Nashville English Only - VOTE NO JAN 22!!!!!

This is a policy analysis I wrote about the English Only Policy to be voted on in Nashville Jan. 22, 2009. (Note: A colleague wrote the Policy Description section.) It talks about the history of the English Only movement, it's goals, and potentially unforeseen consequences. It's important that we all educate ourselves and insure that we protect our communities from bigotry in the form of policy.

The English-only Charter Amendment Policy

Introduction

Numerous policies have been presented in the United States pertaining to the use of the English language in government business and services. These English-only policies have been proposed on Federal, State, and local levels with varying amounts of success (Cordero, 1990; DeJong et al, 2005; Ricento, 1995; Schmid, 2003). For example, although English was successfully made the official state language in Tennessee in 1984, recent attempts to attach amendments requiring that government services and publications only be provided in English have yet to become laws (Metropolitan City Council, 2007; Metropolitan City Council, 2008; Schmid, 2003).

The Metropolitan Government Counsel voted in favor of the English-only Charter Amendment Policy in 2007, however former Mayor Bill Purcell vetoed this bill (Metropolitan City Council, 2007; Metropolitan City Council, 2008). This year Metro Councilman Eric Crafton gathered enough petitions to force a petition-driven referendum to be voted on by the public (Metropolitan City Council, 2008; WKRN, 2008). Due to a legal technicality, however the referendum could not be added to the November ballot therefore, the local Metropolitan Government will hold a special ballot on January 22, 2009 (Metropolitan City Council, 2007; Metropolitan City Council; 2008).

Were the English-only Charter Amendment Policy to pass, it would add Amendment 1.08 to Article 1 of the Metropolitan Charter thereby requiring all Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County business and services be conducted only in the English language (Metropolitan City Council, 2008; Nashville English First, 2008). In addition, there would be no public right to services in any other language (Metropolitan City Council, 2008; Nashville English First, 2008). It is important that the history, details, and impact of English-only policies be examined, so that the citizens of Davidson County may vote on this initiative with a full understanding of its implications and repercussions.

The Social Problem

The United States government’s relationship with the English language has been transforming since our country’s inception (Cordero, 1990; Ricento, 1995). There is no mention of an official national language in the constitution of the United States and currently the United States has no official language (Cordero, 1990). However, English has been the de facto language of the federal government since British colonization (Ricento, 1995).

The movement towards English-only policies in the United States began with the Americanization movement of the early twentieth century, which was initiated in reaction to the second largest wave of European immigration to the United States (Cordero, 1990; Ricento, 1995). President Theodore Roosevelt reflected the public’s fear that ethnic diversity threatened our country’s stability and discouraged a common American identity when he spoke in 1919 saying, “We have room for but one language here, and that is the English Language” (Cordero, 1990; Nashville English First, 2008; Ricento, 1995; Wilkerson, 2003). This mentality sparked a series of national English policies including, but not limited to, requiring English to be spoken by all people seeking citizenship and requiring an English literacy test to enter the United States (Cordero, 1990; Schmid, 2003).

The second influx of English-only policies began in the 1980’s in reaction to the divided nature of the American identity that followed the Vietnam War and the 1960’s and 1970’s “ethnic revival movements” (Ricento, 1995). Twice the Senate voted in favor of bills that would make English the official national language of the United State, however neither bill has been written into law (Schmid, 2003). Currently, twenty-eight states, including Tennessee, have passed individual legislation implementing English as their state’s official language (Barker et al, 2001; Padilla et al., 1991; Schmid, 2003). Furthermore, cities in twenty-six states have passed English-only ballot initiatives requiring all government business and services be conducted only in English, though to date, Nashville would be the largest city to pass such an initiative (DeJong et al, 2005; Schmid, 2003).

The societal beliefs that sparked earlier legislation influence proponents of Tennessee’s pending English-only Charter Amendment Policy as well. Proponents of this policy believe there are several societal problems that could be solved by implementing legislation that reduced government spending for translation and forced immigrants to learn English (ProEnglish, 2008). First, this law intends to improve human capital for non-English speakers in Nashville because individuals who do not speak the dominant language of the United States are linguistically isolated and therefore limited from involvement in socioeconomic mobility (Padilla et al, 1991; ProEnglish, 2008; Wilkerson, 2003).

Secondly, the use of many separate languages is seen to be divisive and to inhibit the growth of a cohesive community (ProEnglish, 2008; Wilkerson, 2003). In addition, the cost of oral and written government translation services in the United States are seen as huge budgetary expenses reaching nearly $22.5 million per year nationally (ProEnglish, 2008). According to Metro Councilman Jerry Maynard, Nashville currently spends about $80,000 per year on interpreters (Martin, 2008). Tennessee’s English-only Charter Amendment Policy would require that the cost of translation services be shifted from the government’s responsibility to the responsibility of the individual utilizing the services (Nashville English First, 2008). Finally, the government’s role in dictating the use of one language over another is unclear under current laws, therefore causing confusion with program execution and development (Martin, 2008; ProEnglish, 2008).

Description of the Policy

Benefits and Services
As a means of alleviating the four social problems listed above, the English-only Charter Amendment Policy would remove government services provided in languages other than English. The proposed amendment states that “no person shall have the right to government services in any other language” (Nashville English First, 2008), but does not stipulate the encompassed government services, which include, but are not limited to: Emergency Management, Fire Department, Police Department, Courts, Airport Authority, Nashville Electric Service, Public Hospitals, Public Housing, and Public Library (Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County & Tennessee, 2008). The government services provided by these departments are crucial to the health, well-being, and survival of Nashville residents.

The creators of English-only policy anticipate social problems would be affected by this policy’s implementation in the following ways. First, it is expected to replace linguistic isolation with better English proficiency and faster assimilation (ProEnglish, 2008; Wilkerson, 2003). It is also expected to replace division in the community with integration, a sense of unity, strong American identity, enhanced security, and patriotism (ProEnglish, 2008; Wilkerson, 2003). Moreover, it is expected to eliminate the cost of translation services, thereby releasing money from the budget for other expenditures (Martin, 2008). Finally, it is expected to replace ambiguity about the government’s role in language legislation with clarity and diminished government involvement (ProEnglish, 2008; Martin, 2008).

Eligibility
The proposed policy applies to all persons in Davidson County who speak languages other than English, whether they speak their native language exclusively or are multilingual (Nashville English First, 2008). The policy will affect those who are here legally or illegally, spanning from political refugees to naturalized citizens. As of 2000, one out of every six Nashville residents was born outside of the United States (Carpenter, 2000), but approximately 75% of these native-born residents are not citizens (Cornfield et al., 2003). In addition to residents of Davidson County, this policy would also affect tourists and companies who consider relocating to Nashville. The Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Mayor Karl Dean have spoken out against the proposal because they believe that it would make Nashville appear unwelcoming to tourists and businesses, therefore impeding the city’s ability to compete in a global economy (Stewart, 2008).

Financial Issues
Approximately $20,000 has already been spent to print and mail petition postcards to registered voters in an effort to secure at least the 2,476 voter signatures required to put the issue on a special ballot (Stewart, 2008). This money came from two national organizations; ProEnglish and the Federation for America Immigration Reform, which has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group (Tennessee, 2008). The special election required to vote on this issue that will take place in January 2009 will cost between $350,000 and $500,000 (Echegaray, 2008). At this point, the city council is unsure where the money will come from in the budget, but possibilities include the election commission budget, the reserves, or special appropriations (Stewart, 2008).

Policy Administration
It is very important to reiterate that English is already Nashville’s official language (Barker et al, 2001; Padilla et al., 1991; Schmid, 2003). The proposed amendment’s objective is not to declare an official language, but limiting government services in languages other than English (Nashville English First, 2008). While it is very clear that the policy will only be administered and enforced in the public domain, it is entirely unclear exactly which services will be affected and to what extent, because the departments of the county government are diverse and include everything from the Public School System to the Health Department (Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County & Tennessee, 2008).

Policy Analysis

Policy Goals
The English-only Charter Amendment Policy in Tennessee claims to have the goals of uniting communities, encouraging unwilling immigrants to learn the English language, reducing local government spending, and clarifying the government’s role in language legislation. Many members of the Nashville community support these goals, as displayed in the number of signed petitions that have forced a vote on this policy in January 2009. However, an examination of pertinent literature brings into question the administrative feasibility of this policy and the potentiality of a surreptitious hidden agenda of Anglo-Saxon supremacy (Wilkerson, 2003).
Administrative Feasibility

Efficiency
The proposed Tennessee English-only Charter Amendment policy would disallow all metropolitan government institutions from providing services in any language other than English, but its vague description does not clarify the means of implementation and regulation, which will vary across government agencies. If an individual were to need translation services, they would be required to seek out and pay for their own translators (Nashville English First, 2008). Without the government providing free translation services, people who cannot afford them will be forced to go without. This will not only make administration of government programs challenging, but it will also compromise quality of care to different extents within each government agency.

An essential aspect of providing quality care is speaking the same language as your service’s recipient for several reasons (Morse, 2003; Padilla et al, 1991). First, people who have a basic understanding of English may be able to get by on a day-to-day basis, but are unable to navigate complicated government services such as social welfare programs or the legal system (Gibson, 2004; Morse, 2003). In addition, without complete comprehension of the programs being provided, the needs of recipients’ may be overlooked or misunderstood resulting in a misuse of services, at best, and at worst physical or mental harm (Morse, 2003; Mui, 2006; Padilla et al, 1991). In states where English-only laws have already been put into practice, lawsuits have been filed claiming non-fluent English speakers are being ineffectively represented in the court system and therefore are being denied due process (Wilkerson, 2003).

Miscommunication can be harmful to the providers of government services as well. Twenty to forty percent of low-wage and low-skill jobs are staffed by legal immigrants, 50% of whom have poor English proficiency (Chung et al., 2008). When employees are not allowed to speak their native languages while at work, productivity decreases and work place accidents resulting from miscommunication increase (Gilmore & Broderick, 2007). On the contrary, offering translators and translation programs has been shown to increase program efficiency for both recipients and providers (Morse, 2003). Therefore, contradictory to English-only policy advocates, it behooves the government to provide free translations services to recipients and to allow employees to speak both English and their native languages to maintain safe and efficient programs and work environments.

Effectiveness
The English-only Charter Amendment Policy in Tennessee is unlikely to alleviate any of the societal problems it is intended to. This English-only policy cannot unite our community, because it contradicts the founding values espoused by the United States as freedom of speech, equality, and tolerance (Wilkerson, 2003). English-only policies are written with the false assumption that multiple languages being in prominent use within a country’s borders directly results in a divided society (Gibson, 2004; Wilkerson, 2003). Wilkerson (2003) states that restricting the use of languages other than English results in, “People feel(ing) like strangers, not citizens.” Gibson (2004) further expounds on this idea proclaiming, “If a single language ensured harmony, and multiple languages caused chaos, then Ireland would be at peace and Switzerland would be torn by civil war.”

The English-only Charter Amendment policy will also not increase English fluency and literacy among immigrant populations because it falsely assumes that the only barrier to English proficiency is immigrant motivation (Padilla et al, 1991; Wilkerson, 2003). On the contrary, the American immigrant population is not in need of incentives, but instead opportunities to learn English (Wilkerson, 2003). Immigrants are quite aware that to achieve maximum socioecomic success in the United States one must achieve English literacy and fluency (Padilla et al, 1991; Wilkerson, 2003). This is reflected in high demand for English classes across the United States and the waiting lists seen for every English as a second language class in the state of Tennessee (Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, 2008; Barker et al., 2001).

Additionally, the English-only Charter Amendment policy will not reduce local government spending. The portion of the metropolitan government’s budget currently spent on translation services and printing materials in additional languages will be redirected to implementation, enforcement, and litigation of this new policy (Stewart, 2008). The first step towards initiating this policy will be to hold a special ballot, which will cost approximately six times what the local government spends on all translation services across Davidson County each year (Martin, 2008; Stewart, 2008). Once the policy is in place further expenses to the local government will include, but not be limited to, development of oversight and regulatory systems that can enforce this policy. Furthermore, there will likely be costly litigations following the passage of any Tennessee English-only policies.

Finally, this policy will not clarify the government’s role in language legislation, primarily because its legality is in question under the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Gibson, 2004; Morse, 2003; Wilkerson, 2003). Currently three states’ English-only policies have been declared unconstitutional (Gibson, 2004). Moreover, English-only laws also go against the policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policies pertaining to required language assistance services (Morse, 2003). It is more likely that a Tennessee English-only policy would result in lengthy and expensive litigation, as was experienced in Arizona, than in a clarification of the government’s role in language legislation (Cacas, 1995; Wilkerson, 2003).

Consequences Intended and Unintended
Review of the pertinent literature reveals that the proclaimed intended consequences of the English-only Charter Amendment policy in Tennessee would be unachievable through these means. However, the policy’s unintended consequence, or potentially the policy creators’ hidden agenda, of continued domination of Anglo-Saxon culture, could very well result from its implementation. English-only policies serve to maintain English as the dominant language of the United States by preserving their status as the sole means to advanced socioeconomic success and political power (Askeland & Payne, 2006; Barker & Giles, 2004; Gibson, 2004). This results in the marginalization and oppression of minority culture’s ideas, identities, and societal strengths (Gibson, 2004).

This agenda, hegemony, and maintenance of the status quo, is reflected in the choice of areas within the United States where English-only laws are being proposed, predominantly cities where there are visibly increasing immigrant populations (Barker & Giles, 2004; Gibson, 2004). Because humans’ identities are so closely tied to their language, oppression of the native tongs of non-English speakers proves an effective means of weakening ethnic groups and enforcing Anglo-Saxon “American” hegemony (Barker & Giles, 2004; Gibson, 2004).

Researchers such as Gibson (2004) and Wilkerson (2003) state English-only laws promote “Hispanophobia” and “xenophobia” in the name of the Anglo-Saxon hegemony, an assertion supported further when one examines the beliefs espoused by the leaders of the English-only movement (Padilla et al, 1991). A memo written by the leadership of the organization pushing for national English-only policy, U.S. English, revealed its chairman’s beliefs that Latin American immigrants are a threat to the United States (Padilla et al, 1991). Additionally, the organizations ProEnglish and the Federation for America Immigration Reform, which are recognized hate groups, are funding Nashville English First’s push for English-only laws in Tennessee (Tennessee, 2008). This further supports the assertion that the motives behind the English-only policies may not be what is spoken aloud to journalists and the general public, but what is said behind close doors.

Conclusion
Upon examining research, it seems unlikely the Tennessee English-only Charter Amendment policy will achieve its intended consequences. Of additional concern is the motivation behind the instigation of this policy. An exploration of the funding sources and unintended consequences of the English-only Charter Amendment Policy reveals support from hate groups and motivations that are associated with racism. For these reasons, the citizens of Nashville should carefully evaluate their intended results before voting in favor of this legislation in January 2009.

References

Askeland, G. A. & Payne, M. (2006). Social work education’s cultural hegemony. International Social Work, 49(6), 731-743.

Barker, V., & Giles, H. (2004). English-only policies: Perceived support and social limitation. Language & Communication, 24, 77-95.

Barker, V., Giles, H., Noels, K., Duck, J., Hecht, M., & Clement, R. (2001). The English-only movement: A communication analysis of changing perceptions of language vitality. Journal of Communication, March, 3-37.

Cacas, S. R. (1995). Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities. The language of hate, 22(1).

Carpenter, R. (2000). Geographic distribution on ethnic populations of Nashville and Davidson County. Paper presented at the meeting of the One City One People Metro Human Relations Commission. Nashville, TN.

Chung, R. C., Bemak, F., Ortiz, D. P., & Sandoval-Perez, P. A. (2008). Promoting the mental
health of immigrants: A multicultural/social justice perspective. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 310-317.

Combs, M. C., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jimenez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for children: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19(5), 701-728.

Cordero, L. A. (1990). Constitutional limitations on official English declarations. New Mexico Law Review, 20(Winter), 17-53.

Cornfield, D. B., et al. (2003, August 15). Final report on the immigrant community assessment (Contract #14830). Nashville: Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.

Dejong, E. J., Gort, M., & Cobb, C. D. (2005). Bilingual education within the context of English-only policies: Three districts' responses to question 2 in Massachusetts. Educational Policy, 19(4), 595-620.

Eagan, O. (2003). Baseball, apple pie and English: Lessons from a losing campaign against an "English only" ballot measure. Campaigns & Elections, October/November, 24.

Echegaray, C. (2008, October 11). Special election may cost $500,000. Tennessean. Retrieved from www.tennessean.com

Gibson, K. (2004). English only court cases involving the U.S. workplace: The myths of
language use and the homogenization of bilingual workers’ identities. Second Language Studies, 22(2), Spring 2004, pp. 1-60.

Gilmore, C., & Broderick, M. A. (2007). English only? Rethinking language requirements in a multicultural work world. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 12(4), 329-336.

Lee, J. S. & Oxelson, E. (2006). “It’s not my job”: K-12 teacher attitudes toward student’s heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453-477.

Martin, J. (2008, October 22). Councilman pushes interpreter fee. Retrieved November 8, 2008, from http://www.wsmv.com

Metropolitan City Council. (2007, February). In Substitute ordinance no. BL2006-1185. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.nashville/gov/council/

Metropolitan City Council. (2008, August). Resolution no. RS2008-402. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://nashville.gov/mc/resolutions/

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. (2008). Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://www.nashville.gov

Morse, A. (2003, January). Language access: Helping non-English speakers navigate health and human services. National Children’s Conference of State Legislatures Children’s Policy Initiative.

Mui, A. C. & Kang, S. (2006). Acculturation stress and depression among Asian immigrant elders. Social Work, 51(3), 242-256.

Nashville English First. (2008). Let the people vote on English as official language. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.nashvilleenglishfirst.com

Padilla, A. M., Lindholm, K. J., Chen, A., Duran, R., Hakuta, K., Lambert, W., et al. (1991). The English-only movement: Myths, reality, and implications for psychology. American Psychological Association, 46(2), 1-11.

Proenglish. (2008). Why official English? Retrieved November 8, 2008, from http://www.proenglish.org

Ricento, T. (1995). TESOL's Recommendations for Countering the Official English Movement in the US. In A brief history of language restrictionism in the United States. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Web site: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/tesol/official/restrictionism/htm

Schmid, C. (2003). Immigration and Asian and Hispanic minorities in the new south: An exploration of history, attitudes, and demographic trends. Sociological Spectrum, 23(2), 129-157.

Stewart, M. (2008, August 14). Councilman files English-only measure with Metro. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.wsmv.com

Tennessee, G. (2008, August 19). Nashville English-first backer tied to alleged hate groups. Tennessean. Retrieved from www.tennessean.com

Wilkerson, C. G. (2003). Patriotism or Prejudice: Alabama’s Official English Amendment. Cumberland Law Review, 34, 253-287.

Guerrilla Gardening

Vegilantes is a new project I've started with some friends. It's all part of my new years revolution. Check it out!

New Years Revolution!

I'm writing following my first day back to school! Grad school is thrilling and intimidating and the most wonderful gift - just another reminder of how lucky I am. Doing my winter reorganization and reevaluation brought back into perspective everything I have. My heart is so full and grateful right now for my friends, family, and health, I want to give back as much as possible!

So, as I progress into 2009, I'm recommitting to sharing my new years revolution to learn, share, and grow with my community in a way that will benefit as many people as possible. On this journey I'm sharing with you as I go along, because knowledge in isolation is useless.

So, reach out and let me know what you're learning too! Let's work together for equality and unity in the best way I know possible, through education and a respectful dialogue.

Peace

Don't even get me started

This a really a post for when I have more time, but let's just get it started with this mini preview . . . I think gay, lesbian, and transgender rights are the biggest civil rights issue of our day.

Read this:
Newsweeks cover story Published Dec 6, 2008 - Our Mutual Joy: Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.

By Lisa Miller
Excerpt: "Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script? Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so."

Watch this:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

And Listen to this:
NPR What's the Word?

And I'll get back to you with more . . .

The New Years Reading List

This is just a taste of what I plan on reading in the new year. I'm having a blast getting to read something not required by school . . . and yet some how all roads lead to social work . . .





















Give Me Liberty by Naomi Wolf
Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv
Global Capitalism by Jeffery Frieden
Propaganda and the Public Mind by Noam Chomsky

What else do I want to read in the new year . . . .

Here's NPR's Best Books for a Transformative New Year list:
- The Tribes of America: Journalistic Discoveries of Our People and Their Cultures, by Paul Cowan
- Hunger of Memory, by Richard Rodriguez
- American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century, by Gary Gerstle
- The Wordy Shipmates, by Sarah Vowell

And here's NPR's Best Political And Current Affairs Books Of 2008 list:
- The Forever War, by Dexter Filkins
- An Imperfect Offering: Humanitarian Action for the Twenty-First Century, by James Orbinski, M.D.
- Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, by Rick Perlstein
- The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals, by Jane Mayer
- The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century, by Steve Coll

And of course, last but certainly not least, I want to read Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada's Quest to Change Harlem and America by Paul Tough. Nashville could really benefit from a program like the Harlem Children's Zone, can I get an Amen!

Yes We Did!

Thanks America for voting for a brighter future! Our friends and loved ones toasted change last night and felt so grateful for our new articulate, compassionate, and positive leader the whole world can be proud of. I'm still swooning!

OK, this one is heavy

So the other day in class we spoke about reproductive rights. Among a group of social workers you can find consensus on most things, but people have many different points of view when it comes to abortion. I think defining when life begins is one of the most complicated issues. Scientific examination of all stages of fetal development can support that many different moments are the moment a fetus becomes a baby.

That's why I think Obama hit the nail on the head when he said, "There is a moral dimension to abortion . . . I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about. People of good exist on both sides. Nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will and can differ. And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion."

This is the problem with the pro-choice vs pro-life debate.  No one is anti-life. The framing of the pro-life camp is that to go against them is to be against human life. That is not at all the case.  People who are pro-choice are simply against controlling another person's moral decisions.  Nobody is 'pro-abortion'.  It's a decision that no woman wants to ever have to face, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.  Needing a liver transplant is a situation nobody wants to be faced with, but you wouldn't make alcohol illegal.  Using a gun to defend yourself and your family from an intruder is a situation nobody wants to be in, but you wouldn't take away the right to bear arms.  The point is that abortion is a decision not to be made by lawmakers or the church; it is a personal decision to be made only by oneself.

It's also important to recognize that as with alcohol and firearms, banning abortion wouldn't put a stop to the practice, it would simply make it far more dangerous.  Not to mention, it could open the door to restricting all sorts of other basic human freedoms. The pro-life camp does not hold exclusive reign over the morality of this issues. If the moral lines were clearly drawn, there would be no debate.

So, the focus on both sides of the issue should be, as Obama says, to work together to try to reduce the number of pregnancies that result in abortions. To do this we need education about preventative measures, to crack down on sexual offenders and rapists, and to provide great health care and public services that work to provide equal opportunites to all American citizens. With a better educated, protected, and healthy country, we'll face fewer occasions in which an abortion is a necessary option. Let's realize that we are all good people and we all want what we feel is best for women. Let's join together to raise women up, so as few people as possible are faced with this heartwrenching choice.

Here are two great NPR shows about abortion inwhich they talk about both sides of the issues.
FreshAir Oct 30th, 2008 & Morning Edition Oct 30th, 2008