The EU and Greece

The most recent edition of The Economist had a good amount to say about the future of Greece, the European Union and the Euro. Most of the coverage of Greece and the EU in the United States has been from the usual doom-and-gloom political statements from Republican presidential candidates about excessive government spending. While the charge may be true relative to the large size of the public sector in bailed out Greece, Portugal and Ireland, the crises in Europe requires a deeper and more nuanced review of the Union.

The EU, while united under one currency (The Euro) and a few policy authorities (Council of Ministers and European Council), is still a hodgepodge of countries of various sizes, cultures and political persuasions. From the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht to the current banking crises, many of the EU nations have taken fiscal governing  of such a large body with a less than adequate level of seriousness. That is, rules set out to avoid a crises of this nature took a back seat to the financial interests of some of the larger economies (France, Germany, etc). The article in the Economist highlights this problem with an anecdote about France's view of budget cuts:

 In 2002, Francis Met, newly installed as French Finance Minister dismissed commission requests for budget cuts to comply with the stability and growth pact by saying that "France has other priorities."


The article rightly states that the current finance minister under newly elected French president Francois Hollande would quickly lose his job if he were to dismiss EU fiscal responsibilities in the same manner. While some nations ignored the fiscal pacts of the Union, many still believed that a region united under one currency would facilitate political integration through fiscal unity and stave off a crises. But, as the article points out: They did not foresee that it [financial/political unity] would do so by throwing the continent into crises.

The EU is also facing a crises of democracy. Smaller countries with smaller economies (like Greece) are becoming less relevant in a growing Union. Once a country feels that their electorate and local issues are being ignored in favor of a Union controlled by the larger economies, a sense of resentment grows. When the fiscal crises in Greece came to a head, many in the country protested to the Austerity Measures because they believed that it was a problem that they did not create. Overspending by the Greek government after the conversion to the Euro that led to massive deficits and lack of a voice among bigger economies like Germany and France created a disconnect between the electorate of Greece and the wider Union.

The result of increased austerity measures has been political and financial turmoil. In elections, citizens increasingly voted for extremist candidates who opposed or favored a renegotiation of the terms of the Euro bailouts. In Greece, nearly 7% of the vote went to the ultra-right wing Golden Dawn Party, whose party platforms are anti-immigrant and anti-bailout. Their party symbol resembles the swastika. There was also no consensus candidate, which sent the election to a runoff, taking place on June 17th. In France, the Conservative party under incumbent Nicholas Sarkozy was ousted by the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande.

One major problem remains for the European Union: there is a disconnect between the larger and smaller economies, fostering disillusionment with the Union and individual country's national governments. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democrats) has shown visible disappointment with the way that Greek government has managed it's finances. She is reluctant to continue using German banks to prop up failing economies. At the same time, voters within Greece have become weary of their technocratic governing coalition and have voted in droves alongside anti-immigrant, nationalistic parties on the right and left. Continued entrenchment by larger economies like Germany will only foster nationalism and hatred towards the Union, leading to a possible exit by Greece. Once this happens, any country with the same sentiment might use that precedent to also leave the Union.

There is a way out of this crises for the EU. Direct election of members of policy making bodies in the EU by member countries can bring more democratic power to smaller states. Currently, the leaders of the European Council and Council of Ministers are appointed by member states. But, the Union must provide an efficient, enforceable method to institute fiscal policies in order to reign in on indebted countries and stave off future crises. In this way, smaller countries get more say in the inner governance of the Union while larger economies prevent having to bail-out smaller economies. But, above all, it keeps the Union intact without having to face the international consequences of a bank run or an exit.

During the debate over the ratification of the U.S. constitution, larger states wanted representation in Congress based on population (Virginia Plan). Smaller southern states proposed equal representation, as they would be less relevant under the Virginia Plan (New Jersey Plan). Congress created a compromise (Connecticut Compromise) that created a bicameral legislature whereby the House of Representatives would be based on population and the Senate would have two members elected from each state.

The EU should take note of this idea, giving equal representation to smaller economies, while redefining their ultimate goal of unified stability and fiscal control.

Note About Orthodox Gathering in Brooklyn

Articles have been popping up all over the web about a recent gathering of 60,000 Orthodox Jews (40,000 men in Citi Field and 20,000 women in a nearby location). The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the internet and how it has and will affect the Orthodox Jewish Community.

A group of "counter-protesters" gathered across the street, rallying against the supposed unreported acts of child abuse and molestation. They believed that a gathering of the Orthodox Community to discuss the internet was not important when these disgusting acts were being perpetrated and not reported.

The media response ranged from subtle understanding to sympathy to complete ignorance. A piece by Paul Miller at The Verge fell into the latter category. Paul describes his confusion over why members of the Orthodox Community attending the rally were reluctant to speak to him. This theme characterizes a major shortcoming of this article - lack of perspective. Paul is not a member of the Orthodox Community and only knows what most outside of the community understand - they keep to themselves. While he does admit that he is definitely out of his element and is ignorant to the nuances of the community, his lack of understanding makes his conclusion seriously flawed.

The most egregious part about the article is when he brings up the idea (not his idea) that limiting the internet in the Ultra-Orthodox community is akin to the internet controls in China and North Korea. The point of the gathering was to discuss the internet and how it has affected the lives of the community. The rally was closer to a family discussing a new obstacle than a synod of the powerful in an oppressive regime. His claim that limiting information in a so-called "information age" is hypocritical is a generalization. Again, the purpose of the rally was to discuss the internet and it's affects on the traditions of the community.

Then, there are the protesters. The purpose of their protest was seriously flawed. A gathering to discuss the affects of the internet on the Orthodox Community and allegations of sexual abuse are not intertwined. The proliferation and cover-up of molestation is a problem that must be addressed. But, the restrictions that the community wants to put on the internet for IT'S MEMBERS has nothing to do with these allegations. So, their protest is irrelevant.

The reason I specifically picked on Paul Miller was because his article is a good example of a misguided, outside perspective. While, he goes into details about his experience and admits that his outsider status limits his ability to gain credible information, less detailed articles (or more user-friendly, depending on your attention span) claim that the community thinks the internet is evil.

It may seem to outsiders that the Orthodox shun modernity and try to live much like the Amish. It is true that the Ultra-Orthodox and the Amish have a lot in common (they even met up in Brooklyn a couple times). While some in the insular community reject the internet because of their beliefs, many look to integrate it into their religious lives. They turn off their phones for Shabbat, unplug the ethernet cable or wireless router and actively restrict what they deem inappropriate for their children.

For a nice, and short, debunking of myths about Orthodox women and the community from an Orthodox Jew, click HERE.

A couple notes for context: When I say "Orthodox" or "Ultra-Orthodox," I mean it to be all-encompassing. There are various sects of Orthodox, some of which are much stricter than others.While I defend the purpose of this rally against attacks by outsiders who lack perspective, I do not agree with a lot of the doctrines of the Orthodox Community regarding the rejection and treatment of Jews of non-Orthodox status.

TEA Party 2012: Reality Bites

The TEA Party is a hodgepodge of conservative activists who support a range of ideologies from pro-life guerrilla warfare against Planned Parenthood to legalization of marijuana and everything in between. Their ranks waffle between purist libertarians and social conservatives. One of the many goals of the TEA Party was to "change" spending in Washington and make it leaner and more efficient, the latter description being a nice way of saying complete obliteration of all social services.

In 2010, they decided to vote with their feet and mobilized candidates all over the country to challenge mainstream party congressmen and congresswomen. Establishment Republican Senators like Bob Bennett (UT) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) were defeated in their respective primaries by TEA Party backed insurgent candidates (Murkowski won back her seat in a rousing write-in campaign). Veteran Democrat Representatives like Jim Oberstar (17 terms from Michigan) were defeated by unknown and inexperienced TEA Party backed candidates.

Then...their legislative champions failed.

In the ensuing debates in Congress over the debt, taxes, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, abortion and women's rights, the Congress did not improve. Intransigent lawmakers, taken hostage by their own selfishness slowed the pace of government to the speed only seen on a plate tectonic scale. Traditionally bipartisan issues were bathed in partisan rhetoric and riders, left to be killed on the Senate floor. Budgets to fund essential government services were loaded with non-germane amendments, which elicited veto threats from the President and an assurance of no-progress from a divided Senate. Speak of the House John Boehner was constantly forced to cow-tow to a far right extremist ideology before supporting or rejecting even the most basic bills.

Now that the 2012, elections are approaching, the TEA party is once again geared up for a fight. While many of their freshman allies in Congress are not up for a vote, they will invariably try to challenge Washington insiders and establishment candidates.

Here are some numbers for the TEA Party: 

Congressional Approval rating 10/04/2010: 20.5%
Congressional Approval rating 04/19/2012:  14%

It is my hope that the TEA Party will be forced to face reality in 2012. The reality is that their extremism will only hurt the party and alienate veteran lawmakers who have spent most of their political lives drafting keystone legislation that changes how America treats its environment, economy and citizens. This reality has already taken its toll, as many veteran lawmakers are deciding to leave Congress in 2012. Centrists like Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) look at the partisanship and the lack of progress as a reason to jump ship.

The worst side of the TEA Party and the extreme rightward shift of the Republican Party is demonization of political experience. Someone who understands the dynamics of Congress, like a Ted Kennedy or a Orrin Hatch, will become anomalies. They have been replaced with the inexperience dunce who can only make progress by screaming the loudest and complaining the most.

Something about Oil...

If you drive down the 405 Freeway from Los Angeles towards Orange County, you will invariably see a large American Flag draped over a industrial expanse. Among the smoke-stacks, economizers, tubing, flaring, iron and steel is a oil refinery. These refineries take in oil from Alaska and refine to use in various products that range from plastics and nitrogen-rich fertilizers to gasoline or diesel for your car. This is how the business of oil becomes the business of American (and Californian) consumers.

If the price of oil spikes, the cost for nitrogen-infused fertilizers goes up, which leads to an increase in the cost of production for farmers who use that fertilizer, which forces them to charge higher prices for their goods which leads to higher costs at the supermarket. While this may not be the main driver for an increase in food prices (salmonella outbreaks, weather, pests, etc. aside), it is still a way your average Whole Foods or Trader Joes shopper can connect the price of oil to the price of produce.

If a refinery shuts down for maintenance, and the market for the oil that comes from that refinery becomes tight, the price of oil from that refinery will go up. If a bunch of oil refineries shut down for maintenance, then the region that receives oil from those refineries will go up in cost. This will lead to higher prices at the pump, assuming a good portion of that oil is refined for gasoline and diesel.

If an oil producing country experiences social or political upheaval that paralyzes their oil production, then the global cost of oil will rise. The United States imports nearly half of the oil it consumes (in one way or another). If the global cost of oil goes up, the price at the pump will surely be affected.

Each of these situations have occurred in some capacity during the current Administration. The price of oil on the global and domestic market spiked during the Arab Spring (Libya), we are entering a phase where refineries are shutting down for maintenance and higher commodity prices have been a result of an increase in oil prices and the recession.

There are a couple factors that are leading to higher oil prices, which are translating to higher prices at the pump. But, let's look at a parallel economic universe to give you a perspective.

Coal...

Domestic coal consumption has been dropping over the last 5-10 yrs. At the same time, the price of coal has been steadily rising. Demand from Asia (China, South Korea, Japan), South America (Brazil, Colombia) and Europe (Germany) has grown. Traditional sources of coal for the international export market (Australia, Indonesia) have been hit with weather events and supply constraints. So, the US has stepped in to cover the gap. This has led to an increase in the price of coal on the international market for thermal (steam generation for electricity) and metallurgical (steel making) purposes. At the same time, coal companies have been cutting domestic production due to lower demand which has been caused (mostly) by a precipitous drop in the price of natural gas, an alternative to coal power. While the US is far from exporting more coal than it burns, many analysts from major coal companies (Arch, Peabody, Alpha Natural, Patriot, Cloud Peak, CONSOL, Arcelor Mittal, etc) are seeing a robust export market into the near future. Even though domestic consumption is low, production in places like the Powder River Basin is set to increase as more domestic and international partners buy up mine expansions.

Oil...

For the first time in decades, the US has become a net exporter of oil. Demand from developing countries for US oil exports has grown dramatically in the last couple of years. Domestic oil production has increased (instigated during the last Administration), but domestic consumption has gone down. This has been due to the recession and an increase in the average fuel efficiency of autos sold in the US. While we have enough oil to satiate our consumption, the drop in demand coupled with increased exports has led to an increase in price. Refineries are also shutting down for maintenance and moving towards higher cost blends for certain regions (see CA gas prices). And, threats from Iran on closing the Straits of Hormuz are not helping.

The Point: There is no Administration policy that could alleviate the increasing price of oil in the short term. If Obama approved the Keystone XL pipeline tomorrow, the price of oil and gas at the pump would still be high for the short term. Republicans have been criticizing the Administration for what they characterize as overreaching regulations and stalling on the exploration of new oil and gas fields. Putting aside the exploratory well will be drilled in the Arctic in the next few months, if the Administration approved a good amount of onshore and offshore wells, the price of gas would remain relatively high. As long as we are connected to the international market for oil, we will be subject to it's fluctuations. The Administration can do nothing to influence that.

So...why, with all this information in mind, are the Republican nominees blaming the Administration's policies, talking about offshore oil exploration, and promising far-flung dreams of $2.50/gallon gas?

Political gain. Pure and simple. Their assertions are nowhere near the universe where fact resides.

And a point on the Strategic Petroleum Reserves...If the Administration were to release oil from the SPR, it would send a price signal to the market that we are in a dire situation in regards to oil supply. But, we are not. We have plenty of supply. We are just exporting more and consuming less and feeling the effects of the international market.

Gingrich/Romney and the Art of Buzzwords

When the TEA Party anti-Obama, anti-tax rhetoric was making it's way from one state to another ala TV personalities like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, the art of the buzzword was revitalized.

A buzzword is a polarizing statement or word that is meant to radicalize or motivate a political base. During the Bush Administration, many on the left compared Bush to Hitler, which made their arguments both polarizing and illegitimate. During the current administration, talking heads like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck compared Obama to Hitler, Rev Jeremiah Wright and radical William Ayers.

The problem with buzzwords is ingrained in their simplicity. The average person listening to talking heads absorbs buzzwords more readily than nuanced details. When Sean Hannity criticizes the Obama Administration by using the graphic of the "apples" of security, industry and commerce "falling" into the "basket of Socialism," viewers will make their own conclusions based on vague and often simplified concepts. Hannity's viewers will, more often than not, have a completely misguided understanding of both the Administration's policies and the tenets of modern Socialism. But, the words evoke an ideal of a bygone era where Socialism and Communism were the antithesis of American.

Prospective Republican presidential nominees Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney have stepped up their buzzword attacks on the Administration. I am going to break down some of the buzzword attacks of recent:

"Bureaucratic socialist" (Gingrich)

These two words slyly evokes the characteristics of someone who supports an inefficient government and is anti-American. Those who rail against the government use "bureaucratic red tape" as a reason to cut funding from programs that range from Nuclear Energy to regulations covering farm dust. Socialism is something that is considered, Prima Facie, anti-American.

"Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" (Gingrich)

This statement covertly revives the "birther" issue without explicitly supporting it. Gingrich would lose the race immediately if he overtly supported the deranged conspiracies of the Birthers. But, by adding in "Kenyan" anti-colonial, he is bringing up the idea that Obama was born in Kenya. The anti-colonial part of the statement has many implications, none of which are elaborated on by the former Speaker. It could refer to Kenyan nationalism in the colonial and post-colonial era, it could refer to the Mau-Mau Movement or it could be veiled racism.

"...takes political inspiration from Europe" (Romney), "...must choose between a European-style welfare state and a free land" (Romney), "I am for the Constitution, he is for European socialism" (Gingrich)

Calling Obama a "European" seems to be all the rage among the potential nominees. By evoking Europe, Romney and Gingrich instill fear into voters that the U.S. will end up like the faltering economies of Ireland, Portugal and Greece. What voters see in the media is that these governments have failed because of their bloated public sector. So, they make the assumption that if we cut from our public sector and elect a president who will work to shrink the government, we will not end up like Greece, Portugal or Ireland. Even mentioning the word Europe implies high government wages, high debt, socialism, anti-Americanism and economic failure.

"I am for the Declaration of Independence, he is for the writing of Saul Alinsky." (Gringrich)

Gringrich seems to be giving the average American more credit. I know many educated people who have no idea who Saul Alinsky is. This one, while not apparent to most, brings up the same effects as comparing Obama to Rev Jeremiah Wright or William Ayers. Alinsky was a community organizer who taught minority communities how to gain political power through organizing. While he was not a socialist or a communist, mentioning him brings up the Palin-made criticism of community organizing and its connection to socialism. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" was very confrontational. According to psychologist Drew Westen , the combination of a "Jewish-sounding" last name the idea of radicalism could appeal to the antisemitic voters.

What I despise most about buzzwords is that it polarizes voters instead of informing them. Those who support the existence of the Electoral College often point to a popular vote that assumes, to a certain extent, an informed voter. By listening to the nominees and the talking heads, an average voter would come up with the assumption that socialism will and always has been Anti-American, the government is inefficient and the European governments of Ireland, Portugal and Greece failed because they had a bloated public sector. They will also think that Obama is a Kenyan socialist who values European-style democracy over the basic tenets of the Constitution.

This kind of conspiratorial hogwash should have no place in electoral politics. And, mudslinging is ineffectual once elected. If you don't believe me, just look at the effectiveness of the Freshman TEA Party class in the House.

Prop 13 Has and Always Will Be a Problem

There is a trend among Californians these days: We love to think of progressive ideas, but rarely have the will to get them passed. Some examples:

1. We love public transit, but will never amend the constitution to make sure gas tax goes to public transit projects (currently it is required, but law, to go to maintaining roads and highways).

2. We love public transit, but we will never pass a tax to pay for it.

3. We love clean air, but our largest public utility is having trouble with divesting from coal power

4. We love that our public universities are top in the country in academics and athletics, but our legislators would rather cut hundreds of millions from them instead of pass a tax to support them.

5. We love our K-12 education, yet our legislators are unwilling to pass a tax to prevent cuts to the school year

6. We love our public services, yet complain about high taxes

7. We complain about high taxes and bad schools, but still overwhelmingly support Proposition 13

The last (and bold) point is what this blog post is about. Some controversial points about Prop 13 are:

1. Maximum value-based tax on real property shall not exceed 1% of the value of the property.

2. Decrease in property taxes by assessing the real value of a property at its 1975 price and restricting assessment of annual increases to an inflation factor not to exceed 2%. Reassessment of a new value can only happen under an ownership change or completion of construction.

3. Requires a 2/3 majority of both houses of the CA Legislature to increase tax rates or collect revenues.

4. Requires a 2/3 majority in local elections to pass an increase in special taxes

The passage of Prop 13 was a result of the "Taxpayer Revolution" headed off by anti-tax people like Howard Jarvis. But, Prop 13, which is considered to be the third rail of CA politics, has caused decreased tax revenues for localities, which have been forced to find creative ways to recapture those monies.

Here are some supportive arguments for Prop 13:

1. It creates certainty for Homeowners

True. But, it created uncertainty for localities and pegs a portion of their tax base to the rise and fall of the real estate market. This is especially bad in coastal communities, where home ownership and prices are higher. These localities must find creative ways to recapture tax money. They become dependent on state block grants and look to "use fees" and higher sales taxes. Cities have begun to decrease services and increase fees to compensate for that move.

2. The acquisition-value assessment provides property tax equity

Suspect. The scheme is good for taxpayers if you look at the prop as a whole. But, it's condition that the value be reassessed for change of ownership highly favors commercial properties. If a commercial property is owned by one company and it sells, but continues to be deeded to that company, they are exempt from the reassessment condition in Prop 13. This works well for those who own big box stores and shopping malls.

3. Decreases volatility for funding of municipalities

True. But, it also decreases that funding. It creates certainty, but in a negative way. See my answer for #1.

Some negatives:

1. Sales disincentives

Because of the condition that the house value will be reassessed upon change in ownership, there is a disincentive towards upward mobility or selling of a home. There is also a disincentive to build more homes.

2. Loss of Revenues to local government

The 2% maximum has under paced the Consumer Price Index, giving local government less money to collect against the 2% levy or when the price of a parcel is reassessed. Translation: less tax money to the coffer. Result: find ways to recover that loss money through creative means (see #1 under "Arguments for Prop 13").

3. Bubbles and Ownership/Renting volatility

When housing bubbles occur, taxes collected increase due to increase in housing values. Once the bubble bursts, downward pressure is put on collected revenues, creating a tax deficit. Trends in ownership/renting follow these bubbles creating both rigidity and friction in the housing market. This can attributed to Prop 13.

4. Price Increase for New Developments

Because there is a disincentive to move out of a home due to the reassessment condition, older homeowners are not selling and younger prospective homeowners are increasingly renting. Finding new places to build homes in a constrained market also leads to higher prices. Adding in environmental, geographical and development limitations only makes prices for development even higher.

When Gov. Schwarzenegger was elected governor in a recall, his financial adviser Warren Buffett told him that Prop 13 needed to be repealed or changed in order to cover the widening state budget deficit. The governor said it was no politically possible. Current governor Jerry Brown has openly criticized Prop 13 and it's negative affects on the power of local governments. Part of Brown's initial budget was to return power back to local governments and away from Sacramento.

With the partisan gridlock in Sacramento holding back any modification to Prop 13, these inequities, high sales/use taxes and uncertainty will only persist.

Mississippi Amendment 26: Knowing What's Right Since Jesus Rode Dinosaurs

Let me first explain the title of this blog:

Whenever I ridicule the religious right for thinking the federal government (or state government) should be a lightning rod for Christian morality, I always include a statement about the ridiculousness of creationism. Creationism, and Intelligent Design, are anathema to rationality and the scientific method. Based on observations made by paleontologists, anthropologists, planetary scientists, geophysicists, archaeologists, cosmologists, evolutionary biologists and geneticists, the earth is 4.54 billion years old, humans evolved from apes and the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Saying that the earth is around 6,000 years old is as rational as saying that Jesus rode dinosaurs.

The underlying message is that the religious right, with enough support, can turn these superstitions into law. I will defend to the end of my life someone's right to be religious and to follow the doctrines supported by whatever church, synagogue, mosque or holy pillar that is the center for their beliefs. But, the law of the United States of America, and it's many states, should not include the moral inclinations of any single religion. The whole reasoning behind the 1st Amendment's religious protection clause was to make sure the country did make any law "respecting the establishment of a certain religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson's purpose behind including the freedom of religious clause was to make sure that there was a "wall of separation" between church (any religion) and state. I interpret this protection as a law that makes sure no law is established on the basis of the core beliefs of one religion.

This brings us to Mississippi, and it's Amendment 26 "Personhood" legislation. This law, if passed, would define "personhood" or "life" as starting at the time of conception. This will effectively outlaw abortion (in ALL cases), birth control, morning after pills and in vitro fertilization. Haley Barbour, governor-extraordinaire, said that he supports the law, but is hesitant because it includes ambiguous language like "life begins at fertilization, or cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."

Here is my beef:

1. It is based on religious inclinations: Most Pro-Life (whatever that means) believe that life starts at conception because they follow the religious (Catholic mostly) idea that sex is purely for procreation. Keep that belief to yourself and out of our statehouses.

2. It casts the government as a moral crusader: It makes the Mississippi government an enforcer of anti-abortion morality. No government should make laws to enforce the moral inclinations of one group.

3. It translates unanswered ethical questions into law: It essentially settles an ongoing ethical debate, de jure. The definition of "personhood" and "where life starts" has been debated for decades, and there are good arguments on both sides. But to make a law that forces the debate to a conclusion is unbelievably premature.

4. It defines life: No one has the right to define where life starts. Not Haley Barbour, not Mississppi, not Barack Obama...no one.

5. It gives the Mississippi government too much power over the bodies of women: Women have the right to choose what they want to do with their body. Simple as that. No state has the right to legislate that choice. This is why the Federal Government has the Hyde Amendment. It makes sure that the government does not meddle with the abortion debate.

The encroachment of any government on the rights of individuals should stop when it comes to legislating abortion. This amendment goes a step further by defining life, and thereby expanding the definition of murder. This will not only have implications for women's rights, but will also impact family planning and restrict access to in-vitro fertilization for Mississippians who cannot conceive.

What disturbs me most is the quote by obstetrician Dr. Freda Bush:

"In rape and incest, the life that has created during that has done nothing to deserve death. The mother is a victim and there is no reason to make a victim a murderer."

This scary, sick and demented logic is common, unfortunately. This Amendment will only encourage this kind of view, while setting women's rights back to the age of back alleys and clothes hangers.