The Five Fatal Mistakes of American Conservatism

Rush Limbaugh by Ian Marsden

Is this the end of American Conservatism?

At a time when American conservatives should be regrouping and re-recruiting, they've circled their wagons; embracing a siege mentality that suggests their period of political relevancy is at an end.

What contributed to the collapse of this once-powerful political movement?

The Five Fatal Mistakes of American Conservatism:

Country Club Conservatism: During the movement's birth, in the lead up to the 1980 Presidential Election, conservatism triumphed because of its accessibility. Evangelical leaders like Robert Grant and Jerry Falwell gave America's disenfranchised conservatives a unity of purpose - allowing conservatives the opportunity to overlook their differences and work together to achieve a common goal.

Today, the opposite situation exists. The title of 'conservative' is no longer one that voters can adopt for themselves - instead of a unity of purpose, there's a doctrine of dogma; and failure to live up to the standards set by so-called 'leaders' like Rush Limbaugh leave many more moderate conservatives out in the cold.

As long as conservatives pick and choose their supporters, like members of a country club committee, their ranks will dwindle.

Failure to Evolve: Many conservatives don't believe in Evolution, which explains why their movement is still stuck in the seventies.

The success of the 'moral majority' during the election of Ronald Reagan came down to conservative Christians uniting together to support timely, relevant and effective political positions. Times have changed dramatically since then - but, in most cases, those political positions haven't.

Unless the conservative movement is willing to address the issues of our time - environmentalism, war and economic uncertainty - they will continue to represent an era and an outlook whose time has passed.

A Dying Breed: It's a documented fact that each new generation is progressively more liberal than the last. Nowhere is this more apparent than America, where the grandchildren of segregationists just elected the nation's first African American president.

However, in its failure to address the changing beliefs and values of young Americans, the conservative movement excludes those who could offer conservatism its future.

The Democrats have successfully courted the under-30 vote in every presidential election for the past fifteen years. This trend shows no sign of changing. Until the aging core demographic of the conservative movement grows up and accepts that young Americans aren't so militant about issues like homosexuality and explicit sex education, they will always be marketing an agenda that alienates the very people it's essential they win over.

The Lowest Common Denominator: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin may have bemoaned the 'liberal elite media,' but in the arena of Talk Radio, conservatism is king. Political pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin rule the airwaves with their angry rants about the state of the country.

But it's that anger which is so damaging to the conservative movement. While it does resonate strongly with the conservative core, it was proven in the last election that America is looking for a message of hope and change, not anger and frustration.

As long as the public face of conservatism continues to be bitter, angry little men like Levin and Limbaugh, that's going to be the only demographic it appeals to.

Eating Themselves Alive: The final mistake of the conservative movement is the one that will hasten their ignominious demise - a self-destructive urge to tear their party asunder from the inside out.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the public arena - where the GOP leader, Michael Steele, was recently eviscerated by Rush Limbaugh for 'daring' to imply that abortion is a woman's choice, not merely cold-blood fetal murder. When we see the de jure head of the Republican party skewered by the de facto head of the conservative movement, we witness a party and a movement that's in no position to govern itself - let alone the country.

One Salient Oversight

Coffee Bean directed readers towards this post, by evangelical Christian One Salient Oversight, asking the question: "What's driving American evangelicalism?"

"Being an evangelical seems to be getting harder by the day," he admits. "Not because I somehow think that there's evil ungodly atheists or Darwinists out there who are going to destroy the world - they're hardly going to do much anyway. No; what makes it hard being an evangelical these days is the actions of other evangelicals."

I've been bickering, as normal, with a conservative pal of mine about Christianity and the recent election and my point - that the Bush-bumper sticker crew is more concerned with pushing their own political agenda than God's - seems to be shared by OSO.

It turns out, you don't need to be a Godless, Atheist heathen like me to feel that way.

Read the post here.

How should a Christian vote in this election?

This Sunday, our baby Boo had his christening.

Our Reverend's first question when we sat down to discuss the baptism with her was: "Why do you want your son baptised?"

Apparently, the most common answer is: "We don't want him to go to Hell/Purgatory with all the other unbaptized children."

Our answer was simple and pedestrian: We wanted him to be raised with some kind of spirituality, so when he's old enough to make the decision about whether to remain a Christian (like his mum) or become a disbelieving, cynical heathen (like his dad) at least he's had the opportunity to make an informed decision.

I don't believe in God, but that's my decision - not his.

