My colleague Linda Lowen calls attention to a bizarre new regulation that the Bush administration is currently considering, which would require any medical facility receiving federal funding to enact a policy allowing employees to opt out of performing abortions. Okay, that makes sense. Except that its definition of abortion is, well, a little broader than usual:

The proposal defines abortion as follows: "any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

This would have the practical effect of reducing access to birth control pills, emergency contraception, and IUDs. And, as if to provide proof that no actual gynecologists were consulted in the drafting of this policy, it would also classify natural family planning as a form of abortion since it often relies on uterine non-habitability rather than non-fertilization. Yes, you heard right: The Bush administration's proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it even includes the Roman Catholic Church's preferred method of birth control (see section 2370).

It also opens the door for health care practitioners to refuse to assist female patients who are receiving unrelated treatment that may have the side effect of reducing uterine hospitality. The Atkins diet, for example, has been shown to have this effect in mice. Does this mean that dietitians may refuse to see Atkins patients on the basis that the Atkins diet is, by the Bush administration's unusual definition, a form of abortion? In a word, yes.

When asked about the leaked regulation language, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services replied: "We don’t normally comment on whether we are considering changes in regulations." Under the circumstances, it's easy to see why.

Related: Reproductive Rights 101

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a $550,000 FCC fine leveled against CBS over the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake 2003 Super Bowl halftime "wardrobe malfunction." This ruling, alongside the June 2006 U.S. 2nd Circuit ruling overturning FCC fines on the basis of fleeting expletives, may make it possible for networks to broadcast truly live content, sans tape delays, without risking crippling FCC fines. For small, independent stations--those least likely to be able to use tape delays when broadcasting a live event, as well as least likely to be able to afford to pay FCC fines--these rulings are a godsend.

(Or at least they are for now. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal on the 2nd Circuit fleeting expletives ruling, and the decision it hands down next year could either limit or reinforce the significance of this week's 3rd Circuit ruling.)

Let's be frank here: What the rulings do not do is allow the intentional use of nudity or strong expletives on broadcast television. Both rulings focus on the mitigating practical problems that can be expected to arise when one is broadcasting a live event, and in any case the most meaningful content restriction is and has traditionally been imposed by advertisers, not by the FCC; basic cable networks are subject to no FCC content regulation, but are no more likely to display nudity or air expletives during prime time than their broadcast counterparts. For large networks, the financial burden of an FCC fine is negligible compared to the financial burden of lost advertising revenue.

The free market, in other words, has done a very effective job of limiting the sort of content that the FCC has sought excuses to clamp down on over the past several years. Whether there's still too much sex and profanity on broadcast television is a matter of opinion. I think there is (there wouldn't be if more people complained to advertisers), but I also think glamorized death and mutilation is much more dangerous to young minds than award speeches and musical performances. That the current FCC attacks sex and unfettered speech, but welcomes violence, should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the administration's eerily similar priorities on other policy issues.

By the time the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the FCC's authority to regulate fleeting and unexpected indecency next year, it may be a moot point. The 44th president, regardless of party, will bring with him a new FCC board and, we may hope, more sensible priorities.