4 - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, November 16, 1995 $br £kbitigjrn tag 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan -, MICHAEL ROSENBERG Editor in Chief JULIE BECKER JAMES M. NASH Editorial Page Editors JuDITH KAKA TE Frye Piuvr Aborirn foes deploy a new insidious logic to rob us ofnghs Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of the Daily 's editorial board. All other articles, letters, and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. Maaiinda's rihths Appeals decision affirms the working mother ressured by governmental reductions in aid to single mothers, Jennifer Ireland undertook the twin tasks of college course- r work and the rigors of child care in an effort to raise her daughter independently. Ireland was punished for her attempts at bettering her life and the life of her daughter Maranda in a 1994 court decision. Despite being the pri- mary parent throughout the life of her now 4- year-old daughter, Ireland was denied cus- Stody because she is a student and relies on day care 22 hours a week for Maranda. This decision - based on the flimsy argument 'that student life and day care are detrimental to child rearing -thankfully was overturned in a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling last week. In ruling to deny Ireland custody of ,Maranda, the Macomb Circuit Court argued that Steven Smith, the father, could provide Maranda a more stable living environment. That assumption ignores the fact that Smith himself is a student and has never been the sole caregiver for his daughter. Asserting that his supportive family is better equipped to care for their child than Ireland is insulting and false. Furthermore, basing custody on the availability of continuous care at a par- ticular point of life is shortsighted. Since the June 27, 1994 decision, Maranda has been living with Ireland through a stay granted to her by the appeals court. Throughout this whole ordeal, an indelible bond between them has formed, magnifying the Macomb court's failure to recognize that by removing her from her mother, the court would shatter the only stable relationship Maranda has known. The previous decision was not a King Solomon-inspired solution - the in- terests of Maranda were ignored. The case, spanning two years now, has been a grueling journey that warped the defi- nition of the single mother in American soci- ety. While the government expects her to be self supporting, the American single mother, according to the earlier ruling, is also charged with the responsibility of raising her child without the assistance of outside child care. The roles ofmother and worker are estranged in American society, virtually negating the importance of motherhood. National trends toward slashing welfare and aid to single mothers coupled with workfare before motherhood force women to depend on day care. No woman should be punished for seeking a better life for her child. No child should be tossed between parents based on the availability of home care. Unfortunately in this case, both have occurred. Reinstating Ireland's custody over her daughter is the first step toward the ac- ceptance of a more realistic vision of a single mother. Juggling the roles of mom and em- ployee alone requires the concentration of an air-traffic controller, the agility of an acro- bat, the lifestyle of an insomniac and the patience of a judge. Jennifer Ireland and all working single mothers deserve all the aid, respect and admiration their perseverance and efforts merit. A few weeks ago, a New York State Supreme Courtjustice ruled that a Long Island landlord had the right to evict a clinic that performs abortions from its building, because anti-abortion protesters posed a threat to the building's other tenants. Not only did this ruling place blame on the victim, it encouraged anti-abortion groups to continue their terrorist tactics, since it was explicitly their death threats that led to the clinic's eviction. Meanwhile, the U.S. House passed a bill banning a rarely used and highly specialized method ofabortion. The procedure -termed "partial births" by those who support the bill - is only used to terminate late-term preg- nancies, and thus applies to fewer than 10 percent of abortions performed annually in the United States. Even for late-term abor- tions, the method is rarely used. Yet it is a viable - and sometimes the only - option for doctors and pregnant women making decisions about such abortions. The bill makes performing what is medi- cally known as intact dilation and evacua- tion abortions a crime punishable with up to two years in prison and $250,000 in fines. A doctor charged with this crime would be allowed to use as a defense that the woman's life was in danger and that the outlawed method was the only one that would suffice -but note that the burden of proof would be placed neatly on the shoulders of the de- fense. A similar bill, unable to pass an immedi- ate vote on the floor as Majority Leader Bob Dole had anticipated, is now being consid- ered in the Senate Judiciary Committee and is expected to reappear some time early next month. What the New York court's decision and the House bill have in common is obvious: They both infringe upon the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, and they both do so by limiting access to abortion. Of course, by limiting the rights of some, measures and rulings such as these pave the way for the government to limit the rights of others. If a landlord can evict a clinic that performs abortions because it is the victim of violent threats, than perhaps racial mi- norities, homosexuals and Jews who are targeted by skin-heads, neo-Nazis and the Klan can be evicted as well. If Congress can pass a law banning one aspect of a woman's constitutional