4
Thursday, February 6, 1975
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the views of the writers.
opinions of the writers.
Abortion overused
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a division of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, recently has gleefully reported that abortion was second only to tonsillectomy as being the most frequently performed surgical procedure.
As if reporting on the progress of a United Fund drive, the Institute further revealed that the number of legal abortions performed increased from 750,000 in 1973 to 900,000 in 1974. In opposition to those who consider such information as a mark of advancement for this society, I consider this report to be a disgusting tragedy.
Let there be no doubt that I think abortion shouldn't be used for the sake of economic relief or personal convenience, for giving a woman the right to control her own body or as a means to check pregnancy and not an unborn child for any of those reasons would be a grievous error.
For those who say that I should have no legitimate opinion in protecting the rights of the unborn, I retort that my interest in the welfare of all human beings, born or unborn, is completely justified. For those who say that a fetus isn't a living human being, I reply that the unborn child has a potential for life and this fruition should be protected by law. For those who say that abortion is a proper tool to remove the burdens of unwanted pregnancies, social, financial or personal, I think that the life of the unborn child is paramount to any burden exceeding one that is a threat to the life of the mother herself.
The United States attained the level of zero population growth (or near to it) several years ago. It is ridiculous that abortion should be utilized as a means to check the population growth of this country. Present contraceptives and birth control devices have proved not to be totally effective. But should the life of an unborn child be ended because of this technological failure? Unfortunately, a large portion of this society thinks so. This is a tragedy.
I am conscious of the problems that existed when abortion on demand was illegal. Abortions performed by quacks or cohanger abortions performed by women on themselves are serious matters that deserve attention. An unwanted pregnancy affecting the stability of a marriage, the individual freedom of a woman, the status of an indigent family unable to care for another child and the welfare of society in general. But
these reasons don't justify the taking of the life of an unborn child.
When I approach the topic of abortion I think of it in terms of a general trend in society for disregard of life. When New York legalized abortion before it became legal nationally, the move was intended to eliminate the problem of unwanted pregnancies of welfare or indigent mothers. It wasn't long, however, until abortion clinics in that state advertised their services to coeds in colleges across the country. Those were the days when a girl in trouble could fly to New York on Friday night and get fixed before classes started on Monday.
Now that our illustrious Supreme Court justices have ruled that abortion on demand is a constitutional right, some women don't think two about what they should do if an unwanted pregnancy might possibly jeopardize their career interests, pursuit of education, or life in Europe. A low效率, or myriad of other excuses that are lacking complete justification for terminating the life of an unborn child.
Abortion should be allowed in cases to protect the life of the mother and in other vital instances. But it is totally wrong to utilize abortion as a means of eliminating burdens that we impose upon ourselves as individuals or as members of society. It is incumbent on society to remedy the problems associated with unwanted pregnancies instead of endorsing the right of a mother to terminate the life of an unborn child.
Granted, my 16 years of Catholic elementary and secondary education has affected my thinking on this issue. But the main reason for my opposition to legalized abortion is a humanitarian concern for the preservation of life, born or unborn. I choose not to debate at what point life begins for a fetus, the personal rights of a mother, the financial or social burdens of an unwanted pregnancy and the other arguments of polemics who support legalized abortion. These matters are immaterial when life or the potential for life, is at stake.
Finally, don't chide those of us who uphold the rights of the unborn. We have a justified right in our attempt to protect the unborn children who are suffering the consequences of legalized abortions. You may stop by using tactics of vilification to mock our efforts; that is your problem, not mine. But never deny us the right to speak in behalf of the lives of those unable to speak for themselves. —Stephen Buser
Senate budget sense asked
Like one of those trick birthday candies you can't blow out, the issue of the proper fund fees has funds flap up again.
Each new squabble over how much of our money the Student Senate should give away, and to whom it should be given, begs to show that all votes should be by the Senate of a basic theory of how to use its money.
