coverage was given to what Sarah Palin did not say, as well as to the fictions she upheld, including her continued insistence that she did not support the Bridge to Nowhere plan (when she did). The Post's Tom Shales went so far as to suggest that if the Republicans win, they may well attribute their victory to Palin. Though he feels her rhetoric is less than brilliant, he describes her as genuine and down to earth, traits that hold heavy sway with voters. And he may be on to something.

Following a week of Democrats taking the high ground in Denver, Palin dug in her canines. Though it has become something of a trend in the Democratic Party to avoid full-on character assault, Glenn Greenwald points out the potentially detrimental side effects of this strategy today, noting that as Republicans build a campaign on character alone, the nice-guy response could cost Obama the election. Nonetheless, the Daily Kos lends credence to the contrary view, with a personal story about getting turned off by the Republican Party, thanks to all of its Democrat-bashing.

In closing, I will turn to the words of Sarah Palin herself: "But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out and those styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot -- what exactly is our opponent's plan?" What, indeed?

When in the course of history we have firsts, or in this case seconds, like Sarah Palin's historic candidacy for vice president, it is vital that we monitor the prejudices and biases revealed by the ways in which these groundbreaking people and moments are discussed. But just as vital as pointing out sexism is pointing out criticism that is not at all sexist, and keeping Palin's boosters from bastardizing feminism in such a way that it loses meaning.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York president Kelli Conlin responds to Sarah Palin's speech:

"Last night Governor Sarah Palin spoke proudly of cutting her state's budget and using her line item veto. What she neglected to mention, however, was that in that role she slashed funding for Alaska's Covenant House, which runs a state program that gives teen mothers skills, training, and a place to live.

"In the often sensationalized conversation about teen pregnancy, the overlooked reality is that women who have a child while in high school are less likely to finish high school and their children are more likely to grow up in poverty and to become teen mothers themselves. While some teens are lucky to have supportive parents, there are many young women who are not able to rely on their families in the event of an unintended pregnancy. These young women need programs and services to support them in their decision to become parents.

"NARAL Pro-Choice New York supports the right of every woman, when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, to make the decision that is right for her. But in order to make any choice free from coercion, a woman must have access to the information and resources she needs to make an informed decision.

"Last night Ms. Palin referred to herself and Senator McCain as agents of change. To our eyes they are not only NOT agents of change but they represent a dangerous continuation of the Bush Administration's anti-woman anti-reproductive health policies. Their ticket supports failed abstinence only until marriage programs and opposes abortion (in Ms. Palin's case, even in cases of rape and incest). Together, they demonstrate a chilling lack of respect for women and a refusal to acknowledge any options other than the ones of which they approve.

"NARAL Pro-Choice New York respects and honors the historic decision to include a woman on the presidential ticket. Unfortunately, Governor Palin is not a candidate we can support as she stands for everything we oppose and opposes everything we stand for."

In less than a week, Sarah Palin has energized her political base in a staggering way. She has also energized those of us who proudly stand outside that camp. As reported in Broadsheet Wednesday, "the number of U.S. Internet searches for 'Sarah Palin' reached a peak greater than any other political personality in the past three years." I know what you're thinking: Yes, even greater than Gary Coleman.

Many things struck me about Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention last night. I noticed that, as Joan Walsh writes this morning, she came out "teeth bared like a Rudy Giuliani in heels." I noticed that, as Walter Shapiro writes this morning, she was presented as a "martyr unfairly derided by the national press corps." I noticed that the crowd in Minnesota adored her, could not get enough of her, and showed that in many ways: cheering, fist-pumping, holding signs that read "Hockey Moms 4 Palin" and -- in that great American capitalist tradition -- wearing buttons.

Yes, it's hard to love something or someone in this country before some huckster sells you flair to support your addiction, and the buttons made on behalf of Sarah Palin do not disappoint. There is, of course, the issue of her good looks: "Coldest State, Hottest Governor" reads one, with a photo of Palin that looks like she's auditioning for the part of the sexy D.A. on "Law & Order." The good people of Indiana, not to be outdone, introduced their "Hoosiers for the Hot Chick" button. Sexist? Naaaah. As one woman explained it to MSNBC, "being a hot chick, strong, fun and capable all go together."