That's very important. Part of the 'problem' with Christianity in America is a whole slew of parents (not all of them, mind you - just some) brainwashing their kids.

A child who is brainwashed into being a Christian, à la that movie 'Jesus Camp,' isn't really a Christian. Part of being a real Christian is actually choosing that path for yourself when you're old enough (and unpressured enough.)

But the years I spent at a theological university (even if I was studying history) weren't entirely wasted and I found much of the discussion we had about the words from the Book of Common Prayer to be fascinating.

During the baptism, we're asked to answer a series of questions on behalf of our son - questions that represent the core beliefs of modern-day Christians. Our son is choosing to become a Christian, and from a practical point of view, these questions give guidance about what that means.

During the crazy election fever, many Christians are trying to consolidate the party they want to vote for with their spiritual beliefs. This really demands they ask themselves: "What are my core spiritual values?"

"What makes me a Christian?"

Yesterday, I was reminded that being a Christian isn't about the redistribution of wealth, or whether a pitbull wears lipstick.

During a baptism, you get asked to follow the most important values of Christianity - and I think a lot of modern so-called Christians have totally lost sight of what those are:

These are onwards from page 300 of your Book of Common Prayer, if you want to read along at home:

• Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?

Aside from the odd fiddle-player down in Georgia, nobody meets Satan or his demons in the flesh any more.

But Satan doesn't stand for 'evil,' so much as stubbornness and arrogance. Satan refused to submit himself appropriately to the Lord's will (remember, God grants 'free will,' yet punishes those who actually exercise that freedom.)

Renouncing Satan and his spiritual forces means renouncing pride and arrogance, which poison a good Christian's meek, humble service of God.

America is currently full of people who've forgotten this concept.

If I believed in something like Satan, I'd think he would be in hog heaven right now. He's had a President and a Prime Minister arrogantly equate their belief in God to their actions in Iraq.

He's got millions of Americans stuffed full of pride and arrogance, believing that they're spreading 'God's' message at home and abroad, when, in fact, they're spreading their own.

• Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?

This question is a very important one, because it addresses the real, physical, manifestations of evil on the earth - the actions of people and businesses that directly stand against what a Christian believes in.

This could be unethical business practices, like those Wal-Mart get involved in. It could be the evil practices of a political entity, deliberately misleading a country in order to justify a war (and both bearing false witness and going unnecessarily to war are grave sins.)

Issues like abortion fit here - and before any readers click their fingers and announce: "Ah ha, this means I must vote Republican!" think about how all the parties approach issues of an 'evil' like abortion.

I've often said that the right wing has become so proud and arrogant fighting against practical attempts to reduce abortions (like advocating non-explicit sex education) that the pro-life movement has become more about politics than actually eliminating the demand for abortions. Abortion is just an excuse to push an agenda.

There are other 'unGodly' practices that many so-called Christians put up with because they are convenient, profitable or just the status-quo (which all Conservatives, by their very definition, fight to maintain.)

• Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?

This is another very important, relevant question for modern Christians to consider.

Our Reverend gave practical examples of sinful desires that draw a person away from God. Things like addiction to drugs or alcohol [I notice you put didn't put down your glass of Sauvignon Blanc when you wrote that, Roland - Editorial Bear] but it made me immediately think of some people I've been spending time with lately who spend their entire time judging other people.

You are a bad friend/sibling/parent because you do this. You should do this. I will only accept you if you change this about yourself.

Jesus was pretty damn explicit about this kind of behavior, yet from my experience, so-called Christians remain the most judgemental souls on this wretched planet.

• Do you put your whole trust in [Jesus Christ's] grace and love?

When I read this, it made me think of something I learned in university - you should put your whole trust in Jesus to look after and protect you, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look both ways before crossing the street!

Likewise, why is it that Christians are amongst the most outspoken about issues like Global Warming? Jesus helps those who help themselves, so maybe by providing us with decades of empirical evidence to support the warming of the Earth, our friend JC is just pointing out that we should get off our collective asses and do something about it, instead of blithely burying our heads in the sand.

• Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?

This is the most troubling of all the questions we were to be asked. Why? Because I honestly don't believe the Christian right-wing continue to do this. Our Reverend gave us an excellent example - somebody who goes to prison and becomes a Christian there.

Thing about being a Christian isn't just having a baptism - getting a stamp on your hand that read "Heaven: Accept One." It's about believing in Jesus and his message. As long as you do that, earnestly from your heart, the Bible is absolutely explicit that you will enter heaven.

So that means child killers and rapists and murders are just as eligible for heaven as anybody else - and it's up to Christians to recognize and accept that fact. That's why the Christian right promoting capital punishment, for example, is so troubling. They might yell "those killers will burn in hell!" but, if you believe in the Bible, they won't. They'll be right there in heaven with them.

If you are open to recognizing Christ in all people, you should be absolutely against ending another human life, however wretched and undeserving it may be.

• Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?

It was this question that made me think, looking at the big picture, that a true Christian should probably vote Democrat in this election, rather than Republican.

Because the Republican party, in my mind, does not currently strive for justice or peace.

Peace? Well, they started a war on false grounds in a foreign country. Politically, strategically and economically it might have made sense - but it was an unprovoked war, unrelated to the War on Terror, that cost the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians (remember, we should be 'recognizing Christ' in all people, not allowing them to become 'collateral damage' just because they're Muslims.)

Justice? What a farce. The Patriot Act trampled on American's constitutional rights. Guantanamo Bay crushed the rights our Declaration of Independence says are 'inalienable.' Bush's tax policies redistributed as much wealth as Obama seeks to (just in the wrong direction.)

The Republican Party needs a four or eight year break so they can look themselves in the eye and figure out just what justice really is.

And, finally, there's the most important part of that question - how a good Christian should 'respect the dignity of every human being.'

The human beings who need that dignity the most are the ones who have it the least. People on the bottom rung of society. The ones who can't afford or aren't eligible for health care, who can't get a job, or live on the streets.

The Republican party is against helping those who lack the resources to help themselves. To quote brilliant, but (in my mind) occasionally misguided politico The Other Sarah, "It is not the job of the government to give handouts and to reward people for being poor. Welfare, in all it’s forms, should be abolished."

No. Welfare shouldn't be abolished. It should just be restructured in order to give people a leg-up towards supporting themselves. Having the dignity of making their own way, instead of surviving on handouts that the Republicans try to abolish.

This is why I believe the reforms Obama is suggesting, which some people incorrectly think are 'socialism,' wind up being far more 'Christian' in nature than those of the Republicans.

Sometimes, it seems like the Republican policy is: "Screw everybody else, it's every man for himself here." And that might be very American and that might be kind of pragmatic, but it sure as hell isn't very Christian.

Let's hope the millions of so-called Christians who helped vote George Bush* into office - twice - take the time to reexamine their beliefs before tomorrow. If they're truly voting for a more Christian America, than they're making a huge mistake supporting John McCain.

* And just for the record, in 2004, when I saw still achristian (although not a very good one) I fully supported George Bush, as I found John Kerry's campaign to be based around the single misnomer: "Vote for me, I'm NOT Bush."

Video Game Causes Outrage (but not the one you'd think.)

So in the highly popular Grand Theft Auto series of video games, your thuggish main character can cruise up to prostitutes and have a romp with them in the back seat of his stolen car.

[As long as you're parked in a dark alley, of course. The designers didn't want the the game to be accused of not being realistic. - Editorial Bear]

You don't see anything explicit - just watch the car bounce up and down and listen to the suspension squeak. [Actually, that's not true. In the latest incarnation of the game, you DO get to see all the gory details - Editorial Bear.]

But when the Lady of the Night pulls up her kickers and clambers out of your car, you can sneak up behind her and bash her pretty little brains in with a baseball bat.

That, for the uninitiated, allows you to recover all the bloodstained money you'd spent hiring her 'services' in the first place.

For the curious, here's how to do it:

[Warning, the video is narrated by a foul mouthed Scotsman and, being about the systematic murder of a digital prostitute, is unsurprisingly not rated PG-13. - Editorial Bear]


How to Murder a Prostitute for Dummies

Naturally, little side-games like this have caused some outrage amongst the moral majority - who argue that video games like Grand Theft Auto are destroying the moral fiber of today's youth (even though the game has a 18 certificate, so children of responsible parents shouldn't even be playing it.)

Nevertheless, it's not Grand Theft Auto that's attracted the REAL ire of the religious right. It's the G-rated, family friendly strategy game Spore.

In Spore, you guide the development of life - from single-cell organisms to multi-limbed monsters who discover fire, war with other tribes, create cities and eventually travel to space.

"This entire game is propaganda!" One Christian critic exclaimed. "Aimed directly at our children to teach them evolution instead of creationism!"

