4
OPINION
Tuesday, April 6, 1993
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Abortion is legal right not a privilege for rich
On March 30, a White House official announced that President Clinton would ask Congress to end a ban on federally funded abortions. Enacted in 1976, now 17 years old, the ban most certainly needs to be repealed.
By nature, the ban is discriminatory. Known as the Hyde Amendment after its author, Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Illinois, the ban is prejudiced against poor women who rely on federal programs for health care. As a result, several thousand women each year are unable to get safe abortions.
If repealed, states would then be required to pay for abortions of women who could not afford them. The money used would come from federal Medicaid funds. Those who oppose repealing the ban do not want to see their tax dollars being used for abortions. The most heated opponents are those who neither condone nor advocate abortion under any condition, regardless of who is paying.
Other groups and individuals against lifting the ban do not necessarily oppose abortion but still do not want to help finance something they generally consider to be a matter of choice. Their arguments include abortions being analogous to other basic rights of choice such as bearing arms. The fallacy in this logic lies in the fact that choosing to own a gun is also an indulgence of sorts. A person's decision to have certain indulgences usually is based upon money — if he or she wants something and can afford it, then he or she usually will have it. However, a woman would not have an abortion simply because she could afford one.
Although abortion is a right, it should not be confused with just another choice or desire. Once the private, personal and difficult decision to have an abortion has been made, the process then becomes a fundamental health need—a need that should not be questioned. A need that should not be denied because of a lack of funds. If a woman decides to have an abortion, finding a way to afford it should be the last thing on her mind.
KYLE KICKHAEFER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Some liberals now oppose closings in their districts
Dellums' first action is to fight the closing of military bases as proposed by the Pentagon.
For his first 22 years in Congress,
Rep. Ronald Dellums, D-Calif,
voted for cutting military spending.
Dellums is an ultraliberal who
represents a good portion of the San Francisco Bay area. When Les Aspin became defense secretary,
Dellums became head of the House Armed Services Committee.
His opposition to the closing of five bases, Dellums said, is based on the grounds of fiscal prudence and military strategy.
All five bases happen to be within or near Dellums' district...
People who vigorously opposed spending on the national defense in the 1890s now are singing a different tune. They suddenly realize that defense cuts mean pink slips for many of their constituents.
The list of 31 bases to be closed and 134 others to be scaled back is preliminary. The final version goes to the president by July 1 and will be vote on in Congress by Sept. 1. The final list is a take-it-and-leave-it
proposition
The outcome of the battle will say much about the budget integrity of both President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress.
Charleston Daily Mail
Charleston, W.Va.
Congress at fault for failing future of Clinton's plan
Want to know the biggest reason President Clinton's tax plan won't work? The answer is simple: Congress
So, what does this mean? It means the only thing Congress has ever done with all the tax hikes imposed on us during the years is increase spending.
Since 1960, federal income has increased 152 percent. But spending has increased 225 percent.
We urge Congress to backtrack on the spending programs it has approved, and then go back and begin to cut spending. It's time to treat us all fairly and openly.
Even tax hikes that were made for deficit reductions went to someone's new project.
The Daily Times Farmington, N.M.
Gays deserve the same consideration as others
A friend of mine was complaining the other day because she was dismayed at the way she was being slammed in the press. Not understanding her implication, I gave her a quizical look and asked her what she meant.
She explained to me that she had had the pleasure recently of hearing lesbians and gays called animals as well as several other slanderous titles.
I have been listening to these news reports also and have been repulsed by their portrayal of homosexuals as something less than human, but I never will fully understand how deeply this can harm the lives that are being discussed.
My response to my friend was, I am certain, inadequate.
STAFF COLUMNIST
To my understanding homosexuals simply wish to be treated as anyone else, but in a newspaper photograph which the *Kansan* ran yesterday they were again represented in a stereotypical fashion. Instead of running a photo of a person appearing like anyone else, they ran a man in drag.
The week of April 4-10 is Gay and Lesbian Awareness Week. During GALA week there will be a variety of events that are being held for this maligned and feared group of people.
I would like to see a university of tolerance and maturity during this week instead of what I fear will happen.
ranks to the emphasis on the Bible and its proclamations in favor of heterosexual missionary position sex, anyone who chooses to do differently is denigrated.
I have even heard my own parents and other conservative fundamentalist Christians go so far as to connect acts such as rape, beastiality and child molestation with homosexual-
ty. This is appalling and purely fictional.
There is absolutely no factual basis for this assumption. Sex between consenting homosexuals should not be a crime if sex between two consenting heterosexuals is legal. Child molestation, beaulity and rape all are assaults perpetrated on victims. And the facts, folks, are that the majority of these things are perpetrated by male heterosexuals. Go figure.
As I have stated previously, the fact that homosexuals are targeted for bigoted discrimination is appalling. As Patrick Dilley pointed out in his March 30 column, when people find out someone is HIV positive, that victim of the virus often experiences discrimination. One of the reasons for this discrimination is that an uneducated public still associates the horror of AIDS with homosexuals. They ignore the reality that the fastest growing group of HIV positive people is heterosexual teenagers.
Imagine for a moment that the tables are turned. Recently in an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation," Commander Ryker finds himself enamored with an androgyne being on an androgynous planet. The society there looks down on certain members of the population because those members have reverted to being either female or male and
have stopped being androgynous. The elders in the community decide to put this young woman through a retraining program so that she will stop having such horrible thoughts.