But annnnyway. Sarah Palin is more than a pretty face. She's also a woman! I'm not sure if you noticed. And so there's plenty of femme-friendly buttons for the ladies in the audience, especially those of you who think to yourselves, "Hmm, these Susan G. Komen-sponsored products are a little bit masculine." There is the "Women for Sarah Palin" button, and if that is just not enough like a Hallmark card, well then, I give you this baby. (Speaking of babies, why Palin's baby does not have his own button is a riddle to make any Republican entrepreneur weep.)

Of course, the great thing about Sarah Palin, from a salesman's point of view, is that she serves both sides of the Hillary divide. Mad that Hillary wasn't V.P.? Well, thank God for Sarah Palin. Hate Hillary with a passion? Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. And thus we have "If I Can't Have Hillary, I'll Take Sarah" (that sound you just heard was 18 million cracks in my heart) and then, of course, "Hillary who?"

But mostly, you guys, Sarah Palin is hot. And this crowd LOVES a hot chick. You won't see any Democrats sporting the "Our V.P. Is Hotter Than Yours" button (though, to be fair, Joe Biden? He's aging well). Or, the utterly unpronounceable and yet instantly memorable VPILF. High-five, America. Always be closing.

Good news for any women with dense breasts (i.e. breast tissue that makes tumors hard to spot on mammograms): A new method may make it much easier to see the inner workings of your boobs.

According to the Associated Press,, molecular breast imaging (MBI) offers a powerful new way to detect cancer in dense breasts. As the AP explains, it uses a radioactive tracer that "'lights up' cancer hiding inside dense breasts." In its first big test against traditional mammograms, MBI revealed more tumors and gave fewer false alarms. It also costs less than an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging, another method for detecting breast cancer).

The AP is quick to point out that MBI would not replace mammograms in women with an average risk of breast cancer. But for women with dense breast tissue -- which is about a quarter of women over 40 -- MBI could be a great new tool. In a test on 940 women with dense breasts and a high risk of breast cancer, MBI found 10 out of the 13 tumors that existed, while mammograms found three and missed 10. Had the two methods been combined, 11 of the 13 tumors would have been detected (the other two tumors were found using different methods).

In MBI, women are given what the AP describes as an "intravenous dose of a short-acting tracer that is absorbed more by abnormal cells than healthy ones. Special cameras collect the 'glow' these cells give off, and doctors look at the picture to spot tumors."

The main downside? At the moment MBI requires women to undergo eight to 10 times more radiation than with a mammogram -- though researchers are working on ways to reduce that with better technology. The next step for MBI is a federally funded study to see how it stacks up next to MRI (which gives a high number of false positives and costs over $1,000).

The bottom line: Don't expect your doctor to use MBI the next time you see her, but stay posted -- as Carrie Hruska, a biomedical engineer at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been working on the technique for six years, told the AP, "We're just beginning to see what this technology can do."

Some quasi-good news from Iran: According to the Los Angeles Times, Iran's parliament decided to shelve the so-called Family Protection Bill, which was proposed by conservative lawmakers in July and protested by activists for women's rights.

What, exactly, would this family protection have entailed? I'll give you a hint: It wouldn't have protected families. Instead, says the Times, the proposed legislation would have required divorced women to pay taxes on their alimony and, more disturbingly, would have "allowed husbands to get religiously sanctioned 'temporary' marriages or take additional wives without the consent of their first spouses." (These temporary unions are called "sigheh" in Persian, can last as little as 30 minutes, are popular with "male travelers or seminary students who find themselves far from their wives for long periods," and are criticized by many as a way for men to skirt laws against prostitution.) Thankfully, for the moment at least, it's not going to happen.

So what's the bad news (besides, of course, the fact that such legislation would be proposed at all)? First, there's no guarantee that the legislation will permanently remain shelved. As Iranian women's rights activist Farnaz Saifi told the Times, "It's a victory, but it's a temporary victory." And secondly, on Tuesday, the day after the legislation was set aside, a court sentenced four of the opposition group leaders to six months of jail. Plus, last week another women's rights activist, Zeinab Bayzeydi, was sentenced to four years. According to the Times, all five of the women were part of an international campaign called "One Million Signatures" that hopes to "amass petitions demanding women's rights in the Islamic Republic."

