Two small but telling examples of Ramesh Ponnuru's intellectual slipperiness. Here's his convoluted attempt to explain why he won't be explicit on how banning all abortions for all reasons will actually be enforced. There is one huge reason: if he did, the debate would instantly enter territory he wants to avoid: the practical impact on women, doctors, families, and individual freedom. Jon Rauch is a fair reviewer, and his point is a fair one. Ponnuru's fundamental objective, of course, is advancing Republican power. Being explicit about the implications of the GOP's support for a total ban on all abortion would not be politically prudent. On a minor note, Ponnuru says my criticism of Mark Steyn's review of my book was hypocritical. Didn't I criticize Ponnuru's book without reading it? Au contraire. See the original post for yourself. I criticized the title and the Coulter cover-blurb - not the contents, which I said I hadn't read and might even, in part, agree with.