David Meredith's Blog - Posts Tagged "politics"
President Trump Implements “Crystal Clear” Policy – Mass Arrests
WASHINGTON (Rooters) Nov.10, 2019 – Overnight, local law enforcement and federal agents along with active military and state National Guard personnel executed simultaneous raids on multiple sites in some 500 cities and municipalities across the country in the largest operation of its kind ever attempted.
The number of those detained nationwide is yet unspecified, but one state department official commenting on the condition of anonymity stated that it was clearly in the tens of thousands if not more.
As dawn rose over Dearborn Michigan dozens of semi-trucks, trailers packed with what law enforcement described as “a combination of illegals and national security risks”, were seen leaving the city in convoy. Officials were unwilling to speculate on where the detainees were being taken, instead directing inquiries to the Department of Homeland Security. As of the publication of this report, DHS has not responded to repeated requests for comment. Similar scenes have also been reported in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and dozens of other major cities.
When questioned about the constitutionality of the move President Trump cited executive privilege and stated, “I don’t need the permission of anyone to defend this great nation from those who mean us harm. It was true under President Lincoln and it’s just as true now,” a seeming reference to the 1861 suspension of habeas corpus. An 1862 executive proclamation on the suspension states in part:
“Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law… during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law.”
The move was deemed unconstitutional at the time by the Supreme Court, but remained in effect until 1865.
When asked if such a drastic move was necessary, Trump responded, “You folks in the media just don’t get it, do you? There are people on our very shores who want to kill us. These are the same people who had block parties on 9-11. These are the same people trying to kill our military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Iran. If they are going to commit treason against the United States then they should expect to be called on it and brought to justice. This problem has festered for decades and no president before has had the cajonés to find a solution to it. Well, I do… once and for all… final. ”
When asked what act of treason these thousands of men, women, and children were accused of committing the president responded, “Anyone who puts forward a view of the world that is anathema to Democracy, the U.S. Constitution, and the safety of our nation is engaged in ideological treason. We have to know who these people are, where they are, and what they are doing 24-7. We have to have total transparency, crystal clear transparency… I’m not going to have another 9-11 on my watch.”
When asked if he was referring to Muslims Trump answered, “Sharia would be one example. It’s completely incompatible with our laws and our democracy. ”
Though still unconfirmed at this time preliminary reports indicate that the offices of the Nation of Islam, the US Islamic Council, and the ACLU were also raided in the massive police action and numerous senior organization officials arrested at their homes. Dozens of Mosques and Muslim owned businesses were also reported in flames in multiple cities, but the government denied any responsibility. Thousands of Trump supporters are rallying at the national mall and in the streets across the country in support of the crackdown.
An official at the State Department, again on condition of anonymity noted, “Of course the U.S. federal and state governments would never condone violence against anyone, but people know the enemy is among us. They’re scared and demand action. It’s understandable that some of this boils over into violent acts, as regrettable as that is.”
This morning on the House floor, U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) took to the floor to condemn the action but, Trump supporters filling the gallery shouted so loudly that the Representative’s remarks were inaudible. He was taken into custody for questioning by capitol police after exiting the podium for “suspected anti-American sympathies”.
The number of those detained nationwide is yet unspecified, but one state department official commenting on the condition of anonymity stated that it was clearly in the tens of thousands if not more.
As dawn rose over Dearborn Michigan dozens of semi-trucks, trailers packed with what law enforcement described as “a combination of illegals and national security risks”, were seen leaving the city in convoy. Officials were unwilling to speculate on where the detainees were being taken, instead directing inquiries to the Department of Homeland Security. As of the publication of this report, DHS has not responded to repeated requests for comment. Similar scenes have also been reported in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and dozens of other major cities.
When questioned about the constitutionality of the move President Trump cited executive privilege and stated, “I don’t need the permission of anyone to defend this great nation from those who mean us harm. It was true under President Lincoln and it’s just as true now,” a seeming reference to the 1861 suspension of habeas corpus. An 1862 executive proclamation on the suspension states in part:
“Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law… during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law.”
