Why do so many beautiful actresses use their time in the spotlight to criticize their appearance? “Hunger Games” star Jennifer Lawrence is the latest offender. On Tuesday’s “Late Show With David Letterman,” the charming and charismatic actress told Letterman that she sees herself as a “troll” and that her handlers have to remind her to “suck in.”

Meredith Blake wrote on Show Tracker that Lawrence came across as “refreshingly human -- if slightly troubling,” and blogger Perez Hilton asked, “Doesn't it just make U fall in love with her more???” For me, the answer is no. Lawrence, in the past, has criticized Hollywood’s standard of beauty and its negative impact on impressionable fans. So why’d she play into it on Letterman? Maybe she was just nervous. Still, a better message would have been: “My handlers tell me to ‘suck in’ when I’m on the red carpet, but I roll my eyes at them and say, ‘you guys are nuts.’ ” Or even better: Not mention it at all.

I can see how actresses might indulge in a little self-deprecation in order to make themselves more relatable and connect with fans. But what happens when someone as beautiful and as talented as Lawrence admits her insecurities as a matter of fact is that it fuels a culture of insecurity along with self-destructive “pro ana” sites and “Am I ugly?” videos.

Women are so much more than what they look like, and yet we're so often reduced to just that. From what I’ve gathered of Lawrence in the past, she couldn’t agree more.

ALSO:

Excuse me, my tattoo is ringing

The right ending to HBO's 'Luck'

'Doonesbury': The controversial abortion cartoon

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Actress Jennifer Lawrence arrives for an appearance on the "Late Show With David Letterman" in New York on March 20. Credit: Charles Sykes / Associated Press

There’s little doubt that technology is shaping how we live our lives, but is it also changing who is eligible for U.S. citizenship? In fact, it may be. Consider the case of Ellie Lavi, an American citizen who turned to in vitro fertilization to become pregnant. She gave birth to twins while living outside the United States. When she sought to obtain citizenship for her daughters, she discovered it wasn’t so easy.

In general, children born to or adopted by an American while overseas automatically acquire citizenship, according to federal immigration officials.

But in Lava’s case, her decision to use in vitro complicated matters.  U.S. Embassy officials in Tel Aviv informed Lavi that in order for her daughters to receive citizenship, she needed to prove that the egg or the sperm used to create the embryos came from a U.S. citizen, according to USA Today.

That’s not always so easy to prove. Clinics may not keep records of donors' citizenship status, making it nearly impossible to establish a biological link to an American citizen.

But Lavi’s case also raises a thorny issue in immigration law: Are all children of Americans born abroad entitled to citizenship?  The answer is complex and has changed over time. For example, the gender of a parent plays a key role.  In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked whether it was OK to require an unwed father to meet a higher set of standards than an unwed mother in cases in which a single parent wanted to impart citizenship to a child born overseas. The case involved whether a child born in Vietnam to a U.S. father and a Vietnamese mother who were not married was a U.S. citizen.  The high court found it was not unconstitutional to require different standards.

It will be interesting to see if the rules are challenged in court. Stay tuned.

ALSO:

--Sandra Hernandez

Photo: An egg is shown as it is prepared for fertilization. Credit: Béatrice de Géa / Los Angeles Times

When it comes to domestic issues, Americans should trust the private sector.

That's a Republican Party mantra, and two stories in The Times this week have me convinced as well.

Now, I know you think one concerns gasoline prices. Really, though, who cares about that? Snore.

That's right: I'm talking about snoring.  As The Times' Lauren Beale reported:

A so-called snore room is the latest offering from Del Webb, which builds communities for people 55 and older.

Buyers whose marriages are plagued by a spouse who snorts, grunts and wheezes while he or she sleeps can opt for an adaptable bedroom plan marketed as the "owners retreat" at Sun City Shadow Hills in Indio. Designed for couples who start out in the same bed but end up apart because of ear-piercing snoring, insomnia or late-night TV viewing habits, this secondary bedroom is connected to the bathroom of the master bedroom.

