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.

December 05, 2017 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

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

T

oday, many people say
America is more divided
than ever. We see it in

our discourse, the slurs thrown
at one another, the struggle for
moral high ground and even
the violence in our streets.
When I see this, I lament the
lack of interest in nuanced
conversation and appreciation
for context in every discussion.
I welcome and continue to
engage with truly different
perspectives from my own.

Though, when I do try to

reach across the aisle to my more
conservative friends, the complex
personalization of our discourse
and reliance on platitudes has
made me realize that why we
have
different
viewpoints,

particularly in how we view the
role of government, is unclear.
There lie the age-old questions
we saw during the Constitutional
Convention: How large should
the federal government be and,
more importantly, how should
one define its role? Through my
conversations, I began to think a
lot about what our government’s
role should be, and I think the
answer might lie in how we should
approach issues like abortion.

As
I
have
written
about

previously, I am a practicing
Catholic. Many of my family
friends are consistently single-
issue voters on a pro-life view.
Though I am a moderate liberal, I
have come to the conclusion that I
am both pro-life and pro-choice.
Now don’t be confused: This isn’t,
and shouldn’t be, perceived as a
black-and-white issue.

If I were sitting at an abortion

clinic, discussing with my partner
if we should consider getting an
abortion, I would strongly lobby
against doing so. This is because
my decision would be based on my
personal beliefs as a Catholic and
someone who sees life separate
from consciousness. Now this is
all predicated on the notion that
I was given the choice between
moving forward in the procedure
or stopping it.

However, when approaching

policy, matters of reproduction
and intimacy are, as Tim Kaine
(a “traditional Catholic”) explains
“moral decisions for individuals to
make for themselves.” And this is
just it: I should not develop policy
simply based on my personal
identities and issues. If I were a
politician, I would approach my

issues through logic and rationale,
entirely separate from my identity
as a Catholic or any other personal
identity. Since we work as a
society dependent on common
ground, my identities should not
be the entire basis for rationale in
a political sphere, and nor should
the id be a guiding principle in
policy development.

Therefore, I arrive at this

question: Is abortion a right or
is the right based on the choice
between receiving or not receiving
an abortion? I would think it
is the latter. This is where, I
posit, we arrive at this notion
of government: Its defining role
(other than protecting the public)
is to offer the easiest access of
choice to the general population,
which upon given a range of
options, can then incorporate their
personal identities and beliefs.
This isn’t just for abortions; it
should be for guns, health care
and a variety of other issues. This
is why pro-choice should exist:
so that there is an even playing
field and the decision for the best
course of action can be left up to
the couple or individual.

However, is the playing field

actually even? Well, as abortion
clinics are increasingly closing
their doors, one can easily make
the case that in some states, the
playing field is not equal. Though
much of this can be attributed
to pro-life movements within
state legislatures, I do question
the general role of government in
funding. One comment I hear my
conservative friends (men and
women) say is that they shouldn’t
have to pay taxes that subsidize
abortions.

Though I might disagree on

the notion that their personal
identities as a part of a particular
religious group should influence
their decision, I recognize, in a
light similar to Citizens United,
that their money is “donated”
against their free speech to support
a procedure they vehemently
oppose. They should not have to
give money to an organization
that directly contradicts their very
sense of self, as if they are “forced”
to “donate” to such an effort.

Say ideally, then, these abortion

clinics weren’t closing. The next
question we should ask is: since it
is the government’s responsibility
to offer an ease of options to the
individual, whether, if some tax
dollars were removed from the

funding of such programs, the
ease of options for the individual
would significantly decrease. It is
well-documented that 49 percent
of people who seek abortions are
below the poverty level, obviously
unable to pay up to $1,500 for an
abortion. But how do you confound
the fact that these individuals who
are pro-life are paying taxes to
subsidize abortions?

