FollowUp 22: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

On Thursday 5 April 2012, as many of us were preparing for significant religious holidays, Governor Walker quietly signed about fifty bills into law.  Some of these bills are ideas that I can support, such as SB 547 [that] allows school busses to be equipped with a supplemental mirror system to enhance visibility of the driver.  But there are a number that one would not expect so soon before an election.

·         SB 237 was authored by State Senator Lazich and Representative Thiesfeldt and relates to providing instruction in human growth and development. 

·         SB 306 was authored by State Senator Lazich and State Representative Litjens and relates to voluntary and informed consent to an abortion. 

·         SB 92 was authored by State Senator Zipperer and State Representative Vos and relates to prohibiting coverage of abortions through health plans sold through exchanges. 

·         SB 202 was authored by State Senator Grothman and State Representative Litjens and relates to elimination of compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing. 

·         SB 386 was authored by State Senator Grothman and State Representative Theisfeldt and  relates to voter registration at high schools and certain tribal schools. 

SB 237 reintroduces abstinence education to the schools, despite the fact that it doesn't work.

SB 306 ensures that women give voluntary consent before any abortion, including establishing failure to follow the state directives precisely as a felony offense for a physician.

SB 92 prohibits health exchange insurance plans for covering voluntary abortions.

SB 202 removes much of the power of the Wisconsin equivalent of the Lilly Ledbetter law.  "This bill eliminates the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages to persons who have been discriminated against in employment or subjected to unfair honesty or genetic testing."

SB 386 makes it more difficult to register to vote for students at teachers at high schools.

SB 237 and SB 386 are of tremendous concern to me as a teacher.  I see each as having deleterious results for students.  The other three are being characterized as a continuation of the Republican War on Women, with many pundits writing about them.

Prominent conservative Milwaukee radio pundit Charles Sykes wrote that there is no war on women.

But simply put, there is no great sex-discrimination problem in Wisconsin workplaces that is not being addressed by federal law and preexisting state laws. Further, by making it easier to extract punitive damages from businesses, the 2009 law made Wisconsin companies vulnerable to frivolous claims.

The facts suggest that Wisconsin does have a problem with a gender gap in wages (ranking 36th in the country in 2009).  When women are discriminated against, they do not consider it frivolous.  The punitive damages are intended to provide a disincentive to discrimination, a disincentive that no longer exists.  State Senator Glenn Grothman, author of the repeal of the teeth of the anti-discrimination law, offered the Daily Beast his reasoning.

For the law’s critics, though, even the threat of lawsuits put an intolerable burden on business. “If tomorrow you woke up and some policeman is at your door giving you a summons for something, the fact that you’re innocent wouldn’t make you happy, because you have to show you’re innocent at some considerable time and expense,” says Republican state senator Glenn Grothman, a major driver of the repeal.

Grothman says companies are being bombarded with false accusations of discrimination. “It’s an underreported problem, but a huge number of discrimination claims are baseless,” he says. “Most of them are filed by fired employees, and really today almost anybody is a protected class.” As a result, he says, many companies are forced to pay fired employees to go away. He argues that the Wisconsin law, which allowed for damages of up to $300,000, the same amount as in federal law, raised the cost of doing business in the state to intolerable levels. “It just puts Wisconsin way out of whack with other states,” he says. “I’m not sure there are any other states this bad off.”

Actually, there are—according to data from 9to5, 33 other states have either no cap on damages or the same $300,000 cap as Wisconsin. Still, even if the law isn’t an outlier, it’s not surprising that Grothman would see it as unjust, because he believes that the whole idea of pay discrimination against women is fraudulent.

Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women’s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers. “Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers,” he says. “But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.”

He continues, “What you’ve got to look at, and Ann Coulter has looked at this, is you have to break it down by married and unmarried. Once you break it down by married and unmarried, the differential disappears.”

As the Daily Beast notes, Mr. Grothman is wrong.  Mr. Grothman has a local reputation of supporting any business and no tax (similar to Jim Sensenbrenner who represents the same area in the United States Congress).  That he places the needs of businesses above the needs of his female constituents is no surprise at all.

