The WashPost answers “are you liberal?” with a resounding “Yes” on the front page this morning with the headline “Roberts Resisted Women’s Rights.” We’re told that in the Reagan years John Roberts “consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women’s rights”. For example? He “said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue — of directing employers to pay women the same as men for jobs of ‘comparable worth’ — was ’staggeringly pernicious’ and ‘anti-capitalist.’”

Put aside for a moment that the entire Post story today has the feel of a 30-second negative attack ad. (It often doesn’t go back and quote the fuller context of either what Roberts said or what proposal he was responding to.) Put aside the idea that Roberts should be punished for resisting a proposal that is FORMERLY “in vogue.” What screams liberal bias here is the idea that a headline saying Roberts “resisted women’s rights” is to imply he believes women don’t have or deserve rights, an odd position for a guy whose wife helps Feminists for Life.

“Women’s rights” here is another attempt at rhetorical intimidation, that any agenda item the feminists suggested for affirmative discrimination (women paying less for college tuition since they’re paid less in the workplace is one example) is a “woman’s right.” It’s one thing for Kim Gandy to use this lingo. But it’s acting as a NOW publicist for a newspaper to use it.

The Post has never and will never run a headline on its front page like “Clinton Resists Saving Lives of Unborn Babies.” That would be provocative and ideological. But so are they today.