See?  Big problem; private-sector solution. You leave that to government, and pretty soon you've got government-run snore insurance instead.

Still, even the private sector can stumble. For example, I'm a bit puzzled by Del Webb's logic:

"A nice enclave that shares the master bathroom provides a civilized alternative to the family room sofa," said Jacque Petroulakis, corporate communications spokeswoman for PulteGroup Inc., the parent company of Del Webb.

About a quarter of couples in the 55-and-older age group sleep apart to get a good night's rest, according to PulteGroup, which got the data from a third party but also conducted focus groups and interviews as it developed the bedroom plan.

Now first of all, the sofa isn't for snoring husbands; it's for misbehaving husbands, or came-home-late-drunk husbands -- which, come to think of it, is redundant. (It's never for wives, of course, who are too savvy to choose the sofa, regardless of their transgressions.)

Second, if you're 55 or older and still married to someone who snores, isn't it a bit late to be dealing with the problem? Seems to me the snore room should be marketed at 30-year-olds, who need all the help they can get keeping their marriages together.

But, staying true to the private sector's can-do spirit, in addition to the snore room, Del Webb is offering other conveniences:

Among other new life-easing features the builder is offering are pass-throughs from the closet to the laundry room. A door large enough to push a hamper through connects the two spaces.

Which brings me to my second domestic issue story of the week: widespread thievery of Tide detergent.

The Times Dalina Castellanos reported:

Thieves seem to be embarking on an anti-grime spree, some media outlets are reporting, saying thousands of dollars in Tide detergent is being swiped from shelves across the country.

One Minnesota man stole about $25,000 worth of the liquid laundry detergent from a West St. Paul Wal-Mart over 15 months, authorities there say.

And who's to blame for this crime wave?  Sadly, dear liberals, it appears that Rush and Sean and Glenn are right: It's the government -- or, in this case, at least one peson who apparently has fallen prey to the liberal-nanny-state mentality.  

Lt. Matt Swenke of the West St. Paul Police Department said in an interview with The Times that Patrick Costanzo, 53, was the suspect in the Minnesota thefts.

"He told [police] he didn't have a job and the state didn't help him in any way so he did what he had to do to get by," Swenke said.

Yes, it's true, liberals: You do a man's laundry, he's clean for a day. You teach him to do his own laundry, and he won't steal Tide.

Which doesn't make a lot of sense, I'll admit. But then again, my wife keeps me awake a night -- either snoring or doing the laundry.

Speaking of which:  Why do we have so much Tide?

ALSO:

Red meat will kill you? Stick a fork in me, I'm done!

Sherwood Rowland, the scientist who saved the world 

Poll: What does Newt Gingrich need to do to stay in the race?

--Paul Whitefield

Photo: A so-called snore room is the latest offering from Del Webb, which builds communities for people 55 and older. Credit: Handout

Rush Limbaugh has been trying for three days to apologize for calling Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" on air without retracting any of his criticism of Fluke's position on contraception. It's a fine line to walk, and he's not nimble enough to do it -- his apology and subsequent explanation did nothing to dispel the misogynistic and voyeuristic self-portrait his remarks about Fluke had painted.

So instead of actually illustrating the "absurdity" of Fluke's testimony, which he says was his intent, Limbaugh became the story. That's why Limbaugh should also apologize to critics of the Obama administration's mandate that insurers cover contraceptive drugs with no out-of-pocket costs. He's trampled all over their side of the issue.

Before going any further, let me acknowledge that I'm probably wasting my time here. Writing about a Limbaugh-related controversy is like writing about Derek Fisher's value to the Lakers or President Obama's birth records. Facts don't matter much, and no matter how persuasive my case might be, I'm not likely to change anybody's mind.

Nevertheless, Fluke's testimony cried out for a rebuttal, albeit a completely different one than Limbaugh delivered. Her basic argument is that birth control drugs are vital but expensive, and some students can't afford them. Therefore, Fluke says, insurance should pay for them.

