First, Ann from Feministing notes that arguments about population control can be related to racist talking points:

Now, I do understand that rapid population growth can exacerbate the impact of climate change. And I'm all for meeting global family planning needs. But linking these goals is problematic. I know the LSE report contains a prominent caveat that this is about non-coercive family planning, but using fears about climate change as a way to expand contraceptive use is eerily reminiscent of "population control" policies, some of which were coercive and all of which were rooted in the idea that certain people should be having fewer babies. (For some examples of the historically problematic use of "population control," check out this report from Hampshire College.) I wonder whether liberals who are favorably linking to the LSE research are aware of how close its rhetoric is to racist talking points about population. Some taboos exist for a reason.

And later in the same essay:

We all understand that empowering women to determine their own reproductive fates leads to other benefits -- economic, societal, and yes, environmental. But given the history of population policy, to me the only acceptable international family planning policy is one that is motivated by increasing the empowerment and choices for women. Full stop. When we try to intervene in women's reproductive lives for any other reason, the potential for abuse is just too high.

At CathNews, Dermot Grenham questions the argument over population control and its absorbtion of the popular issues of the day to justify its reasoning:

The population and development debate has now moved on to the effect of demographic growth on the environment and, in particular, to the role of human beings as emitters of greenhouse gases and the effect this will have on the world's climate. This is, though, no more than a change of tactics, as the same argument that humans have the ability to solve the problems posed by climate change, holds good here as well.

Dermot is right to be suspicious of the research given its history, and Ann is especially right in suggesting that the only acceptable family planning policies involve respect and empowerment for women.

One has to admire Boehner's ability to tie together hot-button issues
(Abortion! Higher taxes!) in the name of his political opportunism. The scary
thing is, his misinformation is starting to trickle down. The Scranton Times-Tribune reported last Wednesday about a flyer included in a
church bulletin at the Honesdale Roman Catholic Church in Scranton. This flier
included the following:

"The Bill will also force taxpayers to pay for abortion on
demand." And "The bill establishes mandatory ‘end of life counseling' for those
age [sic] 65 and older that we suspect will promote assisted suicide and
euthanasia..."

But this is all flat-out wrong. It's shrill fear mongering.
The Op-Ed in the Boston Globe responds to the misinformation:

"The bills filed in various congressional committees are
officially neutral on the question, neither requiring nor forbidding private
insurance plans to offer abortion services. Isn't that what the noisy critics
of a "government takeover'' of health care supposedly want: A free-market
system that lets the consumer decide?

Finding common ground on abortion is as elusive as ever, but
the House bill makes a good stab at it with a provision that every region in
the country must offer insurance plans that cover abortion and plans that
don't. That way, there is a choice for consumers who feel strongly about the
issue."

All of these scare tactics must be responded to quickly and
succinctly, like above; it's quite possible health care reform could otherwise
be swift boated.

The threats made against Carhart have become so intimidating that one of his employees, Vanessa Klinetobe, has petitioned for police protection. Klinetobe claims in her petition:

"[Larry Donlan, of Rescue the Heartland], once followed her home from work in 2006; he sent a letter to her home demanding that she resign or face protests near her Bellevue house; and he recently shouted outside the clinic: ‘Vanessa, you are next. We plan to exploit you.'"

Donlan denies doing anything wrong, but admitted to following Klinetobe in his red van, saying it was only to find out where she lived.

"A protection order is used to protect someone from real violence," Donlan said, "not to protect someone against First Amendment-protected actions."

Teaming up with Operation Rescue - which had contact with Dr. George Tiller's murderer, Scott Roeder - could be considered enough of a reason for concern, in addition to all of Donlan's creepy tactics.

Back in April, the Department of Homeland Security warned about a rise in right-wing extremism, saying that the combination of news of the recession, an African American president, and possible firearm restrictions might foster this rise. Even worse:

"The report also suggests that returning veterans are attractive recruits for right-wing groups looking for ‘combat skills and experience' so as to boost their ‘violent capabilities.' It adds that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities ‘could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.'"

Earlier today, a man was walking around with a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle strapped around his back and a pistol on his hip, just outside of Obama's town hall meeting in Arizona. Last week, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, another man had a pistol strapped to his leg, holding a sign that said, "It is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty."  This is a reference to the Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." There was a similar reference on Timothy McVeigh's T-shirt on the day of his arrest.

Glenn Beck, in a recent broadcast, went so far as to discourage his viewers from committing acts of violence as it would "ruin everything," his address delivered in an even, somber tone quite different than normal. Gawker asked the right questions:

"One can't help but wonder, "What the hell provoked this?" Was it a demand from the higher-ups at Fox News, and do they know something that we don't about how close certain segments of the right-wing are to acting out violently? Remember when Shep Smith talked about the crazy-ass emails the staff at Fox get from unhinged right-wingers? Could this be tied to that?"

This isn't all speculative fear-mongering: we've already had three attacks. Richard Poplawski, fearing rumors of gun control, shot and killed three police officers in Pittsburgh. James von Brunn, a white supremacist, walked into the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and opened fire and killed a security guard before being wounded by other guards' gunfire. Scott Roeder murdered Dr. George Tiller while Tiller was attending a church service in Wichita.

It may be that there's legitimate, peaceful dissent occuring and that the extremists are just a small group of misguided and dangerous people who've hijacked our attention; the problem is, the right-wing political pundits' rhetoric is becoming increasingly vitriolic, and it's increasingly difficult to distinguish between what the pundits say and the motives behind the domestic terrorism we've already witnessed. More than that, the pundits are giving a mainstream voice for insane, fringe beliefs. We've already witnessed violence, inspired if not encouraged by the right-wing demagogues, and something must be done before we see more. We've moved beyond righteous indignation at others' obscure political beliefs, to a point where people's lives are at stake.

One solution is to force the pundits who stir up the anger to ease up on their rhetoric. Not through censorship, but with cold capitalism: get advertisers to pull out of extremist shows. This might seem impossible, but twenty companies (including Wal-Mart, CVS, and Best Buy) have already pulled their advertisements from Glenn Beck's show mainly because of a campaign by ColorOfChange.org. At the very least, the extremist broadcasts can be pushed back to the fringe, where they belong.

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station.

One can't help but be bemused; if I remember correctly, Obama ran on a platform of change, so at the very least shouldn't he be reevaluating the validity of our country's many traditions (in this case, the Hyde Amendment)? And at what point was breaking tradition ever a bad thing? Obama himself broke many traditions by becoming the first African American President, and that was only good news.

But then again, Obama is a smart politician; it looks like it'll be difficult enough for him to get his health care reform passed, and saying it will fund abortions will just give right wing extremists fuel to combat the reform. Avoiding specific incendiary issues and appealing to "tradition" is a good strategy to push the broad idea of reform through. The end of Obama's quote, where he says that we should "not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station" might suggest that the funding is a possibility, but only after the larger battle of health care reform is won.