Last year, Planned Parenthood

made a net income of $77.5 million,
with 41 percent of its revenue (the
largest amount) coming from the
government: mostly through Title
X and Medicare. It is important
to recognize that only about 3
percent of the budget goes to
abortion
services.
Complete

removal of federal funding would
significantly skew the playing
field, since private donations only
constitute 33 percent. The choice
would be forced by lack of access:
It should be entirely based on
one’s personal beliefs, context and
ideology.

While this means there might be

issues leveling the “playing field,”
it certainly seeks to balance that
with not having those staunchly
against abortions pay taxes to
that go toward these services.
Obviously, abortion clinics could
work simply based on donation
and external affiliates; I would
suggest that government stay
entirely out of the debate entirely.
Nevertheless, the solution, in my
mind, can be only two-fold: that
government remove itself entirely
or we have to accept that the
ability to choose is part of a social
contract everyone has to accept.

I would argue, given the

former is certainly more difficult
in maintaining this balance, the
latter is the only solution at this
moment. Moreover, when taking
into account only 3 percent of
Planned
Parenthood’s
work

(328,348 total) is abortion services,
I can better reconcile this notion.
I recognize my decision is based
only in the event of such an issue.
My intent isn’t, and shouldn’t be,
to impose personal identity on the
decision process of others. The
foremost priority is to maintain
the balance of choice, then in a
predicament where an abortion is
contemplated, personal identity
may enter.

E

very Friday for as long
as I can remember, I’ve
concluded my day with

a phone call to my Ammamma.
While drinking her Madras coffee,
she fills me in on the latest family
gossip, and I reassure her that
I’m well-fed and well-read, and
update her on my newest futile
attempt at preparing an Indian
meal. This week, however, our
routine spiels were interrupted
by the incessant drilling outside
her home in the HITEC city
neighborhood of Hyderabad. Upon
my inquiry, she revealed to me
that the construction was due to
preparations for Ivanka Trump’s
upcoming visit to the city.

A couple of hours of Googling

later,
I
learned
that
the
first
daughter

would be visiting India toward the
end of November to speak at the
Global Entrepreneurship Summit.
The summit, which will be hosted
in South Asia for the first time, is
set to host 1,500 entrepreneurs and
world leaders from 150 countries.

Preliminary efforts for the event

have included extensive renovation
to the city’s pothole-ridden roads,
the hasty construction of an
extravagant pedestrian shopping
mall
and,
most
significantly,

the extraction of thousands of
homeless civilians from public
view.

Hyderabad, known as the IT

hub and economic powerhouse of
South India, is the fourth-most-
populated city in the country,
with an estimated 13 percent of
its population living below the
national poverty line. The city’s
attempt to rebrand itself as the
Silicon Valley of India in recent
years has brought in companies
such
as
Apple,
Google
and

Microsoft; nevertheless, economic
inequality has increased. For many
living in slum neighborhoods,
begging serves as the predominant
means for survival.

In one week alone, over 400

individuals caught begging were
transported to separate male and
female housing facilities, located
on the grounds of two city prisons.
Begging is listed as a criminal
offense in the region; however,
the law is rarely, if ever, enforced.
When asked about the correlation
of Trump’s visit and the sudden
relocation initiative, V.K Singh,

the director of Hyderabad’s prison
system, insisted that this has
been a mission of the government
for several years due to the
“annoyance and awkwardness”
of begging in Indian cities. An
estimated
6,000
people
are

expected to be taken into these
“rehabilitation facilities” prior
to the summit, and city officials
have stated that individuals will
be offered a shower, bed and pair
of clean clothes.

While this may sound altruistic,

many of these individuals are
separated
from
their
family

members prior to being taken to
a respective shelter. Moreover,
everyone
brought
into
a

temporary housing facility will
be fingerprinted under police
supervision prior to their release
with the threat of incarceration,
should they be caught asking for
money again.

The summit, ironically titled,

“Women
First,
Prosperity

for All,” is not the first time
impoverished locals have been
characterized as blemishes and
concealed
from
international

visitors. Hyderabad took similar
measures in 2000 in preparation
for former then-President Bill
Clinton’s visit. Ten years later,
before the 2010 Commonwealth
games in New Delhi, bulldozers
tore through Delhi’s expansive
blue-tent
neighborhoods
that

served as homes for the city’s
millions of homeless families
with no relocation plan set
in
motion.
Comparably,
in

China,
government
officials

pushed thousands of migrant
workers caught seeking work
opportunities in the city center to
the outskirts of Beijing to present
a more sanitized and affluent
metroplex for the 2008 Olympics.

Trump spoke on a world stage

about the importance of changing
government policies in ways that
empower
women
to
produce

healthier economies; meanwhile,
her visit prompted the temporary
lockdown of these very women
with no sustainable plans for
when they are asked to leave the
rehabilitation facilities.

Uprooting
impoverished

citizens and criminalizing poverty
is not only ethically unsettling,
it’s insufficient in moving toward

any kind of attempt at poverty
eradication. Many of Hyderabad’s
homeless have been stuck in the
vicious cycle of impoverishment
for generations. The challenge
becomes even more convoluted
when you consider the multitude
of circumstances that lead to
homelessness in the first place.
Pervasiveness of the caste system,
lack of education opportunities
for women and the overwhelming
stigma associated with physical
disablements
and
mental

illnesses all play a role in pushing
individuals to begging.

It is imperative to emphasize

that this crisis isn’t isolated to
the Western Hemisphere. New
York City’s notoriously strained
relationship with homelessness
is evident by the 60,000-plus
individuals shifting in between
temporary
housing
clusters.

Correspondingly, in Los Angeles,
the number of individuals living on
the streets jumped by 23 percent in
the last year alone. In these cities,
a combination of factors, most
significantly skyrocketing rents,
has exacerbated the issue.

What’s even more daunting is

that, similarly to India, the threat
of incarceration looms over these
vulnerable populations. Though
many urban hubs, like New
York City and Los Angeles, have
attempted to increase the number
of distributable resources for the
homeless, a study found that 53
percent of these cities continue to
ban sitting or lying in public places.

Closer to home, in Detroit,

homelessness
has
actually

decreased
by
20
percent.

Michigan’s “housing first” policy,
implemented in 2015, is largely
attributed for this accomplishment,
as the policy called for funding in
permanent housing and social work
initiatives to enable individuals to
live sustainably. Detroit’s numbers
support the abundance of evidence
that indicates investments in long-
term subsidized housing, alongside
mental health and other social
service initiatives, are needed
to benefit those facing the harsh
reality of homelessness.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Tuesday, December 5, 2017

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY

and REBECCA TARNOPOL

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

Hyderabad or hide-our-bad?

LEKHA PATHAPATI | OP-ED

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns

Samantha Goldstein

Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Max Lubell

Lucas Maiman

Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Ali Safawi

Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Stephanie Trierweiler

Ashley Zhang

Lekha Pathapati is an

LSA senior.

Government and abortion

Power in a platform

NATALIE BROWN | NATALIE CAN BE REACHED AT NGBROWN@UMICH.EDU

I

’ve never been good at lasts.
They’re hard to process in
the moment, pulling me to

either the most emotional end of
the reaction spectrum or leaving
me to stew in my own fabricated
indifference.
Balance
clearly

isn’t a strong suit of mine, either.

It makes sense then, that as

I sat down to write this article
— my last for the semester — I
had absolutely no idea where
to begin. There’s so much to
say about the current campus
climate — white supremacist
Richard
Spencer’s
possible

future
appearance
at
the

University
of
Michigan,

dialogues
surrounding

divestment, the Middle Eastern
and North African community’s
campaign to create a ME/
NA demographic category on
campus forms. These are things
I’ve been thinking long and
hard about, things that matter
with a magnitude of pressing
urgency. Things that affect
the day-to-day mental states
of others to an extent I can’t
possibly fathom as an upper-
middle-class white woman.

