4
Thursday, February 17, 1994
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Waiting period restricts legal access to abortion
A federal appeals court recently upheld a North Dakota law restricting access to abortions. This law, based on the Pennsylvania law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, places an undue burden on rural women and minors and should have been found unconstitutional. Both laws require a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions.
In the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Pennsylvania case, an undue burden exists if it is "a substantial obstacle to a woman's choice to undergo an abortion."
"Informed consent" is a misleading term to use in describing North Dakota's law. Requiring the state to provide information about fetal development and abortion alternatives, as North Dakota's law does, is one thing. Putting up a substantial barrier to access to an abortion is another.
It is impossible to interpret this waiting period as anything other than an undue burden for rural women and minors.
The legal waiting period is intended to allow a woman a period of reflection before she receives an abortion so she is less likely to make a rash decision. However, few women arrive at the decision to undergo this procedure without giving it a lot of thought.
The state cannot ensure that women reflect properly on their decision to undergo an abortion. Instead, the waiting period will only ensure that some women are less able to exercise their constitutional right to choose.
Abortion is legal. It must be accessible if it is to be a choice. Policies that restrict its accessibility to certain groups of women are unfair and should be avoided.
MARGARET BECK FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
States need help coping with immigration deluge
California Gov. Pete Wilson's demands for illegal immigrant benefits may seem like an unnecessary SOS. But due to shrinking budgets and growing immigrant populations, other states also need bailing out. Until immigration reform occurs, all states deserve federal help with their social program stowaways.
From coast to coast, states with large immigrant populations are struggling with the problem of how to provide for both legal citizens and immigrants. Florida, one of the first states to challenge Washington, has begun denying foster care to undocumented aliens. Now the California earthquake has brought the question to the national stage, and more states are expected to demand payment for services given to illegal aliens.
And why shouldn't they? The United States government provides both emergency and humanitarian aid to other countries on a regular basis. But it does little to address changes in immigration patterns and even less to help its own states cope with the approximately 500,000 illegal aliens who enter this country each year
Unlike legal immigrants, who must have special job skills or a relationship to an American citizen or be seeking political amnesty, undocumented aliens are often unskilled and financially dependent. Plans are underway to curtail illegal immigration, but no concrete solutions have been suggested to help states deal with those already here.
Until Congress overhauls our outdated immigration laws, the floodgates will remain open. It's time Washington stopped expecting the states to cope with the deluge on their own.
KANSAN STAFF
SAMANTHA ADAMS FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
BEN GROVE, Editor
LISA COSMILLO, Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator
JUSTIN GARBERG Business manager
JENNIFER BLOWEY Retail sales manager
Editors
Editors
Asst Managing Editor...Dan England
Assistant to the editor...J.R. Clarborne
News...Kristi Fogler, Katie Greenwald
...Todd Seifert
Editorial...Couture Nicola
Nathan Olean
Campus...Jess DoHaven
Sports...David Dorsey
Photo...Doug Hesse
Features...Sara Bennett
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Business Star
Campus sales mgr...Jason Eberty
Regional Sales mgr ...Troy Tervawer
National and Coop sales mgr...Robin King
Special Sections mgr ..Shelly McConnell
Production mgr ..Lara Guth
Gretchen Kootterlehrind
Marketing director ..Shannon Reilly
Creative director ..John Carlton
Classified mgr ..Kelly Connelys
Teacheats mgr ..Wing Chan
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address, and contact information affiliated with the University of Florida, or someone on behalf of the university, or faculty or staff.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer Flint Hall.
Daily picketing by Rev. Phelps no laughing matter in Topeka
When Jerry Berger entered the restaurant business, he never thought that he would draw theire of picketers. Nor did he think that he would someday be a lightning rod for hate and bigroot. But, as he and his wife, Patti, have learned, no one is immune to the effects of homophobia.
COLUMNIST
From his downtown Topeka office last week, Berger reflected on events that have drawn national attention and shame, much to the consternation of Topekans.