Perhaps even more striking than Mr. Grothman's defense of his legislation is Governor Walker's defense of these bills, as reported by Channel 3000.

The president's campaign even joined the fray, accusing Walker of waging a "war against women." The governor refutes the claim and said his approach is all about job creation.

"We care about their future," Walker said. "That's really what we need to be waging our time and efforts on and that's why when I do public signings, I focus on bills that I think will make a better future for our state."

"Most of the legislation signed by the governor today makes tremendous advances in the protection of women, so I would submit it's just the opposite of what you suggest," said Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, answering Walker's critics.

The governor said the criticism is the same old out-of-state special interest talking points which he said "seem to have a total disregard for what the facts are."

Of the five separate bills that I choose to focus on, only one has anything to do with business.  None of them will result in new jobs.  None will protect women and by limiting access to abortion they may hurt women.  For a governor who has spent tremendous amounts of time out of state raising money to complain about "out-of-state special interest talking points" is rich.  The facts are fairly clear and Mr. Walker's talking points seem to be out of sync with those facts.

Wrapping up this blog post, former State Senator Mordecai Lee, now a professor of politics and the University of Wisconsin -- Milwaukee, thinks that this may push Governor Walker into the limelight enough to be the running mate of Governor Romney.  Of course, Mr. Walker will have to survive the recall election first ... although Professor Lee thinks otherwise.

Lee said that Walker is a household name nationwide, he can energize the Republican base, isn't a Washington politician and would satisfy both social and fiscal Conservatives.

"In a sense, Scott Walker is the perfect Sarah Palin without her liabilities," said Lee.  "If he loses the recall, he'll be the martyr hero of the Republicans."

Despite all the controversy surrounding Scott Walker, the recall race and John Doe investigations, Lee believes that Walker isn't a risky bet for Republicans to stand behind. 

I am the last person who Mr. Romney might listen to for advice on picking a running mate.  But I can think of few better than the extreme Governor Walker.  Better, that is, for President Obama.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.

14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Repudiation: Christian Anti-Defamation Commission

It can be argued that the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is none of the above.  Their first installment in a series of ten proofs that President Barack Obama is not a Christian is filled with lies that neither promote Christianity nor defend it from anything real.  Watch and see.



Lies I caught:

1.  Life is defined by the Bible to begin at conception.

Genesis 2:7 is the first time that the Bible discusses the soul.  The soul is associated with the first breath, not the moment of fertilization.

2.  Death Panels in ObamaCare.

Despite the claims in this video, there are no Death Panels in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (which detractors call ObamaCare).  President Obama said that the death panel claim is a lie.  It is a lie according to Politifact.  The denial of neurosurgery to patients over 70 is a lie according to Snopes.  The caller to the Mark Levin show was telling a lie when he claimed to be a neurosurgeon.

3.  Abortion funding in ObamaCare.

Not true.  President Obama signed Executive Order 13535 that applies the Hyde Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  In short, ObamaCare does not include abortion funding.

4.  Reproductive care means abortion.

No.  The World Health Organization says reproductive care should be

access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of fertility regulation of their choice, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.

The only hint regarding abortion is "fertility regulation of their choice", which is best handled through contraception not abortion.

5.  ObamaCare is anti-life.

Exactly the opposite.  But this 501(c)3 that masquerades as a non-political charity is loading in every deception that they have available to distort both the intent and reality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  While the Act could have been improved, Republicans in Congress made that impossible.  Many of the ideas that were originated by Republicans, including presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, are now disavowed as socialist plots to overthrow America and proof that President Obama is a secret Muslim.

Unlike abortion, telling lies is forbidden in the Ten Commandments.  Thus, one could say that the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is not Christian or at least not adhering to Christian tenets.  Rather than defend Christianity, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is slandering the President of the United States.  Thus, one could say that they are not anti-defamation.  The word commission is a nebulous enough term that we can grant that much.  Still, one might wonder from whence came this commission.  Their history page states who founded them, not who commissioned them.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

FollowUp 2: Personhood Amendments

Wednesday evening there was yet another Republican debate in South Carolina, this time sponsored by Personhood USA and called a Pro-Life Forum.  Despite an explicit invitation, Mr. Romney was a no-show.  All four of the remaining Republican contenders are opposed to legal abortion.

