When I wrote my angry rant yesterday, I had been hoping that Slate's Dahlia Lithwick would have written something about the case involving prosecutors and absolute immunity.  Now she has.  I'll just give you her takeaway line:

The question for the court today is whether it is ultimately more worried about chilling prosecutors who want to introduce possibly fabricated evidence or giving them good reason—and the absolute freedom—to do so.

Meanwhile, also in Slate, Tim Noah takes up the issue of pro-life House Democrats trying to derail health reform.  I like this part:

Granted, money is fungible. Federal money that a private health insurance plan doesn't spend on abortions frees up nonfederal money that it does. But as Time's Amy Sullivan recently noted, not even Focus on Family meets Stupak's exacting standard. Principal, the health insurer for the Christian-right group's employees, covers abortions. "Even if the specific plan Focus uses for its employees doesn't include abortion coverage—and I'm assuming it doesn't—the organization and its employees still pay premiums to a company that funds abortions," Sullivan wrote. "If health reform proposals have a fungibility problem, then Focus does as well."