Teeing off on Tebow

(subtitle: Theismann vs. Heisman)



For a guy whose stock has fallen off the table in the NFL draft, former Heismann winner Tim Tebow is sure getting more buzz ahead of he Super Bowl than, say Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, the quarterbacks who are actually in the game. Tebow has not yet played even a single down in the NFL and at least one former quarterback and respected commentator thinks he should keep it that way.

Tebow, who is the son of missionaries and grew up in a very fundamentalist household, is well known for wearing his Christianity on his sleeve (well actually wearing it on his face, writing Bible verses on his cheeks before every game.)

This week there is a big brouhaha over CBS' decision to air an anti-abortion ad featuring Tebow and his mother (who refused the advice of doctors to get an abortion because of her health and had him anyway) during the Super Bowl. Last year CBS said they would start allowing more controversial ads during the Super Bowl, but then they turned around and refused to allow an ad from ManCrunch, a gay dating organization. So apparently their newfound tolerance in advertising only works one way. CBS then got in even deeper when they kept changing their story on the ManCrunch ad. First they said ad space was sold out for the Super Bowl. Then when it was shown that the ManCrunch ad had been submitted to them before some ads that were approved, they questioned whether the company could pay for the ad. When it was shown that they could and had the money available, CBS had to say it was about 'standards.' OK, at least they admit they have more than one set of standards.

There are of course those who claim that the real reason for the controversy over Tebow is his Christianity. But that is ridiculous. Lots of NFL players are Christians and quite open about it. You don't see for example, anything but praise for Drew Brees, a Christian quarterback who actually should be getting more attention before the Super Bowl than Tebow (I mean, like, Brees will actually be PLAYING Sunday, shouldn't that count for something?) Rather, it almost seems as if Tebow is hogging all the attention by putting his personal views on abortion ahead of the game itself, and whether he deserves that criticism or not has now become a punching bag for CBS' hypocritical position on accepting ads.

A bigger problem for Tebow is that even well ahead of draft day he's getting a reception from the NFL that is downright frosty. For starters, scouts have said that he doesn't have the skills to play in the NFL and downgraded his status to a third or fourth round pick at best.

Then, following rumors that the Jacksonville Jaguars might use their first round pick on Tebow (he played at the University of Florida and the Jags attendance is about what you'd expect for an expansion team that has worn out its welcome and is the least competitive team in what might be the NFL's toughest division,) a Jags player, and more specifically an offensive lineman unloaded on Tebow.

according to the Florida Times-Union:

[Offensive lineman Uche] Nwaneri posted on the Jaguars’ Web site that, while cashing a check, a bank teller started talking about how Tebow will save the Jaguars.

So Nwaneri posted his five points on Tebow, with capital letters:

"1. He can't throw, PERIOD.

2. He can't read any coverage other than probably cover 2 or man.

3. The QB Wildcat WILL NOT WORK IN THIS LEAGUE. PERIOD.

4. He doesn’t know how to take a snap from center.

5. HE CAN’T THROW, and that’s really something you either have or not."

Keep in mind that this is from one of the men who is supposed to put his body on the line to protect the quarterback from the Elvis Dumervils and the Dwight Freeneys of the NFL. In fact, he faces Freeney twice a year and wants to feel confident that the guy he's protecting is worth the beating his body takes keeping guys like that out of the backfield every week.

You can hear the frustration in Nwaneri's post. One of the few perks that come with losing is that your team gets a better position in the draft, which in theory should translate to better players. But if his team reaches up to burn their first round pick on a guy who they could probably get in the third round, his frustration would be justified. The idea that Tebow would put fans in the seats is ridiculous. He might for a few games, and as the columnist of the linked article points out,

even if Nwaneri and the legions of critics are right that Tebow is bound for NFL flopdom, I guarantee thousands of Georgia fans would be willing to make the drive down to the site of so many Cocktail Party aggravations for the sole purpose of watching their former tormenter operate behind a line that might not feel much like blocking for him.

Well, there is that. But if Jacksonville owner Wayne Weaver is serious about attendance then he should be serious about using his first round and subsequent picks to put together a team that will win games, not bring out legions of anti-Tebow fans who will enjoy it every time Freeney or some other NFL Defensive nightmare blasts through the line and delivers a crunching hit on Tebow.

