OPINION
I ue^lay. I ehinar\ j^iesday, February 8, 2(XX)
THE BATTALION
Page 11
i plan
of an Afghan Anana Airli
itral Asia, Russia and ErwlafJ
A kilo of prevention
Should people addicted to illegal drugs get paid to receive long-term forms of birth control?
Just say no
-4
domestic llight ft
tl, Kabul, to then
e-Sharif,
r remained parked
i Stansted’smainte
■ncy ofilcial in Kaza
e 20 hijackers a boa:
rs released theresak
, were aboard,
ers released ninejs
nv, hut made no p
.issian security
lexander Zdanovi
ieremetxevo-1 airc
ho said
being a
drug ad-
|ct does not pay?
■ private organi-
ntion, Children
Requiring a Car-
ifiy Kommunity
RACK), is ac-
ally giving away
■honey to drug addicts with the stipula
tion that they receive permanent or long-
Imi birth control.
nded an cxasperatir,
;h Mexican author
cut Ernesto Zedillo
rd unable to M
ost important
>m a tiny handofr
h names like Modi
>nlv with
Since 1994, Barbara 1 larris' program
is been sending a S2(M) check to anyone
child-bearing age who has or had a
ug problem provided that they go to
ir doctor for a sterilization procedure,
arris, who wins a feel-good award for
iopting eight drug-exposed babies, says
Lt program is a direct way of preventing
Hie birth of even more substance-ex-
p cd infants (SE1). Certainly nobody
' |$an fault Harris for her benevolent
‘ Houghts and good intentions.
I However, somew here in between
Banting to save the children and giving
Hack addicts S200 to blow on blow, her
, , fflest-laid plans ha\ e gone aw ry .
OT*lf |Ph Harris’CRACK effort falls into the
^ A A Miajor problem of the previous programs
• | |jhat it is trying to be an alternative to.
cif-1 l/p What was intended to be a direct cure to
^ ^ ^ He growing problem of drug-exposed
> CITY (AP) In tiewboms has turned out to be hist an-
noth conclusion teaHher misguided effort that puts a flimsy
\upation ol l.atin.feHandage on tlie symptoms of a much
university, police uArger problem. As of February 3rd.
ipus suiul.ix andiir.-'&RACKhas wasted donors’ money on
1 clients. That is not to say these peo
ple were not in need of help.
From just those 151 addicts, a total
1026 pregnancies arose, 364 of which
ere aborted. For all the math majors
iut there, that is over two abortions per
iddict. And when the pregnancies were
carried to full term, the numbers are
equally grim. Seventy-seven babies
nt 2.400 t a r iwto stillborn. 33 died during birth and
> an all-night 376 are currently in foster care,
rike council atteut Looking at these numbers, one can
up about 430 ai® 5ee what motivates 1 larris and her sup-
eieht top striketala Porters. But taking a realistic look at the
cin did not reshi ‘hig picture shows the ineffectiveness of
• e no injuries Po!k;t@ er g°rxl intentions. One study estimat-
h the ■! ant campu'^at 11 percent of all newborns, al-
eds moi c stnka\ ' Dlost 460,000 babies, are bom exposed
lay strike at the 260.™
onal Autonomous l*
exico began in April
to raise annual tuiisfl
cn just a few cents,lw
■$140. I
n a recent piece, Washington Post
columnist Carl Rowan discussed
.—-President Clinton’s latest proposals
■‘fb increase federal spending. Rowan de
I Positions <cided that Clinton’s proposals were de-
mportam and sour ]veloped solely to better the nation.
■ l'( S, wc just mav 'Rowan is an established columnist and
. been providing v>: js entitled to his opinion. Some people,
rty years. We are lonHpon looking at Clinton’s proposals,
ton and College & mi ay see things differently. They may see
: jan elephant trap.
, This election year, President Clinton finds himself in a w in-
fin situation. If the Republican majority in Congress agrees to
'linton’s proposals, it helps Clinton improve his legacy as
resident. If they do not, which will almost certainly happen,
te Democratic Party adds ammunition for the fall elections,
in n locau to othert [ At first glance, Clinton’s proposals seem kind-hearted
II training. To learn an( ' generous. Everybody gets a goody. In his State of the
:hc Spring 2000 Bn Union address alone, Clinton proposed budget increases in
ena from 7:30am-V excess of $43 billion for the next year. These include increas-
w to apply, pleases* s for education, Head Start, and scientific research. These
tcreases do not include Clinton’s stated desire to increase
j flic defense budget by $150 billion. Not to be left out on one
Just say yes
to illicit
drugs. That num
ber is not some half
a million babies whose
moms smoked cigarettes
w hile pregnant, but the in
fants w ith crack-, heroin-,
LSD- and cocaine- using
mothers. Tins huge number of
babies overwhelms the 662 de-.
livered to the CRACK clients,
larris’ program simply does not make
a dent in the w idespread problem of
drug-exposed newborns. All it does is
throw peoples’ money out the w indow
of good intentions.
