As I write in my story, even when you arrive at the “common ground” of abortion politics, there are complex fault lines to navigate. The pro-life movement is not giving up their fight to overturn Roe v. Wade - nor does my story suggest that they should. There are, however, some activists and legislators pursuing additional strategies, including the abortion reduction legislation that I explore in this story. One of the complexities to navigate here is language: what defines an 'abortion reduction' strategy? Restricting access to clinics that provide abortion has been one way the pro-life movement has attempted to reduce abortion in the United States.

Now, some pro-life legislators and activists are considering a different definition: reducing the need for abortion through socioeconomic supports. The Support Pregnant Women Act is a good example of this. The legislation aims to reduce abortion through, among other provisions, better Medicaid assistance and more resources for parenting students. It has received support from many legislators with strong pro-life records, including Chris Smith (R-NJ) who spoke at the March for Life I attended. The pro-life leaders I spoke with didn't see these strategies as forcing activists to ‘give up the fight to pass legislation,' but another way to pursue a pro-life agenda.

Over at Media Matters for America, they didn't think our apology to Ben Affleck was quite so funny: "Newsweek's making fun of Affleck because he's an actor and everybody knows actors don't know anything about TARP, or journalism," writes Eric Boehlert. "That's why Newsweek didn't even bother to address the serious nature of Affleck's comments."

I'm sorry... but the serious nature of Ben Affleck's comments? Journalism criticism is one thing, but accusing us of actually influencing the economic bailout package? That's ludicrous thinking -- especially for a Cambridge boy like Affleck. But Boehlert continues, adding that one of our esteemed commenters got it right when he said, "I haven't seen much in the way of real, critical, responsible journalism in quite a while, and having some hipster [...] rail against the comments of some celebrity doesn't really break the funk."

It should be known that we probably would have railed on anyone, not just a celebrity, who conflated our King Henry cover with congressional policy. That said, sorry to offend people like New York University Journalism professor Jay Rosen, who took the time to respond to Readback on his twitter feed: "King Henry! Newsweek suggested he's the man for the moment. But Paulson had no idea what to do. Is Newsweek sorry? Uh, no."

Now's the time for a special thanks to New York Magazine for actually, you know, getting the joke. Lest we devote any more ink to Ben Affleck (and making all you other readers jealous), here's this piece from Jessica Pressler that appears in this week's issue. It's short, so here's the entirety:

Ben Affleck, like most Hollywood stars, thinks that magazine covers really matter. Last week, he was criticizing the TARP bill to a reporter for Politico and said that “Newsweek, I feel like, is basically culpable for the first [$350 billion],” referring to the weekly’s “King Henry” cover about Henry Paulson, which he called a “hagiography” as well as “presumptuous.” “I was surprised,” says the story’s author, Daniel Gross, who is, he noted, a fan of Good Will Hunting. “We called [Paulson] King Henry because, at that moment, he was the absolute monarch of the financial system,” he says. “He was the one deciding who should live and who should die.” And in September, it seemed like Paulson was making the right decisions. “Everyone forgets this, but when it happened, people thought it was a great idea to let Lehman Brothers fail.” Paulson’s bungled handling of the TARP happened later. Besides, “would that a Newsweek cover story mattered so much that it could sway policy and move markets,” says Gross. “It’s like blaming Gigli for Hollywood’s problems with DVD residuals.”

Who knew that we could count Ben Affleck as one of our esteemed readers? At Tuesday's Huffington Post Ball, he even took the time to mention us to Politico's Michael Calderone.In referencing the financial bailout, Affleck says: "Newsweek, I feellike, is basically culpable for the first [$350 billion]. They did likethis hagiography on Paulson.Did you read that?" Big words! He goes on: "Long and short of it is,Newsweek, in deciding to tell all of America that we all have to putour trust in Henry Paulson, that’s like a mediaocracy," Affleck added."It’s presumptuous and it damaged us in some ways."

