---
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan
author. Signed columns represent the views of only the
writers.
September 24,1979
Birthing rooms safe
Many women nationwide have found that the new concept of birthing rooms in hospitals provides the perfect environment for a patient and hospital safety that they prefer.
But women in Lawrence found out last week that they probably will have to go to Topeka or Kansas City to find their doctor. But the medical may they have to have is just a little vague.
At a meeting last week, the Lawrence Memorial Hospital's board of trustees decided not to take any immediate action on developing a birthing room. The action understandably came as a shock to those expectant mothers who had been told they would be placed in a hospital would be installed and would be supported by the medical staff, a group of 60 physicians.
BUT THE staff reversed its decision last week and recommended that installation be delayed until safety questions were studied. No specific safety consideration were outlined, however.
The question involved, then, is definitely safety, as the hospital staff agrees. The board plans to check into safety questions.
But what are those questions? If there are questions of state safety
standards in standard birthing rooms, why have two hospitals in Topeka and two hospitals in Johnson County been able to install such rooms?
Parents today are demanding more of a choice in how their children are brought into the world. This demand for alternatives is a new concept—one that is not always accepted, but understood, one that should be recognized.
THE ANSWER, simply, is that birthing rooms can be safe. Although decorated with a honey touch, it would not help the equipment out of sight in the room.
Actually, a birthing room probably would be much safer than the alternative that some of the Lawrence women may opt for—home delivery.
Birthing rooms across the nation have shown themselves not only to be safe, but often to be half the cost of a regular delivery. And a birthing room provides that added insurance of having medical equipment close by.
Although the board has given the medical staff 90 days to look into the safety of a birthing room, it is ooped that the medical staff makes a decision on whether newborns are forced to look elsewhere for the birthing atmosphere they want.
Sexism, defeatism holding women back
Men, especially men in politics, have long been the scourge of women fighting for equality. Women's cries for more legislation to end job discrimination, for stricter rape laws and for the passage of the Equal Rights Act have fueled debates on the deaf ears of government officials.
But with a government run by men it is impossible to negotiate the demands of women and minors take a back seat to budgets, taxes and employment will be dealt with first, meaning
CURRENTLY, THERE is a very small percentage of women holding any meaningful government position, such as a secretary or another than a secretary for a congressman.
As long as women do not have a strong voice in our government, that situation may likely continue, and women may never be the primary beneficiaries of their demands and deserve as human beings.
For example, in the current Congress there are only 15 female House members and just one woman senator (Sen. Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan.), compared with 519 male senators and hold about 9 percent of the total number of state legislature seats across the country.
When one considers the number of years the women's movement has been going on, one would think that this number would be much higher. Our women gradually ran for public office.
BUT THIS is not necessarily the case. In 1976, for example, there were 18 women elected to the Senate and 20 didates, and no women were elected to the Senate that year. Also, they held only about a third of the seats.
This poor won-loss record of women in politics only hurts their movement. Besides the fact that women are more likely to be regulated that is important to women, women also lose public support by appearing to do anything about their politics and words, that they are talkers, but not doers.
Why don't more women run for public office? And why aren't more women involved in the government, fighting for their rights and interests?
THEM ARE many answers to these questions, and many of them have their own reasons. Many women feel that they will lose before they even start a campaign because of public pressure.
Many people just will not vote for women because they are women — that their place is in the state legislature. State legislature. Poll has shown that at least 10 percent of the public votes think women should be the state legislature.
john COLUMNIST fischer
difference between winning and losing a close election.
A second reason is that women do not have lot of contact with important interest groups or important businesses. And this can be very important to a campaign in terms of marketing.
THE DIRECTOR of a committee in Washington, that assists women in financing their campaigns said of this predicament, "Although men who are new to politics may also lack fund-raising skills, they are more often from backgrounds, such as business or academia, than they are closer to large money sources and more accustomed to dealing with sizable sums."
"It is a 'Catch'22 situation," she concluded. "Women are not taken seriously until they can raise money. Yet they can't they may unless they are taken seriously."
Another important consideration is that women traditionally have been tied down by family responsibilities. Many women who have thought of running for an office have been turned off quickly by the idea when the effect it the power it would have on their families.
WITH WORKING husbands, they realize it would be very hard for them to hold an office and still find time to care for their children. And, unfortunately, there are very many who are willing to quit their jobs to move their wives to Washington or a state capital.
For various factors, then, women are few in number in government positions, and consequently their needs continue to be downplayed or forgotten by the legislators. But if current speculation holds true, that change within the next 10 to 20 years
More and more, women have aspirations of being doctors, lawyers, politicians and business executives. They have set realistic goals to realize their impact on our future government and society.
Representative Margaret Heckler, R-Mass., referring to the new U.S. ambassador and moving to Washington is a serious consideration for a married woman. It can be a tremendous challenge.
By gaining more power and clout, women will be better able to apply pressure for changes. Perhaps only then will the chattels be broken and women be treated as equals.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
USS $64540) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday andiblock. Second class postpaid帖号 at Kansas 6000. Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or $2 per year in Douglas County and $4 per year outside the state. Student subscriptions are $4 in aaated pass through the student activity fee.
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansas, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 60454
Editor Mary Hoenk
Advertising Adviser Chuck Chowins
General Manager Rick Masser
Now that the Madison, Wis., Press Conference has gone on, Mr. Obama is likely to detail the construction of an atomic weapon, the issues of press freedom and national security it presents.
Indeed, even the government appears to think so, as it has dropped restraining orders against two other papers that planned to attack the media. The newspapers across the country, beaten to the punch by the Press Connection, are planning to publish their own similar arraignments.
H-bomb secrets don't belong in print
But far from being dead, this issue has begun to live, for the consequences of death can make the most horrendous weapon known to man possibly could result in death and death.
THE ARTICLE detailing the construction of the atomic bomb was published in the journal Nature on April 15, 1945, in the form of a letter from Charles Hansen, a California computer programmer, included detailed information on how to build and use the atomic bomb. The formation for the article was alleged to have been gathered from non-secret sources, including government documents.
According to the article, a hydrogen bomb is constructed by using a core of hydrogen explosive lithium deuteride and lithium helium. The material layer is exposed first, which creates an inward pressure of pressure from the excessive explosions of the succeeding layers.
That pressure triggers the fission explosion of an atomic bomb, which, in turn, triggers the hydrogen fusion explosion. This is aided by concentrating the flow of
neutrons released by the explosion to the center of the bomb by use of reflective layers sandwiched between the layers of a rocket engine. Particles in the particles, smash back into the reactive core.
COLUMNIST john logan
HOWEVER, specialists say several reasons for the absence of construction of the bomb are missing from the article. The exact shape of the explosive charges, the intricate timing device for expiring the various layers in succession and the ability to deploy them not included. All are vital to the construction of a working hydrogen bomb and would take massive amounts of work to design, experts
In addition, a recent analysis of the Press Connection letter says that the construction of a nuclear weapon would require vast industrial and scientific resources, with the exception of the volatile Third World nations or terrorist groups at the present time. The analysis concludes that without the trigger mechanism design and exact measurements, the Press ConNECTION arrests nations and the nuclear nations develop their own wannies.
Even so, the analysis says, the letter "presented a wealth of technical detail assembled in a form not commonly seen even in technical periodicals."
IT IS THAT wealth of technical detail that poses the greatest danger, for it might give foreign governments on the fringe of nuclear technology the incentive to develop
weapons. And should that occur, every little brushfire war could hold the risk of starting a world-wide conflict.
The Press Connection also said in a front-page editorial accompanying the article that the printing of the letter was a blow against government censorship. That censorship "must stop and it must stop now," the editorial directly below the image, an announcement showing the cross section of a hydrogen bomb with a detail of the trigger mechanism.
Obviously, there are nations such as Bangladesh and Malaysia that are not going to be involved in the Press Connection for the H-bomb attacks in Pakistan and Brazil might. These are nations with large scientific communities that are interested in solving the problems of developing a trigger mechanism or discovering the exact nature of a bomb or other weapon in the nations possess—or are likely to possess in the next decade—the industrial and scientific resources needed for the research.
public any idea how "awesome" these bombs are. We might be able to judge their power once Tel Avi and Tehran lie in radioactive ruin from one of these bombs.
