news;
ITALICS
DC,
Ion. D.C.
DB. j
«s.ES« *p
Dems of tt»
Jcidedtoiw
inguage iti:
it.”
shooting m t
io.se thatbii
people m
Washingtoii
inia.
ids
net
nostly de\#
z is the mos
han 150 nil
imes Agaiifi
Jniversit) d
iges 10 to I!
Dns over
liter of thea
afety exper.
arning
if they p.^
lething,"
inswers is
answer." s
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Wednesday, October 23,
Intimidation is a poor motivator
Coalition for Life’s threatened boycott damaged the organization’s cause
RICHARD BRAY
D espite the Brazos Valley
Coalition for Life’s recent
attempts. Planned
Parenthood has become stronger
following the success of a major
fund-raiser. Ironically, the fund
raiser would not have been nearly as successful without the
efforts of Coalition for Life Executive Director David Bereit.
Bereit issued a letter to 15 Planned Parenthood supporters
informing them that if they did not renounce their support of the
clinic, their names would be published and a boycott would be
organized against their businesses, according to The Eagle.
Rather than ruining the Bourbon Street Bash, a major fund-rais
er for Planned Parenthood, this action made the fund-raiser more
successful. In the week following the boycott threat,
Planned Parenthood officials reported $7,000 in
donations and expected to raise “way over”
$40,000 at the Bourbon Street Bash.
An estimated 300 supporters
attended the fund-raiser, according
to The Eagle.
Although the Coalition for Life is
entirely within its rights to boy
cott, threats are not the
method for chang
ing people’s
minds about abor
tion. By challenging
the livelihoods of those who think differently, the Coalition for
Life forced Planned Parenthood supporters to respond with an
equally powerful message, which they did. Intimidation tactics
often result in a potent response, and that is exactly what hap
pened in this instance.
The coalition’s attempt to frighten Planned Parenthood sup
porters into withdrawing support from the organization reeks of
desperation. The organization’s credibility is continually threat
ened by association with the actions of anti-abortion individuals
who take matters into their own hands by sending anonymous
mailings to Planned Parenthood supporters. Despite Bereit’s
repeated condemnation of such tactics, the Coalition for Life is
still associated with such activities.
When abortion rights activists and the general public associ
ate the coalition with such tactics, the threat of a boycott
appears less like an honorable method that has had a historic
place in American society and more like an attempt to bully the
coalition’s opponents into submission.
In using such a threatening tactic in an attempt to stop abor
tions, Bereit allowed the Coalition for Life to sink to the
depths of those who send anonymous letters to Planned
Parenthood supporters. In the past, the organization has done
its best to limit protests to peaceful prayer, but by attempting
to intimidate Brazos Valley residents through the threat of a
boycott, the coalition has embarked on an entirely new method
that only serves to damage their interests in public opinion and
financial strength.
The Coalition for Life made a strategic mistake. However, the
organization can redeem itself by abandoning a poor strategy
and moving on to other methods of achieving its goals. Bereit
told The Eagle that the names of Planned Parenthood’s
financial supporters would be published at
www.clinicfacts.com, but as of
Tuesday afternoon the site
was still under construc
tion. It is in the coalition’s
best interest that the names
remain unpublished. To do
otherwise only inhibits the
success of its goals.
Richard Bray is a senior
journalism major.
JON FULLRICH • THE BATTALION
FDA committee candidate is not worthy
Doctor’s religious views make him a poor choice to head women’s health committee
T he Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA)
Reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee has not met
in two years and is currently with
out any members. The FDA's sen
ior associate commissioner, Linda
Arey Skladany, has rejected doctors proposed
by other FDA staffers to head the committee
and is pushing one of her own: Dr. W. David
Hager, according to Time magazine.
Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist and part-
tirne professor at the University of Kentucky, is
the wrong person for the job.
The health committee will have to address
whether or not hormone replacement therapy
(HRT) is safe. A report released in July outlined
nsks posed to women taking hormone replace
ment therapy after menopause, which left mil
lions of women concerned for their health.
According to Time, some conservatives are try-
ln g to take advantage of these HRT fears to dis
credit contraceptives, which contain similar
chemicals. Although Hager is not “against med
ication,” he is not a defender of women’s access
t0 birth control.
According to the Boston Globe, Hager has
condemned contraceptive use, saying it is a
JENELLE WILSON
“convenient way for young people
to be sexually active outside of
marriage,” which he considers to
be a sin. He will only prescribe
them if a single woman rejects his
“advice” to abstain, according to
The New York Times.
Women have every right to enjoy sex without
the constant fear of pregnancy. While doctors
have a responsibility to warn women of conse
quences, they do not have the right to lecture
and shame women for actions that are contrary
to their religious beliefs. A doctor who openly
does this should not be chair to the committee
that determines women's health policy.
In August, Concerned Women for America,
the Christian Medical Association (CMA), and
the American Association of Pro Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists asked Dr.
Hager, a CMA member, to assist them with a
90-page petition calling for the FDA to revoke
its approval of RU-486, commonly known as
the abortion pill, due to adverse effects experi
enced by women who use the drugs. In his
press statement, available on the Christian
Medical Dental Association’s Web site, Hager
cited the “risks to women and potentially to
their unborn babies” as reason for the FDA to
revoke RU-486 distribution. The petition
accuses the FDA of cutting corners during the
four years it spent reviewing Mifeprex before
its approval.