right to abortion, then really nothing prevents it from restricting other constitutional rights. Additionally, Congress' intrusion into the decision-making process ofmedical pro- fessionals can only compromise their judg- ment. Instead of their patients' best inter- ests, doctors will be forced to consider how they will fare in criminal court, and if they really want to risk the potential loss of time, money and reputation - not to mention the possibility of going to jail - for performing certain medical procedures. Yet while it is always important to keep in mind the far-reaching repercussions of precedent-setting legislation and court deci- sions, it is also essential to recognize that what is clearly under attack is a woman's right to abortion. While that right remains guaranteed un- der the Constitution (and was upheld as such by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade), the New York court's ruling and the House bill aim to slowly chip away at its foundation. It is no surprise that the first anti-abor- tion bill to pass a chamber of Congress attacks a rarely used method - one that most people never even consider andone that lends itself to the use of graphic posters in demonstrating its immorality. Aftet all, the bill says nothing about banning all abor- tions, not even all late-term abortions, merely this single method, which the bill's support- ers view as brutal because the fetus itspar- tially extracted before its skull is collapsed and brain suctioned out. But anti-abortion activists will noistop with this bill, nor will the elected offcials who rely, or believe they rely, upontheir votes. This bill is merely one in what'they hope will be many, and pretty soon it won't just be specialized, irregular methods of abortion being banned. This time, at least as far as the bill goes, I think those on the side of constitutional rights will win out. Anti-abortion Repobli- cans will have far more difficulty passng ii in the Senate, and even if they weie to succeed, Clinton would veto it. The New York court decision is being appealed, and should, it would seem, be eventually overturned. Yet there are noguar- antees. Battles like these, fought over a wonan's right to choose (something that our genera- tion often and erroneously takes for granted) will continually be waged until the Freedom of Choice Act, which essentially prevent5 the banning of any abortions under any cir- cumstances, becomes law. Our current Con- gress will undoubtedly never pass such an act. Here's hoping that the elections in 1996 bring us one that will. - Judith Kafka can be reached over e- mail atjkakfa@umich.edu. MATT WIMSATT MOOKE' S DILEMMiA ,.-1- - - ~moo* NOTABLE QUOTABLE 'I'm sick and tired of this. We look like babies, and the president is scoring points.' -An unnamed GOP senator, commenting on the budget imbroglio between Presideni Clinton and con gres sional Republicans Political blackmail Federal default stems from Congress' ploys H ouse Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sen- ate Majority Leader Bob Dole shame- lessly sent bills for the Debt Limit Extension and Continuing Resolution to President Clinton earlier this week fully aware that their actions would shut down the govern- ment. By tying unreasonable restrictions to these bills -the passage ofwhich the contin- ued functioning of the U.S. government is contingent upon - the Republican-led Con- gress has resorted to political blackmail. The Continuing Resolution is a spending stopgap that would fund government activi- ties until Dec. 1; in the meantime, Congress could pass the 13 appropriations bills. Con- gress passed a Continuing Resolution bill earlier this week with a provision that would raise Medicare premiums. Based on this stipu- lation, Clinton vetoed the bill. By attaching a provision to the resolution that Congress knew the president was firmly opposed to, Congress allowed for a government shut- down which led to the temporary layoffs of 800,000 "non-essential" federal employees. The failure to pass a Continuing Resolu- tion not only erodes the public trust in the ability of our officials to govern, it also creates an unnecessary loss of services. Visi- tors will be turned back at the doors of many of Washington's museums, New York's Statue of Liberty and countless other govern- ment-run facilities. Although people will continue to receive welfare and Social Secu- rity, new applicants will be turned away due to the absence of government employees. By law, the government is only allowed a finite debt level. The annual extension ofthis ceiling is necessary for the government to continue functioning. Although the White House can use few stopgap measures to avoid debt default, these are only temporary. If the HOW TO CONTACT THEM government were to default, it would be renege on its promise to pay off Treasury Bonds, which could wreak great havoc with the markets. Many believe that default on U.S. Treasury Bonds would cause a great loss of faith, which might cause investors to flee and put their money in other countries. Anticipating Clinton's veto, Congress at- tached the following stipulations to the pas- sage of a debt limit extension: a promise for a balanced budget by 2002, a strict limit on death row appeals, and new requirements to hamstring the government's power to issue health, safety and environmental regulations. When Republicans linked the Contract with America to the extension of the debt ceiling, they were playing politics at the expense of the American people. Gingrich admitted that the attachment of these provisions to the debt ceiling was part ofan effort to show the American people that he wants a balanced budget more than the president. The Speaker should not be using America's financial solvency as a pawn in his political