What is more appropriate reading for Labor Day weekend than a collection of excerpts from the battle over labor, the pregnancy sort, that is. The Abortion Rights Controversy in America: A Legal Reader, edited by N.E.H. Hill et. al.
A Slate frayster sees the abortion issue through a Thirteenth Amendment lens, sees it as rather obvious really (not a big fan of originalism, so original understandings of "labor" per that amendment is not damning), since it deals with a sort of forced labor. This surely is an important part of the issue, though in that respect, I also would point to the importance of control over fertility and family life as an aspect of liberty. In effect, though the amendment per se is rarely referenced, this is really how the right to choose an abortion is currently framed in the courts. I sort of see it as rather obvious really.
The book has excerpts from the usual suspects. Likewise, it has some additional stuff, including from 19th and early 20th Century birth control debates, that is particularly interesting. One federal appellate ruling noted in passing that obviously the federal government cannot regulate abortion directly; the issue there was postal regulations. It also inferred a "life" exception, since it would be unreasonable (without specific notice) not to do so.
A later lower court ruling went further and inferred a "health" exception -- birth control devices can be sent through the mails for health reasons, which are not necessary the same thing as for "immoral" uses ala contraception generally. Finally, there is an excerpt from Justice Douglas' notes on the conferences held respecting Roe and Doe. News to me that this was even available to the public. Pretty good overall, though maybe a bit more on the parental notification/consent issue would have been useful. This is as important as the blockade issue -- which received its own section.
Of course, baseball is an important part of Labor Day Weekend. Good games yesterday. Atlanta/Philly has a doubleheader that appears to have been a good watch, looking at the box score. David Rasner, a rookie that was hurt most of the year [each game, the radio analyst -- Susan Waldman -- always lists injuries, and he was always tacked on in a sort of "and, yeah ..."], shined in a spot start role arising from a recent rainout.
The Mets was destined to lose, did, but did so with a bit of style. Kansas City again burnt their Central Division competition, this time again making sure Chicago (recently, they did the same to the Twins) did not gain ground on Detroit -- a team sort of limping to a division leading finish, though they have been hovering around five games ahead for awhile now.
The Astros, at home, lost the first two with the back-end of their rotation though both was close enough that Wagner sweated a bit. In fact, on Saturday, Beltran hurt his knee saving the day. The 'stros had Oswalt, the Mets El Duque just back from some downtown, and three key Mets bats did not play. It turned out to be one more in the Mets line of one hit away from no-hitter games (of which, they have none). They only had one other quite like this -- a 2-1 loss.
Not quite the time when the Yanks, back in their crummy days, lost a no-hitter. And, again, it was done with three of the Mets best hitters out of the line-up (Beltran, Lo Duca, Wright). It underlines why Houston will probably not make it to the Wild Card Gold -- no offense. The one hit did not factor into the scoring though a hit batter did. That loaded the bases for a suicide squeeze. The other run came via a walk, stolen base, and two sacrifices.
Anyway, the Phillies lost their second game ... so the Mets' magic number dropped anyway. Again, not a bad way to go. Today, the Mets play the Braves, who are actually still alive (darn horror movie monster) in the Wild Card race (Phillies/Marlins too, the latter amazingly given their "less than some single players are getting" team payroll, both ahead of them). The Mets swept them the last time -- basically putting a nail in the "not this year, division-wise, guys" coffin, but "Larry" and company still leave a bad taste in many Mets fans' mouths. This is so even if some now can be patronizing about them.
Finally, time home does not only include barbecues and ball games, but obviously more television time generally. So, let me toss in a House reference. What better to rent from Blockbuster than a collection of a show repeated each week on USA? Hugh Laurie plays the lead character, a genius misanthropic doctor whose team tackles particularly tough cases at a NJ teaching hospital (neat locale).
Interestingly, Laurie -- who plays an American -- was previously best known for playing a cheerful boob on a British TV. series. Though it might have helped his accent, the character also is not that foreshadowed by his American role as the (human) husband in the Stuart Little (mouse) movies. Sure, he played other more serious roles, but one wonders why he was chosen.
Well, sure, because he's great at it. Duh. This is why he wasn't nominated for an Emmy though had a cameo in the opening bit on the awards show. Differential diagnosis?