The move was deemed unconstitutional at the time by the Supreme Court, but remained in effect until 1865.
When asked if such a drastic move was necessary, Trump responded, “You folks in the media just don’t get it, do you? There are people on our very shores who want to kill us. These are the same people who had block parties on 9-11. These are the same people trying to kill our military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and Iran. If they are going to commit treason against the United States then they should expect to be called on it and brought to justice. This problem has festered for decades and no president before has had the cajonés to find a solution to it. Well, I do… once and for all… final. ”
When asked what act of treason these thousands of men, women, and children were accused of committing the president responded, “Anyone who puts forward a view of the world that is anathema to Democracy, the U.S. Constitution, and the safety of our nation is engaged in ideological treason. We have to know who these people are, where they are, and what they are doing 24-7. We have to have total transparency, crystal clear transparency… I’m not going to have another 9-11 on my watch.”
When asked if he was referring to Muslims Trump answered, “Sharia would be one example. It’s completely incompatible with our laws and our democracy. ”
Though still unconfirmed at this time preliminary reports indicate that the offices of the Nation of Islam, the US Islamic Council, and the ACLU were also raided in the massive police action and numerous senior organization officials arrested at their homes. Dozens of Mosques and Muslim owned businesses were also reported in flames in multiple cities, but the government denied any responsibility. Thousands of Trump supporters are rallying at the national mall and in the streets across the country in support of the crackdown.
An official at the State Department, again on condition of anonymity noted, “Of course the U.S. federal and state governments would never condone violence against anyone, but people know the enemy is among us. They’re scared and demand action. It’s understandable that some of this boils over into violent acts, as regrettable as that is.”
This morning on the House floor, U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) took to the floor to condemn the action but, Trump supporters filling the gallery shouted so loudly that the Representative’s remarks were inaudible. He was taken into custody for questioning by capitol police after exiting the podium for “suspected anti-American sympathies”.
Why Both Sides Have it Wrong in the Abortion Debate & How Universal Birth Control is Actually the Most Economically Conservative Position
Roe vs. Wade? Pro-life? Pro-choice? Abortion – yes or no?
There is perhaps no other issue in the American political conversation that is as polarizing and divisive as the debate concerning abortion. Does a woman’s right to decide what happens to her own body trump the right of the fetus to life? Should the unborn not be afforded the same rights and protections as any other living human being? There are no easy answers. The arguments go back and forth, seemingly forever; both sides adamant in their certitude that theirs is the good and righteous fight against unrelenting evil, without anything ever seeming to be settled. But what if there was a third option? What if the way that we’ve framed the whole abortion debate totally misses the point?
How about if instead we started the discussion with this question: Is an abortion a good thing? Throw out the moral indignation and righteous anger. Forget questions of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or not and just answer that question first. Is it a good thing? Now, think carefully before giving answer. Some might argue that abortion is preferable to baring a child that a mother cannot afford. Some might argue that it is morally permissible under certain circumstances, even occasionally necessary, but I don’t think there is any rational person who could make any sort of coherent argument that it is “good”.
All questions of morality aside, an abortion is still a highly invasive, very expensive medical procedure. As with any such procedure the potential for complications like infection, scar tissue formation, sterility, and even death are very real possibilities. Therefore, given the choice, if one can avoid such an arduous and costly ordeal completely, would that not be the best choice?
I think most people would probably answer, “of course!” so the question then arises; Is prevention of abortion really the key issue? Is pro-life vs. pro-choice really the most appropriate rhetorical dichotomy in addressing what most people agree is a serious social ill? If a woman is forced into a decision between an abortion and having a child that she either doesn’t want or can’t care for, are we not already too late? Should our focus not instead be the reduction or elimination of unwanted pregnancy in the first place? After all, if women don’t become pregnant to begin with, they don’t have either abortions or children they can’t afford, and the whole issue of abortion all of a sudden largely settles itself.