chess game. The tactics of the Republican-led Congress disgracefully al- low them to force their Contract with America on the president through the back door. Clinton made the right decision by veto- ing both the Debt Limit and Continuing Reso- lution bills that were sent to him by Con- gress. Agreeing to a balanced budget in seven years would cause painful cuts in education, Medicare and Medicaid. President Clinton has offered a budget that would cut the bud- get over a longer period of time and thereby minimize the pain of such drastic cuts. To agree to Congress' provisions would effec- tively be capitulating to blackmail. The American public should be disgusted with Congress for this disgrace. VIEWPOINT Affirmative action: Death of meritocrac), By Avi Ebenstein I believe in fair representation of all groups in every field. If a certain ethnic or racial group is not represented in a field by a fair proportion of the total popula- tion, the government and other institutions of authority must do all that is in their power to bring about a more representative ratio. There are some glaring examples of underrepresentation that must be addressed. For instance, why are there so few women on Death Row? This must be the result of prejudice. Also, how can there be so few Caucasian NBA players? Caucasians must be the victims of prejudice by NBA coaches. Now,1, as a human being with Ebenstein is an LSA first-year student and Daily sports writer. the power to reason, realize that the source of this disparity might not be prejudice; rather, perhaps women generally do not kill as many people as men and whites are possibly less skilled on aver- age at basketball than African Americans. But affirmative ac- tion does not investigate circum- stances, it makesjudgments based solely on someone's skin color or sex. So, affirmative action would force courts to convict more women of murder and require NBA teams to field a minimum of eight white players, no matter how uncoordinated they were. I do not pretend to think that the issue is as simplistic as my anal- ogy, but one cannot ignore that affirmative action stretches the bounds of reason. This country should be a meritocracy. When someone ap- plies to college or a job, that per- son should not apply as a black, a white, a Jew or a Christian; he or she should apply as a qualified individual. If someone is quali- fied for a position, race should not stand in his or her way. While I believe racism is not dead, this is no justification for discrimina- tory hiring practices. Should someone's skin color allow him or her to get a job he or she does not deserve? The idea of affirma- tive action sounds scarily similar to horror stories of the pre-civil rights movement- advancement on the basis of skin color. One must be very creative to prove that prejudice to meet minority quotas makes more sense than hiring white males because of the way they look. I do not believe that there is huge gap between white and bla students at colleges, but the fa that universities consider sk' color as a factor in admissio will create some disparity: I ha a quite wealthy and quite brig African American friend who w offered a full scholarship Michigan. Though he was d serving, plenty of poor 'whit were just as qualified as myfrien but did not merit a scholarsh' since they did not have the "bes skin color. I realize that many raci whites are in positions of adtho ity and this is a problem." must address this by defendi standards of equality as well we can. But, affirmative action a simple, racist attempt tosolve much more complicated problen lenge anyone on campus to es plain why when tuition rises I percent a year, students 'shoul care about a campus policy the won't even indirectly affectthen People who attempt to compar certain administrators to Saddar Hussein need not respond. war clear and relevant arguments, n nonsense. While Mr. Neubecker,didn address how the Code suppresse democracy, he wrapped himse in the glory of the Constitutior asking readers to establish th connection. I for one donut for see the Code impeding anyon from voting in elections. His the same self-serving tactic I d ...Apt M~C ,A Anridtp fry nra LETTERS Daily ignores swim squad To the Daily: C'mon! Where's the cover- age for men's swimming? On our first meet against Cal-Berkeley, there was only a small article about us. Cal-Berkeley is one of the top 10 teams in the country. It seems that you take for granted our team. On Nov. 6, there was no article about the men's team. We had a meet against Wisconsin and Minnesota. Minnesota is also in the top 10. Don't forget, we were national champions last year! Ryan Papa tion. First, our Clean Water Act was weakened and then funding was cut from the EPA, curtailing their ability to enforce regula- tions. Now it's time to reautho- rize our Safe Drinking Water Act. Again, Congress is up to no good. Under existing law, nearly 1 million people get sick and 900 die each year from drinking con- taminated water. In 1993, 100 Milwaukee residents died from traces of cryptosporidium found in their tap water. Often times, those most affected are the young, the old and the sick. The new Safe Drinking Water "reform" bill is inadequate. The bill introduced by Sens. Baucus now fight to retain this situation? In 1994, all D.C. residents had to boil their water before drinking, politicians included. For our health and the health of the mil- lion Americans who are exposed to poor drinking water, let us all voice our concern to Congress that this country should put pub- lic health as a priority. Michael S. Olinik SNRE sophomore Code debate is distracting To the Daily: I am writing in response to Sen. Carl Levin (D) 459 Russell Senate Office Building Sen. Spencer Abraham (R) B40 Dirksen Senate Office Building 4 i I