The obvious point is that who you have sex with is not what matters, but who you are. I hold that question up to those who choose to verbally and sometimes physically bash homosexuals. Who are you? Do you live a perfect life? Have you ever lied? cheated? stolen? forced someone to have sex? slept with a woman who was drunk? hit someone? hated anyone? talked behind a friend's back? broken a promise?
I especially pose this question to those who say they are prejudiced against homosexuals in the name of God. The Rev. Fred Phelps continues to get press coverage wherever he goes, be that a funeral or a rally. With the exception of one young woman who could not deal any longer with the abuse, and tried to run over the inflammatory signs with her truck, the homosexual community has maintained a non-violent and tolerant demeanor.
And, by the way, the members of Phelps' organization found it within their God-given rights to lie under oath, testifying that the young woman had actually struck them with her vehicle. She and a witness testified that she did not. She was acquitted.
I know it can be scary when someone is different. No one wants to think that it could be them or someone in their family. But if it were, would you want the world to be a hateful place where you could lose your life like the young army soldier recently did because of your sexual orientation?
Lisa Cosmillo is a Lawrence graduate student majoring in journalism.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
KU women through information, support and consensus decision making. KU promotes the building and power of an organization whenever you may need it.
We encourage all members of the KU community to voice their concerns about the programs, services and interactions that they need. The possibilities and objectives of WSU are endless. Please consider bringing your ideas, concerns, voice and commitment to our weekly meetings at 5 p.m. Fridays in the Kansas Union. Also feel free to call our office in the Union or to speak to any of us personally about any of your concerns. The scope of WSU is whatever any of us determines it to be.
STAFF COLUMNIST
Women's Student Union
Women's Union serves to inform
Clinton's tax reformation classifies many as rich
We are committed to empowering
With all the talk of the punitive taxation hurdled against the rich, who we are to understand ruined the United States in the last 12 years, it was a psychological shock to find that my own unwitting affluence numbered me among these rapiotic friends. Here I was — scraping along on a GTA salary
As members of the Women's Student Union, we would like to reiterate that we are an organization that supports the rights and concerns of women.
— all the while thinking that I was suffering the righteous indignation of the poor. But who was I fooling? Certainly not Brother Billy who has shined the light on my misguided ventures and sordid lifestyle.
As Billy helped me to see the errors of my ways, I. in turn, wish to help you. The first step is admitting you have a problem. With identification comes the hope for a cure. Thus, for early detection, take the following easy-to-score quiz courtesy of Affluence Anonymous (AA):
2. Do you live in the United States of America?
3. Do you breathe?
Give yourself 10 points for each "yes" answer. If you scored over 3 points, you have a problem—you are rich, at least according to Brother Billy. Why would he be? You must be rich or else your taxes would not be increasing exponentially to finance his "deficit reductions," "infrastructure reinvestments" and "health care reforms," or whatever social engineering plan we "mandated" him to come up with.
Perhaps Clinton thinks that if only we get bureaucrats "with big hearts," they can tackle the problems that we must tackle ourselves. I'm reminded of the fact that President Carter (someone whom I regard as a moral man) cut the White staff by one third along with other program consolidations in a great show of his resolve to control the budget. However, much like Clinton, he proposed a slew of government programs to spend more and more money. So government continues to grow and grow. If the leg is in a cast, why shoot the foot?
President Clinton wants us to believe that he desires to decrease government overhead while making existing programs operate more efficiently. He throws a bone to the fiscal conservative by cutting the White House staff. Yet the fact is that most of these people were on loan from other agencies and are going back to their previous positions, and the reality remains that the United States is operating on a $1.5 trillion budget.
With $1.2 trillion in revenues, such symbolic cuts as these do not even rate as a drop in the proverbial bucket: $1.5 trillion-$1.2 trillion - $300 billion deficit addition each year. Since 1950 the household tax burden has increased 128 percent to its current $16,000. In 1950 the government was spending $1,540 a person; currently the figure is $4,760. Even faster in inflation the same amount could back up to a whole fact — the people in the United States are paying too much. Like any conscientious consumer, I'd like to see what I'm paying for. I suppose we ultimately will. For a preview, look at the Carter legacy.
Until then, remember, I too was rich, but there is a cure that I wasn't. I think you have to make your tax bill. You have one too. We all do. Thank you, Brother Billy.
Ann Jurcyk is a Kansas City, Kan., graduate student majoring in liberal arts.
KANSAN STAFF
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
GREG FARMER
Editor
GAYLE OSTERBERG
Managing editor
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Asst Managing ... Justin Knup
News ... Monique Guelain
David Mitchell
Editorial ... Stephen Martino
Campus ... KC Trauner
Sports ... David Mitchell
Photo ... Mark Rowlands
Features ... Lynne McAdobe
Graphics ... Schauser
STEVE PERRY
Business manager
MELISSA TERLIP
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr . Brad Brouen
Regional sales mgr. Wade Baste
National sales mgr. Jennifer Pierer
Co-op sales mgr. Ashley Hessel
Production mgrs
Ashley Langford
Marketing director. Angela Clevermont
Creative director. Holly Perry
Creativeiller. Dave Habej
Art Director
**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 burnetown, or faculty or staff position **Guest columns** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newborns, 111 Stafford FIRST Hall
Mystery Strip
By David Rosenfield
1