4
Friday, January 22, 1993
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Abortion decision victimizes women
On Jan.13, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 cannot be used to stop abortion clinic blockades. The law protected the rights of African Americans following the Civil War. The Supreme Court was not voting on whether women should have the right to an abortion. This right has already been established in the case of Roe vs. Wade. Instead, this case pertained to discrimination against women.
As Justice O'Connor said, "(Women) are linked by their ability to become pregnant and by their ability to terminate their pregnancies." This law is designed to prevent women from exercising a constitutional right that they possess.
Obviously, this ruling is a politically motivated attempt to hinder women from having abortions. If an abortion clinic blockade cannot be halted, how is a woman supposed to exercise her right? Since blockades are now legal, where will the chaos stop? Are animal rights activists now allowed to block people from entering clothing stores that sell furs and research plants that test their products on animals?
Protesting will soon take a whole new turn — if you can't get your message across through signs and speeches, all you need to do is to physically force your message across. Soon, people will not be able to enter fur shops and chemical plants because of blockades. These blockades will all be legal, because, according to the Supreme Court, the rights of one single race or class are not obstructed.
There is a difference between constructive debate and giving a person no choice but to accept a decision. The Supreme Court is telling women they have the right to have an abortion only if they are able to enter a clinic.
The members of the Supreme Court who support this law have allowed political and religious biases to influence their decision. They have created a confusing result. Whether or not abortion is considered wrong by an individual, it has previously been decided by the high court that it is a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Therefore, a law that hinders exercising that right is illogical, no matter what one's personal opinion is.
The members of the Supreme Court are not supposed to be biased. They are supposed to decide by the law. Either they overturn Roe vs. Wade or overturn this decision, because the two are contradictory. The supporters of this ruling are trying to find a way around Roe vs. Wade by making it impossible for women to go through with an abortion. It is too bad that women, once again, are the victims of the law.
VERED HANKIN FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Once again, a group of men are deciding for women what they should or should not do with their bodies and how to prevent them from doing it. No one should be able to physically hinder another from fulfilling his or her constitutional right.
Kansan Editorial Board Members:
Kris Belden, Greg Farmer, Vered Hankin, Jeff Hays, Val Huber, Brent Kassing, Kyle Kickhaefer, Stephen Martino, Jolinda Mathews, Colleen McCain, Chris Moeser, Simon Naldoza, Jeff Reynolds, Chris Ronan and Michael Taylor
Kansan Columnists:
Steve Chapman, J.R. Clairborne, Lisa Cosmillo, Andrew Gilman, Francesca Glyn-Jones, Cecile Julian, Ann Jurcyk, Marvin MnEnett, Shelly Solon and Julie Wasson.
Kansan Cartoonists:
Michael Irvin, Michael Paul, David Rosenfield, Moses Smith and Rob Tapley
KANSAN STAFF
GREG FARMER
Editor
GAYLE OSTERBERG Managing editor
TOM EBILEN
General manager, news adviser
TOM EBLEN
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
STEVE PERRY
Business manager
MELISSA TERLIP
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Editors Business Staff
Astet Managing ... Justine Kunugi Campus sales经理 . Brad Bronco
News ... Monique Guilabate Regional sales manager . Wade Baster
Office ... David Mitchell National sales mgm . Jennifer Pierer
Editorial ... Stephen Martino co-op sales mgm . Ahsley Hessel
Campus Production mgm . Ahsley Hessel
Sports ... KC Trailer Marketing director . Angela Clengervoy
Photogr ... Mark Burnett Creative director . Haly Perry
Pictures ... Lynne McAdoe Creative director . Will Riffle
Graphics ... Dan Schauer Art Director . Dave Hadkey
**Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the name of the person writing the letter, the reason for writing the letter, the name of the Kansas Institute in inclusion and homestays, or faculty or staff position where the letter was written, any photographs, a sketch of the setting where the letter was written, the right to request or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be emailed or brought in the Kansas newsletter, 111 Sanford Pill Hall.**
PAUL 1-93 UDK
--weapons-storage compounds marks an important turning point in the U.S. led humanitarian mission, military and diplomatic officials say."
U.S. continues to pull weeds instead of attacking the roots
Well folks, here we are, back for another semester in a brand new year. The time for change is among us. Or is it? Not if you are a part of the national offense. Yes, once again, the U.S. military has decided to kick off a new year with a display of its strength and authority. To many of us, this doesn't come as a surprise, but rather a disgusting fact of life. Though it's never worked to kill the root, it seems the United States (as well as the United Nations) is still content with using military might to attack the weed. For them, it's time for the U.S. troops to start up the lawn mowers.
In Somalia, the humanitarian mission seems to have changed a bit. No longer will the Marines simply guard food shipments to starving Somalis. Apparently, U.N. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali felt that this would portray the wrong image. How could fear be instilled on the world if the Marines appeared to be philanthropic?
