I must clarify some important issues addressed regarding partial-birth abortion in "Nagrant displays arrogance" (10/3/96) by Katie Murtha. She claims that the procedure must be kept legal, so as to protect women in cases where the procedure is necessary to save a mother's life.
She also points out that according to Jewish law, the life of the mother must take precedence over the life of the child. Well, H.R. 1833, the bill that President Bill Clinton vetoed and Congress failed to override, expressly stated that the ban shall not apply in those cases where the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life, provided no other procedure would suffice.
So Jewish law is not threatened, nor the right of the parents to make such a choice. Most abortion opponents (including myself) value all human life equally and agree that the law can not justly favor one life over another; that is why this is a common exception among pro-lifers, for all kinds of abortion.
However, 85 percent of all documented occurrences of partial-birth abortion are elective, and many reputable physicians have even submitted to Congress that there is never a situation for which another procedure would not suffice.
Among those cases where it is elective, bear in mind that if the head were to slip a couple inches and be out of the birth canal before the procedure was completed, the abortionist would be liable for murder. Shouldn't this tell us something?
Ken Alfano
Engineering sophomore
I would like to offer a quick economics lesson on why the wealthy get rich: It takes, for example, $50 for a family to live. The poorest families only bring in $70 per week, leaving only $20 left over after bills are paid. The families in the middle bring in about $85 per week, leaving them a little left over to save and invest. Finally, the upper income families bring in $110 per week, enabling them to invest in stocks, bonds or other instruments that grow the economy. That's how the rich get richer. They have more disposable income than the other two classes.
Now what is this business about the 1993 tax increase not being the largest in history? It was! Are you doubting straight facts? Adjusting the thing for inflation is nonsense. The tax increase was only passed three years ago. How can you be worried about inflation in just three years?
According to John Kennedy, "A rising tide lifts all boats." That means that tax cuts help everyone, not just the wealthiest. One final thing: I am sick and tired of the utter hate that people have for those who are wealthy.
You want what they have? Let me tell you something: it's called hard work, determination and effort. That's what it took to make the fortunes you covet. Give it a try.
Nicholas Kirk
LSA junior
A resounding theme that surrounded the Gore/Kemp debate was the future of America. Jack Kemp noted on more than one occasion, that the Republican party and the Dole/Kemp ticket knows the way to progress that will lead "America full steam ahead into the 21st Century." After he made this powerful statement, Kemp then proceeded to discuss America's path to continued progress.
In at least two, if not more, instances, Kemp referred to the "Judeo-Christian" values that we, as Americans, must strive to uphold and expand on in all our endeavors. In another instance, Kemp referred to the existing racial tension in America - white/black racial tension.
As America "moves full steam ahead" as a nation, we are becoming more diverse ethnically, racially and ideologically everyday. I've always been taught that the embrace of this diversity, and the subsequent breakdown of ignorance and strides toward equality, are the way to progress. Kemp, a man running for vice president of the United States, certainly proved that he does not believe this is progress.
Millions of Americans do not embrace "Judeo-Christian" values, and they have every right not to. This is everyone's right as Americans; Just because they may be another religion or even no religion at all, does not make their values any less valid then those of others. Wasn't this hashed out when the Pilgrims arrived in America because of religious intolerance?
Millions of Americans, are not black or white, but they too are citizens, and struggle daily with racial tensions. Wasn't this obvious in the Los Angeles riots?
Kemp also noted the importance of upholding "tradition and traditional roles" in America. As Americans, we've learned not to prescribe to "tradition." As "tradition" changes, as a nation, we have made progress. Progress was made when the tradition of slavery was abolished. Progress was made when the tradition of female inequality was addressed. Kemp, progress in your America is only for those who are white, male and hold Judeo-Christian beliefs. Your traditions, your values and your picture of America, do not include the millions of Americans who strive for progress everyday.
Go vote on November 5th and help send "America full-steam ahead into the 21st Century."
Rebecca Perlmutter
LSA first-year student
I applaud the Daily for acknowledging the Student Dispute Resolution Program in its Oct. 7 editorial "Breaking free."
In their efforts to support SDRP, however, the editors confused important facts about the options available to students under the Student Code of Conduct.
Your editorial indicates it is "impossible for students to employ professional advice at a hearing."
In fact, this prerogative is a student's right under the Code. Both the accused student and the complaining witness in the Code process are entitled to an adviser.
The adviser may be anyone: a parent, a professor, a friend or an attorney. Many students have had professional advice during Code arbitration; many students have used attorneys as their advisers.
In some circumstances, I have advised students to consider using an attorney as an adviser.
Second, the participants in a Code proceeding may chose to open the record. Please understand that the University does not control the openness of student records. The Federal Education Right to Privacy Act clearly binds the University and places the control in the hands of individual students.
This means that individual students can open records that relate solely to them. It does not mean, however, that they can open records that relate to other students. As long as all the participants in a given proceeding want an open record, neither the University nor the Code will stand in the way. In fact, when all participants seek an open record, I will do whatever I can to accommodate this prerogative.
These are important options available to students. I encourage any member of the University community to approach me if they have questions about the Code or related procedures or need clarification about the interplay of the Code and FERPA.
I particularly encourage members of the Daily editorial staff to contact me. Misstatements (sic) like the ones that appeared in the editorial may lead to considerable confusion and may prevent students from exercising their rights under the Code.
Mary Louise Antieau
Resolution coordinator