There are always two arguments when it comes to giving away the money. In one case, big-budget organizations like the KU Athletic Corporation, arguing that student money should go to groups that provide a service for the students, compete in the Money for ticket subsides fit that category nicely.
The problem that the Senate faces is the classic one of economics—the wise allocation of finite resources among infinite needs. The key words in this chapter are Senate and everybody else must remember, are finite and infinite.
Then there are the lightweights, the small groups that can exist only with an allocation disproportionate to the number of students. These groups argue that the Senate has a moral obligation to fund both special-interest groups too small to be self-supporting and groups that out of social consciousness.
The available money is finite
Students can't pay annual
increases in the activity fee. And
wants are infinite. The Senate
receives more and more
resources. Most of those who receive
an allocation one year back come
with a bigger appetite the next.
It may look like the irresistible force and the immovable object, but it really isn't. The hard decision, the one that must be made, is to hold the line on allocations.
So we're back to the basic allocations theory again. If you can't give to everybody, who do you give to? What organizations that provide the greatest service to the greatest numbers of
that the Senate was under a moral obligation to maintain or increase the current women's allocation. She mentioned KU's estimated male-to-female ratio to 55-48 and suggested that appropriate Senate funding should follow those numbers.
But Clark Davis, executive secretary of the Senate, was on target with his statement that, "the Student Student does not"
By John Pike Editor
students are sufficiently funded, then allocate whatever is left in a sensible, proportionate manner.
The Senate took a step down this road last week when it voted to cut the allocation for the women's athletic program for fiscal 1976 to $47,819, from the current $63,800, and give the difference to the student ticket subsidy allocation.
The action was made possible when the student body presidents of the six state schools committed to Bassnett an amendment that the state subsidy for women's athletics, with the KU women's program subsidy expected to rise to $88,667 from the current $88,375, thereby maintaining adequate funding of the program voted, with good sense, to put its own money where it will do more good for more students. Marian Washington, assistant
Marian Washington, assistant director of athletics, argued
fund people, it funds services to people."
There may be a 55-45 ratio of male to female students here, but I will wager that the ratio of students, male and female, who directly benefit from the men's program to those who directly benefit from the women's is considerably different.
The moral obligation of the Senate is to use the monies that the students provide to ends that provide the greatest service to the students. Lowering ticket prices will directly affect perhaps half of the KU student body.
Washington made another argument that should have put the Senate on guard against those who plead their own case without having to consider the issue. The senator recommended the state subsidy as "irrelevant," saying that what was important was how
the Senate would allocate its own money.
How the Senate allocates its own money is indeed the main issue, but the state subsidy is of relevance to that question.
Remember that I said the Senate should see that the organizations of greatest service were sufficiently funded. The Senate added to the Senate allocation, the women's program will be sufficiently funded, with a 10.3 per cent funding increase over this year. Without the additional state aid, the women's program would not be cut. With it, the Senate was almost obligated to cut it.
If the governor's budget runs afoul of the Legislature and the increased subsidy for the governor, Senate will have to juggle its own budget and at least keep the program where it is now. But planning a budget based on recommendations is quite justified.
Beyond the women's athletic program, the Senate will be faced again this year with a lot of small organizations that will ask for their annual few hundred dollars. In the past many groups of this type have disappeared by the end of the year, taking with them their equipment and that was inevitably purchased thereweth. With money as it is, it is, this abuse of the activity fee fund must be controlled as much as is possible.
With about $40,000 to allocate to these organizations, the Senate must look at the structure, purpose, and resources needed for funding. Are they organized, with a clear plan for carrying out whatever
they propose to do with their fellow students' money?
What is the purpose of the organization? Do its members intend to provide a service for those outside their own numbers, or do they seek only student subsidy of a shared hobby too expensive for their individual means?
And their record; if this organization has been given our money in the past, how have they used it? How much of it have they used? Most importantly, has it been worth it to you and me, the people who have paid for it?
