These Tennessee lawmakers love the unborn. After birth? Not so much
'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
35 minutes ago
- Spectator
When national flags are a warning sign
I don't quite see the point of flying Union flags in Tower Hamlets, or complaining about it when the council takes them down. This squalid little fiefdom run by the deeply corrupt Lutfur Rahman is not part of the UK: it is a suburb of Sylhet, with all that such a location might entail. This would include the mayor himself, who once rigged the votes and used imams to intimidate voters. Of course it is true that London is headed the same way as Tower Hamlets and will get there depressingly soon, an upheaval aided by the self-flagellating liberals who still choose to live in the capital and whose yearning for self-annihilation is close to absolute. The temptation is to write off our first city, and maybe others, too, come to that. Tower Hamlets is certainly by no conceivable stretch of the imagination particularly 'British'. It is, rather, a fly-blown satrapy where many of the locals at best are ignorant of our culture and at worst despise and loathe it. A significant minority of the population can barely speak English (6 per cent) and half of the population are foreign born. Now, if you believe in multiculturalism you will have no problem with that, I suppose – and would probably advance the argument that people from the same ethnic groups tend to band together, although that understanding of human nature would not, of course, extend to white British people. When they express a preference for living among their 'own kind', they are told that they are racist scumbags and had better get with the project, sharpish. I wonder if it has occurred to any members of our government to ask why this whole Operation Raise the Colours business has taken off and why quite so many people seem to be taking part in it. My suspicion is that while Sir Keir Starmer feigns an affection for the flag of our country and will even wave one about when the England team are playing football, especially if it is the chicks, he almost certainly thinks that people with too fond an affection for the Union Jack and the cross of St George are right-wing racists and entirely deplorable. Filed away in the back of his mind is the notion that it's probably just those football hoolies again, the ones who rioted last summer. What he is missing, then, is the importance of the current protests – the weight of numbers behind them, the fact that it is not just yer usual suspects, the depth of anger it conceals and the problems which thus lie in store in the future. The UK is quite quickly tipping towards serious civil disorder: in many parts of the country, whitey has had more than enough. A clever government would work out why this might be and do something about it. Unfortunately, we do not have one. Brits have never hitherto been disposed towards waving the flag about. It has always been my contention that any country where there are too many national flags on view is feeling very insecure about itself and is headed for trouble. This is broadly the position of the UK right now, perhaps for the first time. And it is not terribly difficult to see how we have been brought to this point. Yes, much of it is down to the sheer weight of numbers of immigrants coming into the country. But it is not just the weight of numbers. It is also partly the manner in which many of these incomers have behaved which grates a little. The way in which towns and cities have been overwhelmed, changing entirely the nature of once familiar neighbourhoods. The stoic refusal of many to embrace the culture of the country in which they have made their homes and in many cases the espousal of aggressive and hostile views rooted in an implacable creed which always takes precedence. But even this is not the main reason the tension has been simmering both last year and this. More than anything it is a blind fury at the way in which our elected representatives have allowed this to happen – and even welcomed it. And more even than this, the way in which the British seem at every turn to be having their noses rubbed in it. The Australian sociologist Karen Stenner, in her book The Authoritarian Dynamic, analysed what it was that made people cease displaying a peaceable nature when faced with large-scale immigration and become inflamed and angry (authoritarian, in her words). She found it was precisely this – when they have their noses rubbed in it. When they perceive that everything is tilted against them. When the entire established order insists that 'diversity' is bloody marvellous and we can't have enough of it and that Britain's history is steeped in wickedness. That nothing whatsoever beneficial came of colonialism. That black people and other minorities should be hugely over-represented in our films, dramas and adverts on the television and that the rest of us should suck it up without question. That white people are inherently, unavoidably racist and that we should be at the back of the queue for any job we might fancy. That if we start to question a possible connection between the religion of Islam and a certain predilection towards deranged homicidal violence we will be guilty of Islamophobia and prosecuted. That if we tweet our anger we will be prosecuted. You can get away with this stuff for just so long – and then even the mildest-mannered will start waving a flag saying, in effect: we're still here, just.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Republican elites accused of cover-up after married GOP star's arrest for sickening secret
The Republican Party was already braced for the imminent trial of a GOP lawmaker in South Carolina who was arrested in June on sickening child pornography charges. But now sources have told the Daily Mail that RJ May, 38, who has close ties to several sitting U.S. congressmen, may be using those powerful connections to get off the hook.
New Statesman
5 hours ago
- New Statesman
The Epping ruling deepens Labour's immigration nightmare
Photo byThere is one clear political winner from the Epping asylum hotel ruling: Nigel Farage. True, the technical victor, as so often in English life, may be the Town and Country Planning Order (the owners of the Bell Hotel failed to apply for new planning permission). But that's not something Farage felt obliged to mention, hailing 'a great victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping'. That's a message that will resonate with an electorate increasingly wondering whether to gamble on the Reform leader (Farage's party has led every opinion poll since May). It was the Bell Hotel that became an emblem of a dysfunctional model after one migrant living there was charged with sexual assault (a second asylum seeker was arrested last week). Confronted by the case between Epping council and the hotel's owners, Home Office lawyers sought to intervene, warning that any injunction could 'substantially interfere' with the department's statutory duty to house asylum seekers and risked 'acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. But the judge, who acknowledged that recent arrests 'form a basis for the local concern', ruled that Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, 'sidestepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made'. The Home Office is barred from appealing and now has less than a month to find alternative accommodation for the hotel's residents. But this practical challenge could be far outweighed by the potential unravelling of the asylum hotel model. Farage has vowed that the 12 councils controlled by Reform will explore similar legal action to Epping, and shadow home secretary Chris Philp has said he would welcome other local authorities doing the same (Labour accuses the Tories of 'rank hypocrisy', noting that Philp was the first immigration minister to move asylum seekers into the Bell Hotel and that Robert Jenrick was the second). Labour knows just how politically toxic the asylum hotel policy – emblematic of the UK's profligate outsourced state – is. Aides speak with authentic outrage of the 'absolute wreck' of a system they inherited as the Conservatives' doomed Rwanda deportation scheme saw processing ground to a halt. The number of asylum seekers accommodated has fallen from a peak of 56,042 in 400 hotels in September 2023 to 32,345 in 210 hotels (with costs falling from £3bn to £2.1bn), and the government intends to end their use entirely by the time of the next election in 2029. But even before yesterday's ruling, some in Labour were warning that far faster action was required. Last month, one influential MP told me that the government should 'requisition Duchy of Lancaster land and build temporary Nightingale accommodation' (along the lines of the hospitals constructed during the Covid-19 pandemic). That same MP now blames a 'vacuum of leadership' for leaving the courts to rule on what voters see as a 'moral and political matter'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe For Labour, the painful irony of the ruling is that it comes just as the government is trying to tell a better story on immigration. Last month, ministers agreed a 'one in, one out' asylum deal with France that they hope will deter Channel crossings and only today announced a new agreement with Iraq to return illegal migrants. Instead, Labour is left to rue the slow breakdown of a system that it did not design but must now own. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Zarah Sultana reveals a fault line in Your Party] Related