Nwaneri's comments are downright tame compared to the broadside delivered by a former NFL great. Former Washington Redskins quarterback Joe Theismann, who was known as a gentleman in the broadcast booth during an eighteen year stint with ESPN because he is loathe to criticize other players (and recognizing from personal experience what they risk every time they take the field,) said that Tebow should retire before draft day and not even try playing in the NFL.

Via Pro Football Talk, Theismann explained why:

"Rock star status preserved," Theismann said.

"Obviously at Florida they don't teach throwing the football," Theismann opined in explaining that Tebow's mechanics are "poor." Theismann also said that Urban Meyer and his staff have "no clue" regarding the process for preparing a quarterback to play "at the next level."

Retire now advises Joe, so at least he can still claim that he was too good for the NFL instead of too awful. Ouch, that one's gotta sting.

Of course the former Heisman winner will enter the draft, and if he's lucky even get drafted way ahead of where he should be by Jacksonville. And, give him a chance-- a lot of good players have been drafted low and turned out to be better than the scouts predicted (don't forget that Dallas quarterback Tony Romo, who led the Cowboys to the playoffs this year and played in the pro bowl wasn't even drafted at all in 2003.)

But from day one, the spotlight will be burning hot on Tebow. And he'll need to bear up a lot better than he did when he lost to Alabama in the SCC championship game (hint: in the NFL men don't cry when they lose-- add 'crybaby' to the list of insults and ephithets he will hear every time he goes on the road.) And despite what anyone may say, it will burn hot on him because he's invited it.

House health care reform bill passes

Today the house passed an historic health care reform bill.

The roll-call vote is right here.

The debate was fluid during the day. At one point Bart Stupak (D-MI) pushed through an amendment that will ban a public option from paying for abortions. This is clearly an anti-choice amendment (after all private insurance companies routinely cover abortion) but it also had the effect of forcing Stupak and several other anti-choice Democrats to support the bill once the amendment was included and counting the votes at that moment Pelosi pounced and pushed for a vote on the whole bill.

The vote was 220-215 in favor of the bill. However, as Lyndon Johnson once said he liked winning with small margins because then he knew he'd gotten everything out of it that he could. Pelosi got the votes of 219 Democrats, one more than she needed, and an unexpected gift-- one Republican who braved the wrath of John Boehner and voted for the bill (Anh Cao, R-LA, who represents an overwhelmingly Democratic district and got elected at all last year mainly because his opponent was corrupt congressman Willie 'cold cash' Jefferson.) After voting with the party line on the stimulus as Boehner tried to prevent any display at all of bipartisanship, apparently being asked to go against the wishes of his constituents again was too much for Cao.

I'm not thrilled with the Stupak amendment, but strategically it makes sense-- given the closeness of the vote it is entirely possible that the whole vote could have failed without Stupak and his compatriots. And as the debate moves forward to the much tougher Senate phase at least the Stupak amendment cuts off one line of attack for the right.

However, all in all, this is a good day.

Decision sends a clear message: violence works

The family of Dr. George Tiller announced today that his clinic in Wichita (one of less than ten in the country that perform late term abortions) will not re-open.

Just one question: Doesn't this suggest that violence works? Scott Roeder, though he attempted to drive away, probably was not all that surprised when he was caught. So even if he spends the rest of his life in prison or gets the death penalty, he will probably be satisfied, sort of like jihadists who praise Allah before blowing themselves up in a crowd, or before having their heads chopped off for acts of terror committed in Saudi Arabia.

Now I will grant that there are practical business reasons why the clinic will not reopen without its founder. For one thing there is certainly a limited supply of doctors who are willing to risk their lives to work there (even more so given that there is a limited supply of doctors anyway, in nearly all fields of medicine.)

However, not re-opening the clinic still seems to send a chilling message to those who contemplate any act of terrorism (be it against abortion, against taxes, against some racial or ethnic group, etc.) The message is that they can now not only carry it out, but if they do then they can actually succeed in changing things just as they wish to. This decision will lead to more domestic terrorism, not less.

UPDATE:

This prediction didn't take long to become reality. Only one day later (today, June 10) a gunman carried out an attack at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We don't yet know the details but it is clear that now that they've seen violence work in Wichita, every kook out there with a cause will be coming out of the woodwork, armed and ready to wreak havoc.

Neither

Back when Michael Steele, who once had a reputation as a moderate was elected as the chair of the RNC, I predicted that one of two things would happen, and then settled on the second as being the more likely.

The first possibility would be that he would actually try to lead the GOP in the direction that it needs to go-- to stop heading straight over the cliff of failed conservatism and irrelevance and move the party back towards a relevant position in American policy-making by supporting candidates who were willing to break with party orthodoxy. In this vision Steele would have the courage to take bold and perhaps unpopular, but necessary positions that would make the Republican party more appealing to Americans who have been repelled by the narrow focus of the party fixated on tax cuts and a twentieth century social agenda that is increasingly stale and outdated. In other words, it was my hope that Michael Steele, the man who in 2006 as a candidate for Governor of Maryland described the 'scarlet letter R' next to his name on the ballot, would understand the problems facing the modern GOP and have the boldness to take on the establishment in the party.

The second possiblity, which I predicted was that he would put all that aside and kowtow to the party komissariat and become just another conservative mouthpiece.

Well, it certainly was not the first possiblity, I was right about that (unfortunately). If anyone has any doubts about that, see his recent kissing up where he paid tribute to Rush Limbaugh and apologized profusely for saying that what Limbaugh says on the air is often 'ugly and incendiary.' So much for any hope that Micheal Steele will actually provide any steel to the GOP.

But now, he's also made one gaffe too many, and let his inner moderate come out-- not in the controlled and deliberate manner that would have served the GOP well, but in an accidental slip of the tongue that he had to take back right away. Michael Steele said in a Feb. 24th interview with GQ that abortion is an 'individual choice,' and that he therefore opposes a Constitutional amendment to ban it.

He quickly reversed himself and said that in fact he does favor such an amendment in a statement he issued today.

But already the hotheads in the GOP are all over him for it, and some are demanding his resignation. Failed Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who has appointed himself the guardian of all things socially conservative, threated that because of Steele's comments the party stands to lose many of its members and a great deal of its support. The fact that the reason the GOP is in the shape it is now is because of the members it's already lost that Huckabee has no plans to get back notwithstanding, the message is clear, that Steele is hurting the party.

Here is the sad thing: I actually believe that Michael Steele probably does believe that what Limbaugh says is ugly, and that abortion is an individual choice. He said those things because he believes them. But he has not the strength of conviction he would need to stand behind those statements, i.e. to stand up to the powers inside the Republican Party, and so he is in no man's land-- trying to be another GOP mouthpiece but not quite as suited for it as someone who actually believes what they are saying.

So in the end he is neither the leader the GOP needs nor the illusion of a leader the GOP wants.

I wonder if any of these preachers will be covered as well as Reverend Wright?

We've heard over and over the statements by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor played on TV, in which he says, "Not God bless America. God damn America! It's in the Bible, for killing innocent people."

Now, I agree with Barack Obama when he said today that those statements are wrong and he does not agree with him. But when asking why Obama still attends that church, I wonder whether they are taking the time to ask whether the parishoners who continue to attend churches where ministers have made hateful statements about abortion, homosexuality and other perceived 'sins,' including that God will punish America for them, still attend those churches.

To cite just one group of examples, consider a few of the statements in 1998 by pastors who blamed the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina on God, as damnation for 'killing innocent people' (which they defined as abortion) and other similar reasons.



*--Steve Lefemine credited God: "In my belief, God judged New Orleans for the sin of shedding innocent blood through abortion [...] Providence punishes national sins by national calamities, [...] Greater divine judgment is coming upon America unless we repent of the national sin of abortion."


*--Reverend Bill Shanks credits God; God's reasons: Abortion, debauchery, homosexuals, witchcraft...

"New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now, [...] God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again.


*--Rev. Dwight McKissic, the senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas said "New Orleans flaunts sin in a way that no other places do. They call it the Big Easy. There are 10 abortion clinics in Louisiana; five of those are in New Orleans. They have a Southern Decadence parade every year and they call it gay pride. When you study Scripture, it's not out of the boundaries of God to punish a nation for sin and because of sin. When I look at our country, at what's happening, and what's happening in New Orleans in particular, it's not beyond the realm of possibility."


*-- [Reverend] Fred Phelps credited Katrina as God's retribution for homosexuals: "New Orleans, symbol of America, seen for what it is: a putrid, toxic, stinking cesspool of fag fecal matter. [...] Pray for more dead bodies floating on the fag-semen-rancid waters of New Orleans."


Doesn't sound to me like anything that Rev. Wright said is any more hateful (in fact not as hateful) compared to what some of these 'men of the cloth' were preaching. But I guarantee you that many of them will be sought out for their political support by the GOP (as they have been in the past) come November.

As far as Obama is concerned, it has been smear after smear after smear. Just to prove the point, there is one good thing about all the Rev. Wright controversy. At least the rumor that was being peddled about even a couple of weeks ago that Obama is actually a muslim who gets his world view from the Koran won't fly anymore.

Some thoughts on Mitt Romney, Mormons and abortion.

I've been watching the recent news involving Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the whole 'Mormon question' with a lot of interest.

For one thing, like Romney, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (colloquially known as the 'Mormon church.') I disagree with Romney about virtually everything in his political platform, and the one thing that he did that I could support if he proposed it nationally, his universal health coverage plan in Massachusetts, he hardly ever talks about as he campaigns for the Republican nomination.

But the news has shifted to more and more coverage of the problems that some members of the 'Christian Right' have voiced with Romney's faith. That matters because they represent a group of voters which Romney had been courting and hoping they would choose him because of a desire not to see the GOP nomination go to the most socially liberal Republican, Rudy Giuliani. Instead, they appear to have found their candidate in Mike Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, who claimed last week that his most unique qualification for the job was a degree in Bible studies from Ouachita Baptist College in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. Interviews with many individual voters in Iowa who have recently opted for Huckabee over Romney make it clear that faith is a major reason why.

So pressure has been mounting on Romney to give a 'Mormon' speech, similar to the one that John F. Kennedy gave in 1960 to put to rest concerns about his Catholicism.

One thing the media has gotten wrong though: Romney is NOT the first Mormon to be a major candidate for a Presidential nomination. That would be Morris Udall, who was the runner-up to Jimmy Carter for the 1976 Democratic nomination. The error is understandable though, as most rabid anti-Mormons reside in the Republican party and among Democrats Udall's religion was never an issue. For that matter, after Al Sharpton made some intemperate comments about Romney and Mormons earlier this year, he backtracked quickly and apologized to anyone who had gotten the misimpression that he was biased against Mormons. That is in contrast to the anti-Mormon stuff that you hear from some fundamentalists on the right, which is never retracted but instead reinforced.

I don't know honestly whether giving such a speech would help Mitt or not, but I will say a few things here, primarily about Mormons and politics, not specifically about Mitt.

First, before every election a letter is read from the First Presidency (which consists of the President of the Church and his counselors) in which they reiterate that the Church is a religious, not a political organization. Church buildings, lists, and other Church properties or resources are not to be used for political purposes, and the letter makes it clear that the Church does not endorse political parties or candidates. The Church does, however, push for involvement in civic affairs and encourages members to vote, run for office and otherwise be involved in their communities. Though the Church does not endorse parties or candidates, it does occasionally take a stand on issues, such as opposition to abortion and to casino gambling.

Probably about 80-90% or more of active Mormons are Republicans, however. I have a friend who once said that Mormon Democrats are 'like a recessive gene-- it tends to run in families (like the Udalls, where Morris succeeded his brother in Congress and since Morris have had other members of their extended family elected to Congress in other states), and it sometimes pops up where least expected. But that is still only about 10-20% of active church members. And whether because it is a matter of what the Church encourages or otherwise, they do get out and vote. Since 80-90% of active Mormons vote for Republicans in most elections, and as part of the 'civic involvement' ideal includes running for office it goes without saying that the Udalls (and Senate majority leader Harry Reid) are exceptions-- nearly all church members who hold public office are Republicans. I am a Democrat and a Precinct Committeeman (and soon-to-be-former County Vice-Chair) but that is relatively rare among members of the church.

It was not always this way though. Early in the history of the Church, almost all of the members were Democrats (since the Democrats in states like Missouri and Illinois had generally been more tolerant towards the church in its early days than had their opponents.) In fact, in the late 1880's and early 1890's as Utah prepared for statehood, Church leaders encouraged some families to become Republicans because the prospect of a state with only Democrats was causing some hesitiation among Republicans in Congress who would have had to approve the creation of a new state. This pattern was replicated in Idaho, Arizona and other areas where there were a lot of church members. As recently as 1948, Utah joined the rest of the west in providing the critical flood of late votes that elected Harry Truman in an election where Thomas Dewey had swept most of the Northeast and produced the now-famous headline in the Chicago Tribune. Of course in 1964 Utah and Idaho went with most of the rest of the country during the Johnson landslide.

So what happened since? Two things have caused most active LDS members to become Republicans.

The first is that (like in the rest of the west) people who had supported FDR and the New Deal began to see the Federal Government as less of a friend for ordinary people and more of a bottomless pit for taxes. I don't myself subscribe to this view, believing that Government can be productive and helpful for solving problems. But in the west, where the Federal Government owns over 90% of the land in many counties, and then various environmental laws (some of which were ironically authored by Morris Udall) blocked or limited access to most of it, the whole rhetoric of the so-called 'sagebrush rebellion' got through to a lot of people. It may have been a phony 'rebellion' spurred by advertising financed by logging, mining and other industries but it hit a very real nerve-- and it doesn't help that Washington is a speck way out on the other end of the country. So the whole 'anti-Federal government' rhetoric that Republicans made their living on in the 1980's (with Ronald Reagan the exemplar of it) did help turn a lot of people in the west to the right. Though land use issues have become less of the focal point over the years, guns have replaced it as a way to keep voters Republican in small towns in the west. If you don't live in one, you wouldn't understand it, but I do and I can tell you that if you tell someone out here you want to take their gun away you might as well be telling them you want to take their kids away. Recently though other issues have caused most of the west to begin swinging back to the left.

But not Utah, and not LDS voters. Which brings us to the second reason why Mormons have moved to the right since the days of Truman. Social conservatism. The 'Christian conservative' movement which is now refusing to support Romney because he is a Mormon may be strongest in the deep south and may have a southern flavor, but it plays well in Utah and in small LDS communities throughout the west, such as the Arizona town I live in. For people who pray daily, are opposed to abortion and try to live a life free from sin, rhetoric which castigates the ACLU for 'driving God out in favor of Satanic humanism,' attacks supporters of keeping abortion legal as 'murderers' and bashes 'wicked gays, teenage sex and booze,' if shallow and hateful rhetoric which aims for the lowest of human emotions, does hold an appeal for those who are already disposed to thinking that way. And LDS people are no different than people anywhere else, a deceptively simple sounding way to wrap hate has been good enough to justify all manner of human persecutions in the long and tortured course of human history, including the persecution that early members of the Church suffered at the hands of mobs in Missouri and Illinois. I don't suggest that the rhetoric we hear on talk radio or from Republican politicians is going to bring out mobs with pitchforks and torches, but it is certainly sufficient to stir up people to support all kinds of laws against other people who are in some way 'different' that might not be supported in the absence of such rhetoric.

It is possible to reason with people of course, starting with pointing out just how hateful some of the rhetoric is. The west is not the south, and the west has a history and a tradition of tolerance. That is especially true of the LDS; it is a fact that Brigham Young, as governor of the Utah territory (which at the time was pretty much synonymous with President of the Church,) made and signed a number of agreements with neighboring tribes and he and his successors are the only major American leaders to sign treaties with native American tribes who stood behind their words and made sure that none were ever violated. But that history of tolerance has to be appealed to directly, not defensively. Tolerance does not mean liking someone or something, or even approving of it, but rather of deciding not to punish or intentionally cause problems for people who are not like we are or like we want to be.

On the issue of abortion, instead of looking like a zero-sum game (either you win and I lose or my side wins and you lose) we are today in a unique position to move beyond the debate. Bill Clinton was on to something when he said he wanted to see abortion 'legal but rare.' As I alluded to once before, liberals have since Clinton took office reduced the number of abortions quietly but efficiently by about 30% since the early 1990's. This involved a combination of education and the availabilty of birth control. Being against something does not mean that the only way to be against it is to ban it. The fact is this:

The number of abortions that liberals have prevented by pushing sex ed, family planning and birth control: Hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions.

The number of abortions that conservatives have prevented by quixotic attempts to ban it: zero. (but they have made some lawyers very rich, at taxpayer expense.)

The obvious example of how to oppose something without banning it is smoking. Nobody has suggested that we make tobacco illegal, but a combination of education (especially in schools), aggressive support for smoking cessation programs (largely financed by taxing cigarettes, which taxes also discourage people from smoking) and reasonable restrictions on smoking have combined to 1. preserve the CHOICE people have to smoke, but 2. acknowlege that smoking is not good for society as a whole and therefore do what we can to encourage people to make the choice to not smoke.

