The following summarizes selected women"s health-related blog entries. ~ "Just Released: Gains and Losses for Women in 2008-09 Supreme Court Decisions," National Women"s Law Center"s "Womenstake": The Supreme Court"s 2008-2009 term, which concluded Monday, included "several crucial decisions that demonstrate the impact of the court on women"s lives," according to the blog post, which summarizes a new analysis from NWLC on the cases. For example, the blog post says that the rulings in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee and Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., increased employees" protections against discrimination in the workplace. However, the rulings in Ricci v. DeStetano -- which overturned an appellate court"s anti-discrimination ruling -- and AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen -- which "permitted AT&T to pay women lower pension benefits for the rest of their lives" -- were "not as positive," the blog entry says. NWLC Co-President Marcia Greenberger said that the Supreme Court "ignored the realities of the workplace and the intent of Congress and ruled against female workers" in AT&T v. Hulteen. Greenberger also said that such cases "underscore why every seat on the Supreme Court is of paramount importance to women," adding that it is "absolutely critical" that Supreme Court nominees have "a strong commitment to upholding and enforcing women"s basic legal rights and protections" ("Womenstake," National Women"s Law Center, 6/29).~ "Waldman and Saletan: Oh What a Fine Bromance!" Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: In a recent bloggingheads.tv chat on "common ground" in the abortion-rights debate, Slate columnist Will Saletan and Beliefnet Editor-in-Chief Steve Waldman "spent as much time as possible complimenting each other"s work" and "as little as possible on any real substance regarding reproductive health and choice issues," Jacobson writes. It is "clear that the Obama administration"s stated intention to create "a common ground platform"" on abortion rights has become "a full employment program for both Waldman and Saletan," she writes. Jacobson continues, "So perhaps the most striking thing about the conversation was that, in the end, they both effectively concluded that the common ground enterprise was a "just for show" political strategy," and that the "real strategies" necessary to reduce the need for abortion "are the very prevention programs least likely to be supported by the far right. (Revelation!)." She adds, "However, they came to this conclusion through the same faux-expert uninformed arguments that characterize their columns." During the "Will-interviews-Steve format," Saletan "revealed once again that there is no core philosophy or framework underlying his ever-shifting positions on choice and abortion," according to Jacobson. She adds that "Waldman, for his part, several times underscored what is clear from reading his work": that he "just throws things "out there" without considered thought" about what "might be good versus bad data, not understanding how to read evidence," and "oblivious or uncaring about the effects his free-form moralistic misinformation and opinions might actually have on an already polarized debate." According to Jacobson, "Public policies affecting sexual and reproductive health issues" should be "based first and foremost on public health and on promoting individual rights balanced by individual responsibilities," but "as anyone living on Planet Earth knows, sex and reproduction have become the front in a war waged by ultra-conservative religious and political forces for which Waldman serves as a paid flacky." She continues, "In fact, Waldman himself stated during the program: "I have a corporate interest in injecting religion into every debate."" Jacobson states, "Reading and watching this duo is like buying the OK! magazine version of the culture wars at the grocery store; they put whatever sells on the front cover, no matter the truth or consequences.