And as close as they are to Israel and the Persian Gulf, the possession of atomic weapons by either Libya or Iraq could prove disastrous for the world.
The editor of the Press Connection, Ron Kroll, wrote that he was to impress on the public "how awesome these weapons are" and how much the production of nuclear weapons cost the United States.
Over the next few decades, more and more nations will be reached to level of involvement in the war, providing these weapons. Having the blueprints laid out for them by the Press Connection can help them.
THE PUBLICATION of the article was far from being a blow for freedom of the press. In fact, it may even lead to a serious loss of public trust in the administration countermeasures.
"ITS HARD TO see what the Press writes about this book in its article, the short of a flood of foreign subscriptions. The 18-page letter is mostly technical detail, gobblebible to the layman."
Much of the public sees the H-bomb article as a selfish action by the press, an action that could do irreparable harm to the world. Those unfavorable opinions would have been locked in courtroom battles, trying desperately to protect the rights of reporters and to guard access to public records. III feeling toward those causes from the public, the greatest source of support for the H-bomb has a considerable effect on court decisions.
While it may be beneficial to show how expensive nuclear weapons are, it's hard to see how showing detailed plans for the construction of an atomic bomb will give the
The publication of the plans for the H-bomb by the Press Connection was an irresponsible action—an action not well thought out by the editors of that paper. The authors both at home and abroad could be enamored with the benefits of the article may be trivial.
Proponents of the publication may argue that an atomic weapon helps help another nation develop an atomic weapon. Unfortunately, that proof may some as a blinding flash of light along some edge of the planet.
Kennedy must face campaign risks
By James MacGregor Burns N.V. Times Special Features
WILLIAMTOWN, Mass. — On Cape Cod, he met the late Edwin M. Kennedy and relaxed with his family, in what may be the last private moments that he will enjoy for years.
THE MAY AND COVERAGE 1977 LOS ANGELES TIMES DAILY
Sen. Kennedy also had time for crucial thinking about 1980. In deciding to allow political forces to move him inexorably toward a draft—and giving those forces a push by letting it be known that his family had given their blessing to his running for governor, he said so—he made his candidacy for the Democratic Party's nomination all but certain.
Kennedy staff sources confirm that the senator has told President Carter that he is against nomination. Vastly encouraged, his supporters have predictably flooded his base with supporters.
VET EVEN as the senator has decided to go ahead, the poignant readiness of his vulnerable family has brought to the fore again his lingering doubts.
He has those doubts today. They are political—the possibility of an attempt on his life and the prospect that his candidacy might disrupt the party, and even the election.
Yet there is a way of dealing with both these dangers, if only he will seize it.
The possibility of assassination must be faced squarely. People close to Kennedy cannot bear the thought that for 100 days he would have been killed, his life could be in continuous leapardy.
FRIEND AND foe alike know that a third Kennedy tragedy would leave such scars on the nation's conscience and self-esteem. They should must deal with the unthinkable to prevent it.
The prospect of assassination leave the senator with two choices: not to run, which means to stay home; or to assault before he or she sturck; or to run in such a way as to lessen the personal risk. To do the latter, he must renounce the campaigning role and campaigning: walking amid dense throngs from drug store supermarkets, moving through crowded sidewalks and hotel entrances.
Kennedy has said that he would not campaign from a television studio. That of campaigning-from television stations, radio booths, newspaper editorial offices, large and well-polled arenas—is precisely the kind of stumping that he must be persuaded to do. This is no time for maschio on the part of any candidate.
WITH THIS kind of campaigning, Kennedy could strike a blow for lifting the presidential primaries out of the ruck of sidewalk handing and skating to a crowded debate. He could lead the way in libel law. He could chase the chasms of 35 or more presidential primaries.
that in 1890, and future election years, would require the nation's top political leaders to spend months in the most difficult of organizing, exhausting kind of hackering.
What about the second prospect—that his candidacy would hurt his party?
Here Ses Kenny faces a dilemma. His brothers established a heritage of John Kendall, a establishment of John Hankle, Jr. voted against Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1940 convention; John F. Kenny did an end run around the revered Adalai E. Stevenon; John T. Kennedy joined Johnson. But Edward Kenny lacks the passion that propelled Robert F. Kenny to success. The servation, the most compassionate, even decorous, of all the Kenny men. He would like to run for president without running over a president or wrenching his own hair.
