SUPPORTING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IS THE NEW CONTRARIANISM.Christine Stansell's new article about Carhart II is very good. The puzzle it presents is how on earth it made it into the New Republic -- perhaps Jeffrey Rosen and Ben Wittes were away on a cruise (high contrarianism on the high seas!) or something. Anyway, it's a good analysis of the problems with the decision:
"A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM." A terrific article by Garrett Epps puts Karl Rove's pressuring of U.S. Attorneys to pursue bogus "vote fraud" cases into the larger (and highly consequential) context of the GOP's vote fraud fraud. Epps also draws our attention to the Supreme Court's endorsement of the GOP's myths in a little-noticed opinion from 2006:
THE SELF-IMMOLATION OF RUDY. As a staunch Giuliani opponent, I must admit a certain grudging admiration for his decision to be explicitly pro-choice rather than adopting the High Contrarian "I'm pro-choice, but it should be left to the states (and, er, whatever regulations Congress can pass" position, and it's refreshing in a way that primary voters would see this as the kind of dodge it almost always is. It's good for the country for a serious Republican candidate to take the normatively correct and (funding questions aside) majority position on the issue.
FOLLOW-UPS. As an addendum to Dana's terrific post below, people interested in this topic should definitely read Michael Berube's thoughts on the subject if they haven't already. I would also like to add that the possibility that women may choose to obtain abortions if their children will have severe disabilities (or for sex selection or whatever) is, as Dana suggests, likely to be a major rhetorical strategy for the anti-choice lobby.