Ian recently wrote about the Teen Endangerment Act, and as the New York Times points out today, the act will endanger many young women … though it is doubtful that's what its supporters intended when naming the bill. In addition to calling the bill "mean" the editorial states:

The underlying intent of the bill’s sponsors was to score pre-election points with social conservatives who are looking for reassurance that the Republican majority still cares about the abortion issue, and to do it in a way that would not alarm moderate voters who believe that parents should know if their child is pregnant and considering an abortion.

Not only did the Senate endanger young women with this bill, but as Ellen Marshall wrote, they also turned down an amendment that would have promoted medically accurate sexuality education that has been proven to delay sexual activity and thus reduce abortion. Double whammy, keep kids uninformed and uneducated, then limit their options when they find themselves in trouble.

It is not a question, as the Times put it, if moderates should be alarmed, everyone should be alarmed no matter what you believe. I'm hoping even some social conservatives are starting to be alarmed. Even when you are the ones being pandered to, at some point you must recognize the inherent dishonesty unerlying the empty promises and hollow votes. It is not as though these Senate votes this week are the only efforts being made to appease social conservatives, approximately 33 percent of registered voters and only 29 percent of the population according to The Pew Research Center.

When the founders spoke of protecting us from a tyranny of the majority, they did not seek instead a tyranny of the minority, which is precisely what is happening with carefully nuanced legislation designed as an election-year gambit by a teetering majority, running from troubled President, and clinging to power.

If you look around the world today, there are more than enough issues that need real leadership, something that transcends the mere political, narrow issues, and dogmatic ideologues. It is easy to understand why desparate politicians, in fear of losing all they are so personally identified with by pandering to this slice of the electorate, would do what they have always done before, pander more.

Two questions matter this election cycle:

• Given the state of world affairs today, will voters continue to believe that the only issues that matter are those that social conservatives dictate?
• Will so few others register and vote, that as the new Ad Council campaign points out at PayAttention.org, we could end up electing a bag of leaves, because "if you don't vote, who are you electing?"

We should remind those whose lives are busy and don't pay as close attention to public policy as many of us do, that there are consequences of not paying attention to ideologues with narrow agendas. Just look around.