I didn't do it! and some weaseling

Today I learned that there's a blog post out there titled "Miss Molly kills the children." It turns out there's a blogger who uses the name Molly Blythe who posted directions for one kind of abortion back in February, and this other blogger disapproved. I suppose he threw the 'Miss' in front of the young feminist Molly's name just to annoy her, should she ever come across that particular post, so dragging me into it was accidental. The important thing to learn here is that if you post something like abortion directions, you greatly increase your readership.

As long as we're already sort of on the kind of topic I wouldn't normally touch, I found a huge typo in this article about the declining number of rapes reported in this country. It said the spike in rapes in 1992 was 0.4 per 1000 (that's the current low) instead of 2.4 per 1000. I guess I can't disapprove too much if the confusion makes people actually look at a graph, but, based on normally-intelligent fellow students' reactions to graphs in my college economics class, it probably won't help them much.

See how I totally avoided thinking about abortion or rape (even if it's decreasing) by making snide little observations about side issues? I'm going to apply that same approach to this Reuters article about abortion and the Supreme Court.

I get that there are two cases to be decided, and one is from California where the law may have been "too vague and [may have] imposed a burden on women." You may ask about this burden, as I did, and here is the explanation:

The California case involved additional issues on whether the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to seek an abortion and whether it is unconstitutionally vague.

I thought I understood that sentence about the third time I read it, but now I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually say anything. In fact, I believe it places an undue burden on my sometimes-impaired logic skills, so since I'm disabled, that's discrimination. I should sue.