Cue the collective *faceslap* of every rational person on the planet.

Yes, it's true, the concept of Spore is based on the concept of evolution. However, Spore has about as much in common with evolution as, well, eugenics.

For example, when Spore's creatures 'evolve,' they don't change gradually, over the course of many generations. A fully formed 'new' creature pops out of the egg of an old one - thus propagating that tired line Creationists use: "Find me the proof, oh Godless heathen, that a dinosaur turned into a monkey!"

It's right there on your video screen, buddy. Unfortunately, that's not how evolution happened in real life.

To be honest, I'm surprised old earth creationists and those who believe in Intelligent Design haven't embraced this game, because Spore has far more in common with their philosophy than Darwin's.

For a start, you play 'God' and you 'intelligently design' your creature through each step of it's evolution. Secondly, as God, you 'intelligent design' the facets you think you creature will be best off using. You even guide their existence and philosophy, choosing between being warlike and aggressive, to create fiercer creatures, or diplomatic and peaceful, generating more resourceful critters.

Quite simply, forget about SimCity or Civilisation. There is no more authentic 'God' game than this. Conservative Christians? Quit your whining and pick up a copy immediatement!

[Thanks to Christine for her Spore pictures. - Kitty Copy Editor]

California Supreme Court gives Thumbs Up to Gay Marriage

The California Supreme Court has overturned a state law banning gay marriage, declaring that it violates the state constitution.

But despite that fact, conservative groups in California are pushing to amend the state's constitution to add a clause: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

My question is: Why?

I mean, seriously... Why bother? Why is it so important to conservative idiots like the National Organization for Marriage to ban same-sex couples from committing to a life-long relationship?

You don't have to like it. You don't even have to condone it. But this is America and one of the most fundamental rights is that of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

The US Supreme court even recognized that: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Two people of the same-sex getting married does not affect me in the slightest. It doesn't have any impact on my life whatsoever. Since nobody's life is altered in any way by the right of same-sex couples to get married, why should anybody have to right to oppose it?

By supporting gay marriage, I'm not advocating homosexuality or what conservatives laughingly refer to as 'the homosexual agenda.' All I'm doing is supporting an American's personal freedom. The right to make their own decisions.

I find it hypocritical that so many conservatives vote Republican - the party that's meant to protect Americans from the government interfering in their personal choices.

Conservatives demand the right to bear arms and the right to practice whatever retarded religion they want. Yet when somebody else demands their rights, like two consensual adults deciding to have a committed relationship, the conservatives want to the government to stick their oar in.

What these idiots don't realise is that they're weakening their own positions. After they've empowered the government to decide who can and can't get married, they'll find themselves in a much more vulnerable position when it comes to defending their own rights.

Second amendment gun-nuts and fundamentalist religious loonies really ought to be reaching out to the gay community instead of attacking it. They're both actually fighting the same battle. The conservatives are just too stupid to realise it.

Abortion shouldn't be a political issue...

Over on CK's blog, he's gearing up for a month-long debate on an issue about which he feels very strongly. Abortion.

Totally unlike England, where the topic is wisely avoided, American politicians stake their political territory with their attitudes towards abortion.

No other social topic polorises the American people. CK himself admits that Democratic "financial and social policies would fly with most of the Christian right, but their stance on abortion forces them to vote predominately Republican."

It's a very thorny topic - so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

When it comes to abortion, I have two positions.

1. I do think abortion is wrong.
2. I don't think abortion should be banned.

These two statements might seem to be contradictory, but they're not. You don't have to agree with or condone abortion to realise that it's a problem that won't be solved by some utterly ill-considered blanket ban.

A federal ban on abortion - which is what I'd imagine hard core conservatives like CK are calling for - is an utterly unrealistic, unconstitutional and downright stupid idea. And I'll tell you why.

Why Abortion is Wrong

When it comes to the morality of abortion, CK and I are on the same page.

It's really quite simple. When sperm and egg combine and create a viable zygote, a woman is considered 'pregnant.' That zygote soon becomes an embryo, a multicellular diploid eukaryote, which ideally imbeds itself in the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus.

Unless something's wrong with it (25% of all pregnancies end before 13 weeks) or an accident happens, that bundle of cells will grow into a fetus and then be born as a baby. To all intents and purposes, new life begins at the moment of conception.

