100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

June 17, 1980 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1980-06-17

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 4-Tuesday, June 17, 1980-The Michigan Daily

TAKE, t E
BEH1N1
I JT!
-/

Tisch would be
devastating to 'U'
F ROBERT TISCH'S tax-cutting'proposal ap-
pears on the November ballot and proves too
tempting to inflation-weary voters, the University
and other state-supported institutions will have
to cope with financial disaster.
At first glance, Tisch's proposal to cut 20 per cent
of the state's total budget does not appear so
drastic. But because most of the state's budget is
bound by the state constitution or by state bonds to
support programs, the $2 billion cut would have to
come, not from the total budget, but from the
state's $3.5 billion general fund budget, which sup-
ports higher education and virtually all public ser-
vices.
The Tisch amendment, then, would mean not 20
per cent, but more than 50 per cent of the money to
fund Michigan public services would be cut. That
consequence would be a catastrophe for the state
residents.
University administrators have estimated that
tuition would have to be doubled just to allow the
state's schools to remain open. University students
know too well that double tuition would price vir-
tually everyone out of the education market.
The presidents of Michigan's colleges recently
sent letters to the governor and state represen-
tatives denouncing the Tisch amendment. Their
alarm should not be interpreted by an uninformed
public as "scare tactics." Their concern is genuine.
If Tisch's amendment should be approved the
state would be left with no means to recoup the lost
revenue. Unlike California, which was able to sof-
ten the blow of Proposition 13 with a large state sur-
plus, Michigan has no extra funds.
A special clause in the Tisch amendment would
prohibit the state from raising income taxes to
recover some of the necessary funfds without a
referendum and 60 per cent favorable vote. Even if
the state would eventually receive a mandate to
raise income taxes, it would be years before it
could recover from the devastating blow of the
Tischi amendment.
The state is already facing afinancial crisis. Cuts
in the higher education appropriation have forced
the Regents to consider tuition increases of 15 per
cent or higher. The situation looks bleak enough
without the meddling of the Shiawassee drain
commissioner.
Unfortunately, Tisch's proposal to cut property
taxes 60 per cent may look very good to Michigan
voters. University administrators and state of-
ficials must combine their efforts to let the public
know exactly what the amendment will do.
Alternative measures have been proposed that
would shift the burden of acquiring revenue from
property taxes to income or sales taxes. These
proposals provide irate taxpayers with much more
sensible tax-cutting alternatives.
Voters in the November election must be made to
realize that virtual destruction of many of
Michigan's vital institutions is far too high a price
to payfor whateerwiindfalls the Tisch amen-
dment may offer.

Vi

ECONOMIC
9pfR4

I:

I
. l

in e 4
tube
An estimated 10
Americans are infertil
want children, but for a v
reasons, they cannot ha
Until the birth of Louise]
England in 1978, those peg
little to look forward to b
disappointment.
Louise was a test tub(
vitro" baby, conceiv
laboratory and implante
mother's womb, bypass
blocked Fallopian tube;
prevented passage of the
the uterus for norm
tilization.
FOR AT LEAST
American women who a
tile because of d
Fallopian tubes, the
Louise Brown offered n
Two more children, one
another in England, i
ceived outside the wa
following year, and a
Norfolk, Virginia, annou
March that it had su
inimpregnating women
U.S. through similar pro(
But hopes that one so
infertility has been fo
premature, and they
dangerous.
Science does not hav(
good track record in ant
the problems that can ar
technological tamperi
nature. Our theoretical
are too simple-minded a
led to many unforeseen p
of pest control, waste,
and other aspects of
usually refprred to
ecological crisis.

~ase against test
baby technology
million By Ruth Hobbad offers new options. But the Ethics
e: they y ub ar Review Board which advised the
ariety of Secretary of Health, Education
areyof I N REPRODUCTIVE and Welfare on this procedure
ve them. BIOLOGY, many interacting and timately endore
Brown in processes, though often crucial, restricted its use to married
aple had are poorly understood. We cannot couples, as did the Norfolk clinic,
ut more enumerate or describe the many If this technology is to put women
reactions which must occur at in possession of a natural right,
e, of "in critical times during the early what does matrimonyhave to do
ed in a stages of embryonic development with it? To have in vitro fer-
d in her. when the fetus begins to develop tilization immediately tied to
sing the and implant itself in the uterus. restrictions of the conditions un-
-which The push toward this der which women are to be
egg into technology reinforces the view allowed to bear children removes
al fer- that women's lives are unfulfilled any pretense that it will be used
or indeed worthless unless we to increase our options.
600,000 bear children. In our culture This is also an extremely com-
ireate infer- women are taught to submit to piae technology, hard to
amaged restrictions and dangers: we demystify and requiring highly
story of can't go out alone at night, we skilled professionals. There is no
ew hope. allow ourselves to be made self- sky to prtfescontrolhintoith
in India, conscious by gawkers and to be hands of the women who will be
ere con- molested by strangers without exposed to it. On the contrary, it
omb the responding violently. Women are locks them and their babies even
clinic in led to believe that we must put up more completely into the high-
nced last with all of this-withoutmec yg
icceeded grousing-because we have technology, super-
1 inthe omehing besde wichprofessionalized medical system.
in the something beside which They will be monitored all their
cedures. everything else pales, something lives, often by methods which
lution to that will make up for everything, themselves involve some degree
)und are We can have babies! Infertility of hazard.
may be means paying the social price of The final issue-and a major
womanhood only to be denied its one-is that this technology is ex-
e a very supposed reward. pensive because it requires
icipating But to promise women children prolonged experimantation, well-
rise from by means of an untested paid professionals and costly
ng with technology-that is in fact being equipment.
models tested only as it is used on them equipment.
nd have and their babies-is adding yet Dr. Ruth Hubbard is a
roblems another burden to our biologist at Harvard Univer-
disposal, socialization.
what is WOMEN ARE TOLD that this sity. She wrote this article for
,s the .is a: bberatingtechlology which PacficNewsSevice.

4

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan