OPINION

Page 6

Friday, July 10, 1987

The Michigan Daily


4

97 Years of Editorial Freedom
No. 8S
Unsigned editorials represent the majority views of the Daily's
Editorial Board. Cartoons and signed editorials do not
necessarily reflect the Daily's opinion.

The death of a right

Cork Bork

PRESIDENT REAGAN CALLED
him "open-minded." Edwin Meese
called him "a fine choice." Judge
Robert Heron Bork is neither. He is
a rigid conservative who will
perpetuate the Reagan ideology if
approved by the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
Just in case you live under a
rock, Bork is President Reagan's
nominee to replace Justice Powell.
Powell was a moderate and provided
the key vote in many of the more
controversial court decisions, in-
cluding affirmative action and
abortion rulings. Bork will not
determine issues on a case by case
basis as Powell did. Bork has
shown his conservative ideology
will steer his judicial decisions. He
has publicly stated, "the Democrat -
ic Party stands for legal coercion as
a substitute for voluntary action;"
this "open-minded" individual has
called for the restriction of free
speech in some cases.
At first glance Bork's position
on the rights of the individual is
confusing. In 1963 he said the
ruling that allowed Blacks to
frequent restaurants was a "departure
from the freedom of the individual."
However, in 1984 he affirmed a
court ruling where a homosexual's
right to privacy was not found to be
constitutionally protected. In both
cases the Supreme Court interpreted
the constitution to rule against the
rights of an individual; in the
former a white supremist and in the
latter a homosexual. Bork's reading
of individual rights has not foll-
owed a consistent narrow or broad
path. It has however, followed a
consistent ideological path.
If Bork will follow his own
ideological preference, likewise, the
Democratically-controlled Senate
should follow its own preference.
The conservative Right would have
us believe that it is immoral to
-deny Bork a seat just because his
ideology ,is blatantly apparent.
However, the Right is practicing
convenient memory loss - some-
thing we've seen a lot of in Wash-
ington lately - and has forgotten
their 1968 filibuster that kept Abe
Fortas off the Supreme Court

because his ideology leaned to the
Left.
While we are on the subject of
constitutional rights we should
point out that the Senate has the
right and responsibility to take an
active role in selecting a justice.
The Supreme Court should reflect
the diversity of the publics' values.
With four conservatives already
holding seats, there is no fear that
their voice will be lost. Powell
should be replaced with someone
who is truly "open-minded," some-
one more amenable to all segments
of our society.
Another argument that comes
from the Right is that Bork's
credentials are impeccable. This is
another case of selective memory.
While his legal record is solid,
other activities are suspect. The
Senate is more than aware of Bork's
role in dismissing Archibald Cox as
special prosecutor during the
Watergate scandal. Senator Edward
Kennedy believes this factor alone
is enough to reject the nominee.
The Congress was outraged then
and later passed legislation that
freed prosecutors from the pres-
ident's jurisdiction. Bork has pub-
licly stated he does not regret his
decision. He "supported his presi -
dent" - just as Oliver North,
Robert McFarlane, etc. have. We
need someone who is more con -
cerned with supporting the beliefs
of millions of Americans than the
beliefs of those in power - and in
questionable circumstances.
The selective process is predicted
to be long and bitter with many
Senators unsure of which side to
support. Inevitably, political ping-
pong, the infamous game of
extracting favors from the admin-
istration for votes, will play a role
in the Senate's final decision. We
have to live with the chosen justice
for a long time to come. Now
would be the optimal time for us to
let our Senators know that the
Supreme Court is already full of,
what will be, Reagan leftovers. It
is time for someone new who will
truly bring an even-handed, intelli -
gent outlook to the Supreme Court.
Someone who will look towards
the future, not attempt to recreate
the past.

MEDICAID FUNDINGfor abortions
ended by judicial restraint on
Tuesday, June 23rd leaving the
poorest segment of our population
- single mothers - without the
right of choice. Economically
disadvantaged women are exactly
the people who need this choice the
most. Right to Life has made an
ironic mockery of their chosen
name. Their recent fervid action
will only esealate the incidence of
infant death in Michigan.
In the poor urban areas where
survival is not taken for granted,
life is not taken for granted either,
as the Right to Life would have us
believe. Bearing a child into these
conditions is dangerous for the
mother and for the child. The
mother does not have the economic
means to keep her children properly
fed and clothed, healthy or safe.
Pregnancy is not viewed as a small
inconvenience. It is a life
threatening situation in that it
threatens the lives of already
existing young children who are
dependent on a mother. When there
is not enough to go around already,
one more mouth jeopardizes all the
mouths. Michigan's infant
mortality rate attests to the

deplorable conditions for babies
born in poverty. It is the second
highest in the country. Abortion is
often sparing the mother of an
emotionally painful funeral for her
child two years later. Right to Life
is not safeguarding life. They have
restored the right to die a painful
death of starvation and disease.
Right to Life has no logical base
to argue from. Theyused the cost
of an abortion when arguing against
Medicaid funding without
explaining the alternative costs.
The first two years of a baby's life
funded by Medicaid was $7070.00
in 1985. Funding for this program
has been repeatedly cut on the
national level every year since
1980. Therefore, the funding for
babies increasingly comes from the
Michigan tax payer. Abortion was
costing the taxpayers $308.00 per
abortion. Economically speaking,
abortion makes sense.
Medicaid was established to assure
that the poor are granted adequate
health care. Medicaid covers the
medical costs of prenatal care and
infant care. Logically, it should
also cover the medical costs of

terminating a pregnancy as this is a
medical procedure. By denying
these funds we deny equal
representation under the law - the
law that grants the individual the
right to choose.
The Supreme Court has ruled that
no one has the right to tell a
woman to bear or not bear a child.
Ultimately it is this law that Right
to Life would see revoked.
Michigan is the 40th state to
violate the rights of poor women.
The only hope that is left is to turn
to the people and put the issue on
the next ballot. This can only be
accomplished by using the same
tactics that Right to Life used. To
place the issue on the ballot
180,000 signatures will have to be
collected within 60 days. As a
group the citizens of this state will
decide where our tax dollars go and
how much we want to spend on
welfare and social programs. We
must honor the rights of poor
women. Are we to grant equal
representation under the law? Or are
we to deny the poor the same
liberty and freedom we grant to the
rich? That is the issue we will face
in the voting booth.


Chun on the run

q

THE UNDEMOCRATIC CHUN
regime of South Korea has agreed
to hold elections for the presidency
in order to stave off further street-
fighting in the country's major
cities. The success of the urban
insurrections led by militant
students is a product of very special
circumstances including the
upcoming 1988 Olympics in
Korea.
Riot police found themselves
increasingly outnumbered in the
cities and could not stop political
mobilization righteously defended
by rock and Molotov-cocktail
throwing students. In interviews
with the Daily, several Korean
students explained that they had no
choice but to fight the police. One
of the top two opposition leaders,
Kim Dae Jung, also sanctioned the
street-fighting as regrettable, but
necessary.
With the military out of the
picture, because of U.S. pressure
and the upcoming Olympics, the
students led an alliance with
workers and religious groups that
gained the support of the middle,
class in the final days before the

Chun regime finally gave in referendum to determine whether or
verbally to all major democratic not the U.S. role is in their
demands. interests.

Not surprisingly student
militants have stressed caution in
regard to these concessions from the
Chun "autocratic regime." The day
after the announcement of con -
cessions, the student government at
Korea's leading university called for
vigilance to see through the
implementation of promises of
democracy. Other students stressed
unfulfilled social demands and the
demand that the U.S. pull out its
40,000 troops from Korea.
The stationing of United States
troops in Korea has served to prop
up a dictatorship with a pro-U.S.
outlook. Some say that the U.S.
role is necessary to prevent any
attempt by the communist North
Korean government to take over
South Korea. Others have said that
the North Korean threat is a red
herring used as an excuse to repress
internal dissent in South Korea and
ram through Chun's modernization
program.
Now the time has come for the
South Korean people to hold a

By the time the Olympics are
over, however, the South Korean
people will have to be in extremely
good position to keep the U.S.-
backed military from reasserting
control. It is time for the United
States to recognize the South
Korean people's democratic right to
determine their destiny.
At this time, the military feels
that it cannot afford to spoil the
atmosphere of the upcoming
Olympics. Tear gas threatens the
air of spectators and athletes alike.
With billions of dollars invested in 4
Olympic-related construction and
production, not to mention the
national pride involved in hosting
the Olympics, influential figures
found that they could not afford a
short-sighted political policy.
In the coming months, the
American people should support
and monitor the efforts of South
Koreans to free themselves of U.S.- 4
backed military dictatorship whether
or not they happen to be watching
the Olympics on television.