My prediction: If you can get arrested just for talking about your rights, it's going to take a while before you get them.

It's amazing that Sarah Palin has granted only one interview in advance of her appearance at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night. You'd never know it to look at the raft of stories being written about her.

As the clamor over Monday's pregnancy announcement calms to a dull roar, we turn to new questions, for instance: How thoroughly did McCain vet his newly appointed V.P.? According to The Washington Post? Not well at all!

Accordion Guy

But lest we get too distracted by stories about Palin's passion for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or polling statistics (Democrats, rejoice! War Room reports that the number of Clinton supporters intending to vote for Obama has shot up to 81 percent from 70 percent prior to the convention), the poster that we should have seen coming has arrived (pictured). Yes, a play on teen pregnancy AND Alaska. It's puntastic.

Conservative commentator Robert Novak leapt to Palin's defense Tuesday, pointing out that "what cannot be measured is the impact on voters of a new, attractive and well-spoken woman." What a presidential race this will be -- a new, attractive and well-spoken woman in one camp and an "African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" in another. We ARE progressive here in America!

Not enough outrage for you? Here's a Financial Times Op-Ed written by U.S. managing editor Chrystia Freeland: "In contrast with Mrs. Clinton, whose most important political decision was whom she married, Mrs. Palin is a genuinely self-made woman, who broke into politics without the head start of a powerful husband or father."

Now, if you've been wondering what it means when Sarah Palin says that she is a "Feminist for Life, it has less to do with feminism forever and more to do with keeping that baby. The good news is that Cindy McCain disagrees. While we're on the topic of abortion, Slate takes an absurd tack with a story about abortion could-have-beens. That's right, a list of all the young daughters of presidential nominees who could have been knocked up without us ever knowing. Both educational and worthwhile.

And now, a little concern for the kids: Seventeen on preventing teen pregnancy by planning for the future, and ABC on the difficulty of being a teen father. Levi, it's hard out there!

Finally, Time gives us the stats on Internet searches for "Sarah Palin": "In just two days, the number of U.S. Internet searches for 'Sarah Palin' reached a peak greater than any other political personality in the past three years."

Get ready for at least two months of Photoshopped pictures and fakes.

In Japan, cheating husbands who suspect that they're being followed and frantically check their mistress for a wire are not unreasonably paranoid. The Times Online reports that the country has a new booming profession: seduction.

Companies with teams of private investigators -- including a stock of stereotypical temptresses "from unintimidating secretaries and housewives to full-blown sirens" -- are now at the disposal of unhappy wives having trouble divorcing their husbands. For nearly $4,500 a month, women can send a seductress on Mission: Infidelity. The target and his femme fatale are followed by a reconnaissance team armed with Ethan Hunt-style equipment, including cameras built into pens and cigarette packs (but, sadly, no infrared contacts or explosive gum).

The private eyes will go to any end to complete their mission: Professional seductress Kyoki, 20, told the Times, "I sleep with all of them." (She insists that it isn't prostitution, since the target doesn't pay her -- his wife does. Um, right.) If the target isn't lured by the siren's song into initiating divorce himself, the evidence of his cheating is presented to him (and then, presumably, the divorce court).

The scope of services doesn't end there, either. The Times sums it up like so: "In Japan, if you have the money you can sort out virtually any problem in your love life. If you want to get rid of an unwanted spouse, retrieve a straying one, get back with an ex or even get together with someone you've seen but don't yet know, there are companies that will help you, using all the technology and expertise in human psychology at their disposal." It turns out that in Japan money can buy love -- of the short-lived, professionally manufactured variety.

Our sisters over at Jezebel alerted us to AbortionTracker.com. According to the website:

Our unique search database pulls information from a variety of 3rd party and proprietary sources to compile a full, comprehensive list of every woman who has had an abortion procedure performed in the United States and Canada, dating back to 1940, in many cases.

Simply join our network, submit your personal information, and once you are approved, we will grant you access to our cutting edge, patent pending system. Before you know it, you’ll know your friends and neighbors for who they really are.

Sound enragingly over the top? Well, there's a reason for that. The whole site is almost certainly a hoax -- "Bear in mind that our offices are technically located overseas, and very few of the laws you know actually pertain to anything bearing upon our operation" reads one portion, while another part suggests women seeking internships send in photos of themselves in bikinis -- but even as subtle satire, it's just plain creepy.

As a mother of a one-and-a-half-year-old, I can safely say of childbirth that I'm in it for the baby, not for the "birth journey." I care very much about appropriate attention to maternal well-being, wise medical practice and not rushing into doctory stuff that you don't need -- but ultimately, that's about the baby, not me. Whatever it takes, within sound medical judgment, for him or her to be safe. For related reasons, when it comes to "childbirth," I have never liked the term "natural." In that pairing -- while I'm delighted for people who were happy with their own -- it seems to me to connote, even inadvertently, a false and crunchier-than-thou dichotomy, a hierarchy of desirability and experience. ("Oh you had an epidural/ had to [or, God forbid, planned to] have a C-section? Mmm. Mine was natural.")

Still, my interest was piqued when I saw (a bit belatedly) the Reuters headline "'Natural' cesarean mimics vaginal birth experience." Natural cesarean? Huh? Did someone have a C-section at home? Or, James Frey-lie style, without any painkillers?

As it turns out, doctors in England and Australia are developing a "woman-centered" procedure for cesareans that incorporates many important aspects of vaginal birth, including parental involvement and speedy skin-to-skin contact (which in turn encourages breast-feeding). Their report appears in the current International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

"Vaginal birth has evolved markedly in the last two decades so that much greater emphasis is now given to the experience of the parents and to early bonding," researcher Nicholas M. Fisk, director of the University of Queensland Center for Clinical Research in Brisbane, Australia, told Reuters. Cesarean birth, by contrast, has remained more wham-bam, he said, focusing on speed even when nonemergency circumstances don't require it.

Specifics: Once the baby's head is delivered, the surgical area is cleaned and the birth partner (if any) can watch. The OB-GYN then slows things down so that uterine contractions can help clear the baby's lungs, "just as happens at vaginal delivery," says Fisk. Once the shoulders are eased out, "the baby then frequently delivers his/her own arms in an expansive gesture." (King of the world!) Mom can then watch the rest, after which the baby is placed directly on her chest for -- neonatally recommended -- skin-to-skin bonding.

The procedure still allows for traditional (quicker, for one thing) measures to take over if or when medically required. Fisk added that parents and hospital staffs, so far, are into the idea; more clinical trials remain necessary.

Regardless of any snobbery (again, even inadvertent) about "natural" or vaginal births, it is perfectly, well, natural for some women to hope for (drugs or no drugs) a scalpel-free, good-ol'-fashioned-pushing experience over a surgical one. Perhaps these changes could one day narrow, at least a bit, the gap between the two -- and even prove better for the baby. And Fisk and his colleagues, it should be noted, are not just talking about expanding "options" for women with the wherewithal to make a "birth plan." According to the study abstract, they are talking about full-on "reform" -- of the most common operation worldwide. Naturally, I can get behind that.

From the Washington Post's the Trail:

Sarah Palin, who has also voiced her opposition to "explicit sex ed," this past April used her line-item veto to slash 20 percent of funding for Covenant House, which runs a state program that gives teen mothers skills training and a place to live. (You know, other than in the harsh glare of the media.)

If I had to list small things that would improve my personal existence, most would be pretty simple: shorter lines at the DMV, milk that never spoils, a universal ban on "Visualize Whirled Peas" bumper stickers. I like to focus on these self-involved minutiae because they keep me distracted from the bigger problems in the world. But just for the hell of it, here is my large-scale request for the day: Will people please stop with the honor killings?

The latest horribly depressing tale: Three girls from the Umrani tribe in Pakistan, murdered because they insulted the "honor" of their tribe by trying to marry men they loved. As the Globe and Mail reports, "the three teenage girls were kidnapped, taken to a remote area, and shot. Then, still alive, they were dragged bleeding to a ditch, where they were covered in earth and stones, suffocating the remaining life out of them."

According to the Globe and Mail, even though "honor killings" are not unusual, being buried alive is rare even by Pakistani tribal standards. This was supposed to "revive the respect of the Umrani tribe [and] serve as a warning."

Depressed yet? Consider this: The girls died over one and a half months ago and no one has been arrested; when the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an independent organization, tried to register a criminal complaint about the case, the local police refused. Worse, several male legislators from Baluchistan (the province where the killings occurred) defended the killings in Pakistan's national parliament. "These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," said one senator from Baluchistan, Israrullah Zehri. "Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."

One might argue that shooting someone and burying her alive are the definition of an "immoral act," but hey -- why let rationality get in the way of a centuries-old tradition? After all, as Samar Minallah, a human rights activist who investigated the killings, stated to the Globe and Mail, "Never in Pakistan's history have we seen the perpetrators of such crimes punished."

Reuters/Matt Sullivan

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin waves in front of her daughter Bristol and son Trig at a campaign event in Dayton, Ohio, Friday.News today that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter Bristol is "about five months" pregnant means that it only took 48 hours after the announcement that the second woman in American history was joining a presidential ticket for her nomination to devolve into a sudsy soap-operatic scandal.

Some surely think it's great news that the Republicans may be about to hang by their own family-values noose; others may deem the whole thing tawdry and so unrelated to the issues that it should be off limits. Megan Carpentier at Jezebel is justifiably horrified by the Schadenfreude-laced glee expressed by her peers in the media, while Ann Friedman at Feministing writes smartly about the hypocrisy of the McCain camp's role in the situation.

Me, I'm just hanging my head about the sorry set of events that led us to be having this conversation this year about a candidate, who, no matter how repugnant her political beliefs, is a history maker who will forever be known as the second woman ever on an American presidential ticket. After a year in which Geraldine Ferraro's historical stock (never sky-high to begin after mini-scandals about her husband and son) plummeted thanks to her often unhelpful involvement in the Clinton campaign, this election cycle could turn from one that was electrifying and energizing for women into one that situates their political prospects firmly back in the feminized territory of sex scandals, babies and mothering.

How we got from the dispiriting political and ideological record of Sarah Palin -- that she is adamantly pro-life and anti-gay marriage, that she is a lifetime member of the NRA, that she has no foreign policy experience and supports the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools -- to the uterine activity of her family, makes perfect, human sense: Who wants to talk about boring policy when we can talk about teens and sex and pregnancy?

Of course, there are indeed some very real, very serious issues raised by the revelation of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, which Palin and the McCain camp made public today in response to rampant Internet rumors that Palin had faked her pregnancy with infant Trig to cover up an earlier Bristol gestation period. (Study questions: Why, in refuting those original rumors, did Palin present as evidence the news that her daughter was pregnant, rather than simply handing over hospital documents and a birth certificate for Trig? Answer: It's a mystery! Why did she get on a long plane ride to Alaska after her water broke a month early in Texas? Answer: It's a mystery! Why was her staff surprised to learn that the governor was pregnant one month before she gave birth? Answer: It's a mystery!)

But no matter. The first, and most serious issue raised by today's official story is that the language used in the public statement about Bristol is at odds with the McCain-Palin line on reproductive rights. According to the New York Times story, "Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said." That's just peachy in its presumption that Bristol had a choice about whether or not to continue her pregnancy. It's true that in 2008, she certainly does have a legal choice. But she wouldn't under the proposed administration of her mother and John McCain, both of whom oppose abortion rights and tell us they would work to overturn Roe. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life, and once called herself, during her failed 2002 run for Alaska's lieutenant governor, as "pro-life as any candidate can be." To celebrate the decision-making freedoms of her daughter was an irrational, unproductive choice.

It's a logic loophole through which McCain himself has traveled in the past. As Kate Sheppard has reported in In These Times, McCain, who supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade, said during his 2000 run for president that if his daughter got pregnant, "The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel." When reporters pointed out to him that he had just described a pro-choice situation, McCain replied, "I don't think it is the pro-choice position to say that my daughter and my wife and I will discuss something that is a family matter that we have to decide." Yes. It is the pro-choice position, or at least part of it. So McCain has already been caught in the same goof made today.

The Bristol baby is also likely to get McCain all wound up in talk of his support for abstinence-only education. The Arizona senator has a record of voting against programs that use federal money to distribute condoms; he has voted against federal funding for programs that teach medically accurate, comprehensive sex education; and he has voted down programs that would make birth control more widely available. In March 2007, he stumbled when asked about his position on contraception in HIV prevention, asking an aid to "find out what my position is on contraception -- I'm sure I'm opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president's policies on it."