The adverse effects mentioned in the peti
tion include ruptured ectopic pregnancies, bac
terial infections and heart attacks. The FDA
sent letters out in May addressing these effects,
according to the Washington Post. The letters,
which are not uncommon for new drugs,
stressed for doctors to follow the Mifeprex
guidelines and stated that no causal relation
ship was found between the adverse effects and
the abortion pill. Mifeprex has been safely
used for more than a decade in Europe, and of
12,700 medical abortions performed in one
year, no major complications occurred.
Currently, studies are being conducted on
RU-486 to see how effective it would be in
treating ailments such as breast cancer, uterine
cancer, uterine fibroid tumors, psychotic depres
sion, bipolar disorder and Cushing’s syndrome.
If the health committee is to review the
approval of Mifeprex again, despite its safe
track record, it must be done fairly and without
bias. That cannot be done with Hager - who is
already calling for the approval to be revoked —
as the chairman.
Hager’s professional views are directly influ
enced by his religious beliefs, which is inappro
priate in a secular society. He prescribes prayer
and recommends Biblical passages to cure ail
ments such as headaches, eating disorders,
postpartum depression and premenstrual syn
drome (PMS). According to The New York
Times, for PMS he recommends Romans 5:1-
11- that "tribulation worketh patience."
Hager supporters, such as CMDA, are upset
with the press coverage he is receiving. They
say he is being persecuted for his Christian
beliefs, but religious beliefs are not why he is
being criticized. He’s being criticized because
those religious beliefs directly affect his work
in a negative manner.
The chairman of the women’s health com
mittee must separate his religious beliefs from
issues the committee will be reviewing. Hager
already has his mind made up on RU-486
despite the safe track record the pills have, and
he condemns the use of birth control pills by
single women. He is a bad candidate to lead a
committee that will make health choices for
all women.
Jenelle Wilson is a junior
political science major.
Web site owner must learn responsibility
LAUREL FRANCK
I n Africa, tens of millions of
People are suffering and dying
of starvation and the AIDS epV
eniic. Across the world, countless
imal and plant species are
h L 0rn ' n § OHdangered or extinct as
ltats disappear. Scientists are desperately searching for treat-
A, ei y s . an H cures for devastating illnesses such as cancel and
•zneimer's disease. In the United States, thousands of citizens
J, e 0Ir *cless and poverty-stricken. Organizations such as the
°r d Wildlife Fund and the National Cancer Society are moie
a n worthy for donations and are in urgent need ol them.
And then .there's Karyn Brosnak, founder of the
savekai-yn.com Web site.
tv ft S * te ex Pf a i ns ’ “You are not giving your money to a chan-
;’ bU i rather a chick who spent too much money.” Bosnak
n ° r< ^ ln § to information posted on her site, is a 29-year-old
c ucer who lives in Brooklyn. Several months ago she lounc
lrm Se ^ ° Ut a j 0 ^ and more than $20,000 in debt due to tnvo-
Us credit card expenditures. “Over the last few years I ve run
P quite a credit card bill ... let me tell you! $20,221.40 to be
0v „ Ct ' Maybe it was too many morning lattes that pushed me
wL heed 8 e -Who knows!”
w ho knows? Maybe Karyn herself should, since she was the
one who spent the money. But she is apparently still in denial
and refusing to take responsibility for her thoughtless shopping
sprees.
Amazingly, more than 2,000 people have donated money to
this outrageous, self-centered cause — more than $12,500 had
come in as of Oct. 14, 2002, according to the Web site.
There are several troubling aspects to this story, the most
important being that people should be donating funds to causes
much more important than Karyn's credit card debt — causes
that would help Americans, the environment and people around
the world.
Considering Bosnak got herself into this mess, she alone
should be the one who literally pays the price. She was the one
who, “bought $400 haircuts, Gucci purses and Prada shoes,” as
People magazine reported. Granted, Bosnak has been making
monthly payments partially out of her own pocket, but unless
she solves this problem on her own, she will learn nothing from
this experience and will not change her frivolous lifestyle.
One of the most frequently asked questions on her Web site is,
“Why don’t you consolidate your debt and buy a book on finance?”
Karyn's reply is, “I've read a book about how to organize my
finances, but all it did was make me realize how much I screwed
up and how behind I am on saving for my future. It depressed
me.” This immature and irresponsible attitude is exactly what
got her into debt, and whethep Bosnak realizes it or not, she
needs a wake-up call.
Ben Larson, co-creator of the Web site dontsavekaryn.com,
ridicules Karyn's site, arguing that those who donate to it are
wasting their money and sympathy, and that she needs to start
living within her means.
On his Web site, Larson sums up Karyn’s pathetic state: “She
has no concept of fiscal responsibility.”
It is frustrating to see someone who has wasted a huge
amount of money on trivial things but will not take responsibili
ty for her own stupid decisions. Her thoughtlessness and self-
absorbed attitude are astonishing because many students are
struggling to juggle part-time jobs with classes just to cover the
basics, such as books and rent. Many are a lot younger than
Karyn, but years ahead of her in financial responsibility.
“I just couldn't stop buying things,” is Karyn's only explanation
for the enormous debt she managed to rack up over the past few
years. Well, here is the perfect solution: stop thinking only of your
self, live within your means, and don't go shopping. Take responsi
bility for your decisions and finances. It’s as simple as that.
Laurel Franck is a junior
English major.