As I scroll through The

Daily’s fiery op-eds and the
eloquently worded columns of
my fellow opinionators, I’m hit
with an overwhelming feeling of
gratitude. I’m grateful that this
school is home to such a well-
run student publication that
strives to give voices to many,
maintaining self-awareness in
its shortcomings. I’m grateful
for the power journalism can
have when its very existence
rests on the cultivation of social
responsibility, the discourse it
can encourage in these select
scenarios. And here’s a really
broad sentiment: I’m grateful for
words, for the people who use
them to initiate positive social
change
and
to
demonstrate

vulnerability.
I’m
grateful

for language that empowers,
that
interrogates
and
that

re-interrogates societal norms
while exploring the stories of
both individuals and the masses.

Simultaneously, I’m hit with a

thought about what it means to
write for a student publication
like this one. Have I deserved
the platform that I’ve been
given, an inexperienced writer
with
semi-minimal
campus

involvement and no experiences
of marginalization? It seems I
may have shirked some of my
own social responsibilities as
a columnist with the privilege
of white skin and a public
platform. A self-titled “health
and wellness” columnist for the
semester, I’ve limited myself
to columns that veer from the
rigorous risk-taking and opinion-
stating of many of my peers.

Maybe I was afraid of my

own inexperience, that I might
not know how to navigate these
more complex issues in a totally
productive way. My failure to
use this platform to do so over
the course of the semester is,
essentially, the definition of
privilege. I’m not proud of this in
the slightest, but it’s something
for which I’m accountable.

However, I will say I don’t

think this platform should be
grounds
for
experimentation

with discussions around such
tough topics either. If I did
approach these more socially
charged issues in my columns,
I wanted to be sure that my
responses demonstrated 750 to
1,000 words of intellectual rigor,
of consciously chosen language
and moral responsibility.

But regardless, the fact is that

I didn’t really use this platform
to create careful meditations on
polarizing issues. I pretty much
stayed within my comfort zone
and rested on the more classical
definitions of the “health and
wellness” label I’d originally
adopted at the beginning of the
semester, without weaving this
topic into the context of current
events on campus.

Upon reflection, this seems

irresponsible. Especially in light
of this country’s era of Donald
Trump, the combination of
privilege and a platform should

be enough to hold myself to a
high standard of accountability
for discussing these pressing
issues, no matter the level of
publicity my articles might be
receiving.

And what of the gratitude I feel

for the power of the University’s
student publications, anyway? I
mean, it’s an easy gratitude for
me to personally feel. I have the
ability to sit back and watch as
productive discourse unfolds,
catalyzed by articles I more than
likely did not write. The content
addressed by the more socially
responsible articles will not
affect my own safety on campus.
It will not affect the ease with
which I can get my voice heard at
the University the way it might
affect that of some of my friends
and classmates.

Contemplating
my
own

reasons for applying to be a
columnist this semester, I do
wonder: “Were they valid ones?”
I’ve never been great at sharing
my writing or expressing my
opinions, and I guess I wanted to
“challenge” myself — of course,
I should’ve moved further past
this original comfort zone and
into some more commentary
on timely campus occurrences.
I think I was given a platform,
and I don’t think I utilized it in a
totally productive way.

I think about laziness and

poor planning, how some of
my columns were written to
meet deadlines rather than to
commit to a standard of social
responsibility. I think about
privilege and the power of
a platform, how I’m a white
person
who
gets
to
self-

interrogate on this page while
many important voices and
stories remain unheard.

I have a long way to go until

I can say that I’m standing as
tall as possible on the platform
I’ve been given.

Josie Tolin can be reached at

jostolin@umich.edu.

DAVID KAMPER | COLUMN

David Kamper can be reached at

dgkamper@umich.edu.

JOSIE TOLIN | COLUMN

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan