ThinkingLiberal

Why Do Women Even THINK Of Voting Republican?

Today the Supreme Court began the long, slow, and possibly irreversible process of turning America into the only westernized country in the world to prevent women from choosing whether to take their pregnancy to term or not.

It was on the cards, of course. Ever since O’Connor left and Alito joined the Court, it has been clear that an abortion case would come before them. Indeed, South Dakota’s lawmakers deliberately legislated a particularly vicious bill designed specifically to be challenged in the Supreme Court, with the intention of giving Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas the chance to ‘legislate from the bench’, as our Republican friends like to characterize any decision handed down by a member of the judiciary with whom they disagree.

Today’s ruling may have covered only a small percentage of pregnancies, but the echoes of the decision will be heard throughout hospital wards across the country.

The key element of the ruling was whether a bill with no exception for the health of the mother could be lawful. Three Federal courts said no; the Supreme Court said yes.

So yes, if you are pregnant and in danger, you and any physician attending who makes a decision to save your health can be prosecuted. In essence, what the Supreme Court is saying is that a fetus now has more right to live than its mother.

This baffles me. After all, fetuses can’t vote; women can. Are women so unconcerned with their rights that they can listen to this statement from George Bush, and agree with it?

“Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America.”

Compassion and humanity? Where is the compassion for the endangered mother? Or for the doctor whose Hippocratic oath compels him to operate to save her, at the risk of going to jail?

From here the path is clear: over time, the federal protection of Roe vs Wade will erode and the states will take on responsibility for abortion law. And some of those states will create ever more draconian laws that will eventually – and I believe this fervently – prosecute mothers who terminate their pregnancy for a "crime" no less than murder.

Republican women, why would you vote for an administration that supports this? And that has facilitated this decision through deliberately stacking the Supreme Court deck with jokers like Alito?

Homeownership - Now A Liberal Issue?

The Bush administration is a big fan of self-regulation. Oil companies? Let market forces dictate their profits! Utilities? Let market forces curb their pollution! Credit card predators? Let... well, you get the picture.

But by allowing mortgage companies and brokers free rein to cash in on the erstwhile housing boom, and by failing to anticipate that all would not be roses and petals forever, the Republicans may have made a fatal mistake.

Consider: RealtyTrac advises that 3.33% of all Colorado households, 54,747 in total, were in some stage of the foreclosure process during 2006. One family in every thirty-three, unable to pay their mortgage and about to lose their home. (If you live in Colorado, there's probably someone on your street who could use a plate of cookies right about now.)

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2.15 million Coloradans voted in the 2004 Presidential Election. 1,101,255 of those people voted for G.W.Bush, while 1,001,732 voted for John Kerry.

Traditionally home ownership is a strong indicator of whether an individual will vote or not. In 2004, once again according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 67.7% of homeowners voted, vs. 48.3% of renters.

Now, apply the political test: Howard R. Ernst of the University of Virginia wrote a fascinating report on Home Ownership and political affiliation (http://centerforpolitics.org/downloads/pub_housing_3.pdf) which clearly demonstrates that 88% of US voters who vote Republican own their own homes, compared to just 76% of Democrats. Furthermore, only 17% of homeowners describe themselves as 'liberal' compared to 42% who describe themselves as 'conservative'.

'Self-regulation' of the mortgage industry has led to record foreclosure levels; homeowners tend to vote Republican; so what happens to voting in Colorado now that its people are losing their homes?

(Warning: assumptions ahead.)

Suppose there are 1.5 voters in each foreclosure, a reasonably well-educated guess. That's 82,120 voters, with a 67.7% likelihood of voting. Now suppose that 65% of them voted Republican in the last presidential election – but that their combined anguish and newly-found status as renters reverses that trend in 2008. That would be a swing of nearly 17,000 votes from 36,136 Republican votes to just 19,458, which, while not enough on its own to have given Kerry victory, would nevertheless have narrowed the margin of victory to just 80,000 votes or so. And of course, it doesn't take into effect the people who simply watch in horror while their neighbors are forced to pack up and leave.

Now apply that rule to some of the tighter and more populous states, like Ohio, where foreclosures are also high. Suddenly you're seeing swings that could give the Democrat the edge.

Foreclosure is a liberal issue now, because it is taking votes away from the Republicans and reapportioning them to the Democrats. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama need to look seriously at how this issue can affect their campaigns, and at how best to illustrate to angry and disillusioned voters that the Republicans' failed policies of self-regulation have led to this sad state of affairs.