If something is valuable to society but too expensive for some people to afford, the right way to respond (at least, in economic terms) is by offering subsidies only to lower-income people, and only for that specific thing. The approach being taken toward contraception -- requiring that it be included in insurance policies with no co-pays -- doesn't do that. It subsidizes contraception even for people who can easily afford it, at the expense of those who don't need or use contraceptives.

Supporters of mandatory coverage for contraceptives say that they save money in the long run by averting unwanted pregnancies and certain devastating health problems, such as the ovarian cysts that Fluke talked about in her testimony. Those benefits, however, are spread across the healthcare system. The costs aren't. Someone has to pay for the birth-control tablets, morning-after pills and other contraceptive services that will be provided for free to the insured.

As a result of the administration's new policy, that "someone" will be everyone who pays for coverage. Insurers will project the cost of the prescription contraceptives likely to be obtained by their customers, then recover that cost through their premiums, plus overhead and profit margin. The same will be true for all the preventive services that, according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, must be provided with no out-of-pocket costs.

The hope is that, over time, these preventive services will slow the increase in healthcare costs and insurance premiums. That doesn't mean the services will be free. It means the initial cost will ultimately be recovered by reducing future price increases.

The Times' editorial board has argued repeatedly in favor of this approach, and it may be the most practical way to maximize the exposure to and benefits of preventive services. It's just not an efficient way to subsidize something that society wants people to have.

It's also worth remembering that health insurance is designed to protect people against the risk of large and unexpected medical costs. If insurers covered the routine cost of things that policyholders know they will need -- toothpaste, for example -- the resulting increase in premiums would probably be greater than the cost of people paying for that item or service themselves. That's because insurers mark up their costs before passing them on to consumers.

Unlike Limbaugh, I'm not suggesting that it's wrong for Fluke to want her fellow Americans to help income-strapped female law students afford contraceptives. I'm just saying that she seems to suffer the same misconception about insurance that most everyone else does. Providing coverage for something doesn't make it "free," and it's not the only way -- or necessarily the best one -- to achieve the intended result.

ALSO:

Blame it on the pill

Birth control: What do bosses get to decide about us?

Contraception spin battle: an attack on faith or women?

--Jon Healey

Photo: Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, left, appears Monday on ABC's "The View" to discuss her contretemps with Rush Limbaugh. Credit:  Lou Rocco / ABC/Associated Press

Democrats like to point out the broad public support for many elements of the healthcare reform law they pushed through Congress in 2010. But polls also show that most people reject the law -- better known as "Obamacare" -- as a whole despite their appreciation for most of its key features. That's because opponents won the fight over how the complex measure would be perceived. In other words, the Republicans' spin -- "it's a government takeover of healthcare" -- was better than the Democrats' spin.

Now, the two parties are fighting over how one portion of the law will be implemented, and the battle over spin has been joined again. There's broad public support for the law's mandate that insurers cover preventive care with no deductibles or co-pays. But the Obama administration triggered a fierce fight with the Roman Catholic Church when it declared that contraceptives were a form of preventive care that had to be provided at no cost to policyholders.

At first I thought the GOP had this issue nailed. The Republicans had a powerful and succinct message: Requiring church-affiliated employers, such as Catholic hospitals, to provide free contraceptives was an attack on religious liberty. President Obama tried to defuse the controversy by exempting churches from having to pay for contraceptive coverage -- the bill will be picked up instead by insurers -- but that's no help for large Catholic employers that self-insure.

As is customary for politicians, however, Republicans weakened their message by offering a counterproposal with problems of its own. The amendment that Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) offered to a highway construction bill Thursday would have let any employer drop any coverage that didn't comport to his or her religious or moral beliefs.

The Blunt amendment, which was narrowly defeated, opened the door to an effective counter-spin by Democrats. Political consultant Doug Schoen lays it out in Forbes: Republicans weren't just trying to free churches from having to provide coverage for the morning-after pill; they were giving every boss the opportunity to drop coverage for contraception. One can imagine the 30-second spots now, played during daytime TV and on female-leaning cable channels: "Republicans want employers to deny coverage for birth control pills, but they have no qualms about insurers covering Viagra!"

What do you think? Offer your own spin in the comments section below.

ALSO:

California to some kids: No

A message to 'Obamacare' haters

Birth control: What do bosses get to decide about us?

-- Jon Healey

Photo illustration by Kirk McKoy / Los Angeles Times

There could be a dozen reasons why the music stars Chris Brown and Rihanna have collaborated on vocals on two new songs (as they let the world know earlier this week) three years after he brutally beat her in the face on the eve of the Grammys. Here are some possibilities: They’ve both had counseling and have forged a new and wiser friendship; each felt the other was the only singer who could complement their music; they have cynically calculated that the publicity and curiosity generated by their teaming up would make sales skyrocket…

The specific reasons matter less than the mere fact that Rihanna agreed to sing with her former boyfriend Chris Brown, who is still serving a  five-year probation term for what he did to her. 

Most important is that Rihanna address her decision to collaborate with Brown.  Victims forgive their assailants all the time, that’s fine.   What happened here was not a spat, it was an assault.  And for better or worse it played out on a very public stage — the photos of her face after the beating, the video of Brown in court. 

Someone as young as Rihanna (who just turned 24; Brown is 22) with a huge fan base,  should offer a public explanation for why she would permit a man who assaulted her to now sing alongside her.  Rihanna is a successful and talented musician with a substantial amount of control over her career choices.  This is not a woman with limited skills and opportunities who is compelled to take work with a man who beat her.

Dating violence is a troubling national issue. “In a 12-month period, one in 10 high school students nationwide reported they were physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend,” said President Obama in his White House proclamation declaring February 2012 National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month.

Rihanna may consider it onerous to have to answer for her actions, but as a public figure, and a role model to a certain extent, whose fans include many young women and girls, she should tell us all why Brown now deserves the respect that she has bestowed upon him by working with him.  

ALSO:

Why Chris Brown is no role model

Grammy Awards shouldn't have celebrated Chris Brown

What's really wrong with Chris Brown's Grammy performance

-- Carla Hall

Photo: Rihanna performing at the Grammys at Staples Center in Los Angeles on Feb. 12. Credit: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times

America, it's time for a little presidential poker. Republicans and Democrats need to go "all in" on Rick Santorum vs. President Obama.

Yep, it's "put up or shut up" time for all you political Texas hold 'em folks out there.

Now, the Obama bet you probably understand. After all, he's the incumbent, and he's running unopposed in the Democratic Party.

But why Santorum? After all, he's not only anathema to Democrats, it's not clear whether most Republicans favor him over Mitt Romney (not to mention Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul).

For the good of the country, though, the GOP needs to run Santorum.

Wait, wait, hold the comments, angry or otherwise. I didn't say "Santorum would be good for the country."  If you're asking me personally, well, it's a secret ballot, but no, I wouldn't put my ink spot next to "Rick Santorum."

But I'm also sick and tired of the partisan divide. It's time to call everyone's bluff.

Conservatives maintain that Obama and the Democrats are destroying the country; that we need to return to Christian values, to exceptionalism, to less government, less regulation, less spending and less taxation.

Sure, Romney touts all that too.  But he just wants the Republican nomination. With that secured, he'll pivot to the center, and pretty soon you'll never know he said half the stuff he did to get the GOP nod. With an Obama-Romney clash, should Romney lose, plenty of Republicans would complain that he wasn't a true-enough conservative.

Santorum, on the other hand, is nothing if not a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. He might pivot to the center too, but he's so far right that he can't even see the center at this point. With an Obama-Santorum battle, we'd be able to settle the liberal vs. conservative debate that's stifling government. 

And here's where the "all in" part happens.

If Santorum wins, liberals should acknowledge that the country is on the wrong path. America doesn't want gay marriage, or legal abortion, or government healthcare, or environmental protections. It wants to slash the size of government and reduce or eliminate entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. It wants religion back in public life; it wants the government out of schools. It wants to spend big on defense; it wants to back Israel no matter what. 