But, the facts are that if one wants to see abortion rates reduced, then one should favor legal abortion and legal contraception.  A news release from the Guttmacher Institute, a Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health of the World Health Organization, indicates that abortion rates are starting to rise globally.  The study was released in the Lancet.  The details of what is happening are important.  First from the news release:

“The declining abortion trend we had seen globally has stalled, and we are also seeing a growing proportion of abortions occurring in developing countries, where the procedure is often clandestine and unsafe. This is cause for concern,” says Gilda Sedgh , lead author of the study and a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute. “This plateau coincides with a slowdown in contraceptive uptake. Without greater investment in quality family planning services, we can expect this trend to persist.”

Research from WHO shows that complications due to unsafe abortion continued to account for an estimated 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide in 2008; almost all of these deaths occurred in developing countries. Globally, unsafe abortion accounted for 220 deaths per 100,000 procedures in 2008, 350 times the rate associated with legal induced abortions in the United States (0.6 per 100,000). Unsafe abortion is also a significant cause of ill-health: Each year approximately 8.5 million women in developing countries experience abortion complications serious enough to require medical attention, and three million of them do not receive the needed care.

“Deaths and disability related to unsafe abortion are entirely preventable, and some progress has been made in developing regions. Africa is the exception, accounting for 17% of the developing world's population of women of childbearing age but half of all unsafe abortion–related deaths," notes Iqbal H. Shah, of the WHO and a coauthor of the study. “Within developing countries, risks are greatest for the poorest women. They have the least access to family planning services and are the most likely to suffer the negative consequences of an unsafe procedure. Poor women also have the least access to postabortion care, when they need treatment for complications.”

The findings provide further evidence that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower rates of abortion. For example, the 2008 abortion rate was 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America, regions where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries. In contrast, in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the rate is 12.

So nations that are so radical that they allow legal abortions have an abortion rate of less than half that of those without legal abortion.  Worse, when abortions are not legal women are three hundred and fifty times more likely to die than during a legal abortion.

This is not surprising data.  In 2007, the Guttmacher Institute produced a similar study that found that use of contraception is correlated with reduction in abortions.

The number of induced abortions worldwide declined from nearly 46 million to under 42 million between 1995 and 2003. Abortion rates fell most significantly in Eastern Europe, a trend that corresponds with substantially increased contraceptive use in the region, according to “Induced Abortion: Rates and Trends Worldwide,” a new report by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO) published in the 13 October 2007 issue of The Lancet.

If one really wants fewer abortions, Personhood Amendments are not the answer.  Restrictive abortion laws are not the answer.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but for fewer abortions, encourage contraception and give women and their doctors abortion as a legal choice.

11 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

4 December 2011, FollowUp 1.

Repudiation: Rand Paul and Big Government

Senator Paul, like his father, is supposedly for smaller, libertarian government.  Also like his father, Dr. Paul really wants bigger and more intrusive government when it comes to particular religious issues, most notably abortion.  Today I received an e-mail from the Senator that directed me to a petition to overturn Roe v. Wade.  As a gay man, I do not have a direct interest in the questions of when life begins and the rights of a woman.  Abortion is distasteful at best.  But I do not believe that either I or the government have the right to come between a woman and her doctor in making such decisions.  Small government.

Nonetheless, having been presented with arguments that I believe to be flawed, let's look at the logic and reasoning on the page of the petition.

Because of Roe v. Wade, more than 56 million unborn children have died through abortion; and

No.  The premise is immediately flawed.  "unborn children" is an oxymoron.  A fetus is not yet a child.  A child has been born already.  The wording makes no sense.

In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it could not resolve "the difficult question of when life begins" – and on the basis of this unresolved question, declared a new "right to abortion" based on a "right of privacy"; and

The only quibble I have here is the phrasing "a new right".  A person's rights are either recognized or legislated against.  The concept of new does not make sense.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"; and

Yes, but a fetus is not a person.  This is what the whole Personhood Amendment is about ... trying to declare a zygote and a fetus to be a person with the same rights as you and I have.  A "person", legally, is one who has standing in a court of law ... meaning that a young child is not a person so that she or he can have the protection of a parent to stand legally on the child's behalf.  Expanding full personhood not just to children but to include both fetus and zygote is completely absurd.

