Trump Is Lying to His Base About His Infrastructure Program

One of the main things motivating Trump’s election win was his attention to the needs of the middle class worker who was either unemployed, underemployed, or whose wages have stagnated for the past 40 years.  He promised them jobs.  During the campaign there were two main avenues through which he stated he was going to meet that promise.

The first and more direct means was through Federal financing of a massive $1 trillion infrastructure program.  It has just been revealed, however, that that plan has essentially been trashed.  Instead, the Federal government will invest only $200 billion and seek to use that to leverage the rest.  The other $800 billion will have to come from states, cities, and corporate sources.   

This is highly unlikely to work since most states and cities are just keeping their heads above water financially as it is.  And corporations will not foot the bill because it will detract from their bottom line profit, which investors will not support.  

But Trump is still deceitfully calling it a $1 trillion program and using it to rally his base.  It’s all smoke and mirrors.  Another example of Trump's mendacity.

This decision I’m sure resulted from a reality check.  Given his desire for a major tax cut for the wealthy and a major increase in defense spending, there just wasn’t money left for a big infrastructure bill, even with cutting many programs that directly help those in need, including the working poor and many of his supporters.   

The second means was by drastically renegotiating NAFTA and other trade agreements which had been a major factor in the loss of American jobs to other countries.   While he withdrew American participation in the TPP (which had not yet taken effect), he has not moved boldly on NAFTA.  He has signaled that he wants to renegotiate, but his intention as communicated to Congress amounted to no major changes. (see New York Times, “Trump Sends NAFTA Renegotiation Notice to Congress,” May 18).  All he has done is cudgel executives to bring back jobs with the promise of major tax cuts.

Thus he is reneging on his promise to create jobs through a major Federal infrastructure program.  He is cutting programs that provide a vital benefit to many of his supporters.  And he is not making major changes in NAFTA.  Plus we cannot forget the impact on his supporters if Trumpcare passes.  

This will be a huge betrayal of his supporters.  One can only hope that they will finally see him for the fraud that he is and remove their support.

Trump’s Simplistic Parochialism

It’s one thing to say, “America First.”  It’s another to be simplistic in its application and have no understanding of what that phrase really means.

"America First" raises two issues regarding Trump’s action of taking the U.S. out of the Paris climate accords.  The first is, even assuming for argument’s sake that our participating in the accords was in some narrow way against our economic interests, does the significance of the issue for the world, and ultimately therefore for the U.S., mean that the U.S. should do what is best for the larger community?  Is our national interest something larger than our economic interest?

There are several ways of looking at this.  If the U.S. wishes to continue to be a leader, if not the leader, on the world stage, then without question we need to do our part to insure a safe planet not just for our children and their children, but for the children of all people.

The leadership issue aside, from a moral perspective, how can a country which expounds on its exceptionalism at every opportunity as well as the centrality of its faith in God act in a way which even arguably is destructive of the planet’s environment to such an extent that it impacts the heritage we leave our children?  

It’s one thing to say that you don’t believe that climate change is man-made (although Trump’s emissaries when questioned have said they don’t know whether he believes in it or not), it’s another to say that the argument that it is has no credence.  When we’re talking about the upheaval of the climate-based order of the world and possibly the viability of Earth as a human habitat as we know it in the future, do you want to take any risk, however small?

And finally, yes, our national interest is larger than our economic, certainly our corporate, interest.  When we have lost sight of that in the past, troubles have ensued.  It is probably safe to say, although many would disagree, that the Bush administration got us into the Iraq war not because of our national interest, or even national security interest, but because of corporate interests.  Even the Vietnam War was more an expression of our corporate interests … the big corporations wanted to halt the spread of communism … than our national security interests.

The second issue is, is our commitment under the Paris accords even in a narrow way against our economic interests?  The answer from a broad cross-section of business leaders, economists, and academics is a resounding, “no!”

First, the future of the coal industry and of coal miners is being primarily impacted not by the prospect of carbon caps and other measures but by the superior cost effectiveness of natural gas and increasingly that of alternative sources of energy.  Our Paris commitments do no further harm to the coal industry.

Second, by not just taking the U.S. out of the Paris accords but also removing efforts to stimulate development of alternative energy sources, Trump is not only depriving U.S. workers a source of new and lasting jobs, but we are ceding to China and other countries the leadership in the development of this technology which will be an economic engine for decades to come.

Third, by taking the U.S. out of the Paris accords, it will hurt our export industry.  People will retaliate against the U.S. by choosing to purchase competitive products from other countries, a Renault v a Chevy, Adidas v Nike.

So Trump's action is actually contrary to the policy, "America First."  Trump makes it sound like he’s standing up for the U.S. and protecting our economy, and that is certainly what his base and, according to a recent New York Times article, small business owners think.  But the reality is that taking the U.S. out of the Paris accords will hurt our economy, which will ultimately hurt everyone, including small business owners.  And It will have a negative impact on our broader national interests.  

Thankfully, the process of leaving the Paris accords will take several years.  Before that process is over we will have a presidential election.  Unless the citizens of this country have lost all common sense, we will have a new president who will rescind Trump’s decision and keep us in the accords.  

What Does the Democratic Party Stand For?

If I see another article saying that Democrats have got to find a message to win back Congress and the White House, rather than just being anti-Trump, I’m going to scream.  Today in The New York Times and in a recent New Yorker, the call was for Democratic candidates with “the ability to articulate what the Democratic Party stands for.” 

How sad, yet how true.  Last December I wrote a post, “The Perennial Search for the Democrat’s Mission.”  I  reprint that post here again.  I have been making the same arguments since 2004 when I wrote my book, We Still Hold These Truths.  When will the power-brokers in the party get it?

The Perennial Search for the Democrat’s Mission:

It’s sad to see Democrats once again thrashing around, after November’s defeat, trying to figure out where there message failed and what they need to do in the future.  (Everyone that is but the Clinton campaign, who apparently doesn’t think there was anything wrong with their message, but that’s another problem.)  Some advocate focusing on youth and minority voters … the “Obama coalition.”  Others argue that attention must be paid to the white middle class worker.  Others, rural America.  And from reports, these groups seem to be at odds with each other.

It’s not unreasonable to analyze this question, Republicans certainly do the same.  The problem is that Democrats seem incapable of seeing the light.  This is a familiar pattern.  After the 2004 loss, Walter Mondale said, “We really need to work on what we are for.  Unless we have a vision and the arguments to match, I don’t think we’re going to truly connect with the American people.”  Similar thoughts were voiced by many party leaders at the time.

As I said in the forward to the 2005 edition of my book, We Still Hold These Truths, “How sad and beyond belief that after a long and intense campaign, the quadrennial defining moment for the Party, it did not know the essence of what it stands for, what its vision is. How then could the American public?”  The same holds true today.

The problem does not arise because there is a conflict between the interests of the white middle class workers on the one hand and the interests of minorities and youth or rural America on the other.  The problem arises because Democratic leaders seem to think there is a conflict … they are trapped in identity politics.  I know the saying, “You can’t be all things to all people,” but in this case I don’t think it applies.  Let me explain why.

It comes back to the question of just what the Democratic Party’s mission is.  Mostly it’s been absent, at best implied.  Instead, the party has had a grab-bag of policies, the platform. But that is not a mission.  It makes it seem the party is just pandering to a bunch of different interests.  

They have presented no cohesive vision, no umbrella for all its policies.  And I don’t call Clinton’s “Stronger Together” slogan - cooperation is better than conflict - a vision.  John Kerry kept on saying that the 2004 election was about voting for change … but from what to what?  Obama certainly made clear what the change was, but he also had no clearly enunciated vision for the Party.  In response to Clinton's weak effort, I suggested the slogan, "Economic Justice for All," (see my post of that title, 7/24/16).

I wrote We Still Hold These Truths because I felt, as did many others, that the 2004 election could not be won on the basis of a negative, anti-Bush vote. The same held true for 2016 and a negative, anti-Trump vote.  To regain the White House and Congress, the Democrats had and still have to come up with a cohesive vision – an ideology – and communicate it forcefully in a way which resonates with the American people. 

Such a vision has not been forthcoming. My hope continues to be that my book will provide a new/old perspective with which to define what the Party stands for, a perspective at once so simple and familiar yet profound that it would be immediately grasped by the American people … the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence.

I therefore propose the following Mission Statement for the Democratic Party which will appeal to Americans rural and urban, regardless of faith, race, social status, gender, or sexual orientation, in red states and blue; a vision that reclaims the moral and spiritual bona fides of the Party (attacked by Republicans):

"To bring to life the promises set forth in our Declaration of Independence.

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

* each and every American has the best chance to experience the promise 

‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 

certain unalienable Rights … Life,  Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’;

 * government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration …  

 ‘to secure those rights’,  within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and

* all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts 

to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”

These words from the Declaration of Independence are the moral philosophy, the heart, the soul of American democracy. This is America’s common faith.  This is America’s social contract.  To further that promise of equality and opportunity with fiscal responsibility should be the clear mission of the Democratic Party.

All the policies of the Party naturally flow from this mission statement.  All American men, women, and children are owed the support of government policies in education, health care, civil rights, security, the economy, the environment, and taxation that provide a foundation of equal opportunity for all.  That is the American social contract. 

It is these policies that make the Democratic Party a “life-affirming” force. It affirms the profound value of the lives of all living beings.  It acknowledges the suffering of millions of citizens … their lack of work, their lack of health insurance, their lack of enough food to eat, their lack of equal opportunity to acquire a good education … sometimes caused by economic forces, often simply the result of being born on the wrong side of the tracks.  It is these policies that make the Democratic Party a “pro-family” force. How can a family be strong, healthy, and viable without meeting these basic needs?

It is these policies, which respect the value of all human life and the environment, that make the Democratic Party a party of faith – not Christian, not Jewish, not Muslim … but deep religious faith. And because we respect freedom of religion, as well as the right to have no religious belief, we strongly support the Constitutional policy of the separation of church and state created by the Founders to insure the freedom of all to live according to their creed and conscience. The Democratic Party respects the valued and important place that religion has had and will always have in the fabric of American life.

But we must remember that no right, not even those in the Bill of Rights, are absolute.  For no person in the exercise of his or her rights can infringe on another person’s rights.  That is indeed the basis of all laws that control the relations of citizens in a civilized society, whether it be the criminal law, civil law, or government regulation.

In approaching our fellow citizens, we do ourselves and the people of this great country a disservice if we do not recognize the purity of their hearts and beliefs, their natural desire to provide for themselves and their families, and their basic desire to do what is just in the eyes of God.   Democrats must make the case to all Americans, not assuming that any American is ill-disposed to its vision, that their best interests and the best interests of the country lie in policies of the Democratic Party, not the Republican.

This focus on respect and equality must inform all of our actions.  If Democrats do not show that we practice what we preach, how can we expect anyone to believe us?  Legislators must voluntarily reduce the undue influence of lobbyists, big business, and the wealthy from our policy deliberations.  They deserve a place at the table, but they cannot displace or overwhelm the voice of the majority of citizens who have no realistic way, other than the vote, of expressing their point of view.  

Legislators can and should hold more town meetings with their constituents; they can survey their opinion on matters before Congress.  It is important that constituents know they are being listened to.

But because of the practical logistical limitations, constituents cannot compete in presence or volume with the voice of industry and wealth.  And so each legislator must in the end, on each matter before Congress, ask him- or herself what is in the best interests of average Americans, his constituents, versus the interests of industry and privilege.  Sometimes those interests will converge; sometimes they will not.  If they do not, it is the interests of the public that must prevail.  That is who legislators are elected to represent.

The message of We Still Hold These Truths is that Democrats must hold true to the heart of American democracy as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and further elaborated in our Constitution … to the American social contract. We Still Hold These Truths presents an overarching vision that will resonate with the broad American public in red states as well as blue and win their hearts and minds. It is a vision that will successfully counter the radical Republican Conservative movement and reclaim the moral and spiritual bona fides of the Democratic Party.

Trumpgate - The Firing of FBI Director Comey

Something smells about the firing of FBI Director Comey.  If you look at the sequence of events, the facts do not seem to support the reason given for the firing, but instead more strongly argue that it was done to stop or influence the FBI investigation into Trump campaign officials’ contacts with Russians regarding Russia’s attempt to throw the election to Trump.

The actions by Comey regarding the Clinton investigation are old news.  They happened prior to the election, more than 6 months ago.  Add to that Trump’s statements at the time supporting Comey, saying that he thought Comey was showing guts.

Why the change in sentiment?  A hint is given in the firing letter from Trump to Comey in which he doesn’t refer to the handling of the Clinton investigation at all, but he does say that although Comey assured him three times that he was “not under investigation,” he was following the recommendation of the Attorney General.  That statement can only refer to the Russia investigation; we know from his Tweets that that has been very much on his mind, and probably Attorney General Session’s mind as well.

This perspective has gained traction with the revelation that just days before the firing, Comey approached the Deputy Attorney General … the same man who wrote the detailed memo in support of the firing … asking for increased resources for the Russia investigation.  This would have quite understandably ratcheted up White House concern that Comey was taking the investigation very seriously and would follow it wherever it lead.  He was after all not a Trump appointee and clearly independent.

If in fact this was the true reason for firing Comey, then several questions are raised.  If the campaign officials, and by extension Trump, did nothing improper then why fire Comey?  They would have nothing to fear from an investigation.  It makes one take more seriously the possibility that either there was indeed collusion as legally defined or if there wasn’t, that the evidence would show an appearance of collusion which in itself would be devastating. 

If Trump’s action was an attempt to prevent a thorough, unfettered, investigation, then regardless whether there was in fact collusion, the firing was not just an abuse of power, it was an obstruction of justice.  And thus an impeachable offense.

Given the facts already available, a select committee of Congress needs to investigate the firing.  This has the potential of truly being Trump’s Watergate.  As one Senator commented, the firing was “Nixonian.”

The Amorality of Donald Trump

The recent frantic efforts by President Trump to have the Republican-controlled House pass a health care measure to repeal Obamacare, regardless what the nature of that legislation was, reveals the absolute amorality of Donald Trump.

After the initial Republican legislation didn’t proceed to a vote because it didn’t have enough support among Republicans, Trump was willing to bargain with any faction and agree to anything if they could bring the votes needed to get the legislation passed.  Regardless the impact on the public - especially poor people, the elderly, and those with previous conditions - who had come to depend on the benefits of Obamacare, all he wanted was legislation that passed.  His statements, his promises about how he would protect the public, how various provisions needed to be retained … all of that was just so much hot air.

After the House finally voted, his speech praising the passage was beyond pathetic.  While we are used to politicians using superlatives, his over-the-top, self-congratulatory, praise of both the legislation and House Republicans made me want to throw up.  

It brings to mind the famous accusation by Joseph Welch, Secretary of the Army, in response to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch-hunt of the Army during the McCarthy hearings in the early 50s:  “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”  The same accusation should be hurled at President Trump, “Have you no shame?”

It’s a sad day for this country.  Of course, almost every day since the inauguration has been a sad day for the country.  But at least for the most part he was doing pretty much what he said he was going to do, except for some foreign policy reversals.   Yes, he’s always guilty of grand-standing, but that’s the way he is.  And with the signing of his many executive orders, he made it sound like he was doing something great for his base, whereas in truth the orders typically resulted in very little.  

The nature of the negotiations on this legislation, however, and his speech reveal something far worse:  the President has absolutely no commitment to anything other than making himself look good, as he sees it.  He will sacrifice anything to that end.  He is totally amoral.   

One can run this country as a conservative, even a right-wing conservative.  I may very much disagree with their point of view, but typically they are men and women of conviction.  Donald Trump has no convictions, no commitments, other than to himself.  Besides being a sorry example of a human being, this leaves everyone guessing about where the country is headed, both in a macro and micro level.  This lack of stability is not good for any aspect of our country’s well-being.

In 2018, Democrats must succeed in engineering a massive turnout of voters, and not just those who normally vote, to change control of Congress and put a stop to the damage Trump is wreaking on America.  In the meantime, we have to hope that his badly divided party will not support what the more radical right-wing elements want.  It seems at the moment that Senate Republicans are going to take a very different tack when they get the Trumpcare legislation.   Let us hope!

Climate Disorder = Global Upheaval

Recently, the Trump administration made it clear that the U.S. does not intend to live up to its commitment made as part of the Paris Agreement to slow climate change.  As the second major source of climate change pollution (after China), this is significant.  This retrenchment has been met with howls from environmental organizations and the international community, but the U.S. public has been mostly silent.

This post seeks to examine this issue and the U.S. public’s apparent assumption that the impact, on us at least, will be slight and that technology can be depended upon to allow us to adapt to any changes.

Our Earth is undergoing changes.  We have been having a conversation about this using the phrases “global warming” and “climate change.”  Given the facts I will present in this post as to what is already happening and the predictions, I think the terms “climate disorder” which results in “global upheaval” are more accurate and appropriate.

The result of these conversations has not been significant.  Yes, there is a global commitment now (all countries, even China, are still committed despite the U.S. pullback), but it is at such a low level that while it may slow the process, it will not stop it.  Indeed, there is serious question whether we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing that could be done to stop it.

There are several reasons why our response has been so weak.  One reason is the persistence of those who deny that these changes, these disruptions, are man-made … they're just part of the natural cycle that the Earth has experienced over the ages.  This has found a receptive audience in many people owing to their habit of being in denial of inconvenient truths.

There are many ways to challenge that position.  But assuming for the moment that the deniers are right, wouldn’t it still be advisable to take whatever action we can to minimize the changes?  The problem with that question is that the changes have been presented as so non-threatening to us if not most of mankind that the answer is, “no.”

The next reason is that any action we could take to significantly reduce CO2 emissions (and thus slow or halt these changes) would involve such an alteration both to our lifestyle and to the operation of our industrial base that it has minimal support from either the public or industry.  From a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit just doesn’t seem to be sufficient to warrant the cost.

Which brings me to the last and most important reason:  the presentation of the issue - the facts marshaled and its packaging - have been woefully understated and ineffective.  Even the more dire predictions, even slick media presentations like Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, seem almost irrelevant to most people.  The common reaction is, “So what?  So some people will be displaced by rising oceans and we’ll have to adapt to warmer temperatures.  No big deal.”  The general feeling is that the change will not be significant, and what change there is can be dealt with through adaptive technology.  Bottom line, no disruption. 

What we must therefore attempt is to accurately ... there is no need to exaggerate or embellish ... and clearly present the facts and predictions in a way which makes them relevant to people in the U.S. and around the world.

1.  What is happening already?

The enormous weight of the Greenland ice sheet impacts the axis of the Earth’s rotation and the location of the poles. As the Greenland ice sheet melts, as it is doing with increasing speed … each year the sheet is loosing 287 billion tons of ice … the axis and the location of the poles will change.  How much no one knows, but the loss of just a fragment of the Greenland ice sheet, as well as Antarctic and North Pole ice, is already having an impact with the North Pole moving ever so slowly towards the UK.  This will without question impact worldwide weather and climate, but in ways unknown.

The seas have risen 2.6 inches since 1993 and are rising at an increasing rate. In low-lying places around the world, from Miami Beach to islands in the South Pacific, the water at high tide is routinely covering land that was only flooded during serious storms in the past.

Large areas of Asia and Africa have experienced terrible drought; desertification is increasing.  California has experienced a severe multiple year drought.  Yes, they’ve recently had lots of rain and snow, but that does not signal the end of the drought; just a brief respite.

Due to flooding and drought and other natural disasters, areas of the world have been made uninhabitable and so there have already been masses of climate change refugees.  In 2014 more than 19 million people from 100 countries were forced to flee their homes (how many of these were just temporary evacuations is not available).

Warmer winter temperatures have already extended the range of a variety of pests with devastating impact on pine and other forests.  Moose in Maine are dying because ticks are not being killed by winter cold.  Alfalfa crops in areas of California have encountered a new disease due to climate change.  This is just a sampling.

2.  What are the current predictions?

Sea levels could increase anywhere from a conservative 3 feet up to nearly 10 feet by 2100, depending on CO2 concentrations in the air and the speed at which polar ice melts.  Even a 3’ increase will mean huge areas will become uninhabitable.  In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where rising sea levels will play a major role in the extent of flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans.

In the US, the south-west and the Great Plains will likely face decade-long droughts far worse than any experienced in recorded memory, including recent droughts.  The risk of drought from 2050-2099 rises to 96% in both areas compared to only 45% in the plains and 62% in the south-west from 1950-2000.  The will mean the end of U.S. food production as we’ve come to depend on it.  One quarter of all US food production occurs in the central valley of California; the great plains is the bread basket of the country.   Food production in those areas would suffer a major decrease.  

As for the rest of the world, most of Europe, the Middle East, large parts of Africa and parts of South America are at high risk for extreme drought.  The most serious impact for most people will again be on food production and water, which will be significant.

It is impossible to predict how many climate change refugees the combination of drought, increasing desertification, floods, and other natural disasters will bring in the future.  The estimates range anywhere from a low of 25 million to a high of 800 million.  But whatever the figure, the resettlement of these refugees will pose huge stresses on countries as so much of the world will be suffering.

There are no predictions on the change in insect infestations and plant diseases as a result of climate change.  But there is no question that the impact will be significant, given what we see happening already at the beginning of this century.

Then there are the national security questions.  In recent Congressional testimony, Defense Secretary James Mattis called climate change a national security threat, impacting stability in areas of the world where U.S. troops are operating.  Nations under stress from climate disorder will be subject to internal unrest and conflicts may erupt between nations to gain control of diminishing resources.  It also presents logistical problems for the military.  The extent of these problems are unknowable, but they will certainly occur.

Note that, to date, all the best scientific predictions have been significantly off in that greater change has occurred within a shorter period of time.  Whether it’s the loss of ice at the poles and Greenland, or the bleaching death of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, scientists keep saying we didn’t think this would happen for another 20-30 years.  So it would be wise to take these predictions as low.

Why is it so hard to make accurate forecasts even with sophisticated computer modeling?  All elements of nature … the water we drink, plants growing, weather patterns … are dependent on a multitude of interacting factors.  The water we drink is the product of a complex interaction of meteorological, geologic, and chemical forces.  Plants are dependent on so many things - light, water, nutrients - which are in turn dependent on a variety of natural forces.  Weather patterns are again dependent on a complex interaction of meteorological and geologic forces.

The answer to the above question is that even the most accomplished scientists have an incomplete understanding of the interaction of the forces of nature that impact the changes we have already seen and will control what happens in the future.  Since the value of computer output is based on the value of the inputs given the computer, the computer cannot produce accurate results.

Clearly, this issue should be a big deal for everyone.  These are not things that one can just adapt to through improved technology.  The human dislocation will be massive.  Our food production system, which has developed over the past century, will be devastated; we will have to make changes, start over again in new places and perhaps in new ways.  And this at a time when the world’s burgeoning population needs a constant increase in food production to prevent disaster.   Pests of various types will appear in areas where they never have and wreak havoc on the native vegetation and animal life. 

The more accurate phrase to describe what is happening and what will happen in the future is not “global warming” or “climate change,” but “climate disorder” resulting in “global upheaval.”  We must do whatever we can, at whatever cost to both convenience and finances, to slow down this process so that our children and their children don’t inherit a hell on earth.

How Democrats Should Talk About Abortion

As Democrats engage in special elections and prepare for the 2018 midterms, it is vital that they change the way they address the abortion issue.  This post is not about changing Democrats’ unwavering support of Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose.  What this post is about is how Democrats discuss this controversial issue with the public.  In 2016 we lost the votes of many Catholics who traditionally vote Democratic because our message on this issue was too strident and unnuanced.

First, it must be absolutely clear that Democrats are not pro-abortion.  It is a sad event for probably most, if not all, women because it is either emotionally or morally a wrenching moment for them, regardless how necessary they view it.  Ideally, no woman, other than for health reasons, would ever be in a position where they felt it was necessary to abort their fetus.

That brings up the second point: the Democratic focus needs to be on government, organizations, and people doing more to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.  The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer abortions.  One statistic:  Among unmarried, young (20-29) women who became pregnant between 2001 and 2008, 69% were unintended pregnancies!  A large percentage of those were probably unwanted as well.

How to reduce unwanted pregnancies? Two of the means are well known and straight-forward: improved sex education of young adults and easy access to contraception, both condoms and the pill.  

But both are controversial for some Americans for moral/religious reasons.  These are concerns we have to respect, but there is no question that teaching abstinence doesn’t work; so that is not the answer.  It certainly is appropriate, however, to teach youth to question requests for or desires for sex:  to ask “Is this something I really want to do?”, to think about what the role of sex should be and what the consequences might be.

Even with all these safeguards in place, there will still be unwanted pregnancies.  And in those cases, abortion needs to be a legal option from both a societal and a moral perspective.  

The world is full of neglected or unloved children whose psyches are negatively impacted by their experience.  There are few things more destructive for a child’s well-being and emotional health than to feel unloved or be neglected.  This has negative social consequences because of the life choices such children are more likely to make.  And morally, it is not right to place children, who after all have no say in whether they are born or who their parents are, in such a damaging situation.

When Democrats speak to this issue, this is how it should be addressed.  Yes, the bottom line is support for Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose.  But the issue is much more complex than that.  And nothing that I’ve suggested takes away from those principles.  It won’t win back all lost Catholic votes, but it will make a difference.