At a Barack Obama rally in Northfield, Minnesota, actress Scarlett Johansson said, "I don't want to say nasty things about Hillary Clinton. I think she has a lot of good intentions." But the Lost in Translation star said she thought Obama would bring a different capable woman into the presidency.

"When we elect Barack Obama to the White House, we will have an amazing woman in the White House: Michelle Obama," said Johansson, drawing applause at the Carleton College rally.

Johansson said she'd been "star-struck" the first time she'd met Sen. Obama, and the first words she'd said to him were, "Hi, senator, I love your wife, it's so nice to meet you."

She said the next time they met, Obama told her, "I told my wife you love her." She groaned, and jokingly said, "Oh, good, you remember that dorky thing I said."

On Tuesday, the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal, Pawlenty was too busy to attend. He was in Chaska speaking at the monthly meeting of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce. Now, Chambers of Commerce are an important constituency of the Republican party, and it's understandable that Pawlenty would want to talk to them. But the March for Life is the largest annual event for the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, an organization certainly more important to the GOP than the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce.

So why was Pawlenty missing from the event? Certainly, it wasn't because no accommodation could be made to ensure the governor could get to both events. After all, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., was able to both speak to the March for Life in St. Paul and make it back to Washington to deliver a rambling anti-abortion address on the floor of the House of Representatives. Certainly, arrangements could have been made to get Pawlenty from Chaska to St. Paul. And yet only Pawlenty's disembodied voice was there to address the anti-abortion faithful, exhorting them to "Stay together, stay active, stay committed and stay hopeful," even as he was apart from them.

Pawlenty's absence might be more understandable when put into context. If conservative pundit Eleanor Clift is to be believed, Pawlenty is at the top of the list for the penultimate slot on the GOP ticket, "whoever gets the nomination." Granted, Clift identified Pawlenty as being from Wisconsin, and more than a few DFLers would be happy to send him there. But Clift's musings are not exactly novel. Pawlenty has long been identified as a potential running mate, especially should Arizona Sen. John McCain win the GOP's nomination. And Pawlenty has always had an eye on his political future.

Yet politicians with aspirations for national office simply do not mix with pro-life crazies. Not in public.

It sounds a bit blunt when put like that, but it's true. While Republicans are happy to take the votes, time and effort of anti-abortion activists, most would rather be anywhere but at a large pro-life demonstration. Since 1981, when President Reagan first made a telephone call to the national March for Life, to this Tuesday, when President Bush did, no Republican president has attended a March for Life event in person. This year, neither did any of the leading Republican candidates. Mike Huckabee campaigned in Georgia, John McCain sent a letter and Mitt Romney issued a press release, but none could be bothered to actually address his anti-abortion allies in person.

Kevin Drum, a liberal blogger for The Washington Monthly, asked the rhetorical question: "Why [has the anti-abortion movement] allowed so many presidents and presidential nominees since then to thumb their noses at them this way? They're a serious and well-established part of the GOP coalition, after all. Why allow politicians to get away with being evidently embarrassed to be photographed in their presence?"

It's a good question, one with no easy answer. They assume, I suppose, that it's better to have allies who are embarrassed by you than no allies at all. Still, it's remarkable how those with national aspirations bypass their events. And how candidates who develop national aspirations suddenly find themselves with unbreakable commitments a half-hour away.

"It's way too early to know if this is the start of a new trend," said Stephanie Ventura, head of the Reproductive Statistics Branch at CDC, in a statement. "But given the long-term progress we've witnessed, this change is notable."

While still far lower than the 62 per 1,000 rate that held in 1991, the increase startled researchers and added fuel to the ongoing debate over how best to educate the nation's youth about sex and sexuality.

"Teenagers need to know how to protect themselves against unintended pregnancy and HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections," said Kathi Di Nicola, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. In a statement given to Minnesota Monitor, Di Nicola said that teens "need the right information to make responsible, healthy decisions. We have a preventable public health problem in this country - at last count an estimated 750,000 American teens will become pregnant this year and nearly four million will contract a sexually transmitted infection. Honest, accurate sexuality education is part of a common sense solution to a serious issue."

But Leslee Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, disagreed. "The CDC, big Pharma and others should take responsibility [for] the teen pregnancy numbers," she said, in a statement given to Minnesota Monitor. "The CDC has promoted and aligned themselves with the contraceptive only message; wrapping teen pregnancies in latex, has failed and is unscientific. America's teens are failing at the contraceptive message; condoms don't work."

Unruh added, "The fault of teen pregnancy lays in the laps of 'absti-phobics,' those who fear abstinence education. It's time to teach responsibility regarding sexual behavior instead of the irresponsible, dangerous message of the failed condom contraceptive message. Abstinence until marriage doesn't happen by chance, it happens by choice."

The rise in birth rates comes at an inconvenient time for the abstinence-only community. Over $1 billion has been spent on abstinence-only education, but the federal programs that have funded it have been under fire from Democrats, many of whom are skeptical of an approach that only pushes abstinence. In a report by the Associated Press, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., stated that she had doubts about continuing the funding. "Congress needs to stop knee-jerk approving abstinence-only funding when it's clear it's not working," she said.

On Broadsheet, Salon writer Carol Lloyd also recently examined whether abstinence-only programs can take the blame for the increase in teen births.

"Bridging the political divide doesn't mean bringing everyone over to your side. It means we have to meet in the middle," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, in a presentation Wednesday at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute.

Stoesz said that the experience of abortion rights activists in fighting South Dakota's ban on abortion gave pro-choice forces a new avenue to advance their cause.

"The campaign [in South Dakota] was not about converting each other," she said, "but about having a conversation with the other side."