If these questions can be satisfactorily answered, then the organization deserves funding. It is unfortunate that the organization does not deserve it than there will be money to pass around.
If that is the case, the senators will have to choose the best, the most viable, the most beneficial of the group. The number should be kept low enough for each to be financed adequately. We are better equipped with a larger number of healthy organizations than by a larger number of threadbare groups, hopelessly crippled from the start by underfinancing.
The Senate is off on the right foot toward next year's budget with their action on the women's athletics program. Let's hope it can develop a good allocations policy, one that will really serve the best interests of students and could lead to applications for activity fee funds is Feb. 28. It isn't too early for those who will be in charge to start preparing for the tough decisions.
Mandatory energy laws ahead
Bv JAMES J. KILPATRICK
Assuming that a critical need exists for the conservation of energy, what should government do when voluntary measures fail? The answer, sad to say, is that government must apply compulsory measures instead.
John C. Sawhill, the former energy administrator, offered that melancholy observation a few days ago to the National Cooperatives. His speech coincided with President Ford's State of the Union address and thus went unnoticed in the news, but this was a major statement on which it merited sober attention.
His point was that Americans are marvelous when it comes to responding to emergencies they can see or hear. Given a Pearl Harbor, they mobilize instantly. Confronting the damage of a hurricane, tornado or flood, they rally superbly. In Southern Africa, with their own knowledge of the nation's most knowledgeable experts in the field—the energy situation demands the same sacrificial response. But few persons sense the urgency. The stimulus of last year's embargo
has worn off and appeals for voluntary conservation go widely unheeded.
"The alternative," Sawhill said, "is to willingly accept mandatory conservation as the only means of assuring equitable, effective and continued savings."
His continuing recommendation is for a whipging tax on gasoline at the pump. He is also calling for zero in on our most wasteful use of oil, that it could substantially dampen gasoline consumption
and result in significant savings."
President Ford's proposal for a $3 a barrel tax on foreign crude, in Sawillh's view, would reduce the number of tariffs or taxes 'cut across the whole spectrum of petroleum products.' Their impact, he said, is likely to work its way through the entire economy—through the use of transportation, industry, utilities and agriculture.
"Industrial fuels, feedstocks for the plastic industry, competitive fuels will all be affected. Estimates of the 'ripple' effect go as high as $40 billion in increased prices at the consumer level. Ultimately, with a public increasingly aware of the energy situation, such results might well prove every bit as politically distasteful as reaction to a targeted gasoline tax," he said.
I wish it were possible to quarrel with Sawhill's observations and conclusions. The essence of American society is that ours is a voluntary society, where we have 58-miles-an-hour limit on our highways is widely disregarded. Little talk is heard of 65-degree living rooms. Industrial consumption of energy reflects little serious concern to our citizens. Only four generating plants in the whole country have responded to the President's appeal for conversion from fuel oil to coal. Metaphorically, the people in cities findings destroyed or cities flooded. They see plenty of gas.
Sawhill pleads for understanding and awareness, despite the challenges it in decades energy supplies in years ahead, "the country will
have to adjust to a fundamental new reality; our energy binge has come to an abrupt end." Even with the most concerted efforts, it will take years to develop new coal mines, to build new refineries and to get atomic energy plants on the line. The capital requirements will be staggering. Present levels of technology are not maintained without risking havoc to the environment.
In brief, the immediate and continuing conservation of energy is imperative. The hurricane already is upon us. Compulsory measures must be taken. There is no reason for panic. Other Western countries manage to sustain their economies and to live comfortably with per capita energy needs. Overriding needs are two: for the people to accept the presence of a crisis they cannot see, and for government to impose immediate mandatory restraints on consumption. That Mills's analysis. He makes unpleasant but undeniable sense.
(C) 1975 Washington Star Syndicate, Inc
Quotas a necessary safeguard
RvCARL.ROWAN
My blood surges to a fast boll with increasing frequency these days as more and more self-inflicted cuts about reverse discrimination.
With a pluosiness that would turn the stomach of a possum, they set themselves up as the selfless saviors of liberty and freedom. They are the best friends the slick discriminators ever had.
Everywhere you look, Sidney Hook, professor; Albert Shanker, teachers' president; and James G. Congressman; are lashing away at that new straw man, quotas.
For it is not the dedicated racists, but the musky-headed pseudoliberalers, who have always been the meaningful force we've ever had in this country to fight discrimination against women and minorities. That force was made public by the pressures it could exert through the withholding of funds to institutions, which refused to show reasonable affirmative centuries of discrimination.
The Shankers, Hooks and O'Haras have, through their inanities, made it possible for the Ford administration to feel
sanctified in doing nothing to redress even the most grievous injustices.
The Jan. 12 New York Times carried an article that said, "There is an increasing number of complaints, some reaching the courts, that minorities are being given preference in jobs and schools, regardless of their comparative qualifications."
Now evidence abounds that this can't possibly be so. Unemployment among blacks is precisely double the rate for whites in 2015, between white family income and that for blacks is widening after a few years when it was closing, with the normal black family now trying to live on $5 for every $100 the
So it is outrageous for people likeHook and Shanker to feed white paranoids with nonsense about reverse discrimination. Okay. So they should not quote So am I. The only people who knew ever favored quotas were the in people who wanted to be sure that not too many Jews or other undesirabled got into their universities, plants, basketball teams or whatever. It would be worse than that women ought to hold 51 per cent of the government jobs, or faculty positions
or jobs as airline pilots. It would be just as foolish to argue that blacks must immediately hold 11 per cent of these and similar jobs. Despite the false imputation, many man rhetoric of the antiquita fanatics, nobody is arguing that.
But how is a federal judge to deal with a situation in which he finds that the state of Alabama hasn't in its history had a black parishman? Does he accept the argument that time and training will rectify the situation? That would be acceptance of the slander that none of the millions of blacks lived in Alabama is or was qualified to merit to be a state cop.
Without the judge's affirmative decree, Alabama wouldn't have its present
That white federal judge saw the situation as prima facie evidence of state discrimination, which is what it was. And the judge went in pursuit of justice, not the pollyanna malarkey that O'Hara has been dispensing. He told Alabama that it must hire only blacks for the patrol to a point where it was reasonably representative of Alabama's population.
component of 28 black troopers out of 623.
Reverse discrimination? Have some blacks been hired as troopers when their qualifications are less than some white trying to come aboard? Who knows? Qualification is a vital part of active duty, with whites making all the rules and all the decisions. For a white personnel officer, white applicants just have a way of appearing more qualified than black applicants. In any event, when race has been the dominant factor in handing out good jobs in employment, it is that, some people, start
preaching about merit only after the judge decides that extraordinary measures are necessary to give blacks a decent break?
Even a philosopher ought to be enough in touch with reality to know that the merits of women or blacks or Chicanos or whites are insinuated in issue. It is the pragmatic reality that what white males have, white males aren't going to surrender, except under extraordinary pressures. That pressure ought to come not just easily, but from union leaders, but from union leaders and college intellectuals.
Copyright 1975 Field Enterprises, Inc
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas weekdays
and Tuesdays. Subjects include:
animation periods. Second-class postage paid at
Lawrence, Kan. 60045. Subscription mail is at
$1.33 a month, subscriptions to the student activity
Accommodations, goods, services and employment opportunities are available for students who aren't assigned those of the Student Senate. The Student Senate will accept applications from any student who is interested in
Editor
John Pike
Associate Editor
Campsus Editor
Craig Stock
Dennis Eilworth
Business Manager
Drive Bees
Advertising Manager
Assistant Business Manager
Debbie Abramis
Dr. Harlow Hines