However, if Obama wins, all those conservative Republicans would have to acknowledge that they were wrong. That they're not America's voice. That America is OK with gay marriage and a woman's right to choose; it wants affordable healthcare for all, and a safety net that includes Medicare and Social Security.  It agrees with the separation of church and state and believes that while generating good-paying jobs is important, so is protecting the environment. It doesn't want a 1% and a 99% but a 100% that favors social and economic justice for all.

So after election day, that's it. Someone rakes in all the chips. 

If it's Santorum, then Republicans in Congress, the tea partyers and the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity crowd can crow all the way to the inauguration and beyond.

But if it's Obama, those same folks need to face reality. They need to stop the scorched-earth warfare and let him lead.

And we can go back to the old days, when elections mattered.

Did someone say "deal"?

ALSO:

The Dow is climbing! The Dow is climbing!

Issa's House hearings on contraception: Where were the women?

Presidential giants of our generation, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

 --Paul Whitefield

Illustration by Wes Bausmith / Los Angeles Times

Let me look at that calendar -- what year is it again? 2012? Because, if you ask the Democrats, on Capitol Hill this week it was really looking like 1991.

That was the year that an all-white, all-male Senate committee quizzed female witnesses, black and white, about sexual harassment and sexual innuendo during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

This week, there were no women appearing with the first panel before a House committee, which titled its hearings "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State" but that really was about the healthcare overhaul's requirement that employers' health insurance policies cover contraception.

The Democrats’ witness of choice -- a female Georgetown law student whose friend couldn't get access to contraceptive treatment there because of the university's religious affiliation, and who, evidently as a consequence, lost an ovary because of a syndrome that causes ovarian cysts -- was not permitted to testify. That, according to California Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who heads the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was because she is not a member of the clergy, unlike the five men who did testify.

A letter to Democratic members from Issa's staff explained the decision not to let the student testify; it said the hearing "is not about reproductive rights but about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience."

Issa's colleague, New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney, begged to differ:

"What I want to know is, where are the women? I look at this panel and I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive healthcare services, including family planning.... Of course this hearing is about rights -- contraception and birth control. It's about the fact that women want to have access to basic health services [and] family planning through their insurance plan."

A second panel later in the day included two women chosen by  Issa, both from Christian-oriented academic institutions but neither a clergy member.

The two Democratic women on the committee, Maloney and the D.C. representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with a male colleague, Mike Quigley of Illinois, walked out of the hearing in protest.

Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat, was a member of the House during Thomas' 1991 hearings. She and some female colleagues marched to the Senate side of Capitol Hill to demand that the all-male committee take the sexual harassment allegations seriously.

The next year, 1992 -- later called the "Year of the Woman" -- Boxer was elected to the Senate, and California became the first state to have two women as its senators.

Some of that was replayed about this week's hearings. Boxer said her 16-year-old grandson got a look at the picture of the male clergy members being sworn in and said incredulously, "It's all dudes."

Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi remarked: "Imagine having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel. Duh."

Boxer's Washington state colleague, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who was elected in the same 1992 "Year of the Woman" tide, said that "reading the news this morning was like stepping into a time machine and going back 50 years."

Or at least 20.

ALSO:

Komen alternatives for a cure

Contraception and women's rights -- it's still a man's world

Should Romney take the rap for Mormon Church's 'proxy baptisms'?

-- Patt Morrison

Photo: Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), left, and House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), center, speaks to Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, Director Straus Center of Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, during a recess of the Oversight and Government Reform committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 16. Credit: Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo

The Komen controversy isn't over yet. When the breast cancer research and awareness foundation pulled its funding from Planned Parenthood, it didn't just provoke backlash; it brought other issues to light. For instance, in an Op-Ed from Wednesday's pages, author and breast cancer survivor Peggy Ornstein points to a new report by Reuters on how Komen allocated its 2011 funds. Only 15% went toward research, less than the amount for fundraising and administrative costs.

