Wow... fifty people... and a link from How Appealing. That's cool. And all thanks to William's, you know, having thoughts and all that.

It's all almost enough to make me wish I had opinions.

Hooray!

Jonathan is back in action. And sorely needed. Fifty people came to see us today, thanks to How Appealing.

Typing in "Baudes blog" (with quotes) brings the suggestion that perhaps you mean "Bau des blog."

This does not turn up any results either.

----

Searching for one's last name is always an adventure. The search 'Baude blog' (without quotes) gets William's website first, and then the site www.legalmind.org, which is the blog of someone who - I'm assuming - has many thoughts on... legal... things. This includes the thought that the idea of a national license to practice law is a good one (which Dad discussed in his Fuchs lecture).

The rest of the results are all either references to Baudes we don't know or are those sites that Google always turns up that seem to have no purpose other than turning up on Google.

Google:

How Appealing reports that it has become the number one hit for the word "appealing", and the number 19 hit for the word "how".

I have a deep interest in googlestats, so here are a few more.

The Volokhs are, not surprisingly, the number one hit for "volokh" but also the number two hit for "conspiracy", and the number three hit for "law blog" (lawblog is the first, of course, although "bloglaw" turns up instapundit as the first hit).

How Appealing is also the 19th hit for "appellate".

Andrew Sullivan is the 6th hit for "political blog."

Finally, Instapundit is the number one hit not only for "tennessee blog" and "pundit blog" and of course "instapundit" but it is also the number one hit for "reynolds", and even "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=glenn"!

Sadly, we are not on Google at all.

Oh. And am I the only person who wishes Google would just buy the name www.googol.com ? Maybe it's a math-major thing.

Feminism:

For those of you at the University of Chicago or thereabouts, I'll be at a panel Wednesday evening answering the question "What is Feminism?" I'm to give the Libertarian perspective (or perhaps the libertarian perspective; unclear), and open to suggestions. At the moment I'm relying mostly on J.S.Mill's subjection of women, plus my own feelings about abortion rights.

It will be Wednesday Feb. 5th, 6:30 P.M., in Harper 130.

More on License Plates:

Email has been pouring in from the ACLU listserv here at the University of Chicago, with the following interesting results:

All but one response has been solidly behind the ACLU's suit to stop the Virginia legislature from handing out "Choose Life" license plates to those who want them. (Of course, the suit hasn't been filed yet since the bill hasn't been passed, so this is all semi-hypothetical).

The most interesting argument I've heard yet for what's wrong with Virginia's position (and an argument that differentiates the "choose life" plates from Virginia's myriad of other political plates) is that this plate explicitly counsels against the exercise of a constitutional right.

This is an interesting political argument, although I don't think it's very compelling legally. Rust v. Sullivan, for example, held that the Federal Government can take a position on abortion, and it seems like states ought to have even greater liberties to do so. A later case, called Legal Services v. Velazquez has muddied the doctrinal waters a great deal, but I doubt it's enough. In general, the government can't use its subsidy power "manipulatively" but it can express opinions during controversy, which it does all the time.

The political, rather than the legal, argument is interesting, as I said, but I still don't think that it's compelling. The plate explicitly calls for people to "choose" life, not to coerce it, so it can't be said that the legislature is trying to coerce people out of exercising their constitutional rights. Finally, I would consider Justice Kennedy's words from Hill v. Colorado:

The Court now strikes at the heart of the reasoned, careful balance I had believed was the basis for the joint opinion in Casey. The vital principle of the opinion was that in defined instances the woman’s decision whether to abort her child was in its essence a moral one, a choice the State could not dictate. Foreclosed from using the machinery of government to ban abortions in early term, those who oppose it are remitted to debate the issue in its moral dimensions. In a cruel way, the Court today turns its back on that balance.

The Things You Learn:

Maybe I'm behind the curve. Twelve U.S. States have no abortions. This is not because Roe v. Wade has failed, but simply because nobody in the state is willing to provide them. I wonder if that's a function of low demand or intimidation (or both). Anybody know which twelve states they are?


UPDATE: Amanda Butler has emailed me to say that she finds Planned Parenthood affiliates in every state except Mississippi and North Dakota. My fact-checkers are hard at work now. If you have any information, please write me.


UPDATE REDUX:
Looks like this just isn't true at all. Looks like every state has abortion providers. Granted, North Dakota only has two, but two is a lot more than zero.