Letters to the Editor

Daily's stance on abortion lacks tolerance

To the Daily:

Regarding The Daily's Nov. 19 "Maintaining Choice" editorial: Yours is a position of hypocrisy and intolerance. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, it was by popular mandate. That means, whether you like it or not, a majority of voters supported their policies, which generally includes a pro-life stance.

Whether it was a small group of them or all of them, nothing gets out of Congress without a majority vote. Accordingly, as a function of our political process, a majority of people are assumed to support the refusal to fund abortions overseas. You don't have to like that, you just have to accept it. I highly doubt that if the inverse was true, that if it were Democrats in control, and a small group of them forced funding of abortions, that you would complain. I can see it now: "Dear Congress: I support abortions, and I support them being performed overseas with U.S. tax dollars. I must, however, take exception to the fact that it was a small group of you guys responsible making this possible. Like most Americans, I put the purity of the political process ahead of my own priorities, and until you guys do it right, that is, make it a large group of Democrats, I guess, I want you to reverse your action and defund those abortions. Sincerely, The Ethical Voter."

As if. I'll be sure to hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Furthermore, the "capitulation" that you refer to most certainly does not require detrimental effects to family planning clinics. You wrote that "The detrimental effects will be felt by family planning, population control and sexually transmitted disease prevention." You then mention that family planning clinics also provide health care and information to prospective mothers, and educating people about safe sex. Perhaps you could explain how abortions affect STD's, safe sex or the provision of health care and information to prospective mothers? The only effect, if there is any, is that women will have to pay for the abortions themselves if they want to use it as a form of birth control.

Of course, the clinics have the option of maintaining business as usual, with the exception of performing abortions. Since, as you assert, their primary focus is not abortion, it will have secondary effects at most.

If abortions only account for a small portion of any family planning association's funds, as your editorial asserts, then what's the big loss? Is it an ideological loss to you? Are you idealogues? Why is it OK to be a pro-abortion idealogue, but not a pro-life idealogue?

Taking abortion away from women in third world countries (and anywhere else) most certainly is defensible. You just find it objectionable and unpalatable. If abortions were restored by a group of idealogues, would you complain? Would that be indefensible to you? Shut your mouths and open your minds for a minute. Your position may be popular, it may be PC, but it is not the only position. Political viewpoints opposing your own are always defensible by somebody's standards. If you refuse to acknowledge their viewpoints and values, who then should acknowledge yours?

Anthony Beaumon

Law student

11-29-99