Brief updates

When I wrote my angry rant yesterday, I had been hoping that Slate's Dahlia Lithwick would have written something about the case involving prosecutors and absolute immunity.  Now she has.  I'll just give you her takeaway line:

The question for the court today is whether it is ultimately more
worried about chilling prosecutors who want to introduce possibly
fabricated evidence or giving them good reason—and the absolute
freedom—to do so.

Meanwhile, also in Slate, Tim Noah takes up the issue of pro-life House Democrats trying to derail health reform.  I like this part:

Granted, money is fungible. Federal money that a private health
insurance plan doesn't spend on abortions frees up nonfederal money
that it does. But as Time's Amy Sullivan recently noted,
not even Focus on Family meets Stupak's exacting standard. Principal,
the health insurer for the Christian-right group's employees, covers
abortions. "Even if the specific plan Focus uses for its employees
doesn't include abortion coverage—and I'm assuming it doesn't—the
organization and its employees still pay premiums to a company that
funds abortions," Sullivan wrote. "If health reform proposals have a
fungibility problem, then Focus does as well."


About Steve Greene
Professor of Political Science at NC State

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: