Why Sen. Pearce's latest anti-immigrant bill infuriates even me...

Sen. Russell Pearce and the Arizona Republicans have clearly succumbed to heatstroke.

I’ve been in support of them recently - for their SB 1070 legislation that makes carrying legal identification mandatory, and gives police the power to demand the papers of anybody they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

[I support it because that’s how things roll over in Europe. What liberals claim is akin to ‘fascism’ is actually an accepted part of living in so-called ‘progressive’ European countries.]

Some liberal-minded idiots have claimed it’s ‘racial profiling’ but that’s only because the profile of illegal immigrants in Arizona is almost universally Hispanic. If exactly the same law was enacted in New York, suspects would include teeming hordes of Irishmen, Israelis and Russians as well – so it wouldn’t be profiling at all. The law is colorblind – the criminals aren’t.

Yet while I support Arizona’s SB 1070, a new bill being forwarded has really disappointed me.

This new bill would take the clampdown on illegals one step further – by preventing the state from issuing birth certificates to children born in Arizona if their parents are illegal immigrants. The right-wing claim these ‘anchor babies’ – who are American citizens by right of being born in this country – are 'tool' illegals cynically use to establish legal ties to America that prevent their deportation.

Pearce may have a point – and like with the bill that required citizens to carry paperwork, it’s not exactly groundbreaking. Just about every western country has already changed their laws so that kids of foreign parents don’t automatically become citizens purely on the virtue of being born there.

But America stands apart – because the decision to award citizenship to every child born on American soil is enshrined in our most sacred document: The Constitution.

The 14th Amendment states that:

"all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

In short, Arizona doesn’t have the right to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Sen. Pearce is proposing a law that’s so blatantly unconstitutional I have to wonder exactly what he was smoking when he imagined – even for a second – that he could get away with it!

Of course, he might get away with it. That’s the inevitable situation with State vs. Federal law. It will take a supreme court decision to establish that the law legally can’t be enforced – a process that could take years.

That’s presumably why Sen. Pearce proposed this bill – since I can’t imagine for a second that he was unaware just how unconstitutional it is. He’s playing the system and I don’t like it one goddamn bit. It’s unscrupulous and cheap.

I can’t stand hypocrisy, you see – and when it comes to screwing around with the Constitution, that’s exactly what the Arizona Republicans are guilty of.

These are the guys who claim to vehemently defend the Constitution – or, at least, the right not just to own guns, but to swagger around the state with them strapped to their thighs. Yet when it comes to getting their own way, they’re just as eager to toss aside the sacred document as the Democrats always seem to be.

[A similar example of this Constitutional hypocrisy is Sarah Palin, who claims the Constitution is a sacred document, but nevertheless wants to add a specific clause banning same-sex marriage to it.]

Seriously, you can either stand by the belief that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ that you can edit and alter (in which case, Democrats are good to go on repealing the Second Amendment and whatever else they want to toss in) or you can stick with the belief that the Constitution is good enough as it is – which is what I personally believe (and the Republicans ‘claim’ to.)

[After all, the US Constitution has lasted essentially unchanged for longer than the constitution of every other country in the world – combined.]

The fact that Sen. Pearce is one of those same right-wing windbags who ‘defend’ the Constitution every time they rail against the Obama administration, it’s absolutely unconscionable for him to propose a law that actually violates it.

The Bill of Rights

I was so inspired by my trip to Philadelphia. I learned a HUGE amount. It radically altered my perception of American society and the intentions of the Founding Fathers when they created the American nation.

I've been inspired to write Baby Booshakala a little book about 'What America Means...' I was going to tell him the story of the American Revolution and explain how documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution give him certain rights and freedoms - the freedoms that make America so special.

It's not easy, though. I took my first stab at explaining the Bill of Rights in a simple, child-friendly way. I'd love to know if any of my readers think I got it right, or disagree with the way I've explained things.

Remember, I'm writing for a child here. That's why I've left out a lot of the sophistication of the Bill of Rights. - also, I don't know if I 'get' the Ninth Amendment at all - but I think I've got the gist of what the first ten amendments to the Constitution mean:

1. The First Amendment gave people ‘freedom of speech’ – it made sure that the government couldn’t punish people for saying what they thought, or stop people from practicing whatever religion they wanted.
2. The Second Amendment gave people ‘the right to bear arms’ – it made sure that every grown up was allowed to keep a gun to defend their home and family, as long as they were willing to serve in the ‘militia’ – a local army made up of regular folks – when asked to.
3. The Third Amendment made sure that the government couldn’t force you to let soldiers live in your house during peacetime.
4. The Fourth Amendment gave people protection from ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ – it made sure that soldiers and police couldn’t search people or their houses, or take their things, without good reason.
5. The Fifth Amendment protected people in trouble with the law. It made sure the police had to have evidence that somebody might be guilty before they could be locked up, and allowed people not to say anything if it would get them into trouble.
6. The Sixth Amendment made sure that people in trouble with the law had the right to have a lawyer help them - and in court, a group of regular people called a ‘jury’ got to hear both sides of the story and decide whether or not the person was guilty of a crime before they could be punished.
7. The Seventh Amendment gave people in a disagreement the right to argue their side of the story in front of a ‘jury’ of regular people – and those people would decide who was right and who was wrong.
8. The Eighth Amendment gave people the protection from ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ like being tortured or locked up unfairly.
9. The Ninth Amendment explains that the Bill of Rights doesn’t list every freedom or right people have - and just because a freedom or right isn’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t give the government the power to take that freedom away.
10. The Tenth Amendment made sure that each of the states in the United States were allowed to make their own laws and rules, as long as they wouldn’t break any of the rules in the Bill of Rights.