An abortion terminates that pregnancy - and snuffs out that potential new life before it even has a chance to begin. While the pro-choice advocates try to shuffle around the cold hard reality of it, it's really as simple as that. An abortion stops a beating heart.

Advances in science mean a premature baby can be kept alive earlier and earlier now. On the other end of the spectrum, scientists can create embryos and grow them in test tubes and could, theoretically, produce babies entirely independently of a human womb. So you can't really gloss over what abortion actually is.

Now I have a robust attitude towards life and death, growing up on a farm and being a firm advocate of meat-eating and huntin' and fishin' and all the animal-slaughtering resultant therein. However, I also believe that if you're grown up enough to let your eggs and your sperm get within touching distance of each other, you're grown up enough to deal with the consequences.

I personally consider the 'pro-choice' decision to be no decision at all.

Why an Abortion Ban is wrong...

Despite that being my personal take on the abortion issue, I am strongly opposed to the Republican demand for a federal ban on abortions - or giving individual states the right to ban the procedure. There are several reasons for this.

An Abortion Ban won't End Abortion

Remember prohibition, anyone?

The abortionist is probably the world's second oldest profession - probably stemming from a need generated by the first! Throughout recorded history there have always been abortions and doubtless, there always will be in the future.

From medicine women giving herbs and tinctures to induce miscarriage, to midwives with coat-hangers doing a side business 'helping' careless girls - the history of abortion is pretty much as long as the history of civilisation.

Abortion has only been legal for the last half century - yet it was a flourishing business in America long before then. Frank Sinatra's mother, Dolly, used to perform abortions in pre-war Hoboken.

The simple fact is, as long as there is a demand for abortions, there will be people willing to supply them - legally or illegally. Last year, there were 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States alone. Conservatives who imagine a ban will end them overnight are delusional.

At least legal abortions are performed by licenced physicians in clean, clinical conditions. A woman visiting an abortion clinic is offered counseling to ensure she's fully aware of the ramifications of the decision she's making. As it is presently, woman having abortions are at least offered a safe environment in which to do so.

If conservatives successfully overturn Roe vs. Wade - the Supreme Court ruling that declared abortion a constitutionally protected right - the abortion industry would simply go underground.

1.2 million women every single year seek abortions. The vast majority of them would continue to do so even if abortion was made illegal. They only difference is, they'd have them performed by unlicenced physicians, in unsanitary conditions - without any form of accountability.

History has shown that illegally performed abortions have a very high rate of infection, injury and death. If conservatives overturned the ban on abortions, they wouldn't save the lives of 'all' the babies. They'd just add a large number of young women to the death toll.

This is the number one reason why a ban on abortion is stupid. You don't have to like abortion - but you do have to accept the reality of the situation.

It's the conservatives' fault...

Abortion 'friendly' England is famed for it's high rate of teenage pregnancy. However, it's interesting to note that the real figures for unplanned teenage pregnancy are actually much higher in the United States - more than double.

Head down south to Texas and that percentage rate shoots up to be more than three times the figure in England - almost sixty girls out of a thousand wind up pregnant. Statistically, that means a higher percentage girls are having abortions in Texas too.

And why? Well, ironically, it's the fault of the same people calling for an abortion ban! Conservative policies are often to blame for unplanned pregnancies in the first place!

Take, for example, sex education. In modern society - with depictions of sexually active teenagers all over the television and movie screens - it's an accepted fact that youngsters are going to sexually experiment.

Yet abortion-hating conservatives also demand that teenagers are given 'abstinence only' sexual education. They're not told about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases or condoms. Instead, the conservatives believe teenagers should simply be instructed to 'keep it in their pants' until the day they walk down the aisle.

Yet mountains of research has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that abstinence only sexual education does not work. Kids are just as likely to be sexually active after receiving abstinence only sexual education as kids who were taught about the 'bells and whistles' of responsible sex.

The only difference is that 'abstinence only' kids don't use protection.

How conservatives could ever imagine that abstinence only sexual education works is beyond me. The only thing I do understand is that this policy directly contributes to unplanned pregnancies.

Conservatives are a driving force behind the demand for abortions.

I'll tell you what to do, but I sure ain't helping...

Another way in which conservative policies directly contribute to the number of abortions performed in America regards their attitudes towards welfare.

In England, 17% of all pregnancies are terminated. In the United States, that figure is 22%. Why is the figure so much higher in America, where 50% of the population is supposedly against abortion?

The answer is easy - and directly linked to the number one reason why women have abortions. "I can't support a baby right now."