THE ANSWER to both his personal and political dilemmas is already in being—the draft-Kennedy movement that has been gathering for months in most of the states.
This is probably the most authentic, uncontroversial, unmanipulated presidential candidate in history. If allowed to grow, and if encouraged by a clear indication of Sen. McCain's efforts, draft-Kennedy movement could give the senator one the thing he needs to minimize party disruption: a clear call, a genuine endorsement of summons, from the grass roots of the party.
Such a movement also could supply him with street workers in the primaries, mobilize support, organize write-in campaigns, provide stand-in candidates where necessary and lessen the need for mayoral warmer stumping on the part of the candidate.
WHY, THEN, does Kennedy not allow me to announce the unannounced candidate through at least the early primaries? Because the Kennedy, in their long and brilliant quest for success, has become a judge that trust the way to win the high office is that they luck to volunteers, amateurs,
The way to win, they think, is to centralize the effort, to organize the campaign from the top down, to shift battalions of soldiers into combat zones with the precision of an army commander.
I believe that 1800, however, can be the year of the volunteer, the year when candidates in both parties will be exceptionally strong. The supply momentum and enthusiasm, what ever the loss in top-down order and efficiency. Bringing volunteers and paid campaign aides into a unified effort would be a key test for Kennedy's campaign leader.
The ultimate issue far transcends the politics and personalities of another group. The battle over Democrats or Republicans, must win more than a presidential election in 1980.
JIMMY CARTER'S forays into
presidential primaries in 1976 were brief, intensive flirtations that produced election day victories but not lasting support. The cardinal error of neither converting his party into an organized force that could provide firm and dependable support for his presidential actions, nor trying to keep grass roots so it might serve that purpose.
Senk. Kennedy need not repeat Carter's mistake. The more impact of his perseverance, the more he should raise important expectations sky-high—so high that disillusionment would be all the greater when he failed to lead and to lose leadership, to gain results, he would need the kind of activist followership that stood in front of the president George W. Bush seewelt in 1936 and Harry S. Truman in 1946.
By mobilizing activists, conservative Republicans have won striking political victories in California and other states. They are also gaining the opportunity of mobilizing thousands of voters in the state's politics by the issues of the 1980s and 1970s. Those volunteers, no longer "amateurs," are ready to organize and march and vote again—not as regimented troops but as organized volunteers.
James MacGregor Burns, who teaches political science at Williams College, is author of "Edward Kennedy and the Camelot Legacy."
Some Kansan photos out of place
To the Editor:
Are you a student newspaper or a high school yearbook?
The front page on Sept. 19 was headed by a picture of a couple in a blissful embrace. The significance of that picture was apparent. The picture, that the couple had engaged.
A few issues ago the prime front-page spot was filled by a picture of a well-turned-out young woman playing tennis. We don't remember any particular merits behind it, one at best. These pictures were cutey-pie, trivial and out of place on the front page.
We'd like to take your (our?) paper seriously, which is why we are writing this
letter. Don't abuse the Kansan's potential. Give us news for big people. Either that or give us really chill front-page pictures—Liz Lawlor's latest, "The Paper of the University Paper the daily Enquirer."
Debbie Watson
Nasbille, Tem., first year law student Bernard F. Brown
Secretarial concept clarified by speaker
Overland Park third year law student
To the Editor:
I regret that circumstances did not permit me to respond earlier. Nevertheless, I would
like to make some corrections to the statements attributed to me in an address to a meeting of Lawrence Business and Professional Women on Sept. 4.
The article seemed to suggest that I indicated that secretariates themselves were the primary sources of information that position is frequently viewed. I indicated that position has been a society that has held views that indigenous
secretaries, are responsible for remembering that that viewpoint is incorrect.
Since I was speaking about making career changes, I said that it is easier to make changes when you are a good and worthwhile worker. It is extremely difficult when you think that you are not important. I said, or intended to be important, that you should be for secretaries to appreciate themselves and particularly appreciate themselves as an individual. A concept is vital to making positive changes.
Barbara Bloom Director, Emily Taylor Women's Resource and Career Center