EDITORIAL
Don't Rush
To Amend
This Fourth of July was a pretty normal Independence Day.
Bands played rousing music, stirring speeches were delivered to stir-
red audiences, fireworks lit the skies — and even though it is now
as legal as the speed limit, there were only two American flags
burned anywhere in the land.
This non-occurrence may have been a gross omission by what
the guardians of the Flag see as potential conspiracy to desecrate
Old Glory. More likely, it was a sign that even with the full force
of the Supreme Court protecting the burning of the American flag,
there is no great desire to see the Stars and Stripes go up in flames,
not even on a day when the nation's attention is drawn to it as in-
stinctively as it is drawn to the music of Sousa or Ives or to aerial
pyrotechnics.
The flag is a special object. No doubt about that. It is emblematic
of the best of this country: Its freedoms, its privileges, its broad per-
mission for each of us to exercise what the Declaration of In-
dependence calls "our inalienable rights." The flag is respected by
those who hauled it aloft on Iwo Jima, by schoolchildren who pledge
their allegiance to it every day before lessons begin, and even by
those who tailored it into fanciful shirts in the '60s.
Flag-burning is a shocking and disturbing act. It is intended to
be such. But this, the first nation that broke from its "mother" coun-
try, is a nation that was founded on shocking acts. For the American
Revolution to end up enshrining Old Glory as an inviolable symbol
is a violation of the promise of the Revolution and a breach of the
rights for which that war was fought. Blood was not spilled during
the Revolution over a symbol, nor has it been shed for a symbol in
subsequent wars. It was spilled for reality. And that reality is the
freedom that lets us wave the flag or even wrap ourselves in it —
or engage in any of the rights listed in the first 10 amendments,
which are not coincidentally called the Bill of Rights.
Those who are clamoring for a constitutional amendment to ban
flag-burning are also clamoring for an alteration of the Bill of Rights.
As unconscionable as flag-burning may be to most Americans,
diluting the right of free speech would be even more unconscionable.
To elevate the flag to the status of a deity would be to mistake a
symbol of freedom for an actual guarantee of freedom, confuse the
container of freedom for the actual contents.
A constitutional amendment for the American flag could have
some interesting side effects. Would an amendment ban commer-
cial use of the American flag? Should store owners use the nation's
symbol to call attention to their advertisements? Would Richard
Headlee be in violation of a new law for flying a huge American flag
in front of his insurance company on Interstate 696? Should we ex-
amine his motives — patriotic or commercial.?
Flag-burning is an inciteful act, designed to garner public at-
tention for one's own motives. Commercial use of the flag has the
same motive. If respect for the flag is the issue can we ban the one
and not the other?
George Bush made the flag a political issue during last year's
presidential campaign. He is doing it again with his endorsement
of a constitutional amendment outlawing desecration of the flag. In
so doing, the president diminishes himself and his office as well as
the flag.
A patriot does not wrap himself in the flag. He allows the flag
to be what it is: a valiant symbol of liberty. And he assures that that
liberty will remain pure, that it will not be "desecrated." To do other-
wise it is to blindly intrude upon the basic principles of this nation.
INSIGHT
Activists Are Dismayed By Abortion Decision
JAMES I/ BESSER
Washington Corresponden t
ewish groups in Wash-
ington were main-
taining a calm facade
while their legal experts
studied this week's complex
decision in the Webster v.
Reproductive Health Services
case.
j
Unofficially, a number of
Jewish activists expressed
dismay and anger at the deci-
sion, which gives states great-
ly expanded power to regulate
abortion and sends a signal of
greater judicial latitude to
jurisdictions that want to cut
back significantly on
abortion.
6
FRIDAY, JULY 7, 1989
And pro-choice activists for
several Jewish organizations
expressed alarm at the
Court's announcement that it
will hear two more important
abortion cases in the fall, in-
cluding an Illinois case that
experts suggest could result
in a ruling more directly af-
fecting the landmark Roe v.
Wade decision which legaliz-
ed abortion.
"While we are delighted
that the Supreme Court has
decided to uphold the con-
stitutionality of Roe v. Wade,
we are saddened that the
court has decided to chip
away at womens' reproduc-
tive rights by giving states
the power to regulate abor-
tions," said Lenore Feldman
of the National Council of
Jewish Women. "In many
states, this decision will turn
the clock back to the days
before the 1973 ruling and
will open a door for states to
abandon a woman's right to
choose."
In its official reaction to the
decision, NCJW, which has
been a leading player among
Jewish organizations in the
battle to support legal abor-
tion, suggested that the deci-
sion will also cause greater
health care inequities as
abortions become more dif-
ficult and more expensive to
obtain.
"On a personal level, I feel
it's ironic that on the day
before our Independence Day
celebration, more than half of
all Americans have had a
huge measure of their in-
dependence taken away from
them," said Joan Bronk, na-
tional vice-president for
NCJW. Bronk was one of
numerous pro-choice activists
on the steps of the Supreme
Court on Monday as the deci-
sion was handed down. "But
we are just beginning to show
our outrage and we will be do-
ing that at the state level
across the country."
The American Jewish Corn-
mittee issued an immediate
statement condemning the
decision. "We must hope the
court will consider its deci-
sion in Webster as the outer
limit in its interpretation of
Roe, and not as the first step
in the undermining of the
decision," a Committee
spokesperson said.
And the American Jewish
Congress, another group that
had lined up with the pro-
choice forces, worried that the
decision would encourage "in-
trusive and unnecessary" in-
tervention in the lives of
women.
"The decision was bad
news," said Steve Silbiger, the
group's Washington represen-
tative. "What the Court has
done is perpetuate the uncer-
tainty of this issue. And their
decision is an invitation to
further politicize the debate."
On the other side of the
Continued on Page 10