These Tennessee lawmakers love the unborn. After birth? Not so much
You've probably seen this quote from an Alabama pastor called Dave Barnhart. It goes viral all the time. But I'm resurfacing the quote because it is another day that ends with 'y' in America, which means it is relevant once again.
'The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for,' Barnhart said back in 2018, remarking wryly on the movement's priorities. 'They never make demands of you … They don't need money, education or childcare … They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.'
Over in Tennessee, there are a lot of lawmakers who are very proud of how much they advocate for unborn children. In 2022, as soon as Roe was overturned, the state passed one of the nation's strictest abortion bans – one without explicit exceptions to save the life of a pregnant person. The ban also made performing or attempting to perform an abortion a class C felony – akin to aggravated assault – which means aiding in an abortion can land you prison time and a hefty fine. That ban has been continuously challenged in court but the bottom line is that getting an abortion in Tennessee is almost impossible.
Those Tennessee lawmakers who love unborn children? Surprise, surprise, they're not so keen on the born ones. Particularly if those kids are immigrants. On Thursday, the GOP-dominated state senate approved a bill that lets public schools check the citizenship or legal immigration status of every student. Undocumented children can be denied enrollment at these public schools or forced to pay tuition. In other words: Tennessee wants to make it legal to deny undocumented kids an education. By requiring school systems to check legal immigrant status, they're also turning what should be safe spaces into immigration enforcement centers.
All of which, to be clear, is blatantly unconstitutional. In 1982, the supreme court decision in Plyler v Doe found states cannot deny students a free public education over their immigration status. The Tennessee bill is not law yet, and if the Tennessee governor does sign it, it will almost certainly face legal challenges. But even if it eventually gets struck down, there is a chance it will stay on the books as a 'zombie law' – ready to rise again when circumstances allow.
Perhaps you are wondering why all these fierce advocates for the rights of unborn children are so keen on denying kids an education? According to lawmakers who voted for the measure, it's not because they're hateful racists who want to punish kids, it's because they are being fiscally responsible. Their argument is that the state simply doesn't have enough money for education for undocumented kids, particularly since some will require English language learner classes.
There's a small possibility – just throwing it out there – that one of the reasons Tennessee is finding it hard to find money for education is because its regressive tax policies are heavily weighted towards extracting money from the poor rather than making the rich pay their fair share. Tennessee is one of the nine states in the US that doesn't have an income tax. It also doesn't have inheritance tax and has very low business tax. Residents (including undocumented immigrants) pay sales tax, property tax and a grocery tax. Undocumented immigrants are putting money into the system and getting very little out of it. Pretending that this attack on undocumented children is about money is disingenuous. Deep down, I'm sure even the people voting for the bill know that investing in children pays dividends to society.
Still, while it is disheartening that a bill like this got as far as it did, it's also important to note that it faced a lot of opposition. Nearly half of the senate's members spoke on the bill – many of them, including some Republicans, in passionate disagreement. There were tears and a lot of Bible verses quoted about compassion for children. As the US becomes increasingly dystopian, it's important that we don't lose sight of just how much opposition there is to the extremist policies and legislation a hate-filled minority are pushing through. Donald Trump likes to say that winning the popular vote gave him and his cronies a mandate to do whatever they like; that all the policies getting passed have the support of the people. This simply isn't true. Only around 32% of eligible voters actually voted for Trump.
While we must not minimize the amount of misogyny and racism there is in the US (and there is a lot!), we should also take heart from the fact that a sizable number of Americans do not want to live in an authoritarian dystopia where women have no rights and undocumented kids get no education. Sixty-three percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases according to Pew research from 2024. Most Americans say undocumented immigrants should have a way to stay in the country legally if certain requirements are met. Increasingly, the actions of the American government don't reflect the views of the American people.
Which, of course, is why the Trump administration is so obsessed with undermining education as a whole. From trying to stop undocumented immigrants from going to school, to tightly controlling how Ivy League universities operate, to attempting to eliminate the US Department of Education, Republicans are waging a war on critical thinking.
On Thursday the US House approved the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) Act, which requires people to prove they are citizens when they vote. If you changed your birth name – as around 80% of women in opposite-sex marriages in the US have – you will have to show a lot more paperwork to vote.
I had to look up who Rourke is because he hasn't been relevant for a while. Now, however, he is making headlines for being misogynistic and homophobic on Celebrity Big Brother UK. Rourke, 72, recently told JoJo Siwa (a gay singer and social media personality) that he'd turn her straight. 'If I stay [in the Big Brother house] longer than four days, you won't be gay any more,' Rourke said to Siwa in a clip from Wednesday. 'I'll tie you up,' he added. Rourke got a warning from producers for his language but his comments were not censored. This is in stark contrast to a Big Brother 'controversy' last year, when ITV, the broadcaster, edited an episode of the show to remove shots of a T-shirt worn by one of the contestants featuring a watermelon, which is a symbol of Palestinian solidarity.
Sign up to The Week in Patriarchy
Get Arwa Mahdawi's weekly recap of the most important stories on feminism and sexism and those fighting for equality
after newsletter promotion
The amount of time these people spend obsessing over pronouns boggles the mind. Get a hobby! Get therapy! Try thinking about literally anything else!
A criminal court in Leuven, Belgium, recently found a 24-year-old medical student, who was training as a gynaecologist, guilty of rape but suspended his sentence because of his lack of prior offences and his 'promising future'. This has sparked a lot of anger in Belgium and many commentators have drawn parallels to the Brock Turner case in the US.
Fox News's Jesse Watters, who sits behind a screen all day, seems to think so. This profundity comes after he declared public soup consumption unmanly and said that real men 'don't wave simultaneously with two hands'.
Remember those tariffs Trump imposed on Heard Island and McDonald Islands, inhabited only by penguins? Those penguins now have their own social media account, @PenguinsAgainstTrump. 'What are you going to do, deport us?' one post reads. 'We've been dealing with ICE for centuries.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
8 hours ago
- Spectator
Is Dutch tolerance dying?
Campaigners across southern Europe are protesting against 'touristification'. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, wealthy expats are in the firing line. Businesses in Amsterdam could be asked to foot the bill for local housing if they employ highly-skilled internationals. Alongside paranoia about asylum seekers, there is a rising feeling that expats and even holidaymakers are unwelcome in parts of the continent. The Netherlands was once an outward-looking, tolerant, trader nation. Is that still the case? It's not much fun to live in a place – or even visit somewhere – that resents your presence, especially if you have bothered to learn the local language and swallowed the high tax rates that fund northern Europe's generous social benefits. But this 'me-first' sentiment in Europe is great news for London and anywhere else in the market for scarce global talent. Post-Brexit 'trading volumes shifting to Amsterdam appear to be here to stay,' Dutch financial paper Het Financieele Dagblad jubilantly announced earlier this year. The paper claimed that 'Amsterdam is now bigger than London'. In the aftermath of Britain's departure from the EU, there certainly appeared to be some evidence that London's dominance as a global financial centre might be at risk. But – unlike the years after the 2016 EU referendum, in which the European Medicines Agency relocated to Amsterdam, and the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency loudly boasted about winning businesses, jobs and investments – there has been a change of tone. The Netherlands was once an outward-looking, tolerant, trader nation that advertised for foreign students and was proud of its English-language proficiency. Is that still the case? Last week, Amsterdam council voted to pass a motion to ask international businesses based in the Dutch capital to contribute to solving a general housing shortage and pay for programmes to get their 'lonely' foreign workers to integrate. The policy, 'Make Amsterdam your home', sounded friendly enough, but the message behind it was anything but. 'In short, internationalisation is part of our city but it also brings challenges, such as driving up house prices, the emergence of a parallel world and the transformation of neighbourhoods, for example because more and more English is spoken,' it declared. Foreign companies, said the accompanying Labour press release, should be expected to give something back. As the Netherlands remembers 80 years of liberation from the Nazis – thanks to Allied troops, speaking that awful language of English – foreigners are being blamed for driving up house prices and sabotaging social cohesion. The facts are less important than nationalist gut feeling: the Dutch government offers 110,000 highly-skilled migrants (including footballers) a temporary tax break to compensate for its high income taxes. But despite the expats, who don't even have a vote, benefitting our country, they are far from popular. It doesn't seem to matter that a government analysis found the tax break raises €128.5million (£110 million) a year, has a 'very modest impact' on house prices and 97 per cent of the highly-skilled professionals work full time, compared with 52 per cent of the Dutch. Nor that Statistics Netherlands research suggests that Germans and Brits lead the least segregated lives and wealthy locals the most. The Dutch government recently collapsed in a row over asylum created by far-right veteran Geert Wilders. Universities are scrapping English-language courses and capping international student numbers. Now, Amsterdam councillors are pointing the finger at internationals for the consequences of the Netherlands' part-time lifestyle, lack of house-building and preference for single-person households. Meanwhile, the country continues to ignore calls from the European Commission, Dutch central bank and its own economists to reduce home owner tax breaks that inflate its housing market. It's easy – if absurd – to vilify other people and treat hard-working foreigners who do the jobs you can't or won't do as 'exploiting' your system. But the result is obvious: when places like the Netherlands become hostile to international business and talent, it will go elsewhere. The failure of Dutch tolerance is a marvellous opportunity, in other words, for a place like London – where you can be judged by what you can do instead of by your name; where a finance minister doesn't have to admit the tax office has a problem with 'institutional racism'; and a government doesn't fall after falsely accusing some 40,000 families of childcare benefits fraud. Non-doms might not be welcome in the UK – and Wise, the British fintech, might be leaving for New York – but filthy-rich talent is not a problem in London. Some Dutch experts, at least, recognise that their golden age is tarnishing. To the concern of the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW), the country dropped from 4th in 2021 to 10th this year in the IMD's world competitiveness ranking. The Netherlands might be ahead of the UK (29th) with the help of its international trade, but tax policy is rated a dismal 67th – well under Britain. The general-director of the VNO-NCW Focco Vijselaar tells The Spectator that there is cause for concern. 'For quite some time, we have been pointing out the concrete rot in our business climate,' he said. 'And you see the cracks in these kinds of lists. If you look at international investment, we are at 41st place, an unprecedentedly low spot. We are struggling with major bottlenecks in the Netherlands: a housing market that is locked down, nitrogen pollution problems and high energy prices.' Flip-flopping on highly-skilled migrant tax breaks does not help, he added: 'We need the expats.' Liberal democrats in Amsterdam are also worried about scapegoating the international community. 'That social cohesion is under pressure is not solely due to the expats,' said Democrats 66 economics spokesman Erik Schmit last week. 'Housing prices are rising: it is not proven that this is solely due to the international community…As a government, we have other priorities.' But after constant changes to the 30 per cent highly skilled migrant tax-free allowance and the removal of its non-dom ruling, the Netherlands is increasingly out of favour. New foreign student numbers have plunged, threatening various courses. Data from jobs site Indeed shows a drop of 48 per cent in applications from India and 40 per cent from the UK this year. Emigration appears to have peaked and highly-skilled migrant numbers are tumbling. Britain might have creaking infrastructure and complex regulation, but it is remarkably open and far less corrupt than many of its neighbours. If the Dutch want to drive out innovators, talent and factories with high energy prices, punitive taxes and cultural suspicion – and if southern Europe is busy fighting with tourists – other cities have a chance. Now is the time to declare Britain open for business.
Powys County Times
9 hours ago
- Powys County Times
New bluetongue rules 'impossible burden' on farmers
The new rules for bluetongue would place an 'impossible cost burden' on farmers according to a Powys MP. MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr, Steve Witherden, said that he is concerned about the potential spread of the disease but that it could not be at the cost of farmers who cross the Wales-England border. The new rules would require sheep crossing into Wales to be tested for the blue tongue virus, regardless of whether they are vaccinated, which can cost anywhere from £40-£70 per animal. This could lead to huge bills with one farmer telling the County Times that it would cost him as much as £25,000 to move his flock. According to NFU Cymru, over 550 farms lie in both England and Wales, with many of them being in Powys, whose eastern edge makes up about half of the 160-mile border between the two countries. 'I am deeply concerned about the potential spread of bluetongue and believe we need a workable solution to contain its spread, and protect livestock and farmers,' said Mr Witherden. 'I realise that there are a great many aspects of the management of this disease to consider by DEFRA and Welsh Government, but the rules they collectively impose must not make farming life impossible for farmers with cross border farms. 'Is it really sensible that a farmer has to test an animal because it moves from one field to another on their farm, when that field border is the Welsh/English border?' Help support trusted local news Sign up for a digital subscription now: As a digital subscriber you will get Unlimited access to the Oswestry Advertizer website Advert-light access Reader rewards Mr Witherden said he would be 'strongly encouraging Welsh Government and DEFRA to reach a sensible and workable solution for both cross border farms and for transporting animals where the road passes from Wales'. He added: 'I am continuing to stay in regular contact with the FUW, NFU Cymru and NFU in London. I will be listening to concerns and pressing for sensible and affordable solutions to help farmers deal with the practical reality of cross border farms and the costs and rules associated with testing. 'We also need fast access to inoculation for livestock. 'It is paramount that we have a practical set of clear and well communicated rules and that we take all the precautions necessary to ensure that this disease does not spread.'
The Independent
16 hours ago
- The Independent
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes his first bills. They are on concealed carry and immigration
North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed his first bills on Friday, blocking for now Republican legislation that would let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and make state agencies and local sheriffs more active in Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Stein, who took office in January, issued his formal exceptions to three measures backed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly presented to him last week. The former attorney general also had the option to sign any of them into law, or let them become law if he hadn't acted on the legislation soon. The vetoed measures now return to the legislature, where Republicans are one House seat shy of holding a veto-proof majority. Its leaders will decide whether to attempt overrides as early as next week. Voting so far followed party lines for one of the immigration measures, which in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies, like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation, to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one House Democrat ended up voting for the other immigration bill that Stein vetoed. It toughens a 2024 law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. GOP prospects for enacting the permitless concealed gun measure, a longtime aspiration for gun-rights advocates, appear dimmer, because two House Republicans voted against the bill and 10 others were absent. Gun bill would let 18-year-olds carry concealed handgun In one veto message, Stein said the gun legislation, which would allow eligible people at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun, "makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership." Democratic lawmakers argued the same during the bill's passage through the legislature. Current law requires a concealed weapons holder to be at least 21 to obtain a permit. The person must submit an application to the local sheriff, pass a firearms safety training course and cannot 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun.' Conservative advocates for the bill say removing the permit requirement would strengthen Second Amendment rights and the safety of law-abiding citizens. Permitless carry is already lawful in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. Immigration bills focus on state agencies, sheriffs One vetoed immigration bill would require four state law enforcement agencies to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. An executive order by President Donald Trump urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. Stein wrote Friday the bill takes officers away from existing state duties at a time when law enforcement is already stretched thin. The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access certain state-funded benefits. But Stein said that people without lawful immigration status already can't receive these benefits. The other vetoed bill attempts to expand a 2024 law — enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto — that directed jails to hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The vetoed bill would expand the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator to attempt to determine the defendant's legal status. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that it is holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person. Stein said Friday while he supports sheriffs contacting federal immigration agents about defendants charged with dangerous crimes, the law is unconstitutional because it directs sheriffs to keep defendants behind bars 48 hours beyond when they otherwise could be released for a suspected immigration violation. Latino advocates and other bill opponents had urged Stein to veto both immigration measures, with dozens picketing across the street from the Executive Mansion earlier this week. They say the legislation would cause Hispanic residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement.