Litigation "Paternalistic"

Stoesz recounted the battle in 2006 over a sweeping abortion ban passed by the South Dakota legislature. She said the ban, which included exceptions only to save the life of a pregnant woman, was meant to bring about a court challenge. Its supporters hoped it might provide a vehicle for finally getting the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark decision that established a woman's right to make private decisions about ending or continuing a pregnancy.

"It's important to note that Governor [Mike] Rounds vetoed this bill in 2005 because he did not think the Supreme Court would uphold the ban," said Stoesz, adding that by 2006, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court had moved to a more anti-abortion stance.

"There was an assumption by the state that Planned Parenthood would litigate," said Stoesz. But she said that activists on the ground convinced Planned Parenthood to take their case to the voters instead.

"The day the ban was passed, even before it was signed, our phones began to ring in a way they never had before," Stoesz said. "People came forward and said, 'We do not want you to litigate the ban. We want the opportunity to override it.'"

Pro-choice activists used South Dakota's initiative and referendum system to put the measure to a vote, describing the bill's draconian ban as "extreme."

But Stoesz said that foes of the ban succeeded because they tried to unite, instead of dividing.

"As outraged as people were by their perceptions about what the legislature had done, this election was not about anger," she said.

Stoesz said it was important for pro-choice activists to acknowledge that abortion is a wrenching issue for many. "We believed that the people in South Dakota, while morally ambivalent about abortion, did not want it banned." Stoesz cited a number of ban opponents who considered themselves "pro-life and pro-choice," including one couple who shared their story after being forced to selectively reduce a twin when the pregnancy developed complications.

Stoesz said that it was "ethically wrong" to go straight to litigation, saying, "It can be very paternalistic.

"It's a mistake to do things the way we've been doing," she said. "It does nothing to change the culture."

Stoesz said that because pro-choice activists took their case to the citizens of South Dakota, "People in that state now see and can publicly talk about abortion in shades of gray, rather than in shades of black and white. The conversation was difficult, it was painful, I do not want to go through it again anytime soon, but ultimately, we learned a lot from it."

"There Ought to Be a Coming Together"

Stoesz was joined after her address by Steve Sviggum, the commissioner of Labor and Industry, a former Republican leader in the Minnesota Legislature and a long-time abortion opponent. Sviggum joked, "I put myself in some jeopardy this evening, being one of the 'nonbelievers,' as Sarah calls me."

Sviggum agreed that it was better to seek balance than to harden battle lines. "There is room, and there ought to be a coming together on a lot of issues in this country, this being one of them."

Sviggum added, "It's a tough thing to do at times. When Senator [Roger] Moe and I were on forums together back when he was the Democratic leader in the Senate, we tried to outdo each other in using the words 'balanced' and 'responsible.' "

Sviggum did congratulate Stoesz for victory in South Dakota, saying, "You have to give credit to another side that wins the day on an important issue," and conceded that the sweeping nature of the South Dakota ban hurt its chances with the voters.

Noting that pro-choice activists had called the measure "extreme," Sviggum said, "The definition was there and it stuck, and maybe rightfully so, when you consider no exception for rape, and for health, and only the life exception."

But Sviggum said he doubted Planned Parenthood would be willing to go back to the people in 2008.

"If the legislature was to pass a bill...to allow for the exceptions of life, health of the mother, I wonder what Planned Parenthood's reaction would be?"

Some Distance Remains

Star Tribune writer columnist and editorial writer Lori Sturdevant moderated a brief question-and-answer session with both Sviggum and Stoesz. "What do you say to activists who believe that there is a tension between things that are constitutionally protected versus those protected by a simple majority?" she asked Stoesz.

"What we did served to preserve that constitutional right," said Stoesz, arguing that the Supreme Court might have upheld the South Dakota ban. "We have seen a number of rulings in the past four years that have made us wonder" about the court's current position on abortion, Stoesz added, saying that the vote in South Dakota had "ratified" the right to abortion.

Asked if South Dakota's experience provided a model for other states, Sviggum said, "I think it's true, as Sarah says, that the courts are in a state of change on this issue. At the end of the day, the citizens get it right."

Stoesz allowed that the states may have found a way to legislate responsibly had the Supreme Court not ruled as it did in Roe vs. Wade, and Sviggum took the opportunity to advance what he thought was a reasonable compromise.

"They would have come together to say reasonably, come together for life of the mother, health of the mother, but not partial-birth or for birth control."

When Sviggum suggested that Planned Parenthood should agree to that, Stoesz politely declined.

Sviggum argued that Planned Parenthood is likely to turn to litigation immediately in 2008 if, as expected, the South Dakota Legislature tries again with a less-sweeping ban. But Stoesz disagreed.

"I think the strategy would have been different in 2006, but this election has been transformative," Stoesz said. "I think that we will probably see a ban coming forward in South Dakota, but we will argue this on very different terms."

Still, Stoesz did not foreclose on the possibility of litigation to defend abortion rights.

"We can't close the door on litigation forever and ever," she said.

And that, ultimately, is the template that advocates of abortion rights need to follow. The South Dakota experience was an important and transformative experience for the pro-choice movement. Winning a rejection on an abortion ban in one of the most anti-abortion states in the union proved that citizens would not back an outright prohibition on the practice.

But what has not been proven is that a softer abortion ban would not pass in some states, including South Dakota. One would expect anti-abortion forces to be smarter in 2008, to pass the sort of bill Sviggum recommended, one with more exceptions, but one that is still draconian. Stoesz makes a good case to be made that pro-choice activists should first contest such a ban at the ballot box. But at the same time, the Supreme Court has determined that abortion is a constitutional right, and pro-choice activists cannot be afraid to use the courts when the ballot breaks down. After all, the courts are part of the American government too.