In Roe, the Supreme Court admitted: "If . . . personhood [for the unborn] is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment..." (Roe v. Wade [410 US 113 at 156-7]); and

That is a big if which has been assumed as having been established.  It is not.

Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed; and

No.  That is a point of debate, not an established scientific fact.  Yes, the cells of a zygote are living tissue, but that does not designate a new human being yet.

The American people oppose abortion-on-demand and want innocent human life to be protected especially when it is most defenseless; and

Some Americans do oppose any and all abortion.  But neither Dr. Paul nor the National Pro-Life Alliance speak for all American people.  They do not speak for me.

It belongs to Congress to resolve the question the Supreme Court said IT cannot resolve; and

No.  Government should not be intruding in medical decisions like this.

A Life at Conception Act, by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying by abortion-on-demand;

This is a big government intrusion into very personal matters.  I do not believe that a zygote is entitled to any protection other than that which the woman elects to provide.  Most zygotes are spontaneously aborted ... is that to be illegal?  How about a woman demanding abortion to terminate an ectopic pregnancy?  What of those forms of contraceptive that prevent implantation of the zygote?  This would remove many of the protections that couples and women in particular can now enjoy.

Needless to say, I am not signing the petition that Dr. Paul linked.  You will probably see more of this soon.  According to the e-mail from Dr. Paul signing the petition is key, then:

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance's plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They'll also organize:

... Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

... Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

... A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

... An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000 .

Sorry Senator, but I want the government out of my bedroom, out of my doctor's office, and not interfering with personal decisions made by couples.  Please butt out!

FollowUp 2: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Wikipedia has good information on the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The right to peaceably assemble is under fire by Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on 1 December that expensive permits are now to be required for groups of four or more to assemble at the State Capitol.

Gov. Scott Walker's administration could hold demonstrators at the Capitol liable for the cost of extra police or cleanup and repairs after protests, under a new policy unveiled Thursday.

The rules, which several legal experts said raised serious free speech concerns, seemed likely to add to the controversy that has simmered all year over demonstrations in the state's seat of government.

The policy, which also requires permits for events at the statehouse and other state buildings, took effect Thursday and will be phased in by Dec. 16. Walker administration officials contend the policy simply clarifies existing rules.

I've written a number of posts in the short time that this blog has existed on how Mr. Walker is harming education in Wisconsin, public employee unions in Wisconsin, voters in Wisconsin, women in Wisconsin, and now limiting the right to peaceably assemble.  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gives some details of this new policy.

The policy says:

Groups of four or more people must obtain permits for all activity and displays in state buildings and apply for those permits at least 72 hours in advance. The policy requires permits for 100 or more people outside the Capitol. The policy does provide some leeway for spontaneous gatherings triggered by unforeseen events.

Groups holding demonstrations could be charged for the costs of having extra police on hand for the event. Costs associated with a counterprotest could be charged to that second group. The costs would be $50 per hour per Capitol Police officer - costs for police officers from outside agencies would depend on the costs billed to the state. The police could require an advance payment as a requirement for getting a permit and also could require liability insurance or a bond.

Demonstrators may not tape or stick signs to Capitol walls not intended for signs. During the protests hundreds of signs were posted at the Capitol.

Any damage or cleanup after a demonstration could be charged to organizers. During the court fight earlier this year over access to the Capitol, Walker's administration said the demonstrators had done $7.5 million in damage to the building with the signs and other wear and tear. But almost immediately the administration sharply backpedaled from that claim, conceding the damage was significantly less.

Given the Walker administrations exaggeration of costs early this year, one has to be concerned about this narrowing of the First Amendment.  Not all groups of four or more persons are going along.  Channel 3000 reported on a group of protest singers who plan to continue their songs without applying for permits.

The group of singing protesters known as the Solidarity Singers gathers nearly every day at around the noon hour to host sing-alongs in the building. On Friday, the sing-along was outside, which is what is typically done on Fridays.

DOA officials said that groups as small as four people holding demonstrations in state buildings, including the Capitol, must give notice 72 hours before the event. As part of the rules, officials could even charge groups for costs of cleanup or security.