Now, at this point I suspect that many conservative readers are sitting up in their chairs, screaming at their computer screens, “that’s right! So if women just don’t have sex…” Erm… No.
Of course, they are correct that celibacy is the surest form of birth control, but in a practical sense, simply preaching abstinence has largely proven to be a complete and abysmal failure as policy. Government sponsored, school sponsored, and/or church sponsored preaching is no match for simple human biology. (Don’t believe me? Just ask Sarah and Bristol Palin how effective they think an abstinence only approach is.) Once a pregnancy happens, the reality of the situation is whether a woman or girl chooses abortion or to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term, it is still a tragically traumatic and essentially unnecessary experience that either way is going to cost us.
“But people should exercise better self-control!” You cry. Okay… Maybe they should, but they don’t. The government should not be in the business of indulging in hypothetical “shoulda, coulda, wouldas” that might make us as individuals feel justified, but solve absolutely nothing. All one need do to demonstrate this total policy failure is to examine the states that have most ardently supported abstinence only approaches. They incidentally also have the highest unplanned pregnancy rates. Just telling people not to have sex has not solved the problem. However, it cannot be denied that the fact people don’t appear in aggregate to exercise monastic levels of self-control regarding sex, creates an undeniable social burden on the rest of society. It therefore behooves the US government to come up with a policy approach that ameliorates the situation, reduces misery and poverty for women and girls, and at the same time cuts the economic burden on the rest of us.
There is no question unplanned pregnancy remains a serious issue in the U.S. which has one of the highest unplanned pregnancy rates among all industrialized nations. Unwanted pregnancies are expensive, whatever the final decision proves to be in terms of how a woman chooses to deal with it. When the United States government is then forced into doling out billions to pay for these pregnancies, it then necessitates spending reductions in other agencies and programs, an increase in taxes, higher budget deficits, or some combination of all three. So, given this reality, the government cannot fail to consider what would be the most economically responsible thing to do. If it is also the morally upright thing to do, then so much the better. Therefore, should our goal not be to minimize both cost and misery?
If the answer to that question is yes, the obvious solution is universally available, free birth control. Now, conservatives at this point may experience reflexive and bellicose paroxysms of distain for this suggestion, but in reality it is the MOST conservative approach to the problem, and the justification is simple cost-benefit analysis. If we can agree (and pro-lifers and planned parenthood supporters alike do on this issue) that preventing unwanted pregnancies and thus also abortions is a good thing, the question then becomes, “what is the most cost effective way of doing that?”
There are plenty of conservatives who might protest that they don’t want to pay for some woman’s birth control, or even more inelegantly to pay for women to “have sex”, (although I think this particular view is exceedingly, poorly premised), but in any case, what is the alternative if you also want to prevent her from having an abortion or a child she cannot afford? I would imagine that there is pretty broad agreement in conservative circles that the government should not be paying for abortions, but it cannot be denied in an economic sense, it is worse still for the tax payer in the cases where the pro-lifers are successful and unexpected pregnancies are actually carried to term.
The Washington Post reported on March 3, 2015 that the US annually spends about $21 BILLION a year on unplanned pregnancies. If you break this number down, that includes $12,770 in prenatal care and postnatal care for the first 12 months as well as another $7,947 for care from months 13 – 60 for a total of $20,716 PER BIRTH. This does not then begin to factor in additional costs for EBT (formally known as food stamps), WIC, government housing, free and reduced school lunch, along with many other and varied forms of government assistance that both mother and child often qualify for, considering that a high percentage of children born as a result of unplanned pregnancy are born into families who subsist below the poverty level. The bottom line? You are already paying far more for one woman’s unplanned child than you would ever pay for dozens of women’s birth control.
In contrast to the cost of an unplanned pregnancy and birth, the average price of a birth control injection is roughly $50-$60. They last for three months and are necessary four times a year. Injections are preferable because they are not permanent. When a woman decides that she is ready to conceive, it is a relatively painless process that involves little more than patiently waiting, but unlike the birth control pill, helps women largely avoid accidental pregnancies through missed doses.
The above are not the only expenses to consider, however. If one looks only at teenage pregnancies for example (of which an astronomically high percentage are unplanned) there are even more costs involved. Women who have their first child in their teens are less likely to ever finish high school and much less likely to complete a college degree. They are more likely to work in minimum wage or low paying jobs or be unemployed. This then makes it much more likely that they will continue to be a net drain on the entitlement system for the duration of their lives. Children born into these families themselves are also much more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and continue the cycle of poverty. Conversely, women who have children later in life are much more likely to finish their educations, find lucrative jobs, earn an income that will allow them and their families to be self-sufficient, and become net contributors to the tax base instead of net takers. This represents not only enormous potential reductions in cost but also corresponding increases in revenue that make the overall positive economic impact of preventing these pregnancies exponential.
When you crunch all the numbers, examine all the potential benefits, and consider any drawbacks, the solution to the unplanned pregnancy crisis in the US should be clear. The average abortion can cost $1000 or more and to many, is morally reprehensible. Even tossing out the moral aspect all together, it is still a highly invasive surgical procedure that should be avoided if at all possible. An unexpected pregnancy carried to term can be astronomically expensive for the US tax payer. Free birth control would represent a cost to federal and state governments, yes, but a much reduced cost - exponentially cheaper than current policy.
The solution should be obvious. If you want to vastly reduce the number of abortions you must vastly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, which would also greatly reduce the cost of these pregnancies to the US tax payer. All women of child baring age should receive regular, free birth control injections unless they choose to opt out (for personal or religious reasons) either through schools or county health departments. The abortion rate would almost immediately drop by 90% or more and the nation would incur a much lower cost than what it currently pays in entitlements for unplanned children. The benefits to the country in terms of transforming net takers into tax payers would be economically huge and the reduction of misery and poverty among at-risk women and girls would be an enormous social good.
Pro-life? Pro-choice? If we are pro-universal birth control, that decision largely becomes irrelevant and everyone is better off.
There is perhaps no other issue in the American political conversation that is as polarizing and divisive as the debate concerning abortion. Does a woman’s right to decide what happens to her own body trump the right of the fetus to life? Should the unborn not be afforded the same rights and protections as any other living human being? There are no easy answers. The arguments go back and forth, seemingly forever; both sides adamant in their certitude that theirs is the good and righteous fight against unrelenting evil, without anything ever seeming to be settled. But what if there was a third option? What if the way that we’ve framed the whole abortion debate totally misses the point?
How about if instead we started the discussion with this question: Is an abortion a good thing? Throw out the moral indignation and righteous anger. Forget questions of whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or not and just answer that question first. Is it a good thing? Now, think carefully before giving answer. Some might argue that abortion is preferable to baring a child that a mother cannot afford. Some might argue that it is morally permissible under certain circumstances, even occasionally necessary, but I don’t think there is any rational person who could make any sort of coherent argument that it is “good”.
All questions of morality aside, an abortion is still a highly invasive, very expensive medical procedure. As with any such procedure the potential for complications like infection, scar tissue formation, sterility, and even death are very real possibilities. Therefore, given the choice, if one can avoid such an arduous and costly ordeal completely, would that not be the best choice?
I think most people would probably answer, “of course!” so the question then arises; Is prevention of abortion really the key issue? Is pro-life vs. pro-choice really the most appropriate rhetorical dichotomy in addressing what most people agree is a serious social ill? If a woman is forced into a decision between an abortion and having a child that she either doesn’t want or can’t care for, are we not already too late? Should our focus not instead be the reduction or elimination of unwanted pregnancy in the first place? After all, if women don’t become pregnant to begin with, they don’t have either abortions or children they can’t afford, and the whole issue of abortion all of a sudden largely settles itself.
