I have a new article up at Religion Dispatches.  The editors summarized it this way:  

 The principle of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted federal funds from paying for abortion, is now seen as an acceptable, “abortion-neutral” position for the pro-choice party. How did the most significant anti-abortion legislation in history become a moderate compromise?

Gloria Feldt responded at Not Under The Bus: 

I’m appalled that the president, Congress, pro-choice organizations, and as a result the media are calling the current Hyde amendment restrictions on abortion coverage an acceptable compromise.

Governor Deval Patrick was against them before he was for them. Same goes for much of the Democratic Party establishment.

But last year, a proposal for three resort casinos was defeated by a 2-1 margin in the legislature, thanks in part to an anti-casino Speaker of the House. This year there is a new Speaker and the conventional wisdom has it that casinos are all but a done deal. But as is too often the case, the CW may be an oxymoron.

Massachusetts has a long history of beating back the casino industry. And this year may be no different. Opponents in MA and around the country now refer to it as “predatory gambling” because the entire business is designed to find and hook prospective gambling addicts, which are the core of the business. Everything else, an expert I quoted in an article last year, “is bells and whistles.” Both organized gaming and its opponents, have changed.

Continued at Daily Kos…