Kudos to Ben for catching us in our tracks. We are responsiblefor the bailout. And before we apologize, we thought it'd be nice toadmit all the other problems we've thrust on you this year. Enough withthe posturing, and let's get started. This year, Newsweek wasresponsible for:

1) That whole Hudson plane crash thing. We should have gone with that cover on goose hunting, after all.

2) This awfully cold winter. As you make decisions about your heating bill or your NEWSWEEK subscription, keep this in mind.

3) Michelle Obama's white ball gown. If only our design team had sent along those sketches we promised.

4) Jamie Lynn Spears. Which part, you ask? All of it. (But we had nothing to do with Britney).

5) The crisis in The Congo. Boy, did that get out of control.

6) Global Warming (our Web staff), deforestation (our printers)and the declining interest in the space program (our Mars bureau).

7) That whole Gloucester pregnancy pact. Had we not been behind that, you can be sure we would have got there before Time did.

8) Cyber bullying. We agree: it has to stop. That means you, commenters.

9) Sally Hawkins' shaft from the Oscar Nominations. We regretinfluencing the vote, as it would have looked great if everyone fromour Oscar Roundtable had been nominated.

10) And to you, Ben, sorry about ruining your career as an actor. I hear that MSNBC is looking for a new pundit?

(PS--Paulson is no longer Treasury secretary. But you still made "Gigli.")

In our cover story, "What Michelle Means to Us," (Jan. 8, 2009) Allison Samuels examined Michelle Obama's appeal to black woman as a successful leader -- and a fashion icon: "Michelle looks nothing like the supermodels who rule the catwalks," Allison wrote, sharing her scoop that the first lady was going to be on the cover of Vogue's March issue, "the ultimate affirmation of beauty,” as she writes.

Were Obama to appear on the cover of the fashion tome, she’d only be the third first lady to nab the spot, following Hillary Clinton in 1998. Starting with Eleanor Roosevelt, the fashion tome has always sent a photographer to shoot the president’s wife, but those pictures usually get tucked inside the magazine. So when NEWSWEEK confirmed the shoot for March, fashionistas were aflutter. “Our heart skipped a beat when we read Newsweek’s cover story from last week” wrote the fashion blogger at New York Magazine, impressed that NEWSWEEK got the scoop. To confirm, she excitedly called up Vogue, who immediately deflated her balloon. “That was incorrect,” the spokeswoman told her, “It still hasn’t been specifically determined what we’re going to do.”

All too true: when the March edition debuts later this month, we'll see which starlet replaces the presumptive picture of the president-elect’s wife. . Allison explained that she confirmed her original info from “someone inside Vogue” and that Obama’s camp had confirmed they were working on a spring cover. Somewhere in between, the original plan went awry. But that doesn’t mean it won’t ever happen. Earlier this week, Allison’s story was back on the fashion blogs when Annie Leibovitz, an iconic photographer who shoots for Vogue, stopped by the Obamas’ Hay-Adams hotel room. We’re not sure what Leibovitz was doing there, but we can say – unfortunately – it wasn’t for NEWSWEEK.

From today's New York Post:

"NEWSWEEK gets plaudits for challenging the notion that President-elect Barack Obama will quickly rescind expanded executive powers that Vice President Dick Cheney pushed for during President Bush's so-called war on terror. However, a succession piece focused on Apple's vaunted CEO Steve Jobs fails the legitimacy test by suggesting outrageous potential successors."

Here's the New York Post's assessment this week:

 "Newsweek sets its sights on Gaza this week, with a big piece that lays out a plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The provisions of the plan -- a return to roughly 1967 borders, sharing of Jerusalem, and halting Israeli settlements on the West Bank -- are all familiar points of discussion. Still, we like the fact that they're being put on the table in such high-profile fashion. If there is any hope of solving the crisis, it's going to requite this level of attention from the US, and it can't wait until the end of the president's term, as it did with Bill Clinton."