Now, at this point I suspect that many conservative readers are sitting up in their chairs, screaming at their computer screens, “that’s right! So if women just don’t have sex…” Erm… No.
Of course, they are correct that celibacy is the surest form of birth control, but in a practical sense, simply preaching abstinence has largely proven to be a complete and abysmal failure as policy. Government sponsored, school sponsored, and/or church sponsored preaching is no match for simple human biology. (Don’t believe me? Just ask Sarah and Bristol Palin how effective they think an abstinence only approach is.) Once a pregnancy happens, the reality of the situation is whether a woman or girl chooses abortion or to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term, it is still a tragically traumatic and essentially unnecessary experience that either way is going to cost us.
“But people should exercise better self-control!” You cry. Okay… Maybe they should, but they don’t. The government should not be in the business of indulging in hypothetical “shoulda, coulda, wouldas” that might make us as individuals feel justified, but solve absolutely nothing. All one need do to demonstrate this total policy failure is to examine the states that have most ardently supported abstinence only approaches. They incidentally also have the highest unplanned pregnancy rates. Just telling people not to have sex has not solved the problem. However, it cannot be denied that the fact people don’t appear in aggregate to exercise monastic levels of self-control regarding sex, creates an undeniable social burden on the rest of society. It therefore behooves the US government to come up with a policy approach that ameliorates the situation, reduces misery and poverty for women and girls, and at the same time cuts the economic burden on the rest of us.
There is no question unplanned pregnancy remains a serious issue in the U.S. which has one of the highest unplanned pregnancy rates among all industrialized nations. Unwanted pregnancies are expensive, whatever the final decision proves to be in terms of how a woman chooses to deal with it. When the United States government is then forced into doling out billions to pay for these pregnancies, it then necessitates spending reductions in other agencies and programs, an increase in taxes, higher budget deficits, or some combination of all three. So, given this reality, the government cannot fail to consider what would be the most economically responsible thing to do. If it is also the morally upright thing to do, then so much the better. Therefore, should our goal not be to minimize both cost and misery?
If the answer to that question is yes, the obvious solution is universally available, free birth control. Now, conservatives at this point may experience reflexive and bellicose paroxysms of distain for this suggestion, but in reality it is the MOST conservative approach to the problem, and the justification is simple cost-benefit analysis. If we can agree (and pro-lifers and planned parenthood supporters alike do on this issue) that preventing unwanted pregnancies and thus also abortions is a good thing, the question then becomes, “what is the most cost effective way of doing that?”
There are plenty of conservatives who might protest that they don’t want to pay for some woman’s birth control, or even more inelegantly to pay for women to “have sex”, (although I think this particular view is exceedingly, poorly premised), but in any case, what is the alternative if you also want to prevent her from having an abortion or a child she cannot afford? I would imagine that there is pretty broad agreement in conservative circles that the government should not be paying for abortions, but it cannot be denied in an economic sense, it is worse still for the tax payer in the cases where the pro-lifers are successful and unexpected pregnancies are actually carried to term.
The Washington Post reported on March 3, 2015 that the US annually spends about $21 BILLION a year on unplanned pregnancies. If you break this number down, that includes $12,770 in prenatal care and postnatal care for the first 12 months as well as another $7,947 for care from months 13 – 60 for a total of $20,716 PER BIRTH. This does not then begin to factor in additional costs for EBT (formally known as food stamps), WIC, government housing, free and reduced school lunch, along with many other and varied forms of government assistance that both mother and child often qualify for, considering that a high percentage of children born as a result of unplanned pregnancy are born into families who subsist below the poverty level. The bottom line? You are already paying far more for one woman’s unplanned child than you would ever pay for dozens of women’s birth control.
In contrast to the cost of an unplanned pregnancy and birth, the average price of a birth control injection is roughly $50-$60. They last for three months and are necessary four times a year. Injections are preferable because they are not permanent. When a woman decides that she is ready to conceive, it is a relatively painless process that involves little more than patiently waiting, but unlike the birth control pill, helps women largely avoid accidental pregnancies through missed doses.
The above are not the only expenses to consider, however. If one looks only at teenage pregnancies for example (of which an astronomically high percentage are unplanned) there are even more costs involved. Women who have their first child in their teens are less likely to ever finish high school and much less likely to complete a college degree. They are more likely to work in minimum wage or low paying jobs or be unemployed. This then makes it much more likely that they will continue to be a net drain on the entitlement system for the duration of their lives. Children born into these families themselves are also much more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and continue the cycle of poverty. Conversely, women who have children later in life are much more likely to finish their educations, find lucrative jobs, earn an income that will allow them and their families to be self-sufficient, and become net contributors to the tax base instead of net takers. This represents not only enormous potential reductions in cost but also corresponding increases in revenue that make the overall positive economic impact of preventing these pregnancies exponential.
When you crunch all the numbers, examine all the potential benefits, and consider any drawbacks, the solution to the unplanned pregnancy crisis in the US should be clear. The average abortion can cost $1000 or more and to many, is morally reprehensible. Even tossing out the moral aspect all together, it is still a highly invasive surgical procedure that should be avoided if at all possible. An unexpected pregnancy carried to term can be astronomically expensive for the US tax payer. Free birth control would represent a cost to federal and state governments, yes, but a much reduced cost - exponentially cheaper than current policy.
The solution should be obvious. If you want to vastly reduce the number of abortions you must vastly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, which would also greatly reduce the cost of these pregnancies to the US tax payer. All women of child baring age should receive regular, free birth control injections unless they choose to opt out (for personal or religious reasons) either through schools or county health departments. The abortion rate would almost immediately drop by 90% or more and the nation would incur a much lower cost than what it currently pays in entitlements for unplanned children. The benefits to the country in terms of transforming net takers into tax payers would be economically huge and the reduction of misery and poverty among at-risk women and girls would be an enormous social good.
Pro-life? Pro-choice? If we are pro-universal birth control, that decision largely becomes irrelevant and everyone is better off.
Explaining the Big Political “Pro-Life” Scam
Just this past week, Texas passed one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws ever enacted in the post Roe v. Wade United States. It will hypothetically ban virtually all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy before most women even know they’re pregnant. It will also allow any private citizen to sue any doctor who performs an abortion for up to $10,000 each. As with virtually all draconian abortion bills of this nature, pro-choice groups have already sworn to challenge it in court, where it will almost certainly be defeated as unconstitutional after the State of Texas spends millions of taxpayer dollars defending it. Is there an outside chance this law makes it all the way to the Supreme Court where the newly minted conservative majority uphold it? Well, there’s always a chance, but it is worth noting that all three justices confirmed during the Trump administration stated specifically during their confirmation hearings they believed Roe v. Wade was decided case law. Assuming they were telling the truth, this makes the likelihood of this, or any other hyper-restrictive abortion law, actually becoming enforced criminal or civil code very, very low. After fifty years of futility since Roe v. Wade, no one understands this reality better than conservative, so-called “pro-life” politicians, so why do they keep up the attempt?
Well, the stock answer one would likely receive from their respective offices would probably have something to do with the moral turpitude of the insidious practice of abortion, so even if the chance for success is low, they have a moral obligation to continue the good fight. The problem with this type of response is it is clearly a lie. The reality is, there is a surefire way to reduce the number of abortions in this country by 80% or more almost overnight, and conservative politicians have spurned it for decades – namely providing free universal birth control to all women and girls of childbearing age with the same consistency and regularity as we provide other vaccines. Now, some may object to referring to birth control as a vaccine, but in reality it easily matches if not surpasses any other vaccine for preventative benefit. Research clearly shows birth control is a vaccination against poverty. It’s a vaccination against low educational achievement among women and girls. And yes, it’s a vaccination against ever needing to even consider the wrenching choice between keeping a child you don’t want and/or can’t afford and having an abortion that in addition to the moral question, is a potentially risky and traumatic medical procedure. Birth control is also exponentially cheaper than the thousands of dollars American taxpayers spend in public entitlements for each child of women and girls who never meant to get pregnant in the first place.
So why do they do it? Why do they persist in passing legislation they know is doomed from the start? One would suppose if the goal was to prevent as many abortions as possible that these “pro-life” crusaders would be the biggest cheerleaders in the world for encouraging women and girls get on a birth control regimen as prudent public health policy and want to ensure they have the easiest possible access to encourage maximum coverage. However, this is not the case. The reality is “pro-life” politicians have no interest in solving the very real public health crisis of unintended pregnancy and abortion. In fact, there is powerful disincentive for them to ameliorate the problem at all – Namely, publicly and vocally decrying abortion gets votes, but solving the problem does not.
Politicians know these draconian anti-abortion laws are doomed to failure before they are ever passed out of committee. They know they’ll be challenged in court. They know defending them is futile and an extravagant waste of taxpayer money, but they do it anyway. The reason of course is the issue of abortion is exceedingly easy to demagogue. It is extremely simple to fire up your conservative base if you frame the issue as saving poor innocent little babies from monstrous, murderous abortionists. After all, who doesn’t want to save babies? Babies are cute. Babies are defenseless. Now, this completely ignores the nuance of scientific grey area about when life and moral agency actually begin, but that is a nonissue for politicians who owe their political lives to moral outrage over “killing babies”. The moral indignation over abortion in conservative circles is such that they will forgive conservative politicians almost any personal vice or shameless act of corruption as long as they give public lip service to their disgust and distain for abortion, all who advocate it, and their heart-felt desire to severely punish everyone involved with the practice. Thus “pro-life” politicians engage in a predictable and repeatable cycle, which goes something like this:
First, a conservative politician campaigns on a hardline stance against abortion. They advocate strict restrictions on the procedure, harsh punishments for women and doctors, all with the intention of firing up their conservative “pro-life” base. They get elected and pass these highly restrictive bills knowing full well they will be immediately challenged in court. The draconian laws get prominent, free news coverage as do the politicians who support them. They fork out millions of tax dollars to pay for defending the law in court, then when the law is inevitably thrown out as unconstitutional, they shake their fists and loudly decry dastardly “activist judges” thwarting their righteous efforts. The end result is these politicians can claim they are “tough on abortion” when in actuality, in terms of doing anything practical to reduce the number of abortions, they have done exactly nothing. Their efforts do not prevent one, single, solitary abortion. At its most basic, “pro-life” anti-abortion outrage is nothing but a political bait-and-switch scam that conservative politicians perennially dust off and reuse every two, four, or six years depending on their office, but the health crisis remains, and that’s just exactly how they want it.
There is no question unplanned pregnancy is a huge public health crisis in this country. Whatever one’s stance on abortion, the reality is if women and girls received birth control in the same numbers and with the same regularity as they receive other vaccines, the issue over abortion would largely solve itself. By eliminating the strong majority of unplanned pregnancies, the procedure would mostly be relegated to medically necessary situations where abortion is a lot less controversial. However, conservative “pro-life” politicians are unlikely to take the practical steps to actually improve a public health situation they decry as an abomination, because demonizing abortion is too much of a political cash cow for them to abandon. They have no interest in actually reducing the number of abortions. They aren’t really “pro-life”. They are simply pro-outrage, because hyped up fury over abortion is what keeps getting them votes.