The Bergers started like many restaurantes do, with a dream of independence and a commitment to customer service. They purchased China, crystal and nice tablecloths. Their goal was a steak house with a broad menu and a personal, home-style touch. They leased space in the Gage Center shopping mall in Topeka and in 1990 opened the Vintage Restaurant and Lounge.
"We care about our customers," Berger said. "If you come into our restaurant, you'll understand why we've been successful."
The Berger's hard workpaid off, and the Vintage became a popular gathering place for state legislators and
"It was a very tranquil existence, we just ran a restaurant like everyone else," he said.
When Berger's restaurant manager, a lesbian, was appointed to the Topeka Gay and Lesbian Task Force, fax machines across the city lit up. They called for the resignation of the "Lesbian-whore" restaurant manager. The once-tranquil period for Berger was about to turn chaotic. Sending these messages was the Rev. Fred W. Phelps, Topkea's controversial opponent of homosexuality.
business people.
The word was out, according to Phelps. He threatened to picket the restaurant if Berger didn't fire the manager. Berger refused. A skimish
at the restaurant last year between counter-demonstrators and members from Phelps' congregation at the Westboro Baptist Church led to a vow by Phelps to picket the Vintage every night. He has since kept his pledge.
Then came the pickets.
"They want to affect your life, they want to hurt your business," Berger said. "He has said on national television that he wants to put me out of business."
Phelps faces several harassment charges as the result of his inflammatory demonstrations. As many have noted, however, this is the type of attention Phelps seeks — being portrayed as a victim.
"They try to reach their goal by intimidation and fear. It's a real blight on the community," Berger said. "I
So begin the evenings in front of the Bergers' beleaguered restaurant. Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., every night, Phelps and his congregation arrive to preach their message. Carrying signs with defamatory statements, they march up and down the sidewalk. They taurt, harass and hurl epithets at Vintage customers and employees. The most invective of which matters little whether it's directed at an elderly woman or a family with children.
don't know if they expect me to just* run away and hide?"
Employees at the Town Crier bookstore, which is next door to the Vintage, have learned to ignore the picketers. To them, it's no longer a gay issue but one of power and manipulation.
The Bergers have no intention or, giving up their dream or giving in to hatred. They have, for the most part, taken all of this in stride. At one point, they even advertised a "Picketer's Special" — a ribeye steak dinner for $9.95 — on the marque in front of the restaurant.
But humor can go only so far when you're dealing with hateful minds.
"It's something I would never wish" upon anne. "Berner said."
upon anyote, Berger said.
Last week marked the first year of Phelps' daily intimidation campaign against one small business. I can assure you, no one in Topeka is laughing.
"Today it's me, who knows who it will be tomorrow. Who's the victim here, is it him, or is it us?" Berger asked.
Greg Thonen is a Kansas City, Kan. senior in journalism and sociology.
Offensive speech detracts from learning
Many Americans react to any suggestion of speech restrictions with a gut-level revulsion. Anyone can say anything on campus, right? Hardly. Speech restrictions are unavoidable. Your physics professor, for example, cannot teach students that the world is shaped like a burrito.
Many believe that the proper boundary lies between "sensitive" and "insensitive" speech. Mohammad was taken to task on precisely those terms. At Brown University, where he was scheduled to speak as part of Black History Month, Jewish students wanted him banned because his
Does Mohammad have a right to express his reprehensible views on American college campuses? If he does, then our universities are in big trouble — not because they are harboring racists or promoting offensive speech but because Mohammad and others of his ilk demean the goals of reason and intellectual discourse to which our universities are dedicated.
When Nation of Islam representative Khalid Abdul Mohammad delivered a wildly anti-Semitic and racist speech at Kean College in New Jersey on Nov. 28, the wrath of congressional and civil-rights leaders was justly visited on him and his organization. But few commented on the fact that the speech was given at a university under the auspices of free expression and Mohammad's supposed contribution to higher learning.
Speech codes exist on every campus, for better or worse. These codes prevent students from verbally abusing each other. Even KU's new consensual relations policy may be seen as a restriction of free expression. There are boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable speech. The question is, where should those boundaries lie?
If Mohammad wants to shout these things on a street corner or appear on a talk show, fine. Those are appropri-
anti-Semitism offended them.
It is easy to sympathize with these students, and I agree that Mohammad ought to be prevented from speaking on campus. But not because he is insensitive. A "sensitivity" test for speech is premised upon the mistaken belief that no student should ever feel offended.
The issue is not sensitivity, but intellectual legitimacy. Mohammad's speech was not just repulsive: It was ignorant in the sense that it lacked any pretense of proof. He raved against Jewish "bloodsuckers" and the "cracker" pope, making no attempt to persuade with evidence, facts or logic. He simply indulged a penchant for infantile name-calling.
The university is under no such obligation. In any event, it is impossible to enforce because it is just too easy to shade from a standard that prevents, say, a drunken student from giving offense by shouting racial epithets to a limitation of unpopular, politically incorrect views.
ate settings; the university is not.
The university ought to be a free marketplace for ideas, good or bad, conservative or liberal. But it is not a landfill for unsubstantiated verbal garbage. Surely there is some point at which a statement ceases to be an expression of an idea and becomes mere refuse. Identifying that point is the real issue at stake in the Mohamad controversy and should be the subject of a serious discussion on American campuses.
Such a discussion would produce sharp disagreement. But disagreement about a thing does not mean that the thing itself does not exist or cannot be found. And surely the dialogue itself would possess intrinsic worth.
Let us not cavil about whether or not it is possible to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate discourse. Of course it is. If not, let us stop pretending that the University of Kansas or any other university is a source of higher learning. Higher than what? Khalid Abdul Mohammad? I hope so.
Brian Dirk is a Conway, Ark. graduate student in history.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Renovated Kansas Union offers improved seating
I've been passing through the renovated Kansas Union all year, but it was only recently that I noticed the little additions that make it such a great place. Oh sure, I noticed the evolution of the Jayhawk on the Union floor immediately, the new Alderson Auditorium and the art gallery, but what I'm talking about is how much comfort there is — from the seats in the lounge area to the seats on the toilets.
First of all, the chairs in the main lounge area are very cozy — I've slept on one more than once. But the most improved feature of the Union has to be the toilet seats.
These seats are streamlined and contoured in comparison to the leg-numbing seats of Strong Hall, Wescoe Hall and Burge Union. They're light and easy to raise, and the color is a traditional china white. Yes, I'll admit it, I'm one of the nameless (not anymore) people who enjoys reading in the bathroom, and this new addition has created a better study environment for me.
So, I would like to formally thank those people who designed and installed the lounge chairs and the toilet seats in the Union. By the way, I also enjoy playing with the new motion-sensor faucets. So, I hope that everyone will see (or seat) for themselves and experience the wonder of high-tech comfort in the
Brian Masilionis Topeka sophomore
The right to bear arms should not be denied
Union. Oh, and if I'm there playing with the faucets and handing out paper towels, don't forget to leave a tip.
In an article in the Feb. 9 Kansan in the "Fighting Back" series, a disturbing trend is documented by the remarks of Sandra Albrecht, professor of sociology. She was quoted as saying that she would never have guns in her home and that she believes that all guns should be banned. Not even the wildest of progun supporters advocate that those
who do not wish to own guns be forced to have them.
Yet those who oppose the possession of guns wish to deny a constitutional right to those who do desire to possess them. One could argue that the freedom of expression guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution should be denied. Indeed, such rights have been denied in the past. If Albrecht wishes not to have guns in her home, that is her prerogative, but it is not her prerogative (or anyone else's) to deny Second Amendment rights to law abiding citizens.
Bruce Cutter Director, KU Electronic Microscopy Lab