Response to Russell Witham’s “Fight Abortion Act”
While I take issue with many points made in Mr. Witham’s article “Fight Abortion Act,” I will limit myself to discussing those that I found most potentially misleading.
The 1989 decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (RHS) was not “a major victory against Roe v. Wade,” as Mr. Witham described it. The decision simply stated, according to the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, “it is inappropriate for federal courts to address [the Missouri statute’s] meaning.” In fact, Rehnquist declined to explicitly overrule the Roe decision and emphasized that “[Webster v. RHS] affords us no occasion to revisit the holding of Roe É and we leave it undisturbed.”
The Supreme Court strictly decides the constitutionality of statutes and lower court decisions. A quote in Mr. Witham’s article was incredibly misinterpreted; “Roe v. Wade implies no limitation on the authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion.” This simply means that the federal courts have no control over States’ rights to make a judgment on abortion, whether it be for or against it. The Supreme Court merely enforced the fact that abortion laws are decided by the States and therefore do not involve a constitutional question, giving them no authority in this matter. This decision, or “non-decision” as it were, did not, by any stretch of the imagination, show support for either Missouri’s anti-abortion statutes or the Roe v. Wade decision that a women’s right to get an abortion falls within the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy.
So the Freedom of Choice Act isn’t in opposition to the decision in Webster v. RHS, as implied by Mr. Witham, because there was no decision. The suggestion by Mr. Witham that this should be considered a value judgment by the Supreme Court is absurd and is evidence of his lack of understanding of the federal judiciary. Also, considering that FOCA is federal legislation and abortion law is governed the State, how is it a “desperate move to undermine a relatively conservative Supreme Court?” Who’s undermining what here? Under FOCA, states can make all the anti-choice laws their oppressive little hearts desire, just as long as they don’t make desperate moves like Missouri and pass laws that violate established constitutional rights which undermine the Supreme Court i.e. Roe v. Wade.
One thought that I feel might clear up Mr. Witham’s confusion is the importance of discerning between the ideas of promoting and allowing. The distinction between these terms is a common source of misunderstanding of the Pro-Choice Movement and can significantly affect one’s view on related legislation such as FOCA. Promoting implies that you actively advocate for one thing over another, while allowing simply implies that you passively permit people to choose between things. No one who considers themselves to be pro-choice ever promotes abortion over childbirth. The idea that pro-choicers would rather have women get abortions as opposed to have children is ridiculous. What pro-choicers do promote is allowing abortion. By enacting legislation that does not allow abortion, you are promoting childbirth because it becomes the only option. By enacting legislation that does allow abortion, you are not promoting either abortion or childbirth; you are simply giving options to freely choose from.
I have no issues with Mr. Witham’s personal opinion on abortion. In fact, if faced with a personal decision, Mr. Witham’s choice would be the same as my own. I take issue with the facts that he uses to form the basis of his opposition to FOCA. The facts are grossly distorted and reflect his inability to correctly interpret the references he cites, devaluing all of his reasoning. It seems as though Mr. Witham contorted his research to support a preexisting opinion.
Christina Scarano
senior, criminology
DARE brainwashes youth
Paul McCauley got a bull’s-eye (Wake Up And Smell The Cannabis, Feb. 8, 2009) describing the relatively safe, socially acceptable, God-given plant cannabis (marijuana). DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) on the other hand is a menace contributing to increased deadly hard drug addiction rates.
DARE brainwashes youth into believing lies, half-truths and propaganda concerning cannabis, which causes grave future problems.
How many citizens try cannabis and realize it’s not nearly as harmful as taught in DARE type government environments? Then they think other substances must not be so bad either, only to become addicted to deadly drugs. The old lessons make cannabis out to be among the worst substances in the world, even though it’s never killed a single person.
The federal government even classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance along with heroin, while methamphetamine and cocaine are only Schedule II substances. For the health and welfare of America’s children, that absolutely must change.
Stan White
Dillon, Colorado
Focus on charity aspect of KKC
The headline Monday was “Winner overlooked in KKC confusion.” This headline misses the spirit of the event and focuses on a small glitch during an event that was an overwhelming success. Out of 5,500 people there was such a tiny fraction of the participants that actually contended for the title. The event was really about raising money for a charity and establishing a tradition at N.C. State. Rather than focus on a small flaw we would have liked to have seen a positive headline that celebrated the overwhelming success and growth of the event.
Christine Craven
Senior, Chemistry
Chris Widman
Graduate Student Economics
