"Rich women will fly to California; poor women will use Cytotec."

That is, if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

But first: Miers Led Bid to Revisit Abortion Stance. The role of Bush's new Supreme Court nominee in leading an effort to change the ABA's stance on abortion is self-explanatory and cause for concern, though she was one of several involved in the effort, and it doesn't by any means make clear her own views on Roe v. Wade or the right to privacy. On the other hand, the more vocal factions of the right wing are pissed as hell. They wanted someone with a track record of fanaticism, and this lady ain't it.

Miers is, like Condoleezza Rice, single and childless, which frankly is a welcome contrast to John Roberts' Leave it to Beaver style. I have to say that having run the Texas Lottery Commission sounds a bit like having run a horse association (though Miers was successful in that job instead of fired from it). Miers apparently was running Bush's search for an associate justice, just as Dick Cheney was running his search for a running mate back in 2000. This guy likes to appoint people he already knows.

I guess my tentative thought about Miers is that we could have done much, much worse. An unknown is realistically not so bad for us. I couldn't help but crack a smile when I read in the Times that the Miers nomination reflects a president "struggling to avoid premature lame duck status." We're not in January 2004 anymore, Toto.

Oh: and I was, on balance, glad to see the Times article "Abortion Might Outgrow Its Need for Roe v. Wade". Yes, it may have minimized the potentially devastating consequences of a reversal on reproductive rights. But at least it's taking that possibility seriously instead of pretending we aren't faced with it. And it's of course true that we would not see a return to pre-1973 conditions simply because of changes in the available drugs and medical technologies. The article quotes an Arkansas abortion provider who predicts, "Rich women will fly to California; poor women will use Cytotec."