Thanks Mike. Do liberals tend to vote against that kind of thing? I have something of a hard time understanding why it doesn’t get passed if there’s significant conservative support for it. I’d imagine that liberals would be generally supportive, both because they think child tax credits are good things in themselves and because, as you point out, they might hope to weaken the pro-life movement with them.

*Reason, of course, applying only to cases where the woman wants an abortion on her own behalf. The way I see it, selective abortion, whether because the woman doesn’t want to have a girl, or a short, or a Down’s, or whatever else, is fine – if that’s what she and she alone wants. In my opinion, the problem with sex-selective abortion as practiced in India and rural China isn’t that sex-selective abortion is wrong in and of itself. The problem’s that the women having the abortions done to them aren’t making independent and legally incontestable choices with regard to those abortions – men are. The reason why “Indian man forces his wife to abort female fetus” is bad is the same reason that “pimp forces his victim to abort unwillingly” and “parents in parental-consent state force their daughter to remain pregnant” are bad.

As to Bachmann’s “English-only” bill, what always get me are reasons 1, 2 & 3 because they’re so alien to how I think. 1′s about history – something that’s always “so what?” in my mind, since dead people don’t get a say and I don’t care what the elderly say, they’ll be dead soon enough. 2 and 3 – who gives a shit what the language is? I speak English because that’s what I learned and it’s easier to keep speaking English than learn something else, not because I have an emotional attachment to it or speaking English is important. It’s been the majority language, so it’s still the majority language, but as I see it whether or not it remains the majority language… absolutely irrelevant.

That’s gotten me curious, actually. Do pro-lifers tend to be strong supporters of expanding child tax credits, etc? Or is the worry that this would lead to too many baby factory welfare queens?

As a pro-lifer I’ll give the cynical answer first and the more realistic answer second.

The first is that while I know your question is sincere, I see a similar line of questioning from a lot of pro-choice folks that is less-than-truthful. They present the question as though their preference for abortion would disappear if only conservatives did more to help the families that choose not to abort. That is a red herring. The truth is that there is no battery of family-friendly, child-friendly, adoption-friendly laws that conservatives could suggest that would suddenly make liberals more willing to compromise on abortion. People like Kris who are okay with aborting down syndrome babies or people like DM who see abortion as a vital part of the family-planning toolkit are not going to have a change of heart because conservatives make the child tax credit bigger.

My personal answer is that yes, a lot of pro-lifers are supportive of family-friendly tax laws, etc. Ross Douthat is one example. His book Grand New Party specifically lays out a more family-friendly tax policy that would double the child tax credit, give pension or tuition credits to stay-at-home parents, etc. I’ve also heard other pro-life conservatives go so far as to suggest that married families with kids be exempt from taxes altogether for a certain number of years while raising children. I will also point out that John McCain had a fairly robust adoption incentive program in his platform last year. Unfortunately while Obama’s Blueprint for Change mentioned abortion several times the word adoption was never uttered. Liberals just don’t seem to view it as a viable alternative.

the “COMMON SENSE ENGLISH ACT” …

it was killed in committee in the 110th congress. it was introduced by tom price (R-GA) and sponsored, among others, by john boehner and eric cantor … the house’s minority leadership in the 111th.

the aim of the bill is to protect any employer who has an “english only” requirement at work … no matter to what degree, the employer has a right to require english … theoretically, if your employer required it, your indian coworker has to use english on the phone with her husband.

some of the rationale from the bill’s language:

Congress finds that — (1) throughout the history of the United States, English has been the common thread to unify the American people much as they are united under one flag; (2) Americans overwhelmingly believe that it is very important for people living in the United States to speak and understand English; (3) there is vast support among the American people to allow a company to require its employees to speak English while on the job; (4) the EEOC has sued the Salvation Army for implementing an `English in the Workplace’ policy which gives employees a year to learn English; and (5) when a group of employees speaks a language other than English in the workplace, it may cause misunderstandings, create dangerous circumstances, and undermine morale.

it’s (5) that stands out to me … undermining morale? how? because native english speakers feel left out or imposed upon when they hear casual conversation other languages while at work?

no one — even a liberal — wants people, if they are unable, operating machinery or performing job duties that require and understanding of english to avoid injury to themselves or others. that’s why it’s already o.k. for an employer to require english proficiency from prospective employees, enough skill to perform job duties …

this bill is unnecessary (forget about xenophobic and discriminatory), except inasmuch as it seeks to drum out non-english languages (and, collaterally, alienating non-native-english speaking workers) in all work settings, even when not job related.

Bachman has her name on bills protecting employers who require English to be spoken at all times in the workplace (H.R.4464, 110th)

I’ve always been morbidly fascinated by the far-right’s obsession with “ENGLISH ONLY” laws. There are two women in my office who are fluent in English, but their native language is Spanish. So they can work with everyone in the office who speaks English and in private converstaion they speak to each other in Spanish. Under HR 4464, I assume they would no longer be able to lawfully do that in the office. There is also an Indian woman who when on the phone with her husband who is also Indian speaks in Hindi (I’m guessing), and a buddy of mine when on the phone with his father speaks half-Russian/half-English (I can’t help but eavesdrop on those conversations!) Does this law cover these forms of speaking as well?

One of my favorite rants on talk radio was when our local morning sports caster took issue with warning signs that are required to be printed in other languages around his workplace. Apparently, if you can’t understand the words “WET FLOOR” you deserve to slip and injure your spine. This rant was a tangent off his “evil libruls force us to put other languages on our election ballots so minorities can read them” rant. What that had to do with sports I have no clue.

Look, I know how frustrating it can be. I can’t understand anyone with an accent thicker than the wife from “King of Queens”. I’ve ordered a hamburger with mustard only to get a hamburger with mushrooms (an admittedly delicious mistake, but still a mistake). I’ve had to repeat the words “MEDIUM ICED COFFEE!” five times and the cashier still got my order wrong. I still don’t see why these laws are necessary. Maybe a sensible conservative can explain it to me instead of these right-wing barking chimps that keep trying to pass these laws.