Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 24, 1978)
opinion ars Abortion-aid ban unfair, short-sighted We consider Ballot Measure 7 to be perhaps the most vicious and ill advised proposition facing voters Nov. 7. If approved, the measure would pro hibit the state legislature from helping low-income women pay for abortions. The measure also would inflict a broader disservice on all Oregon women facing the dilemna of an un wanted pregnancy by preventing state agencies and personnel from discus sing or printing information on the al ternative of abortion. Several years ago the U.S. Supreme Court settled the strictly legal aspects of this issue by ruling that women have an unqualified right to an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy and a qualified right in later months. Persons and organizations who op posed abortion for personal moral reasons, however, continued the battle in the political arena and have met some success, especially at the federal level. Oregon stepped in last year and fil led the funding gap created when the federal government abruptly restricted abortion aid for the poor. Our antagonism to Measure 7 does not mean we support abortion as the only answer to an unexpected pre gnancy, merely that we do not pre sume to prescribe the answer to this often traumatic situation. That remains a decision for which only the individuals involved should be responsible. The social impact of the measure’s successful passage would be severe. Medical costs of childbirth and child raising plus the psychological costs—for both parent and offspring — of nurturing an unwanted child appear far greater than the finan-. cial cost to taxpayers that would be required by state aid. Certainly, child abuse appears more likely in homes where one or more children are un wanted. These costs of Measure 7’s passage would be compounded by the injustice of its application only to low-income women—those least able, emotionally and financially, to raise an unwanted child—while more affluent women would continue to have access to the abortion alternative. Measure 7 is a loser; we ask you to vote “no” on it. Death penalty is better off buried At four different times in its history, Oregon has executed persons for a variety of crimes. Four times, voters have banished the practice. According to recent opinion polls, however, Orego nians appear ready to vote capital punishment back in, this time in the form of Ballot Measure 8. Too bad. Advocates of the death penalty traditionally base their arguments on its presumed value in deterring major crimes and on an antiquated idea that justice demands satisfactory recompense for a wrongful death—you know, “an eye for an eye” and so on. The first argument may always remain problematic, since charting crimes that have not occurred seems a difficult task. However, research indicates that no sig nificant difference exists between rates of violent crime in states with the death penalty compared to those with out it. Hegarding the second argument, that capital punishment meets the demands of justice, we must demur. State-conducted murder seems no less barbaric and no more moral than that conducted by the indi vidual. Indeed, some studies have indicated that execu tions provide a rationalization for personal violence. Secondly, justice fails when capital punishment—as too often happens—is invoked dispro portionately against racial minorities and poor persons lacking the skilled legal representation available to the affluent. Finally, capital punishment denies justice the pos sibility of redressing a legal wrong—in the case of er roneous conviction—once the condemned is dead. The Emerald asks you to leave the death penalty buried;.vote “no” on Measure 8. Page 4 Measure iu threatens lana use The latest effort to dismantle Oregon’s comprehensive land use-planning system awaits vot ers in the guise of Ballot Measure 10. We have little patience for the transparently self-serving pur poses of the proposition’s advo cates. Measure 10 would effectively return primary control of future land use in Oregon to local au thorities subject to influence by special and private interests. In addition, the measure would wipe out four years of progress under the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in forging consistent, statewide land-use guidelines and goals out of the diverse in terests of overlapping jurisdic tions. Both results would be accomp lished by requiring the legislature to create new statewide, land-use standards—an impossible task within the 60 days set by Measure 10—and then denying the LCDC authority to enforce those guidelines. Essentially, approval of Meas ure 10 would return us to the days of hodge-podge planning, urban sprawl, commercial strip-zoning and environmental havoc that ex isted before LCDC. At that time, many local agen cies allowed these blunders by failing to resist the temptation of expanded property-tax revenues promised bywell-financed special interests, i.e., real-estate speculators, in return for free wheeling “development.” This problem was aggravated by many local officials having sizeable property interests of their own, a situation that hasn’t changed. Oregonians should do them selves a favor and vote “no” on Measure 10. greg wasson tabled indefinitely Contrary to my fantasies as a high school senior it didn’t prove much easier in the big time. The University was not a playground where willing partners were easy to find. And when one was lo cated, I still made the same mis takes — often because they’d never been pointed out to me. Now, there’s a feeling of want ing to go back in time. To show the women I was first with what I’ve learned and ask them why they didn’t teach me. Thafcan’t happen but maybe I’d have been less inept had my edu cation been better, had I been ex posed to a frankness like that in the Emerald’s weekly column, “Ask the sexpert.” But many would deny me the ability to use that frankness. Once “Ask the sexpert" started, letters flew to Pres. Boyd, Editor Tom Wolfe, State Rep. Dave Frohn mayer, State Sen. George Wing uard, even the three county com missioners. Randall Douglas, speaking for the Mormon church, labels the column an “insult to the self respecting students, faculty and staff,” of the U. A concerned mother writes that producing “this article for a public newspaper in the guise of educa tion, shows poor taste and judge ment. Another letter sneers that “typi cally one would have to be 18 and shell out $2.50 for letters to the - editor’ advice such as that." Bohunk. A theme common to the critics’ letters is “we’re fucked-up about sex and our kids are going to be fucked-up, too.” Forget it. Explanations such as the sexpert column offer your kids a way out of the ignorance you would sentence them to. Besides giving those with no one to ask a chance to learn about sex, the column gives those in volved in a relationship a place to go for advice. Sometimes talking to your partner about sex be comes uncomfortable and the anonymity of the column lets those with questions ask without facing that pressure and em barassment. The forceful commands to pull the column remind me of a bumper-sticker argument stating , “God said it. I believe it. That set tles it.” Okay, just don’t try and force me to believe it too. My morality, dis torted as it may be by seven years in college, says the column’s not an offense to good taste but a candid look at a subject important to us all. voi jrs Support Archie My name is Pamela Marion Brodie and I am 29 years old. I am for life, freedom and the prin ciples outlined in the Virginia Bill of Rights, commonly known as the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Archie Weinstein is also for these things and I support him. Thank you. Pamela M. Brodie Honors College senior, history The Emerald will accept and try to print all letters and opinion columns containing fair comment on ideas and topics of concern or interest to the University community. Letters and opinions must be typewritten, using 65-character margins, and should be thple-spaced. Letters and opinions must be signed, with the author’s year and field of study (or faculty status) noted. Letters and opinions will be run on a first-come first-served basis. Tuesday. October 24,1978
