In Tuesday's New York Times online edition, the paper's neo-neo-con columnist Ross Douthat laid out a sprawling argument that seemed to conclude that pro-choice activists and the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling were responsible for violence against women's healthcare providers, including the murder of Dr. George Tiller last week.

"If anything, by enshrining a near-absolute right to abortion in the Constitution, the pro-choice side has ensured that the hard cases are more controversial than they otherwise would be," wrote Douthat, who argued that

One reason there's so much fierce argument about the latest of late-term abortions--Should there be a health exemption? A fetal deformity exemption? How broad should those exemptions be? --is that Americans aren't permitted to debate anything else.

Douthat elaborated on what seemed to be a plan for conciliation: "If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically," because "arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester--as many advanced democracies already do--would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions."

It is true that if you take away constitutional protections, people opposed to those protections will be happier. For instance, those rightists who called for jailing reporters who reported secret aspects of the Bush White House's warrantless wiretapping and black sites programs would probably be happier if the First Amendment were suspended to make such jailing possible. But what about the Constitution? And what about those who lost their protections? One begins to sense that Douthat's plan for reconciliation would only make one side happier.

It's also worth noting that, as much as Douthat may think they are all powerful,  pro-choice advocates are incapable of making concessions regarding the Constitution. Roe was "enshrined " by the U.S. Supreme Court, which will also be in charge of future decisions regarding its disposition.

But just when you thought Douthat's plan might be somewhat was lopsided, he explains how there really is something in it for the pro-choice people:

The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases--and a political debate, God willing, unmarred by crimes like George Tiller’s murder.

As Village Voice blogger Roy Edroso summed up the Times columnist's reconciliation plan, “So, see, Douthat gets the end of abortion on demand, and you heathens get killed less often by right-wing nuts; he's meeting you halfway.”

Megan, a blogger at Jezebel.com, put it slightly differently: “To sum up: If we just roll over, accept the end of abortion access and let them teach us about respect for human life, they won't kill any more abortion providers. Good to know whose hands Douthat thinks Tiller's blood is really on.”

Charlie Savage did some good reporting on the Bush signing statements, but  his front-page story in today's New York Times on reproductive rights groups' reaction to Sotomayor is way off course. His lead explains that abortion rights advocates are worried about Sotomayor, because "when she has written opinions that touched tangentially on abortion disputes, she has reached outcomes in some cases that were favorable to abortion opponents."

OK, so what are those opinions? Here's what he names: She ruled in favor of the Bush administration's reinstatement of the global gag rule; she ruled that anti-abortion protesters could take police to court for allegedly using excessive force to break up one of their demonstrations; and she's ruled in a few cases in favor of Chinese refugees seeking asylum because of China's forced abortion policies.

Now, who's uneasy about these? I've looked around, and the only one cited by any reproductive rights groups I've seen is the first--it was a case brought by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy (now the Center for Reproductive Rights)--though I've also seen other reproductive rights advocates say it was a narrow ruling based pretty clearly on precedent and not something that would threaten Roe. The second one I haven't seen mentioned --it would seem to be about abusive police conduct rather than reproductive rights, anyway, so it's not really clear why it should be included here.

But the third category is just absurd. Those are pro-reproductive rights rulings that no reproductive rights group I've heard of is protesting (and it would be frankly bizarre and troubling if they were). He even quotes an anti-choice activist saying basically as much, though in a much more pejorative way: "even 'the most radical feminist' would object to forcing women to abort wanted pregnancies."

So why were those seemingly unrelated cases included in the piece? It seems Savage got most of the material for this article--an article about reproductive rights groups' reactions to Sotomayor, remember--from a religious anti-choice group's website. And as far as one can tell from reading the article, the only people he actually spoke to were two anti-choice advocates. That's a mighty odd way to write about reproductive rights backers' feelings on the subject. Since part of the way the anti-choice movement works to chip away support of reproductive rights is to falsely frame advocates as "pro-abortion," Savage plays right into their hands, making that association for them on the front page of the New York Times.

It does seem that some reproductive rights groups are concerned about Sotomayor's position on Roe v. Wade, since that hasn't been spelled out yet. If you're going to write about that, here's a much more logical (and responsible) way to do it--talking to reproductive rights groups in order to frame your story about what their concerns are, rather than using their opponents' talking points to conjure up false arguments.