But despite the announcement of the rules on Thursday, Chris Reeder, one of the organizers of the Solidarity Singers, said that he believes the rule violates their free speech rights.

"We won't be applying for a permit. We feel very strongly about that. That's one of the central tenets. We do not believe that free speech requires a permit," he said.

He said that he feels the policy, which DOA officials have described as a clarification, thwarts their efforts."It does definitely seem like they are trying to crack down on protests and crack down on dissent at the Capitol. We feel pretty strongly we need to make our voices heard at the Capitol," Reeder said.

According to WTMJ, the Wisconsin ACLU is considering a lawsuit to protect the Freedom of Assembly in Wisconsin.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.

11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

FollowUp 1: Personhood Amendments

Jack Tapper of ABC News interviewed Newt Gingrich on Friday in Iowa regarding when life begins.  This was not a big issue until recently when the Personhood Amendment people moved the debate from which trimester does life begin to which moment after sexual intercourse.Mr. Gingrich's answers are not going to make the Personhood extremists happy.

TAPPER: Abortion is a big issue here in Iowa among conservative Republican voters and Rick Santorum has said you are inconsistent. The big argument here is that you have supported in the past embryonic stem cell research and you made a comment about how these fertilized eggs, these embryos are not yet “pre-human” because they have not been implanted. This has upset conservatives in this state who worry you don’t see these fertilized eggs as human life. When do you think human life begins?

GINGRICH: Well, I think the question of being implanted is a very big question. My friends who have ideological positions that sound good don’t then follow through the logic of: ‘So how many additional potential lives are they talking about? What are they going to do as a practical matter to make this real?’

I think that if you take a position when a woman has fertilized egg and that’s been successfully implanted that now you’re dealing with life. because otherwise you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions

The question of viability of the fetus is no longer on the Republican table.  The only question is a cell count and determination of implantation for their debate.  I'm sorry, but this still leaves women with no choices when they should have control of their own bodies.  With apologies for repeating some of what I wrote last time ...

Mr. Gingrich's position still does not allow for any abortions, including those needed for medical reasons.  So, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy would be prohibited from getting the medical care that she needs to save her life.  In other words, the attempt to prevent her from aborting a doomed zygote (by definition, there is a conception resulting in a zygote, but not a properly implanted embryo) would not save the zygote but would kill the woman.

A woman who is raped and conceives would be forced to carry and give birth to the child of her rapist.  In a sense, she would be raped a second time and not be allowed to leave the rape behind her short of giving the child that she did not choose away for adoption.

Aside from those very real issues, there is a theological dichotomy between religions that should have both of the Republican positions as unconstitutional because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  There is no agreement as to when a cluster of cells becomes a person.

Those in the anti-abortion movement claim that as soon as the sperm and ova combine, there is a human person deserving of all rights of any citizen.  They base this claim not upon science but upon the Bible.  In particular, Psalm 139:16 speaks of how God knew David while his body was unformed.  They interpret this to mean that the spirit is formed immediately upon creation of the zygote.  An alternate interpretation is that the spirit, separate from the physical body, is known by God long before it is part of any human flesh.

Similarly, Jeremiah 1:4-5 talks of how God knew Jeremiah before he was in the womb.  Note, this does not mean in the womb, but prior to conception.

There are additional passages in the Prophetical Writings that have a similar vein.  In Judaism, these are not part of the Bible.  These are written by humans, not by God.

The writings of God, for Jews, consist of exactly five scrolls or books.  The germane verse is Genesis 2:7, where God breathed the spirit into Adam.  The spirit is associated with birth, not with conception.  The two Hebrew words that may help understand this distinction are ruach and nephesh.  The Christians think of the soul in terms of ruach.  The Jews think of the spirit in terms of nephesh.  Click on the links for some details.

The debate is also fueled by the first commandment in Genesis 1:28, where God tells Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply.  We have done so.  Their descendents include more than seven billion alive today.  We exceed the number of stars that can be seen with the naked eye.  We exceed the number that our planet can sustain without environmental degradation.

Thanks to Think Progress for the heads up.

11 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

19 January 2012, FollowUp 2.