EDITORIAL
Senate hypocrisy
defeats Zoe Baird
President Bill Clinton withdrew the nomination of
Zoe Baird for U.S. attorney general last Thursday, suc
cumbing to pressure from several senators over her em
ployment of two illegal aliens. The Peruvian couple
was hired in July 1990 and received $1,000 each per
month and free room and board,
Whether Baird should have been confirmed is sub
ject to argument. Certainly she was guilty of breaking
the law — a big offense for an attorney general. Given
that both she and her husband have extensive legal
backgrounds, they probably should have known better.
As one Clinton adviser said, people perceive Baird as
being in "a class of people who think they are above
ino law.
Conversely, her of
fense was not huge. The
couple was paid signifi
cantly more than mini
mum wage and received
healthy benefits. While it
, would have been easy to
take advantage of an il
legal couple —- to pay far
less than they were worth
— Baird did not.
Rogardless of Baird's
had decision, the U.S.
Ifs more than
Ukefy that the
senators wen
looking form
reason not to
confirm hert and
this Is the first
that came up*
Senate itself has little right to pass judgment on other
people for ethical wrongdoing. After all. the Senate has
yet to investigate Bob Backwood s alleged misconduct.
Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme
Court dospite Anita Hill's convincing testimony. And
the Keating Five — after all the savings and loan rev
elations — still reside comfortably in their seats.
Ethics have never been high on the Senate’s priori
ty list, and it has proved increasingly hypocritical in its
preaching. Sexual harassment issues have embarrassed
the Senate of late, yet male members continue their in
sensitivity to women’s equality — despite members'
rhetoric to the contrary.
Which brings to light an interesting question. If a
man were running for attorney general, and the Senate
discovered he had hired illegal aliens in his past,
would the nominee have been hassled so severely?
Would the mostly male Senate have even cared? Proba
bly not. simply because the Senate still holds different
standards for male and female nominees.
7.00 Baird was held to higher ideals because she's a
woman, and a woman can't afford mistakes to be con
firmed. It's more than likely that the senators were
looking for a reason not to confirm her. and this is the
first that came up.
Baird certainly isn't the cleanest nominee Clinton
could have found. She may have been entirely wrong
for the Job given her apparent disrespoct for employ
ment laws. Better candidates are out there.
But the Senate has to examine its reasons for op
posing her confirmation. Was it because of her past,
which is probably no worse than your average senator?
Or was it because she was a woman, which may be too
much of a change for most senators to live with?
Oregon Daily
Emerald
li* FuGfM OH(GON 4’40)
The Oregon Gary Emwald « publrthad da*y Monday through Fnday Anrng Bw tchoot
yMr and Tuesday and Thursday dunng ma mnma by Bw Oregon D»)y Emwald Pubksiung
Co Inc . at in* Unrvartity ol Dragon. Eugan*. Dragon
Th# Emerald op*ral*» independently or Bt* Umverwty with ortca* at Soil* 300 o< lb*
Eib Memorial Urson and>* a narntar ol O'* Associated Praaa
th* f mar ad it private property Tb* unlawful removal or ua* ol pope's ■* proaacutatX*
by lav
EdHor Pm Maucn
New* Ednor JaaaBarg Fraalanca Editor HopeNaaraon
E (Mortal Editor Martm F«sh*r Editorial EdHor Rrvars Janaaan
QrapMca EdHor J*« Pssstay Sports Ednor Dana Chaibonn**,
Entertain mant Editor Fray*Morn Supplement* EdHor Ca**y Anovson
Ntght Editor- J»e Barg
AWWfat* Editor*: Twnmy Bal*y STudmi GovernmentAchv*** Daralyn Tiappa. Commu
nity. Codaan FVymg. MgAar £dUe*twnAcarvn,**ebon
Maws Start Oastar Alan. Mandy Baucum Molt Bandar. Jusbn Brown. Swan Dart. Dylan
CouAar Mag Oadolpn. Amy Davenport. Amanda Famy*. Ama Farran. Tarasa Huntsevgar.
lisaKneelel. l«a Maun Danvwi Mciaan. Slav* Mm*. Tirtm, Mu*a*r. Tost* Moat Martbaw
ScOuatar. Elan Snaw. Mehaai Shmdhv Enc* StudartCAa. Mwwn Su*or. McnaW Thomp
son Agutw. Amy van Tuyt. Todd Wfcamt Jacqunon* Wog*. Mama* Schuster
General Man agar Judy «•*! Production Managar Mcnw* How
Advertising Tom laech. Sharon Va1. Sal** Managar* Shawn Barvan. Ortca Manage,
jan* trot*. Tarasa lsab#«*. Ph*p Johnson II. On* Kanort. Jaramy Mason. Van V DByrar
It. OVhan Oh. Ang* Hfndtam
ClaasMad Peggy McGinn. Managar Barry Logan Sharon Sauve
OtatrttNiUen: Rebecca Brooks. Kna* Van Gordv. Anthony Wynn
tm-lH Kathy Carbon*. Stparvssor Judy Cormody
Production: Ingrd Whit*. FVodUcaon Coordnakir Knaan* Granger Da* McCobb. Stacy
Mach**. JanrsHu Roland. Janmlar Smah. Ann* Sraphanaon
nsumroorr ___MMBtt Dtaplay Advertising..MB47U
lualnaaa Ortto*.____. MENU CMaaWad Advertising-M»4M1
Something
old
Something
newsy
Sorathino
borrowed
Something
Lluesy
J BCMlStM \
nr'"— \
CHRISTOPHER
STA.TE
Lfitthe festivities "begin
MLii iVvO
.<(■>•*/ nm i
IS 7U£ WOVtVMOON
OVffi V£r ? -
COMMENTARY
Women suffer from Roe vs. Wade
By Satly Carmody Keeney
Tin* birth of TV character Murphy Brown's
baby sparked a public: debate about single
motherhood and prec ipitated the elec tion
year wrangling over "family values." The feud
began with his birth, but an earlier event, which
was far more crucial to Baby Brown's well-being
than his mother’s marital status, oddly went un
notit «d.
