4 University Daily Kansan / Wednesday, March 18. 1992 OPINION Bill scares abortion foes "This bill is the most liberal abortion law ever introduced in the U.S. It makes Roe vs. Wade look wimpy." -David Gittrich, executive director Kansas for Life Spring, among other things, tends to bring out the crazies. People who have spent hour after hour in cold, darkened rooms watching reruns of "Leave It to Beaver" suddenly emerge from their cocoons, pale and blinking, into the sunlight. Some of them jog. Others toss Frisbee. Still others disturb the idyllic peace of the new spring weather with senseless cries about just anything at all. And all for no good reason. By the time this article is printed, hundreds of shrieking protesters will have plagued Kansas with impassioned jabbering about a middle-of-the-road bill that, if passed, will legalize abortion. The bill itself is pretty mild stuff: it would keep abortion if *Roe v. Wade* is overturned but would also restrict late-term abortions unless a woman's health was threatened or if the fetus was severely deformed. Additionally, the bill would require women younger than 16 years to receive counseling before an abortion and to be accompanied to an abortion clinic by a person 21 years of age or older. But to some, notably David Gittich of Kansans for Life, that is not good enough. In fiery denunciations reminiscent of television evangelists, Gittich has repeatedly screamed about the horrible "liberal" slant of the bill, claiming that it amounts to "legalizing Auschwitz on unborn children." Kevin Bartels Staff columnist Anti-abortion protectors are breathlessly concerned about the possibility that they may not be able to control the minds and hearts of women who consider having an abortion. Because the bill has another part to it: Blocking access to and from abortion clinics would become illegal should the bill be made into law. Not only would those women be able to make a choice without the consent of people such as David Gittrich, but the harassment of women could to enter abortion clinics would be a crime. The possibility of doing time for harassing people entering abortion clinics makes some people very unhappy. But wait, there's more. Gov. Joan Finney has joined the chorus of babbling voices about the wrongfulness of the bill. Finney has decided to tell her constituents what is right and wrong, an unusual interpretation of the democratic process, to be sure. Not all government leaders are so ignorant of their constituency, however. State Rep. Kathleen Sebelius, D-Topeka, heads the House committee that sponsored the bill. She and 81 other state representatives voted to approve the bill. And what should this tell the astute politician? Well, because no politician lasts long who does not respond to the voters who elected him or her, the astute politician should gather from the vote tally, if nothing else, that it is wise to support the bill. I'm not suggesting that any sort of concern for the freedom of the individual influences a politician's decision-making. Politicians are unconcerned with abstractions. But the needs and wants of their voters can mean the difference between commanding power and influence in the gubernatorial mansion and administrating leash laws in a backwater town in western Kansas. Yes, indeed, there has been much shouting and gnashing of teeth over the bill now being considered by the State Senate. And if it is passed, the anti-abortion forces mustered against the lawmakers at the Statehouse can be expected to wet themselves in sheer frustration. If the bill is not passed, then women all over the state of Kansas will either have to travel to other states to have their abortions performed or resort to back-alley abortions. Sewing needles. Coat hangers. But the abortions will not stop. The lawmakers in the Statehouse have the opportunity to support the freedom of choice that women have a right to expect. Otherwise, we can all expect more waterheads to rise up and claim other individual rights. Because the problem with waterheads is that they never know when to stop. Kevin Bartels is a Louisville, Ky, graduate student in English. THE UNIVERSITYDAILY KANSAN Human castration is wrong Creative punishment furthers penal system problems while threatening the Constitution Human castration was brought to national attention again when a Houston judge withdrew his approval for the castration of a accused child molester Monday. However, the question of whether creative sentencing is appropriate and fair continues to plague the criminal justice system. Steven Allen Butler was charged with the aggravated sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl. On March 6, Butler requested castration, a punishment that would have freed him from imprisonment. The judge in the case, known for his support of castration for some sex offenders, initially granted Butler his wish. The judge later revoked the sentence, claiming that he was unable to find a surgeon to perform the surgery. Although this particular case may be silenced, the issue brings to light the bigger question: Should judges be given free reign to exercise their creativity in determining tailor-made sentences? Creative sentencing is not a basic tenet of justice in the U.S. penal system. Instead, the justice system attempts to deliver fair, uniform and rehabilitative punishments to those who break the law. But the penal system should be improved, not tampered with. The current penal system is not infallible. Crime rates continue to skyrocket. According to the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime increased by 10.4 percent from 1989 to 1990. Prisons are grossly overcrowded. Prison population soared 134 percent in the last decade. Repeat offenders backlog the judicial process. A reasonable argument against castration for sex offenders is that castration merely reduces, not eliminates, the sex drive. The offender would be free to victimize more women. Furthermore, castration fails to acknowledge that sex crimes are acts of violence. But more fundamentally, the Constitutional guard against cruel and unusual punishment is, at the very least, threatened. The penal system has enough problems without more inconsistencies and fragmentation. The system should not be jeopardized further by the personal whims of judges. JRP plan financially sensible Tiffany Hallness for the ediitional board Tiffany Hallness for the ediational board Student Housing could have been more sensitive in its decision to rent out JRP Hall We are of two minds about Student Housing's decision to rent Joseph R. Pearson Hall out to Haskell students next year. While it makes financial sense to seek new sources of revenue at a time when occupancy rates in the residence halls are falling, the arbitrary manner in which Housing informed JRP residents of the switch, without even asking the opinion of the students, is disturbing. Housing Haskell students in one residence hall makes sense on a variety of levels. The move will create an increased interaction between KU and Haskell students, something that only can benefit both groups. If, as some have said, there is a problem between the two communities, integration rather than separation will help solve it. The Haskell students will help fill rooms that recently have been unoccupied, which also will benefit the University. The fact is, giving Haskell students a place to stay while their dormitories are undergoing renovation will help the University community and also is a nice gesture. That said, we think Student Housing could have handled this situation better than it did. Its heavy-handed approach of telling students a few months before the end of the school year that their home will not be there next year is rude and insensitive. Life, of course, is not always fair. Traditions, such as living at JRP, come and go. But there are better, more palatable ways to end them than this. David Ambler, vice chancellor for student affairs, says that this decision is not one that could be put up to a popular referendum. Perhaps not, but residents whose lives are affected at least should have been given the opportunity to provide some input into the decision. Mark Coatney for the editorial board Free speech is needed But some of the folks on KU's Human Relations Committee would claim that this time their authoritarianism is different. "It's free speech with responsibility," claims Maggie Childs, who heads the committee. Responsibility to whom? In the late '50s and early '60s, the authoritarian types claimed that there were no real racial problems in the South, just outside agitators. In the late '60s and early '70s, that same authoritarian mentality told those who protested against the war that if they abused their rights to free speech they might lose them. And now, at the University of Kansas, this same mentality rises once again to protect us from outside agitators and people who abuse their freedom of speech. It is only designed to curb speech that is harmful, says Childs. But who gets to decide what is harmful? One suspects that it is Childs who would like that who would like to be the keepers of orthodoxy. Letters to the editor Childs goes on to proclaim her support of a campus measure that seeks to controversial figures off campus with the statement, "That's a roundabout way of making sure that no one invites anyone that awful." Just what does that awful mean? Apparently, once again, Childs will let us know who is awful and who is not. Incidentally, if the goal is to cut down on controversy, it is not a roundabout way of doing anything, it is a direct and blatant assault on constitutionally protected speech. In essence, this policy is vague and designed to be repressive. Even Charles Marsh, another supporter of the suppression-of-speech policy, admits that this policy has as many different interpretations as readers. These same policies could have been used against Martin Luther King Jr., Saul Alinsky, Abby Hoffman, Jesse Jackson and hundreds of others who violated the law with their actions and attempted to intimidate, with inflammatory rhetoric, those who oppressed them. In the eyes of the Maggie Childs types of the '60s and '70s, these folks were also guilty of lawless action, engaging in harmful speech and lack of responsibility. In the final analysis, this is not a free speech policy. It is a suppression-of-speech policy. As Dick Gregory once pointed out, as individuals we have the right to hate anyone we want, it is the institutionalized, structural bigotry that is to be feared. In that sense, Childs' attempts to suppress speech are a far greater threat to racial harmony than the kooks she allegedly opposes. Hopefully the committee that unamitiously rejected the first draft will not be intimidated by the intolerance and hatred of any authoritarian group — no matter what sheet it pretends to be under. Graduate teaching assistant in sociology Ideas must progress I must respond to two assumptions made by Laura Moriarty in her Feb. 26 column, each of which calls into question the validity of her conclusions. The first problematic assumption is that language determines thought. Anyone who has taken advanced language courses (Moriarty?) knows that she is oversimplifying a highly complex and not-at-all well-understood relationship. More troublesome, is her assumption that Hodge's less sensitive, less cultured and less educated than he could be." To assert that all well-educated people share common opinions and that all who do not share them are somehow faulty to is hover but one step from "thought police." It would seem that her respect is reserved for those who agree with her. Education allows us to form considered and critical opinions; it does not dictate them. In an institution of higher learning, free thought must be promoted if we are to benefit from the experience. Opinions may well evolve as we progress, but the fact that someone disagrees, and has reasons for doing so, does not indicate that the person is stupid or ignorant. Steven P. Allen Lawrence graduate student One-paper rule unfair I am very unhappy with the KU Athletic Department regarding a certain rule at Allen Field House, and surprise, it is not the new "no seat-saving" rule. I am a student in Journalism 350, or Reporting I. Part of our classwork including reading and studying articles in the Kansan. We are then tested over the articles in class. I brought with me copies of the Kansan from the preceding week to study before the game started, since now I must arrive four to five hours early. Anyway, for the March 2 basketball game against Oklahoma State, I arrived at the field house at 3:30 p.m. to get a decent seat, because of the new seat-saving rule. When I finally got to the door, I was informed that students only are allowed to take one newspaper into the field house. I explained to the usher that I had to study them for a class. He said he was sorry and proceeded to take all but one from me. I did not pass my test the next day. Thanks a lot. Athletic Department. I do not think it was fair for the usher to use my newspapers away, or for the Athletic Department to have such a rule. Is it afraid that my having too many papers will cause such an uncontrollable litter problem? I am certain that my extra four newspapers would have little impact on the mess created by fans and students. KANSAN STAFF Shawn Schwartz Topeka sophomore TIFFANYHARNESS Editor VANESSA FUHRMANS Managing editor TOM EBLEN General manager,news adviser Editors Editors News ... Mike Andrews Editorial ... Beth Randolph Planning ... Lara Gold Campus ... Eric Gorski/Rochelle Clouse Photo ... Eric Nelson Photo ... Julie Jacobson Features ... Debbie Myers Graphics ... Aimee Brainard/Joe Meeves JENNIFER CLAXTON Business manager JAYSTEINER Retail sales manager JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser Business Staff Campus sales mgr Briant Benison Regional sales mgr Rich Hershburger National sales mgr Scott Hannah Co-op sales mgr Ame Johnson Production mgrs Kim Wallace Marketing director Keeler Marketing director Clikton Lead director Leah Cline Classified mgr Kip Chin Business Staff bv David Rosenfield Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be pho- nounced. The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newroom, 111 Stuart-Flint Hall. Stick