I think I agree with Tep. I think he wants to say that women put a lot of thought in to getting abortions, and his conversion experience was so profound, he'd be confused with all of us squirming about the pastor thing. But he wasn't speaking to us, more to my Midwestern church-going grandma. Although she's R, so I'm not sure it would work.

What do you mean when you say "as a matter of policy"?

That he said it in response to a question about his potential position as head of state indicated *to me* that it was policy.

Is he planning to introduce legislation that makes abortion rights contingent on a woman talking to her pastor before getting an abortion?

I certainly hope not. I doubt it. I don't have as much doubt that he would support, or refrain from opposing, such if someone else introduced it. And this is the heart of my doubt of him on this issue.

It is entirely possible that he downplayed his support of women's and GLBT rights in order to appeal to a larger, more centrist segment of the voting public, and I deeply, fervently hope that's the case. I'm not certain of it. The Bush administration has cured me of assuming the best of people and made me suspicious of those who do not state their full agenda up front. I will never be that gullible again.

I think he wants to say that women put a lot of thought in to getting abortions,

That, and also that it's not just the baby-hating feminist atheist commie FREAKS who get abortions. If the conversation is between a woman and her pastor, that means she has a pastor, and is that much more just like you.

(Personally, I think the assumption in that statement of the legality of abortion speaks very strongly to a pro-reprodutive rights stance as well as a strong separation or church and state. The hypothetical woman in question is talking to her pastor because her legal rights are not in question, therefore this is a purely personal matter.)

Yes, this. A lot of times, even I'm surprised at the women I know who've had one...pretty pernicious meme, in that case.

What do you mean when you say "as a matter of policy"?

That he said it in response to a question about his potential position as head of state indicated *to me* that it was policy.

Again, I don't remember the verbatim question -- was it regarding what Obama would do in his capacity as president, regarding abortion rights? Or was he just asked if he supports abortion rights?

I think there's a difference there. If Obama said that as president he would support legislation that required that every woman seeking an abortion must join a church and consult with her pastor before being able to obtain the abortion -- well, that's one thing.

But I don't think he was answering as a matter of policy, of what he would pursue/support as POTUS. I think he was being a politician who knows that abortion is a deeply, DEEPLY divisive issue.

Obama's record on women's rights is very, very strong. And none of that included a requirement to go get a pastor. I seriously think that one statement in one debate shouldn't be taken as indicative of what his administration is going to be like.

Is he planning to introduce legislation that makes abortion rights contingent on a woman talking to her pastor before getting an abortion?

I certainly hope not. I doubt it. I don't have as much doubt that he would support, or refrain from opposing, such if someone else introduced it.

Seriously? We clearly watched 2 different candidates, then.

There's someone I've talked with a lot about abortion, who's usually pretty willing to listen to what I have to say, and I'll listen to what he has to say, even though we really disagree with each other, but in just about every one of these conversations, I feel like I need to remind him of the statistic that 61% of women who have abortions already have at least one child. Because it seems like there's a definite idea out there that women are either women who have abortions or women who have children, when really, there are a lot of things about personal circumstances and timing that go into it.

Oh this is great!

The five crew members of a US Airways jet that safely ditched in New York's Hudson River have been invited to president-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, a spokeswoman said Monday.

Chief pilot Chesley Sullenberger -- praised by Obama for his "heroic" conduct -- and the rest of his crew have been invited to attend Tuesday's historic celebration in Washington, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Good for them!

Oh, and they were finally able to get the plane out of the river late afternoon Saturday. I was starting to wonder if they'd just leave it there until spring...

Seriously, why is it still snowing?!! This is so not on.

Seriously? We clearly watched 2 different candidates, then.

I'm...a little undone by your attitude, Teppy. We are approaching this from two vastly different experiences as women and as citizens. Of course our perceptions are different. I've said, repeatedly, that I *hope* my reservations are proved wrong. That I have them can't be negated by your lack of them, and I'd think you know me well enough to know I don't judge anybody arbitrarily.

ETA: How wonderful the pilot and crew are being included in the festivities. I tell you what, we really need heroes, and these guys fill that bill. As I've said before, I don't want to know if any of them eat crackers in bed, or make the dog sleep in the laundry room. I want my heroes, dammit.

I just watched the Coast Guard video of the crash--I'm slow, OK?--and it hadn't really dawned on me that the plane was drifting downriver and that the boats had to match the rate of drift when they were rescuing people. That's some nice captainship on the water, as well. That ferry was quick off the mark.