4A the university daily kansan opinion tuesday, march 30, 2004 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Responsibility lies with teens "We need to protect the next generation with education and spermicides, not signatures and empty promises." ("Education, not abstinence, gives best protection," Kansan, March 18). The main flaw in the argument against the president's abstinence education program is the blame imputed to the premise of abstinence pledges, rather than to the teens' choice to abandon their pledges. The editorial stated that abstinence education is ineffective because the STD rates of pledging and non-pledging teens are similar, and that many of them lose their virginity after making pledges. Are condoms or birth control pills widely abandoned as ineffective because of incorrect usage or failure to use them at all? The method is not flawed. The efficacy of any means of birth control, be it abstinence, barrier methods or pills, depends on a willingness to follow certain guidelines. Education only goes so far; the enus is on teens to apply this knowledge to make wise sexual choices. How can abstinence pledges or any other means of preventing pregnancy and disease protect teens if they lack the self-control to follow through? Lack of responsibility and willpower, not lack of education, is the real problem. Emily Edgren Pre-Physical Therapy junior Columbia, S.C. Emergency contraceptives don't belong over the counter Alea Smith's argument in her March 17 commentary advocating unrestricted availability of the emergency contraceptive Plan,B has several critical flaws. Smith erroneously argues that Plan B does not cause abortion, but deters it. Although Plan B is contraceptive if taken during the preovulatory phase, it is abortifacient when administered after fertilization has occurred. Before the advent of oral contraceptives, pregnancy was defined as the state of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body. Accordingly, by preventing uterine implantation of the growing and dividing embryo, Plan B does terminate a pregnancy. Furthermore, evidence suggests that emergency contraceptives will not decrease abortion rate. Plan B has been available in Washington since 1998, yet Washington's abortion rate was unchanged between 1998 and 2001. Smith also claims that providing Plan B over the counter would benefit patients. However, among other side effects, Plan B increases risk of ectopic pregnancy, a life-threatening condition, by four times. This risk in itself should justify restricting the drug to administration by prescription, under a physician's supervision. Additionally, its safety in adolescent patients has not been evaluated, and to assume that its effects in adolescents are identical to those in adults is medically invalid. Pharmacists are vital members of the health-care team whose job requires critical thinking and professional judgment to promote the best interest of the patient, and they should not be relegated to following physicians' orders blindly. We need a universal and comprehensive conscience clause to protect all medical professionals from having to practice contrary to their moral beliefs. Kim Indovina Kim invovna Biochemistry and Spanish senior Highlands Ranch, Colo. TALK TO US GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES **Maximum Length:** 650 word limit **Include:** Author's name Class, hometown (student) Position (faculty member) Also: The Kansan will not print guest columns that attack another columnist. LETTER GUIDELINES Maximum Length 200 word limit Include: Author's name and telephone number Class, hometown (student) Position (faculty member) SUBMITTO E-mail: opinionv@kansan.com Hard copy: Kansan newsroom 111 Staffer-Flint Pencils trump touch-screens in voting booth EDITORIAL BOARD Electronic voting machines recently brought the technological era to the voting booth. Most of Kansas, as of yet, has not gone digital. Soon the state will decide OURVIEW Douglas County should use caution in changing over to electronic voting machines Zach Newton for The University Daily Kansan if an electronic system should replace its paper ballot counted by a Scantron-like system. As county commissioners and election officials debate nuances of the potential switch, they should consider the effects these touch screens pose to the voting process. More than mere vehicles of choice, e-voting machines can skew an election with more vehement than Florida in 2000. It was actually that crisis that motivated counties across the nation to make the switch. Via a $3.9 million bundle in governmental aid, one in five constituents will use touch-screens to elect the president in November, according to an article in Mother Jones magazine this month. But like the moon to the ocean's tide, these handy touch screens have control over constituents' votes rather than the other way around. Election officials are more than just jumping the gun, or more aptly, tossing the chad, by implementing this flawed electronic system. Multiple studies conducted by Johns Hopkins University and Rice Universities, and RABA Technologies of Columbia, Md., revealed the inadequacies in the system's security, Despite lackluster safety measures, the majority of e-voting machines leave no paper trail to confirm each voter's choice, removing the verification process that is essential to a fair democracy. Electorates, especially Democrats, have pushed for machines that produce a printed receipt to improve this flaw. According to the Mother Jones article, Democrats are notably more skeptical of the newly implemented machines because Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold which is susceptible to worms crashes and hackers who can change votes undetected. Election Systems, avidly backs the Republican Party and its only runner, George W. Bush. Diebold is a primary manufacturer of e-voting machines. As a private company, Diebold and its employees who tally the vote are immune to government and public scrutiny. in counties using e-voting machines than those using paper ballots. But flawed to the core, these numbers are unreliable. The connection between the Republican party and the touch-screens machines is questionable. Earlier this year in a Florida county election, e-voting machines failed to register 134 ballots in a race won by a mere 12 votes, as reported by Canada's Globe and Mail. Proponents advocate the new system because it allows handicapped constituents to vote alone. They also claim that touch screens are less faulty than previous methods. Researchers from Caltech-MIT found one-third fewer errors In an era of distrust in the government, a leader must arise who is explicitly elected into office. Too much is at stake this presidential election to employ a shaky system that will inevitably end in corporate distrust, and maybe, the wrong president. ON POLITICS High abortion rate reason to change stance With signs plastered all over campus and a tent in front of Wescoe, the March for Women's Lives has been a noticeable presence on campus the past few weeks. The implication of the title is clear: March for women's lives, to hell with the babies. There, now that I have vented, I want to direct this column to a specific audience. I would like to speak to those of you whose position on abortion sounds like the following: "I would never have an abortion, but I don't want to tell others what to do with their bodies." COMMENTARY Most of you who would agree with that statement know, on some level, that there is something wrong with abortion. Let's not talk tough cases such as rape and incest; they amount to a small percent of abortions. Let's talk numbers. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, there are more than 1 million reported abortions every year in America. Since Roe v. Wade legalized the practice in 1973, there have been more than 40 million abortions performed in the United States. If that figure is not shocking enough for you, consider this: There are only about 4 million live births in America every year. My own calculation Matt Pirotte opinion@kansan.com would lead me to the conclusion that we are aborting at 25 percent of the live birth rate. For another perspective on these numbers, take a generally accepted death toll for the Holocaust, multiply by six and then add 4 million. Keep in mind I'm being conservative with the figures here and I'm not getting them from some radically anti-abortion Web site. They come from an abortion-rights research organization. The purpose of this column is not to rehash the ongoing morality debate that surrounds abortion. It has been done to death and few minds have been changed. The fact of the matter is that the people on this campus or in this country that are really gung-ho about abortion are few and far between, the body of the abortion-rights movement is not going be traveling to the Capitol to march for "women's lives." The body of the abortion-rights movement views abortion as a necessary evil and it is to it that I am speaking. More than 40 million abortions have been performed since 1973. That is staggering and sickening. Pope John Paul II once said that a nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope. You don't have to be Catholic or even religious to recognize the truth of his statement. I would beg that any reader who still has a glimmer of distaste for the practice of abortion to put down your Kansan for a moment and ask yourself: Is there any hard case, line of logic or impassioned argument that can justify America's war on the unborn? Pirotte is a Joplin, Mo., senior in history. PERSPECTIVE Women's identity linked to maiden name "My name is my identity and must not be lost." These words written by women's activist Lucy Stone are as relevant today as they were when she wrote them nearly 150 years ago. Names identify people to others and to themselves and are integral to who they are. This importance doesn't disappear with marriage, which society needs to recognize. Courtney Kuhlen opinion@kansan.com Though we have made progress since Stone broke ground in the 19th century by becoming the first woman to keep her maiden name after marrying, we still have a long way to go. COMMENTARY Last weekend, while attending a professor's birthday party, I caught up with a girl I had worked with. When I mentioned that someone we knew had gotten married and hyphenated her last last name, she commented snidely, "Well, she would." These three words communicated her judgment that any woman who doesn't take her husband's name has an agenda to prove to the world. I continued the casual conversation. but that remark internally stopped me dead in my tracks. Though keeping a maiden name is more common since the women's movement of the '60s and '70s, it is still the exception. As recently as 10 years ago, 90 "Well, she would." wedding announcements in the newspaper provide examples of how the other 10 percent tackle the surname issue. Some women choose to hyphenate their maiden names with their husband's. In other couples, both husband and wife take on the hyphenated version. Other women keep only their maiden name. percent of women adopted their husbands' names, according to American Demographics magazine. But all of these are choices instead of traditional mandates. These choices can be made for various reasons, said Ann Schofield, professor of American studies and women's studies Keeping a maiden name shows desire for an individual identity. Schofield said historically it also demonstrated the wish for more legal status. Today, women already established in the professional world find it more convenient to keep their names. "Any number of women from my generation on campus have different names from their husbands." Schofield said. In addition to professional reputation, keeping a name avoids the hassle of changing legal documents, including driver's licenses, vehicle registration, voter registration cards, passports, employer's records, bank accounts, credit accounts, stocks and bonds, wills, insurance policies, property titles, medical records and Social Security cards. Children can also be a factor in the decision to keep or change a surname. A husband and wife should make that decision without societal constraints. Identity involves defining who you are, what you value and which direction you choose to pursue in life. But most of all, identity belongs to an individual. Only that individual can decide what to do with it. KANSAN Michelle Rombeck editor 864-4854 or murhenn@kansan.com Andrew Vaupel managing editor 864-4854 or vaupel@kansan.com Kuhlen is an Albuquerque, N.M., junior in journalism. She is the *Kanan* photo editor. Meghan Brune and Johanna M. Maska opinion editors 864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com Danielle Bose business manager 864-4358 or addrector@kansen.com Malcolm Gibson Stephanie Graham retail sales manager 864-4358 or adsales@kansan.com Malcolm Gibson general manager and news adviser 864-7687 or mgibson@kansan.com Matt Fisher sales and marketing adviser 864.7668 or mfisher.kansan.com Editorial Board Members Kendall Dell Lynze Ford Laura Francoviglia Anna Gregory Amy Hammontte K Kelly Hollowell Teresa Lo Mindy Gaborne Greg Holmquist Ryan Scarrow Elizabeth Willy Sara Beshunek Kevin Flaherty Brandon Gay Zack Hemenway Alex Hoffman Kiwkampwirth Amy Kelly Cameron Koelling Courtney Kuhlen Brandi Mathiesen Travis Metcalf Mike Norris Jonathan Reeder Erin Rifley Alisa Smith Kari Zimmerman