Newspaper Page Text
■ QUOTABLE
4 « The Red and Black « Thursday, June 28, 1990
OPINIONS
l was carrying an M l rifle on skis in a ski regiment In Japan
when he was still In diapers.
— State Court Solicitor Ken Stula on challenger Ken Mauldin
The Red & Black
EstabLihed 1993—Incorporated 1990
An independent student neu ipaper not affiliated with tKe University of Georgia
Jennifer Rampey/Editor-irvChief
Trevor Padgett/Managing Editor
David Johnston/Opinions Editor
■ EDITORIALS
Personal choice
The U.S. Supreme Court, in ruling on Monday that
states may require notification of both parents when
their unmarried minor child seeks an abortion, has
once again paved the way for new restrictions on a
woman’s right to choose.
The problem with notification laws, which seek to
protect the child from a possibly unwise decision, is
that they cannot anticipate all of the problems the pre
gnant minor may be facing. Most American children
don’t grow up in “Leave it to Beaver" households with
incredibly understanding parents to help them
through any problem.
Though the court ruled that the laws must provide
for a judicial waiver of the requirement, the very idea
that she may have to notify her parents of her preg
nancy may scare an abused girl into getting a back-
alley abortion. This provision also depends completely
upon whether or not an unbiased and sympathetic
judge can be found.
The only laws that can deal effectively with teenage
pregnancy are those which require public school sex
education classes which give detailed instruction in the
use of available birth control devices.
Abortion is an issue which can never be defined
with black and white generalities. No outsider, in
cluding a parent, can possibly judge a woman’s ability
to carry, give birth to, and possibly raise a child.
The issue ultimately boils down to the fact that no
body has the right to tell another person, even a minor,
what he/she may or may not do with his/her body.
Rapid Success
The student-run talk show “Rapid Fire,” which will
celebrate the beginning of its sixth season on Friday, is
proof that University students are not, as moderator
David Herndon has put it, “apathetic booze-hounds.”
The political talk show is the only program from
channel 34’s original schedule that is still on the air
and according to market research conducted by the sta
tion, its their most watched show. Channel 34 reaches
30 counties in Northeast Georgia.
The “Rapid Fire” format evolved from a simple
panel of campus leaders whose positions ran the gamut
from leftist to far right.
The show now features such political luminaries as
Andrew Young, Pat Swindall, Hosea Williams, Pierre
Howard and Lauren “Bubba” McDonald facing ques
tions from the all-student panel. It’s also been an arena
for University debate. Former Secretary of State Dean
Rusk, University President Charles Knapp and Ath
letic Director Vince Dooley have also appeared on the
show. The highlight of this season will be an interview
by Herndon with out-going Governor Joe Frank Harris.
The show will air on July 27th.
“Rapid Fire" is an impressive example of how stu
dents can bring UGA concerns to the attention of
Georgia’s political elite. Keep up the good work.
Thank you
We should all be grateful to the 177 men and
women of the U.S. House of Representatives who had
the political courage and patriotism to stand up for our
Bill of Rights. In the face of real danger to their fall
campaigns, these congresspersons wisely voted against
the proposed constitutional amendment which would
have allowed laws prohibiting the “desecration” of the
U.S. flag. Their loyalty to the principles of the
Founding Fathers demonstrates once again how well
our system of government works.
STAFF
NEWS: 543 1809
New* Editor. Mary RatcliW*
Sports Editor Jon Tully
Entortalnmont Editor: Rachel Curry
Associate Nows Editor. Elizabeth Graddy
Front Pago Copy Editor David Johnston
Insido Copy Editors N Cfc Schweitzer.
Stephanie Smith
Graphics Editor Howard Fore
Photo Editor Wayne Jackson
Photographer Maria Clay
Staff Writers: Ounnn Bruns. J Leitfi Burrell.
Carol Causey. Cathy Ferris. Patrick Flanigan.
Dan Pool, Jeff Rutherford. J D Squiliante.
Beth Vaiinoti. Douglas Wood
Entertainment Writer David Williams
Sports Writer David Pace
Special Sect lone/T rende Edlter. Maria
towards
Editorial Assistant: Laura Roe
Cartoonist: Mike Moreu
ADVERTISING: 543-1791
Student Advertising Managers:
rirsti Burnham. KrtcRsBs Haluaiam
Senior Advertleing Representative: Rick
Huggins
Advertising Representatives: Jeff Harris.
Alan Holcomb. Chns Munguia, Toby Myers,
Kipp Mullis, Maureen Musgrove. Lee Nettles.
Jane Rice
Assistant Editorial Prod. Manager: Cristina
Feindt
General Manager Harry Montevideo
Advertising Director Robin Stoner
Office Manager Mary Straub
Production Manager Judy Jordan
ClaealReda/Roceptlonlat Beverly Vaughn
The He* M Buck is puNished Tjaadey through
Fneey dunrg tne regular scnooi year and seen
Thursday dur<ng summer quarter with the exceptions
of hokdsys and oaom periods, by The Red and Btacfc
Publishing Company inc. a nonprofit compus
newsoaper not affiliated with the UnhtOfSity of
Georgia. 123 N. Jackson St.. Athens, Gs 30601
Third ctsss postags paid at Athens. Gs Subacnptpn
'ats 124 par year
Oputona expressed In The Rad and ■ash other than
unsigned aditonais are the opinions of the wntors of
Signed columns and no* necessarily those of The Rad
and Buck Publishing Company inc All rights
reserved Reprints by permission of the editors
Ga. government needs some ‘good ol’ gals’
As the July 17th Georgia primary ap
proaches, our thoughts are once again focused
on who to cast our votes for. When we go to pull
the lever on election day, we should pause for a
moment and consider the candidates we will
not be voting for. Specifically, we should ask
ourselves why there is such a glaring absence of
women on the ballot. Out of 58 candidates
seeking statewide office in Georgia, only four
are women - and none of them have a strong,
well-financed political organization.
It is astounding that Georgians have yet to
elect a woman to any statewide position. In sev
eral other states, women now occupy the polit
ical forefront. From U.S. Senators Barbara
Mikulski (D-Md.) and Nancy Kassenbaum (R-
Kan.) to women governors in Vermont, Arizona
and Nebraska, the ’80s have seen capable
women serving in leadership positions.
There are also strong female gubernatorial
candidates currently running in Texas, Alaska
and Massachusetts. In seven states, the odds
are favorable that women will be voted into the
U.S. Senate (in Hawaii, Illinois and Rhode Is
land especially, the GOP has a good chance of
electing female senators.) Yet Georgia and its
electorate have consistently chosen to stay be-
hind-the-times in putting women into high of
fices.
The difficulties encountered by female office-
seekers in Georgia are well-illustrated in
former State Representative Cathey Stein
berg’s 1988 campaign for the Public Service
Commission (PSC). Steinberg experienced first
hand the problems of trying to be a “good ol*
gal” in a male dominated political world.
Steinberg, the mother of two daughters, was
subjected to a smear campaign which depicted
her as a radical “anti-family” feminist. Her
strong pro-choice views made her an easy
target. But these issues have nothing to do with
the function of the PSC, which is regulating-
Stephanie
Stuckey
Georgia’s utility companies, and Steinberg’s
strong record as a consumer advocate in the
statehouse was virtually ignored. She was de
feated in the Democratic primary run-ofT by
good ol* boy and Georgia Power favorite Bobby
Rowan.
One area in which male office-seekers have a
clear advantage is fund-raising. Businessmen,
who contribute the most to political campaigns,
are reluctant to give money to female candi
dates. Men have business and social organiza
tions which are a ready source of campaign
funds. Clubs like Gridiron offer male candi
dates a built-in financial network that women
are excluded from. As for female contributors,
not only do women earn considerably less
money than men, but they are less prone to
part with it, even to support a female candi
date.
The good ol* boy’s response to accusations of
sexism is that Georgians would elect women
statewide if they would run. Unfortunately,
Georgia lacks a political network that encour
ages competent women to seek office. There is
by no means a scarcity of qualified women.
However, female candidates are handicapped
by a political system that caters to a select
group of men.
One decisive advantage female candidates
hold over the good ol* boys is the public percep
tion of women having clean hands when it
comes to politics. Although there was plenty of
mud-slinging from all sides, voters in Texas re
cently blamed male candidates for dirty cam
paign tactics by a margin of four to one. Years
of exclusion from the political arena make it
easier for women to credibly present them
selves as untouched by political corruption.
George Bush’s often-criticized comment after
his 1984 debate with Geraldine Ferraro that
“we tried to kick a little ass” shows the diffi
culty men have in finding the right tone for a
campaign against a woman. If men come on too
combatively, they risk looking aggressive and
losing the support of the female electorate.
However, if male candidates choose an ap
proach that’s too soft, they might easily find
themselves defeated.
Last February, a debate between Massachu
setts’ candidates for governor led to accusations
that Francis Bellotti, was bullying his female
opponent, Lieutenant Governor Evelyn
Murphy, and his popularity shrank in the polls.
Candidates like Ann Richards of Texas, have
found that the male political elite can be com
bated with quick wit and candor. After hearing
opponent Clayton Williams lament about the
difficulties of running against a woman, Rich
ards quipped, “Even cowboys get the blues. I
don’t want to be his mother. I want to be the
governor of Texas."
The political climate for female candidates is
improving. With the growing public interest in
issues where women are strong - abortion, edu
cation, health care and the environment - the
ground is fertile for female candidates. Al
though Georgia still lags far behind other
states in political opportunities for women, the
good ol’ boys may soon wake up to find a "good
ol’ gal” in the Governor’s Mansion.
Stephanie Stuckey is a second year law stu
dent at the University.
