Yes, it was hard to miss the blogospheric frenzy over my piece this morning on the latest poster child the Democrats are upholding for S-CHIP.

As best I can tell, mostly the response has been a misreading of what I wrote. At the The New Republic's Plank, Jason Zengerle singles me out as "everything that's wrong with the modern conservative movement." (Funny, seems like TNR was just just lauding me.) My crime? I mentioned that Bethany was named Tampa Bay's Most Photogenic Baby as part of a children's hospital fundraiser — and made some jokes about child beauty pageants. I, as a self-described "meanie," was setting up a ridiculous straw man to point out that, unlike the Frost family, there's no questioning that the Wilkersons are of genuine need (and, as far as I can tell, well-intentioned), if profoundly wrong about the policy they are advocating.

I did, however, point out that the Wilkersons said they had talked about having children since before they were married. I also pointed out that shortly before Bethany's mother, Dara, started her current job as a waitress (which she has been holding down for six years), she voluntarily left a job with good insurance because it was "unmanageable." This despite the fact she and her husband had been discussing having kids since before she left her job with insurance. According to Think Progress:

So according to this "pro-life" right-wing logic, the Wilkersons should have sacrificed having a daughter in order to stay in an "unmanageable" job.

Wow, that couldn't be more wrong, could it? It's the other way around — I suggested that the Wilkersons might have sacrificed by working less-desirable jobs, if that choice (or those choices) meant they could more adequately provide for their daughter. I said that a married couple that has been talking about having kids for years, but has failed to sacrifice financially or make basic economic preparations to pay for their first kid, is acting irresponsibly. That's hardly "anti-life." It's common sense. How many people are in less than optimal jobs because of good benefits for their dependents?

And as for the The Daily Kos diarist who summed up my position as "Let the Baby Die," apparently they didn't make much of the fact that I pointed out that the Wilkersons were covered by existing programs and nobody is arguing for "kicking the Frosts and the Wilkersons to the curb." The debate centers around the expansion of the program, including paying for adults and those with much higher incomes than the Wilkersons.

But the bottom line is not that two-year-old Bethany Wilkerson shouldn't be shown compassion — of course she should. God bless her and her hurting heart. The point of the piece was: that a) this family's story is not a compelling reason to enact (or expand) new policy and b) for the love of all that is holy, keep your children out of political debates. It's dishonest and exploitative, and it makes complex policy arguments needlessly personal.