The root crisis is not that so many ad
dicts are having endangered children, it
is that there are so many addicts.
Fortunately, there are thousands of
drug rehabilitation programs across the
country . Many of these programs are of
fered as free services to anyone willing
to make a change in their life. 1 lowever
they treat them, rehabilitation programs
help fight an addict's real problem, not
just the symptoms. Furthermore, some
of these programs, like Narc-anon. are in
virtually every community and will help
many more drug-addicted parents than
1 larris’ could ever hope to reach.
While these programs do not give
out the financial rewards that CRACK
does, in the battle against drug-addicted
parents and SETs, getting a person past
their habit is incentive enough.
People like Barbara 1 larris are hard to
blame. 1 ler efforts are meant to help a
problem that needs serious attention.
I lowever, for all its generosity, I larris'
plan is fatally short-sighted. I ('she and her
donors w ish to make an impact against
the tragedy of prenatal exposure to drugs,
then they need to stop feeding the depen
dency of addicts by giving them a couple
hundred dollars and saying, “Don’t spend
it all in one crack house.”
Avenues
for real pre
ventive treat
ment that get to
the root of an ad
dict’s troubles are
available and need
the help of people
like 1 larris. If she
w ants to put in an
effort to help sub
stance-exposed newborns, she
has to first look at the substance
exposing parents. 1 larris' Web
site sums up the tragic flaw
w ith her efforts by saying,
“Barbara 1 larris does not have
the answers about how to get
people off drugs and alcohol.
...” While she is trying to
make a difference, the sad
truth is I larris' birth-control
plan is just a short-tenn an
swer to a big-time problem.
Eric Dickens is a junior
English major.
ROBERT HYNECEK/Tm Battalion
ouston’s fe
male drug ad
dict popula
tion has a new friend,
an organization called
CRACK, Children
Requiring a Caring
Kommunity.
CRACK
has begun
placing billboards saying, “If
you use drugs/alcohol — Get
birth control — Get $200
cash.” As the signs indicate,
the organization is giving
drug- and alcohol-depen
dent women money for
agreeing to long-term birth
control or sterilization.
A spokesperson for the group stated
that 140 participants reported more than
950 pregnancies among them. Remem
bering that these women are addicts, it
is safe to assume that they do not have
money to “throw around” for things
like medical care or food. They have
other priorities.
Granted, most people disagree with
those priorities, but no amount of disap
proval is likely to have any meaningful
effect on the addict’s behavior.
Of those 950 pregnancies, there were
over 600 babies bom. The result of
pregnant, drug- and alcohol-abusing
women who forego prenatal care is un
healthy children.
Some of these women have their first
prenatal visit when they arrive at the
emergency room — in labor. Many of
them disappear from the hospital, leav
ing their drug-addicted child behind.
John Q. Public picks up the tab for the
extra medical care and for the day-to-
day care of the indigent and unwanted
children these women produce.
“Produce” may sound cold, but many
of these babies are simply the by-prod
ucts of the addict’s method-of-choice for
obtaining drug money — prostitution.
Giving these women free birth control
and paying them for taking advantage of
it is common sense and cost-efficient. It
is also a great kindness to the potential
children that this population would cer
tainly produce otherwise.
There are those who protest that the
women will spend their money on drugs.
These women will spend the next $200
they get for drugs, regardless of where
it comes from. To believe otherwise is
simply naive.
Of the 600 children bom to the
women in question, more than half end
ed up in long-term foster care. These
children are, for the most part, unadopt-
able. There simply is not a waiting list to
adopt drug-damaged babies.
Drug-damaged children are major
consumers of resources rather than con
tributors to society. An ounce of pre
vention is worth a pound of cure. If a
child is never conceived, those re
sources are saved.
Furthermore, drug-addicted women
typically do not make good parents.
Their priorities lie elsewhere. This is not
to say that they do not love their chil
dren, but despite that love, they practice
negative parenting behaviors that make
them and their children non-productive.
CRACK’s program counteracts this
tendency, by preventing them from exac
erbating a social problem where there
are no winners and a lot of losers.
As for the “Big Brother” aspects of
the plan, there is no coercion, and
CRACK is a private organization.
Participation in the program is vol
untary. It may be a little harsh, but there
is some merit to the idea that these
women are selling their right to have
more children.
Because of their antisocial behav
iors, perhaps they ought to forfeit fur
ther rights to have children. From this
standpoint, the women are getting a
very favorable deal.