Britain's 'nanny state' policies reward single teenage mothers. Having a baby means a council house, welfare cheque and child support. For many teenage girls in lower class parts of the country, having a baby is seen as career choice. Women are 'set for life' if they knock out a couple of sprogs by age 20.

It's not an admirable policy - but it explains why more women in Britain are willing to follow their pregnancy through than in America.

Because rightly or wrong, America has a considerably smaller welfare system and the state is not going to be there to support every single mother. An unplanned pregnancy often means a woman simply can't support herself or her new baby - driving women towards having abortions simply because they have no other choice.

And ironically, it's conservative policies that drive this demand for abortions. The Republican's are the party of 'small government' in which Americans are expected to fend for themselves in matters of welfare and healthcare.

Republicans angrily insist that pregnant women carry their pregnancies to term - but then refuse to support them when they do. It's utterly contradictory and hypocritical. The pro-life conservatives cry that 'all life is sacred' as long as it's not their life and they're not expected to pay for it.

I'm not saying it's a good idea - I myself have conservative financial values - but if the conservatives REALLY wanted to reduce the number of women having abortions, they'd be there to offer them support. If a woman is driven to an abortion clinic because she 'can't support a baby,' a true pro-life campaigner would reach into their pocket and pay the rent cheque and grocery bill that this new mother can't.

But, of course, that's not how most conservatives think. They limit their appraisal of abortion to moral condemnation and angry jundgementalism. They never think of the consequences of their actions.

1.2 Million Served...

Zooming out and looking at the big picture, there are some other serious ramifications behind a conservative call for a blanket ban on abortions.

Last year, 1.2 million women had an abortion. Imagine, for a second, the inconceivable notion of 1.2 million women with unplanned pregnancies actually carrying them to term every single year!

Right now, the conservatives are bitching about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every year. Imagine what would happen if a group as large as the population of Dallas, Texas turned up in our maternity wards as well?

Constitutional Hypocrisy

Let's not forget the possibly most important reason why a ban on abortion is an idiotic idea. Because the Supreme Court - the highest court of law in the United States - said a ban on abortion is fundamentally unconstitutional.

According to the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, banning abortions violates the Fourteenth Amendment. That ruling means that no state or national legislative body can ban abortions. You don't have to like it, but it's the law.

Conservatives who oppose abortion want to elect a president who will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court - and hope that one of them will overrule Roe vs. Wade. There's nothing like bypassing the democratic process when you've got an axe to grind, eh?

Let's not beat around the (George) Bush. It's very clearly established in the Constitution that judges are not supposed to legislate from the benches. Making laws is the job of Congress and the Senate - and those laws must fit within the confines of the Constitution.

If conservatives want to pass a law banning abortions, they're damn well going to have to do it through the legislative, facing the scrutiny of this nation's elected representatives. Screwing around with Supreme Court is unconstitutional and unAmerican.

Conservatives may decry people burning the American flag, but apparently they're more than willing to stomp all over it to get what they want.

Just plain dumb...

And, finally, there's just the very unlikable face of the pro-life conservative movement, who undermine the morality of their argument each and every day with offensive and hypocritical actions.

Life is sacred, say the conservatives. Yet fervant anti-abortionists shoot doctors dead outside abortion clinics. Conservatives still support the death penalty. The right wing only 'Support our Troops' as far as sending them abroad to be shot at by Islamic fundamentalists.

I really don't like being lectured about the sanctity of life by people whose hands are practically dripping with blood.

The Solution

It's not all bad news. There is hope for the conservatives and for a rational, practical campaign to eliminate the need for abortions. Those who are pro-life have to look at the big picture and decide which values are more important to them - and what they're willing to sacrifice to help stamp out the demand for abortions in the United States.

Because banning them won't work - but long term changes might.

There are two main keys to reducing the number of abortions - and hopefully setting a precedent that will see the demand for pregnancy termination practically reduced to zero.

• Adequate sex education for teenagers - so they know how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy if they're sexually active (and two out of three are.)
• Adequate resources for poor mothers - so if a woman finds herself pregnant, she doesn't need to worry about paying for a roof over her head or affording food and medical bills.

The downside, of course, is that conservatives are going to have to put up with higher taxes to pay for this - and they're going to have to get off their blinkered high horse about decent sex education.

Whether or not the average conservative is willing to make that sacrifice is a question I can't answer - but until they're willing to, women will still seek abortions (legally or not.)