Boutros sued to it that this didn't happen. The Marines will now involve themselves in the disarming of Mogadishu's 14 warring factions. The opening sentence of a local newspaper's article on the issue displayed American support: "The Marines' blistering barrage on one Malian clan's
STAFF COLUMNIST
Yes, you read it right. The words "blistering barrage" and "humanitarian" were actually combined into one sentence. So, on a "humanitarian mission," the U.S. military will now deliver a "blistering barrage" to each resisting Somali faction in an attempt to disarm its members.
dam). Iraqi missile sites in southern Iraq were the target this time. Scaled down from the attack of two years ago, the number deemed to be a "spanking" of Sadam.
Travel about 30 degrees latitude north of Somalia and you'll find a place where the U.S. military (assisted by the British and French) has just cut more weeds. You guessed the place: Iraq, Saddam Hussein's defiant actions warranted yet another attack on his country (Let's not forget that this was also George Bush's last chance to take another shot at Sad-
Yes, that's also correct. The Air force has "spanked" Saddam Hussein. Not necessarily blistering, but a spanking nonetheless.
So, what's the justification for these military actions? In Somalia, sniper fire had become a nuisance to the Marines. Logically, confiscating all Somali weapons would put an end to the bothersome attacks. Couple this with the U.N. belief that only total disarmament would restore peace in Somalia and the action is one of great synergism.
In Iraq, Hussein had evidently forgotten the cease-fire agreements and was in need of a little reminder. The spanking was also used to refresh his memory of the no-fly zone over southwestern Syria. He was a Muslim rebel. All in all, this action was taken to set Saddam back on the straight and narrow.
Now, even if the Marines were able to disarm Somalia, there's still a serious problem here. What next? Confiscate all sharp objects? You see, the seizing of weapons isn't going to restore peace in Somalia; the
weapons aren't in conflict. It's the people behind the weapons who are in conflict. They're not going to simply shake hands and go home once the weapons are gone.
Looking at the situation 30 degrees north, Saddam Hussein has shown the U.S. time and time again that he is not going to respond to our threats or attacks. In fact, he has already urged his people to wage holy war against ISIS and its insurgents, threat here and an offensive there aren't going to change his ways.
When it comes right down to it, you've got to wonder why we are still trying to use the military to solve international problems. Haven't we figured out that it doesn't work? Experience is supposed to be one of the most effective means of teaching known to man. And yet, experience has shown that a military onslaught has never worked to solve a problem. So why do it? Why not focus on the root of the problem?
This military strike business is getting way out of hand and becoming far too expensive. Maybe it works to cut the problem down, but, with the root intact, the weed always continues to grow.
Marvin McNett is a Hutchinson senior majoring in aerospace engineering.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Research would improve column
We are writing in response to a factual error in the opinion article by Lisa Cosmillo. It is true that Rush is a conservative and that he coined the word feminazi, but it is not true that all feminists belong to this group. This term is directed at a select few members of our society, fewer than 25 by Rush's estimations. He should know; it is his word. We would like to share the definition that Rush uses in his book "The Way Things Ought To Be." in the section called "The Limbaugh Lexicon."
Limbaugh writes, "Feminazi. Widely misunderstood by most to simply mean 'feminist.' Not so, boobala. A Femina is a feminist to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur. There are fewer than 25 known feminazis in the United States."
It is a shame that she had to ruin an otherwise intelligent article with such a blatant error in her research, or perhaps more correctly, without any research. The opinion page should not be story time. Opinion writers have homework to do, too. Their articles should be opinion based on fact, not opposed to fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. We just would wish that Cosmillo would have informed herself of the facts and made use of them in her article, rather than taking an emotional argument to press.
Matt Smith
Keith Campbell
Lenexa sophorae
Reader questions writer's credibility
Normally, when I read a columnist whose major is journalism, I expect a higher standard from that student. Lisa Cosmilo completely failed in her responsibilities as a journalist and columnist in her column on Rush Limbaugh and his use of the word "feminazi."
If she had done her research, she would have found out that the term is frequently misused by listeners. It does have a specific definition, though.
According to Limbaugh, a "feminazi" is a feminist whose only objective is to see as many abortions performed as possible. Cosmilo could have written a better column by asking how many feminists desire this
goal. I think desiring this goal of abortion disqualifies 99 percent of those who call themselves feminists. Limbaugh even says that there are only 25-30 "feminazis" in the whole country. To make a reckless, untruthful statement which Cosmillo had in her column causes me to question her credibility as a journalist in the future.
If this half-truth of Cosmillo was not bad enough, she has to become politically correct and throw the cliched charge that Limbaugh engages in racial and gender slurs. She throws out this charge without providing a shred of evidence.
Sexual and racial slurs are wrong, but to pin this false charge on Limbaugh shows a lack of objectivity on her part.
Tom Grelinger
Kansas City, Kan., junior
501 Bluez
by Moses Smith