Overpopulation is the grand daddy of most of the serious problems of man on earth: resource depletion, environmental degradation, global warming, unemployment, housing shortages, crowding, unwanted and unloved children, etc.

There are three well known cures: abortion, contraception, and sterilization. Yet sterilization is almost never discussed, and even contraception is not a frequent subject considering its importance. On the other hand, abortion is discussed extensively and almost only on the terms of religious right-wing right-to-lifers, as abortion foes call themselves. Even the meek opposition styles itself pro-choice and the above listed problems of overpopulation are not part of American political discourse. And why is that?

Because abortion is the cement that holds together the angrily emotional, religiously inoculated anti-abortion millions, and the couple of million super-rich who finance the anti-abortionist organizations. If the abortion/contraception issue were put to rest permanently by a binding national referendum said to result in a 70/30 or 80/20 pro-abortion split and so become a non-issue, the super-rich would lose most of their political clout and mankind would lose most of its presently intractable problems.

A U.S. reporter was interviewing a female gynecologist in India and blurted out the word abortion. The doctor smiled and said not to worry, in India abortion is just another widely used family planning method without religious significance or stigma.

America's religious abortion foes point to the 'Thou shalt not kill' commandment (Exodus 20-13), which clearly does not apply to embryos. How do we know? Because the authors of the ten commandments have itemized "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.' Exodus, 20-17. The authors did not itemize Thou shalt not kill thy neighbor or fetuses or pathogens or oxen or asses, so the commandment applies strictly to people.

In addition, the authors of the ten commandments did not have wire coat hangers, and so there were no abortions in biblical times nor a need to prohibit them. Indeed, until the 19th century, mankind was in danger of extinction from disease, famine, wars, infant mortality, etc., and abortion was no urgent necessity. It is now. Since abortion has no religious basis, religious opponents of abortion have no legitimacy even if the super-rich need them.

Just as abortion foes lack all religious justification, so too do they lack humanitarian justification. Statistics show that women unable to obtain safe, legal abortions will turn to illegal, unclean and unsafe abortions and often die in the process. Even under optimal conditions, women die from full term delivery more frequently than from timely, safe abortions. The facts support abortion, not its foes.

The irony of conservative hypocrisy is that while they loudly save lives,' conservatives overwhelmingly support capital punishment. Obviously their values are inverted: they "save" a "sacred" embryonic life in the womb but support the waste of human life which too often was by erroneous verdict. Abortion foes are also patriots and support kill-and-be-killed wars at the White House tenant's pleasure. Apparently war casualty lives are not sacred.

And if lack of religious, moral and humanitarian justification is not enough, abortion foes lack, most importantly, ecological justification. Each day, global population grows by 219,000 people see National Geographic, Sept.'02, page 103. That's like adding the entire population of Vermont every 2.688 days. Not sustainable.

Fortunately and unsurprisingly, a majority support legal abortions, but radical conservatives oppose abortions with such fierce emotion that they have murdered abortion doctors and bombed abortion clinics. The conservatives' only hope for pro-life legislation is pro-life right-wing judges' promotion to the Supreme Court where a 5-4 conservative majority can overturn Roe v. Wade. And why is the pro-life minority important to the rich? Because their conservatism supports the rich unquestioningly, and without pro-life voter support, the rich would lose their political power. Abortion is the cement that binds the rich and the fiercely emotional pro-lifers into a voting block. Eliminating abortion as a political issue would seriously reduce the power of the wealthy to continue their harmful and excessive activities: overpopulation, resource depletion, environmental degradation, global warming, unemployment, housing shortages, crowding, unwanted and unloved children, etc. Hence the conservative effort to seat a maximum of right-wing judges at all cost while the radical reactionary rightwing Bush regime lasts.

Jim Hightower is a well-known preservative activist. He says: "To help motivate their targeted "base," both parties play legislative games in Washington, forcing votes on what are called "hand-grenade issues" that won't pass but will provide electoral ammunition. Republicans, for example, keep returning to partial-birth abortion bans, prayer in the schools, abolishment of the income tax, a constitutional amendment against flag burning, and piffles like majority leader Trent Lott's "Ten Commandments Defense Act" (don't ask).' From page 89 of "If the gods had meant us to vote they would have given us candidates.'

On July 22, 2002, the Bush regime canceled a $34 million contribution to the United Nations Population Fund which provides reproductive resources for women in 142 countries and was allotted bv Congress. The excuse was that China had "knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization." Yet that accusation was totally disowned by a State Department fact-finding mission that visited China in May 2002. Why would Bush discount his regime's own report? 1. To please his conservative supporters, 2. To show off his supercilious super-bully muscle, 3. To export his domestic holier-than-thou anti-abortion agenda, and 4. To take a swipe at the UN and at the People's Republic of China. Yet his arrogance only highlights his own hypocritical double standard. If he really wanted to reduce abortion and sterilization, he would address the socioeconomic factors that compel poor young minority women in the U.S. to have abortions and sterilizations. The European Union voted on July 23, 2002 (yes, the next day) $31.8 million to fill the void Bush created. European aid commissioner Poul Nielson said: "The decision to cut funding may well lead to more unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions and increased dangers for mothers and infants." And Dr. Steven W. Sinding, new director of the International Planned

Parenthood Federation said: 'The saddest thing is that this domestic political debate has such a profound impact around the world. Women suffer deeply. There will always be unwanted pregnancies, especially among women in poverty and women so young that their pelvises are not yet formed to the point where they can safely deliver a child. To condemn [them] to bear a child that may very well cause them to die is just morally indefensible." And that's not even mentioning the societal problems of overpopulation, resource depletion, environmental degradation, global warming, unemployment, housing shortages, crowding, unwanted and unloved children, etc.

We have yet to hear from Senator Patrick Leahy, especially since the Green Party has recognized Democrats as the pro-choice corporate party. If I am elected in, I will introduce a joint resolution in Congress to move abortion, contraception, and sterilization from the political discussion agenda to the Universal Medicare coverage list. Then Bush can go on and preach abstinence to the clerical pederasthood and to the hookers and their johns. A better country and world can be legislated if the voters will it.