Tolerance in America

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures.

Abraham Lincoln

In the past few months, I've witnessed an awful lot of people bleating about their rights, claiming persecution and donning the mantle of victimhood. I've stood up for quite a few positions during this time - some of which I was right about, others that I might not have been.

I've come think the secret to a happy society is tolerance. But what is tolerance?

I've been thinking about this a lot and I think tolerance is actually easy. Tolerance is the subtle art of not getting up off your arse to meddle in somebody else's business.

For example, if my evangelical Christian next-door-neighbor wants to home school his kids, (teaching creationism and other delightful fairy tales) my natural instinct it to leap up and do something about it. But do you know what? Maybe it's none of my business. Maybe I should let him do whatever he wants and confine my opinions to how I live my life.

Likewise, if the two young men next door want to get married, the idea might be sickening and disturbing to you - but their union isn't going to affect you at all. In fact, to propagate a popular stereotype, their house renovations might raise the property value of the entire street. Maybe you should leave them to do whatever they want to do and confine your opinions to how you live your life.

The best thing about tolerance is that it's that easy. You don't have to do anything.

To protest religious homeschooling, you have to write an angry letter to the school board ("Dear Sir, teaching creationism is akin to child abuse!")

To protest gay marriage, you have to campaign for legislative reform and paint placards (God Hates Fags! Mal 1:3!)

To do the right thing - and be tolerant and respectful of other people's rights to live how they want to - the only thing you have to do is settle back into your chair and take a sip of your Plym and Tonic.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to support it. All you have to do is recognize that it's none of your Goddamned business (and therefore, your opinion on the matter is completely insignificant.)

Here endeth the sermon - but I think it's just as valid a lesson for liberty-lovin' liberals like me as the right wing people I'm always attacking. Looking back, I realise there's no ideological right or wrong. When it comes to Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the Conservatives have been right on some issues, the Liberals have been right on others - and they've both been wrong on things a number of times!)

As long as they don't infringe on anybody else's freedom and nobody gets hurt, we've no right to prevent people making their own choices in life. It's called progress, Baby, and you'd best not stand in the way of it.

Supreme Court silliness

Gasp - I think I actually agree with the conservatives when it comes to their angry rants against the Supreme Court!

The Supreme Court is the highest court in America - and it's appointed justices decide the final interpretation of all sorts of important issues.

Most recently, they've made some good decisions, like securing Constitutional Rights for the remaining inmates on Guantanamo Bay and banning states from executing prisoners for non-capital crimes.

Although (to paraphrase James Bond) 'guns upset me', I also supported their decision to uphold the 2nd Amendment and lift the ban on handguns in Washington DC.

But despite making mostly the right decisions (upholding the death penalty was a mistake. Surely capital punishment is the very embodiment of 'cruel and unusual punishment) there is one worrying thing about all of the Supreme Court's decisions.

They tend to rule 5-4.

As in, five of the judges rule one way - the other four rule against the majority.

Generally, this is done on party lines - so for the 2nd Amendment issue, the four liberal justices (John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter) voted against lifting the handgun ban, while the four conservative justices, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Saluel Alito voted for it.

These two 'parties' voted on strict ideological grounds on all of the issues - so it was left to Justice Anthony Kennedy to decide the issue.

This is annoying for all sorts of reasons - first and foremost, because it shows just how vulnerable the Supreme Court system is to abuse.

As far as I'm concerned, cases like the one concerning the Guantanamo Bay inmates and the 2nd Amendment should have been clear-cut. The law is transparent and even if the Justices didn't politically agree with it, they should have voted for what the law said.

Instead, both conservative and liberal justices attempt to legislate from the bench - and overturn clear cut laws with established constitutional precedent.

At the moment, because Anthony Kennedy seems to be fairly clear headed, this is mostly working out for the better. But all it would take is another conservative Justice to tip the balance and see America's liberties poured down the drain.

Likewise, as far as Republican voters are concerned, it would be a nightmare scenario if Obama was elected president and slid another liberal Justice into the Supreme Court - because then the 4/4 split would be tipped towards the liberal's favour.

Even though I'm fairly liberal in my outlook, I don't necessarily think that would be any better for America than a conservative Supreme Court. Whether dominated by the left or the right, it's still fundamentally wrong that they try to shape the application of the law to suit their political leanings.

The Supreme Court's job is to maintain the constitution and strike down laws which violate it. They should be about LAW and JUSTICE and remain totally independent from politics.