Supreme Court should recognize privacy right
Joyce and Joe Cruzan are looking for some
peace for their family and their daughter
Nancy, and an end to the long “funeral" that
began seven years ago when Nancy Cruzan’s
car crashed on an icy road. Since then, she has
existed in a vegetative state, so still for so long
that her limbs have atrophied, her hands have
curled to claws; according to one account,
nurses have to wedge napkins under her fin
gers to keep her nails from piercing her wrists.
Nancy Cruzan has spent the past seven years
existing only by means of a tube through her
stomach, and according to doctors she could go
on in this state for 30 more years.
In 1987, the Cruzans sought permission to
have Nancy’s feeding tube removed, on the
grounds that she would not want to live in this
state, on artificial support. As there was no
living will, and no clear evidence, other than
the testimony of Nancy’s family and friends,
that Nancy would want to die in her present
condition, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled
that her family could not remove life support.
On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld
that ruling, allowing states to prohibit families
from withdrawing life support from comatose
loved ones. The Cruzans, and other families,
should be allowed to make this painful decision
without the government intruding on their pri
vate grief.
There are those who would say that once it is
acceptable to simply stand by and watch a pa
tient die, the day will soon come when has-
Terrance
Heath
tening an inevitable death with a lethal
injection is common practice. They mistakenly
equate removal of life support with active
murder or suicide assistance. There is no ques
tion that lethal injection, in the case of such (ex-
trauterine) patients is the taking of life and
violates the ethics of medicine, but to remove
life support is not the same; it is simply to allow
the patient to die in the manner she would have
if the artificial support had not been employed.
In cases that often require immediate deci
sions and treatment by doctors, it has become
common practice to start life support without
consulting with the patient’s family; often,
there is simply no time, as doctors must act
quickly to preserve any possible chance of
saving the patient’s life. These situations, com
bined with laws that prohibit (unconditionally)
the removal of life support systems, create situ
ations in which the duty of the physician con
flicts with the family’s desire to carry out their
loved one’s wishes. Patients who have almost
no hope of recovery are supported artificially
for indeterminate amounts of time, and their
families and doctors are helpless to do anything
to help them recover or die. These complica
tions are compounded, in cases such as Cru
zan’s, when there is no “living will” that states
a wish not to have life sustained artificially, or
that indicates what sort of physical conditions
are to trigger removal of life support when
there is no time to consult such a document.
Allowing life support removal, while banning
doctor assisted suicide, would untie the hands
of physicians and families who want to help
those who suffer painful and incurable illness
to die with dignity when their bodies can no
longer naturally support life without external,
artificial means. Families such as the Cruzans
rarely seek more than the relief of a loved one’s
suffering, and an end to the family’s grief.
This Supreme Court ruling is one of a series
of decisions that fail to protect the right to pri
vacy, failing to draw the line beyond which gov
ernment may not influence the private lives of
citizens. Other decisions allow tne government
to intrude into the reproductive lives and bed
rooms of citizens, ana this most recent ruling
extends that intrusion to the death bed.
How families choose to handle private trage
dies is not the business of government. Once
again, the Court has shown itself cowardly
when the right to privacy must be protected.
Terrance Heath is a senior English major
Bush a fair-weather friend
■ FORUM
□ The Red and Black welcomes letters to the editof and prints them in the Forum
column as space permits All leners are sub)ect to editing lor length style and li
belous material. Letters should be typed, doublespaced and must include the name,
address and daytime telephone number of the wnter. Please include student dassift
cation, major, and other appropriate identification. Names can be omitted with a valid
raason upon request Letters can be sent by U.S. mail or brought in person to The Red
and Black s offices at 123 N. Jackon St. Athena, Ga.
Read my lips, no new term for
George Bush. Tuesday’s announce
ment that he is going to raise taxes
broke his most memorable cam
paign promise. However, this is not
the first action that contradicts the
words that got him elected. Ameri
cans have come to the cold realiza
tion that Bush lied time and time
again to everyone about virtually
everything.
Early in the ’88 campaign Bush
was a staunch anti-choice candi
date. Now, as it becomes increas
ingly clear that this is a losing
position, he nnd the Republican
party are doing everything they
can to worm their way out of the
anti-choice camp, limiting the
rights of women.
Who can forget the debate over
gun control when good ol’ George
said that he would not restrict the
right to bear arms? In order to gain
the support of the powerful Na
tional Rifle Association Bush many
times said he would never even
ban assault weapons. Then, just
months into his presidency, when a
crazed killer made this stand un
popular, Bush reversed course
again.
Tuesday I read George’s lips. He
told America that he is going to
raise taxes.
No matter what side of an issue
you are on, you cannot feel comfort
able with Bush. Even if he says
that he is on your side, tommorrow
he may flip flop and wimp out on
the issue. Bush sides with what
ever group is marching outside the
White House on a particular day. It
is time for the United States to
have a president that bases his de
cisions upon convictions, not poll.i
Re .lemher this in November 1992
Phil Smith
8enior, political science
pree., UGA Young Democrats