A not-yet-visibly pregnant Brown, in the first
trimester of her pregnancy, lay on the obstetri
cian's examining table and shouted ecstatically as
her unborn baby’s image materialized on the ul
trasound screen’ "My daughter! That’s my daugh
ter!" she exc laimed triumphantly as the various
parts were pointed out — until the tec hnic ian no
ticed the male genitalia.
Fortunately for the baby (and the show’s rat
ings). Murph decided to go
through with the pregnancy
Had she changed her mind,
however, that same exquisitely
formed little child, who only
moments before had elicited
such joyful cries of wonder from
his mother, would have been
summarily destroyed.
The most distressing aspect of
this scenario is not just the fact
that a woman would abort at
this point (4.000 times a day in
this country women do), but
that so many people would ap
plaud her unrestricted right to
do so — and believe themselves lo be progressive
defenders of women's rights because of it
Feminists who encourage incorporation, peace
groups who profess a commitment to non-vio
lence. and even newspapers that have coura
geously condemned capital punishment, noting
that "state-sponsored killing inevitably produces
a hard and faded society that's less respectful of
all life." would nonetheless agree that Brown
should have the "right to choose" to order her
unborn’s termination at any time for any reason.
This benign attitude toward abortion is not be
cause of ignorance. Most apologists for “choice"
are well aware that abortion destroys an innocent
human being. That irrefutable fact is especially
evident in the more than 150.000 second- and
third-term abortions performed annually in the
United States. , .
Warren Hem. a Colorado abortionist who spe
cializes in these late-term abortions, admitted the
grisly truth at a 1978 meeting of Planned Parent
hood physicians: "... There’s no possibility of de
nial of an act of destruction by the operator It is
before one’s eyes. The sensation of dismember
ment flows through the forceps like an electric
current.”
It may he discomforting for polite liberals to
hear the terminators’ shop talk, but it is absolute
Most of the social
ills that abortion on
demand was
supposed to cure
have actually
worsened in the 20
years since the
Roe vs. Wade
decision.
ly essential to cut through the pernicious rhetoric
of choice By placing all the emphasis on choos
ing. rather than discussing the activity being cho
sen. abortion-rights activists have obscured the
fact that women are sacrificing their own children
in a desperate bid for justice.
At this crucial point, the community has not
only a right but an obligation to intervene, just as
it has an obligation to intervene when any mem
ber is threatened by violence.
Most of the social ills that abortion on demand
was supposed to cure have actually worsened in
the 20 years since the Roe vs. Wade decision. Of
all the rationalizations given for abortion. |>erhaps
none has been more destructive than the mind set
behind the benevolent-sounding slogan, "Every
child a wanted child."
Instead of ending child abuse (by ending the
life of the child in utero), we have created a world
wnere 11 is uicumoeni upon a
child to prove herself lovable,
i.e. wanted, rather than being
the responsibility of adults to be
loving By relegating the fetus to
the legal status of extraneous tis
sue. we have also confirmed the
callous notion that sex is just
another excretory function.
Dot's anyone seriously believe
this development has enhanced
women’s lives or increased the
value of children?
Whether women are the vic
tims or victimizes in the abor
tion drama is a subject of some
debate. One thing is clear, however; they pay a
higher price for "sexual freedom" than men es
cape. The wildly exaggerated claims that thou
sands of women died from illegal abortions prior
to 1973 have been refuted by knowledgeable
abortion-rights activists.
Yet it is true that deaths occurred. The problem
is. women still suffer from abortion, regardless of
its legal status. Women are still wounded and
women still die from legal abortion. although
their deaths go unmentioned and unmourned
(and sometimes unraported) by those in the abor
tion industry.
There is a profound loneliness behind the bel
ligerent defiance of the new abortion-rights rally
ing cry. "Who decides?” It is the desperate loneli
ness of a woman with her back to the wall, and it
is not surprising she would resort to the violence
of abortion as a way out.
We are all painfully aware that gender injustice
is a reality. There can indeed be many problems
for a woman carrying an unintentionally con
ceived baby. We need to help her attack those
problems, not the baby.
Sally Carmody Keeney is state coordinator of
Feminists for Life of Oregon.