Some may find fault with the pro
gram because it appears to condone
drug abuse, but the point of the program
is not to make life easier for the addict.
On the contrary, the program eases
the burden carried by society and the
suffering endured by the children these
women drag into the world. Someone
needs to look out for those kids, be
cause their moms will not.
Ann Hart is a senior
English major.
Clinton’s last plan to increase federal spending‘an elephant trap’
I
Af
MARK
PASSWATERS
nsulting
stomcr Service
/LAN Support
of the more popular current issues, Clinton proposed a tax
cut of $250 billion to be implemented over 10 years.
With such planning, Clinton has fired an impressive first
salvo. The Republicans — should they want to keep control
of Congress and win the White 1 louse — must come up with
an effective response quickly.
Simply rejecting Clinton’s proposals is not enough. II'the
GOP were to do so, the Democrats could then make the case
to the public that Republicans did not care about the well-be
ing of the average American citizen. To put it mildly, it is a
disaster to their chances of holding onto Congress.
Should the Republicans give in to Clinton, they will
alienate their base constituents who are opposed to big gov
ernment. This will also doom their chances in November. So
what does the elephant do considering that the public will
probably not forget?
The answer may be simple to say and hard to put into
practice — find a middle ground.
As wdth all things, there are holes in Clinton’s plan. If the
Republicans intend to remain politically viable, they must
ensure that the American people know about these flaws and
the promises that he has already broken.
While the billions of dollars that Clinton proposes seem
to be well intentioned, they are proposed increases to last
year’s budget. With these increases, Clinton’s plan will vio
late the 1997 balanced budget amendment. In his State of the
Union speech, Clinton stated, “We are actually paying down
the national debt.” This is indeed the case if his budget in
creases are rejected. If they are accepted, the government will
return to running a deficit. Clinton cannot have it both ways,
and the Republicans must show this discrepancy to the public.
To simply reject Clinton's
proposals as being out of
hand and say that
they are had for the country
is not enough.
In the last week, Clinton proposed a $1.2 billion dollar in
crease in funding for Native American schools. Ben
Niglitl lorse Campbell (R-Colo.), the sole Native American
member of Congress, said that he appreciated the gesture
— and then asked where such increases had been for the
past eight years. Campbell’s staff insinuated that since
President Clinton will not have to worry about the ramifi
cations of his proposals, he will be more than happy to
give everyone a treat.
Such skepticism is warranted as Clinton will not be
around to deal with the ramifications of one last spending
splurge. He will be in New York or Arkansas watching
his replacement deal with the fiscal problems caused by
his “generosity.”
What President Clinton has proposed in the last months,
despite what Carl Rowan believes, is not good for America.
It is a very devious trap for the Republican Party. To simply
reject Clinton’s proposals as being out of hand and say that
they are bad for the country is not enough.
The Republicans must also prove that the problems
caused by passing such fiscally careless increases will cause
more harm that good. If they do not, the GOP will be shat
tered in the fall elections.
And the Democrats will be happy to stand there and pick
up the pieces.
Mark Passwaters is a senior
electrical engineering major.
C 77040
Bush’s sensitivity
a political tactic
In response to Nathaniel Rich’s
Feb. 4 mail call.
I have to start out by saying that
I agree with Nathaniel Rich. Just
because a person professes to be
a good Christian, does not mean
that he or she will be a good presi
dent. Just look at Jimmy Carter.
Fine, that is over and done with.
What I would really like to address
is the comment in Rich’s letter
about Bush’s lack of sensitivity in
admitting publicly that he is a Chris
tian. What a joke.
In a country that was founded on
the concepts of individual rights
and religious toleration it is now
viewed by some that claiming a re
ligious belief in public is insensitive.
1 suppose things really have
MAIL CALL
changed. Once upon a time, opin
ions, individualism and standing up
for the things you believe in were
praised in this country.
Having a certain amount of ex
perience, I understand that public
life is different, and you play by dif
ferent rules when running for office.
I also know that the constituents
that are served are the ones who
vote for the candidate.
Read this very carefully: If you
did not vote the right way, he does
not care about you.
He may act like he is sensitive
to your concerns, but he isn’t. That
is because he does not represent
you. He represents those who vot
ed for him.
Bush does not have to care
about agnostics or Jews, because
the majority of the voting popula
tion identifies themselves as Chris
tian (especially in the Republican
Party).
Therefore, he rightly identifies
himself with that population to the
exclusion of others because it
helps him meet his objective — get
ting elected.
Alex Mayfield
Class of ‘96
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in
clude the author's name, class and phone
number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to edit
letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters
may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also
be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com