Will, Will...

As I explained to you earlier--you kindly answered, but did not seem to accept the point--Leavitt and his his ilk (that word again!) do not accept that there is any moral difference at all between abortion and contraception. To them, the two are simply morally indistinguishable.

Leavitt's refusal to draw such a distinction is therefore fully predictable. I am surprised that you are surprised.

What does this mean for policy and politics?

In means that for the anti-abortionists that have been driving the political debate, Roe is not the last step, but the first step.

When Roe is finally struck down, they will turn their attention to state law on abortion and on contraception. They will point out that the constitutional right to abortion (defined by Roe) rests on the same doctrine as the constitutional right to contraception (defined by Griswald). If the first goes, what is the basis for the second?

And, as a lagniappe, let me speculate briefly on the nature of the Supreme Court decision that overturns Roe. Most people believe that it will narrowly find that there is no constitutional right to abortion, allowing legislatures free reign to regulate the procedure as they see fit. This would be bad enough, since most would surely choose to restrict it severely. And it is certainly possible.

But it is not very satisfactory if you believe (as at least 4 justices, numerous legislators, and John McCain claim to do) that "life begins at conception". If you do, surely you must also believe that fetuses must be granted the constitutional protections offered to any other American. That is, legislation allowing abortion--and its moral equivalent, contraception--must be unconsititutional!

This is the sort of judgement Leavitt and his ilk would like to see. They may get it.

Remember, you read it here first!