Well, the stock answer one would likely receive from their respective offices would probably have something to do with the moral turpitude of the insidious practice of abortion, so even if the chance for success is low, they have a moral obligation to continue the good fight. The problem with this type of response is it is clearly a lie. The reality is, there is a surefire way to reduce the number of abortions in this country by 80% or more almost overnight, and conservative politicians have spurned it for decades – namely providing free universal birth control to all women and girls of childbearing age with the same consistency and regularity as we provide other vaccines. Now, some may object to referring to birth control as a vaccine, but in reality it easily matches if not surpasses any other vaccine for preventative benefit. Research clearly shows birth control is a vaccination against poverty. It’s a vaccination against low educational achievement among women and girls. And yes, it’s a vaccination against ever needing to even consider the wrenching choice between keeping a child you don’t want and/or can’t afford and having an abortion that in addition to the moral question, is a potentially risky and traumatic medical procedure. Birth control is also exponentially cheaper than the thousands of dollars American taxpayers spend in public entitlements for each child of women and girls who never meant to get pregnant in the first place.
So why do they do it? Why do they persist in passing legislation they know is doomed from the start? One would suppose if the goal was to prevent as many abortions as possible that these “pro-life” crusaders would be the biggest cheerleaders in the world for encouraging women and girls get on a birth control regimen as prudent public health policy and want to ensure they have the easiest possible access to encourage maximum coverage. However, this is not the case. The reality is “pro-life” politicians have no interest in solving the very real public health crisis of unintended pregnancy and abortion. In fact, there is powerful disincentive for them to ameliorate the problem at all – Namely, publicly and vocally decrying abortion gets votes, but solving the problem does not.
Politicians know these draconian anti-abortion laws are doomed to failure before they are ever passed out of committee. They know they’ll be challenged in court. They know defending them is futile and an extravagant waste of taxpayer money, but they do it anyway. The reason of course is the issue of abortion is exceedingly easy to demagogue. It is extremely simple to fire up your conservative base if you frame the issue as saving poor innocent little babies from monstrous, murderous abortionists. After all, who doesn’t want to save babies? Babies are cute. Babies are defenseless. Now, this completely ignores the nuance of scientific grey area about when life and moral agency actually begin, but that is a nonissue for politicians who owe their political lives to moral outrage over “killing babies”. The moral indignation over abortion in conservative circles is such that they will forgive conservative politicians almost any personal vice or shameless act of corruption as long as they give public lip service to their disgust and distain for abortion, all who advocate it, and their heart-felt desire to severely punish everyone involved with the practice. Thus “pro-life” politicians engage in a predictable and repeatable cycle, which goes something like this:
First, a conservative politician campaigns on a hardline stance against abortion. They advocate strict restrictions on the procedure, harsh punishments for women and doctors, all with the intention of firing up their conservative “pro-life” base. They get elected and pass these highly restrictive bills knowing full well they will be immediately challenged in court. The draconian laws get prominent, free news coverage as do the politicians who support them. They fork out millions of tax dollars to pay for defending the law in court, then when the law is inevitably thrown out as unconstitutional, they shake their fists and loudly decry dastardly “activist judges” thwarting their righteous efforts. The end result is these politicians can claim they are “tough on abortion” when in actuality, in terms of doing anything practical to reduce the number of abortions, they have done exactly nothing. Their efforts do not prevent one, single, solitary abortion. At its most basic, “pro-life” anti-abortion outrage is nothing but a political bait-and-switch scam that conservative politicians perennially dust off and reuse every two, four, or six years depending on their office, but the health crisis remains, and that’s just exactly how they want it.
There is no question unplanned pregnancy is a huge public health crisis in this country. Whatever one’s stance on abortion, the reality is if women and girls received birth control in the same numbers and with the same regularity as they receive other vaccines, the issue over abortion would largely solve itself. By eliminating the strong majority of unplanned pregnancies, the procedure would mostly be relegated to medically necessary situations where abortion is a lot less controversial. However, conservative “pro-life” politicians are unlikely to take the practical steps to actually improve a public health situation they decry as an abomination, because demonizing abortion is too much of a political cash cow for them to abandon. They have no interest in actually reducing the number of abortions. They aren’t really “pro-life”. They are simply pro-outrage, because hyped up fury over abortion is what keeps getting them votes.