More on Gitmo and the Supreme Court

A few emails raised some issues regarding the Supreme Court's decision to allow detainees of Guantanamo Bay to challenge their imprisonment.

Issue 1: The US Constitution protects American Citizens and aliens ON United States territory. Since Guantanamo bay is in Cuba and the detainees aren't American, they shouldn't be given Constitutional rights.

Rebuttal: Guantanamo Bay is effectively United States territory. It was a military base cynically established 90 miles from Florida's coast to allow the government to detain 'enemy combatants' without having to worry about pesky things like the Constitution. But for all intents and purposes, it is American territory. American troops. American equipment. American fences protecting American turf and American burgers and hot dogs served in the canteen. As damned-as-near it, it's American soil and to argue it isn't is just semantics. That's why the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees have Constitutional rights.

Issue 2: The detainees are Prisoners of War and therefore don't have the same Constitutional rights as defendants in Criminal cases.

Rebuttal: I can see the logic behind this - we certainly didn't offer Japanese or German prisoners of war Constitutional rights during World War II. However, the reality is this: Nobody's quite sure if these detainees are enemy combatants or not. I remind you of the 13 year old held without charge in Gitmo for two years (and then released.)

Because of the ambiguous nature of the 'war on terror,' we're left with the burden of proving that these detainees are enemy soldiers and not just Afghanistani goat herders. The burden of proof hasn't been met - and therefore the government can't treat these detainees as prisoners of war on innuendo alone.

Conclusion: The words 'piss up' and 'brewery' spring to mind - as in 'couldn't organise one.'

During the start of the war, when public opinion was behind them, the military should have made public record of how and when these detainees were captured - and, most importantly, WHY.

Instead, the murky government has scooped up people (perhaps even at random) and held them without charge for years. Are they guilty? Apparently, we the American public aren't privileged enough to find out. All we're 'privileged' enough to do is see our tax dollars go towards paying to incarcerate these people.

If the government wants to spend our money running an internment camp, I think it's only fair that they show us what the people who are interned there are guilty of.

Americans believe in certain inalienable rights extended to all men (not just US citizens). That much is 'self evident' (according to the Declaration of Independence.) No American authority has the right to take those inalienable rights away from anybody - at least not without good evidence.

When it comes to Guantanamo Bay, we've been bullied into surrendering other people's Constitutional rights. That's the start of the slippery slope towards surrendering our own.

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.

America is a Secular Nation

If you repeat a lie often enough, it almost becomes the truth.

One such lie is: "The United States was founded on Christian Principles!"

This 'misconception' is often touted as truth by conservative Christians. It appeals to the more evangelical of them. Popular history paints the pilgrims as pious and protestant and it's affirming for conservatives to believe there is a direct link between the beliefs they hold today and the beliefs of the people who built the American nation.

But however affirming and appealing the idea is, it remains a lie.

America is a secular nation, founded on secular principles. All it takes to dispel the fantasy of America's 'Judeo-Christian roots' is to open a history book.

America's Secular Roots

Conservative Christians often argue that the founding fathers themselves - as devout Christians - would have incorporated their faith when penning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The problem is, the founding fathers weren't necessarily devout - or even Christian. This is just an assumption conservatives make because the founding fathers lived during the tail-end of the eighteenth century.

In fact, out of the 55 delegates at the Philadelphia Convention (who we now refer to as the 'Founding Fathers') many belonged to no particular Christian affiliation at all.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, was a confirmed atheist. He penned the 'Jefferson Bible' which removed all superstition and supernatural references from the Bible. It presented the story of Jesus as if he was just a wise, yet mortal man - similar to how I've come to consider the story of the New Testament.

George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine wrote extensively against organised religion and many of the 'Christian values' conservatives claim America was founded on.

Franklin, Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen were deists - believing that if there was a heavenly creator, he did not come to mankind through religion, but by granting man the gift of rationality and reason.

In short - the founding fathers were not all pious Christians. In fact, the most American of Americans (like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin) would be horrified at 21st century evangelical superstition.

The Proof - On Paper

If there are any lingering doubts about the secular background of many of the founding fathers, it's worth looking at the documents they penned. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution are clearly and indisputably secular in nature.

The "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle people - not a Christian God.

"The Creator" grants all men "with certain unalienable Rights." Not God. Not Jesus. In fact, not not necessarily a deity at all. Just that which has created man.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is interpreted by no less than Thomas Jefferson as "a wall of separation between church and state." This clearly establishes that the foundation of the United States of America took place entirely independently of any religious considerations.

Further irrefutable proof

If that mountain of evidence is not enough to satisfy the more rabid conservative Christian, the following will. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by the founding fathers without any discussion, debate or opposition, states the following firmly in black and white:

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

These words were written by - and signed into law by - the founding fathers of the United States. The 55 delegates who created the American nation - comprising atheists, deists, protestants and catholics amongst them - were unified on this important principle.

The United States has was never founded on Christian principles. Anybody who tells you differently is either ignorant - or a liar.

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.)