In her Op-Ed, Ornstein also takes Komen to task for spending too much of its funds on promoting mammography, which does not provide a cure, and then urges readers to keep the pressure on Komen to do better. She writes:

From all of this, one can draw two conclusions. First, the same pressure that made Komen change its policy on Planned Parenthood needs to be brought to bear on its other policies, such as its indiscriminate partnerships (remember those pink buckets of KFC?). Alternatively, we could take our donations elsewhere. There are plenty of other, less well-known groups doing worthy, effective advocacy on breast cancer, groups that don't shy away from looking objectively at the science of screening, that more aggressively push investigation into causes of cancer (such as potential environmental links) and refuse money from corporations whose mission, products or policies are antithetical to women's health.

Here, Ornstein recommends three such organizations: Army of Women, the National Breast Cancer Coalition and Breast Cancer Action, which, she says, "fight[s] the good fight over the cancer industry, the politics of breast cancer, social injustice in cancer and environmental issues." BAC is also known for the concept "think before you pink," which addresses "pinkwashing." See for yourself:

ALSO:

An antibiotic wake-up call

The pink ribbon's ugly new image

Why Chris Brown is no role model

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Nancy Brinker, founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is seen during the Komen Community Challenge rally on April 26, 2007, in Washington. Credit: Karen Bleier / AFP/Getty Images

Chris Brown, a role model? That's what Sherri Shepherd argued on Wednesday's episode of "The View." Her argument makes a certain amount of sense. "His mother was abused right in front of his very eyes six years before this happened to Rihanna. He used to wet his pants from the fear. He was a victim; he became an offender," Shepherd said, pointing out that Brown has since committed himself to domestic prevention counseling, albeit at a court's order. "If you have a child in that situation, you may see Chris Brown as a role model."

But a comeback does not a role model make. Sure, he could become a role model, an example of breaking the cycle, a celebrated tale of redemption. (See Kanye West, Eminem.) But Brown has squandered his opportunity so far.

"Brown has been anything but contrite," writes Jezebel's Madeleine Davies. "He's been whiny and angry about the cultural backlash towards him for the last three years." (For anyone who doesn't remember the details of Rihanna's beating, the Daily Beast's Marlow Stern provides a graphic, stomach-churning account.)

Brown may be eager to leave the incident behind him, but in not addressing it, in staying silent, it's possible that he's perpetuating the problem of domestic abuse. Nico Lang makes a compelling argument on the Huffington Post:

Brown, and any celebrity rewarded with fame after unapologetically brutalizing someone, needs to show us that he knows how important forgiveness is, that he understands the role he could play in starting a meaningful conversation on domestic abuse. […]

By remaining silent on stage -- at a time when women on Twitter were making light of his history of violence by saying that he could abuse them any time -- Brown may have continued his history of silence on abuse, but in giving him a space on television, the Grammys supported that narrative. We might pretend that the Grammys are just superficial and irrelevant, but they are, for better or worse, the most influential music body in the country and say a great deal about what we hold up as being of worth. When the Grammys celebrate a space where women are not safe and then bring that space into our homes, we have a duty to do more than shut off our televisions. We have a duty to speak up and use our voice to end the silence. We have a duty to make sure it doesn't happen again.

It's doubtful Brown knew of the young women tweeting about their deranged desires for him while he was performing at the Grammys, but he's surely heard about it since. As someone who grew up in a home so violent that it caused him to wet his pants, he understands acutely that there's nothing lighthearted about women making abuse jokes. He's had an opportunity to address these women, but instead Brown has spent his energy confronting his critics, reminding us exactly why he's not a role model, at least not yet.

ALSO:

Dogs to Mitt: We are not luggage!

Valentine's Day in Portland: 'No, honey, I said M&Ms!'

What's really wrong with Chris Brown's Grammy performance

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Chris Brown accepts the award for best R&B album for "F.A.M.E." during the 54th annual Grammy Awards on Feb. 12. Credit: Matt Sayles / Associated Press