I personally completely agree that abortion must remain legal (as Mitt Romney used to, not so many years ago) because let's face it-- if you don't own your own body, then do you own anything at all that somebody can't legislate away from you someday? Wasn't that what the Civil War was fought over? Now, there's a 'property rights' issue that might appeal to people in the rural west. That said, with the advent of the over-the-counter 'morning after pill,' I believe it will be less and less frequent anyway. We can, if we recognize that having another generation is beneficial to society, do as many countries in Europe have done and actively enhance social programs that promote childbirth (the French have been a model for this, and actually increased their birthrate, which had declined for decades.) For that matter, at one point, after reading a Guttmacher Institute study that made it clear that the cost of a hospital delivery, together with a lack of healthcare insurance and/or low income was a major reason why many women are forced to choose abortions that they don't even want, I've even proposed a program to pay for childbirth expenses for poor women, financed by a tax on abortions. This is pro-choice for two reasons: 1. it really does give all women a choice, while right now the study I linked to makes it clear that many poor and uninsured women are forced to have abortions by the financial realities of America's healthcare system (so there is effectively no choice), and 2. if you tax something, then you are acknowledging as a premise that it is legal (though conservatives have little choice, because in fact it is legal.) At the same time it is a measure which should appeal to the pro-life crowd because after all it does have the effect of reducing abortion by one of the same mechanisms that has helped reduce smoking.

But since that makes sense, I'm sure that everyone will be against it.

An example of how a conservative budget cut will create more of what conservatives say they are against

Conservatives should be happy.

Their fiscal solutions help create more social problems, which later create more budgetary problems they can rail against, so they can be happy because they always have something to complain about.

For example, there is a story out today about how because of a bill the GOP Congress passed in 2005 ostensibly to reduce the deficit (you know, the one they created with trillions in tax cuts), the price that college students will pay for birth control pills will double or triple to in excess of hundreds of dollars per year (for comparison, when I was in college I once paid $20 per month to live in a non-air conditioned converted boxcar during the summer, in desert heat-- and for many students their standard of living has not improved much since then.)

(AP) -- Millions of college students are suddenly facing sharply higher prices for birth control, prompting concerns among health officials that some will shift to less preferred contraceptives or stop using them altogether.

Prices for oral contraceptives, or birth control pills, are doubling and tripling at student health centers, the result of a complex change in the Medicaid rebate law that essentially ends an incentive for drug companies to provide deep discounts to colleges.

"It's a tremendous problem for our students because not every student has a platinum card," said Hugh Jessop, executive director of the health center at Indiana University....

At some schools women could see prices rise several hundred dollars per year.

About 39 percent of undergraduate women use oral contraceptives, according to an estimate by the American College Health Association based on survey data.

Many students could shift to generics but experts said they might still pay twice the previous rate.

Let's focus on what will happen. I'm not going to split hairs about numbers or who else might do what (though I suspect that the number of students who will therefore and only for this reason abstain from sex, which is what conservatives would probably want, is neglible.) While I suspect the following 'some' would be quite a large number, I'll just say, 'some' since any conservative who wanted to dispute it would have to argue the negation of 'some' (which is 'none') and would be in obvious denial as to the consequences of their 2005 budget cut that is now taking effect.

Here is what will happen to SOME of these adult college students: some of them will certainly quit taking the birth control pills due to the increased cost, and some of those will have unwanted pregnancies.

Some of those pregnancies will result in abortions. This will give conservatives cause to celebrate, because the number of abortions (largely due to sex education and contraception) is down 25% since the early 1990's. When these college women start having abortions maybe that trend will reverse itself and then conservatives will have something more to complain about.

Some of those who do not have abortions, will keep their child. Some of them will give up on their dreams of earning a degree, and instead of becoming an educated and likely productive member of society, will join the oversupply of low skill, non-college educated workers competing for a shrinking supply of low-wage jobs. The later children of those women will have a much worse standard of living growing up than the later children of them would be if they were born to a professional, college eduated mother. And some of them will end up on public assistance-- which I guess will please future conservatives very much (else why are they passing bills like this) because then they will have a whole new generation of 'welfare queens' they can complain about.

Yup, conservatism breeds the fuel for more conservatism. What a deal.

Mr. Consistency

During the 2000 Presidential campaign, John McCain, while expressing opposition to abortion, said that if his daughter wanted an abortion, he would leave the decision up to her.

But now it is 2008, and he wants the votes of religious conservatives, so the man who wants to be in a position to appoint the next Supreme Court justice (maybe several) has said that he is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

In other words, he wants for himself and his family a different set of rules than for everyone else.