As for Palin's stand on abstinence-only education, it's not great, but she hasn't been a particularly disruptive advocate of Alaska's sex-ed programs, which says something (a very little something) about her lack of enthusiasm for abstinence-only programs during George Bush's eight year roll-back of reproductive rights and his worldwide propagation of abstinence-only reprogramming. Based on early reporting, Palin has only once weighed in on the topic. When asked a confusingly worded question about whether she would "support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools," she replied, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." She is a member of Feminists for Life, an anti-choice group that does not take a prohibitive stand on birth control.

For the right, the story of Palin's daughter's pregnancy will also become fodder to move their ball along. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has already hopped into the conversation with this helpful statement, that teen pregnancy "is problem that we remain committed to reducing through encouraging young people to practice abstinence." Perkins also congratulated Bristol on "following her mother and father's example of choosing life in the midst of a difficult situation."

It's certainly tempting to fall into the trap of attacking back, of making Bristol Palin and her boyfriend and her fetus the football we kick around for the next two months, four years, or however long Palin survives on the Republican ticket.

But how far can that take us? The news that many politicians are hypocrites should not blow many minds. This rhetorical game -- asking politicians who make the laws to apply them to themselves or their own kin -- is an old American favorite. It happens when Michael Moore accosts congresspeople on the street asking why their kids aren't in the Iraq war they voted for; it happens when Michael Dukakis is asked in a debate how he would respond if his own wife were raped; it even happens when Barack Obama talks about getting the rest of the country the same kind of healthcare packages he and his fellow members of Congress have given themselves.

It's a strategy that can be useful, like when it comes to healthcare arguments. But when applied to personal turmoil, the unearthing of stuff that few families could survive unscathed, it becomes more troubling. It is a game that ignores the fact that there's a real person, a real family, a real kid about to have another real kid, all of whom are being used as political punching bags. When it suits us, we bypass the fact that many of us believe that what happens within the families and bedrooms of our politicians -- while diverting, even titillating -- shouldn't cloud our perceptions of how they do their jobs. It's what we believed when Clinton was witch-hunted out of his second term, when we talk about Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy, when we fete Ted Kennedy.

And while his campaign may or may not be hooting and hollering about this story line in private, in public, Barack Obama drew a very firm line on the Palin revelation, noting that if anyone in his campaign was pushing the story forward they would be fired. Bristol Palin's pregnancy, Obama said, "has no relevance to Governor Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president." He also pointed out that his own mother had been 18 when she gave birth to him. "How family deals with issues and teen-age children -- that shouldn't be the topic of our politics," Obama said.

The issue here isn't why Sarah Palin's daughter got pregnant or is choosing to stay pregnant, though the narrative (and gotcha) appeals of both plotlines are evident. It's why the hell John McCain, in his attempt to pick a chick to woo Democratic woman, picked one who had a family drama that he reportedly knew about. If he understands the first thing about the American people and their thirst for scandal, he must have realized it would be all anyone could talk about.

Why, when he had women like Kay Bailey Hutchison, Liddy Dole, Condoleezza Rice, Christine Todd Whitman or Meg Whitman to choose from did he select a running mate with a pre-made family drama for voters and the media to latch onto?

Women -- the same women who may or may not have supported Hillary, and who are applauding McCain's supposedly go-girl choice of Palin as his veep -- should be furious at the Republican nominee for ensuring that the history-making woman he tapped will be considered not on her intellectual or political merits, but on her reproductive ones.

In his callous, superficial and ill-judged attempt to woo women voters with the presence of mammary glands on his ticket -- hot, young ones to boot -- McCain has committed a sickening grievance against both voters and those female politicians whom he purports to respect and support. What a failure by McCain to have this woman -- with her pregnancies and progeny and sex life and child-rearing prowess now being inspected instead of her policy and voting history -- stand in for, and someday, possibly emblemize the political progress of American women, especially at a moment at which women had, temporarily it seems, risen far enough above our gestational capabilities to be taken seriously in the race for the White House.

In this week's clip for Current TV, I summarize a new study from the Kinsey Institute on what defines men's sense of masculinity.