the
B %1
ltions - Tim Ctoi
over, t:
[IL uepartmem.
-UKhione said br
assis iam coaclits
w iH help their.
v ’ e worked witj
,es and we’re j .
11 ‘one said. “Ben,;, 1
■ )Ur system win u
access forward.-
rs w ill see that thee
s’ 1 ' the same pace;
tor;
23
Bush,
irch
-7700
.171.
p.m.
3PI
?s
•org
i
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 5B * Friday, December 13, 2002
A pro-choice Christmas?
II
SARA FOLEY
n case anyone has not noticed
the inflatable Santas, artificial
snow in windows and cheerful
holiday decorations plastered on
anything that will stay still,
Christmas is approaching. Behind
all of the commercialism that
encompasses the holiday is a simple story about a frightened
loman giving birth to her child, who Christians believe to be
lie Son of God. Whether people choose to acknowledge the
piost widely celebrated American holiday is based on the foun-
lations of Christianity or not, it is an indisputable fact.
Regrettably, many people see the season as an opportunity to
get the gifts they desire, charities push for more fundraising
Ind businesses further their capitalist aims. One such organi
zation guilty of this is Planned Parenthood, the nation's"
leading abortion-rights group.
I Planned Parenthood has produced holiday cards for sale
I that may seem like any other card in the stack but reflect
a message contradictory to the entire meaning of
Khristmas. The card has a design of snowflakes amidst a
blue backdrop, and along the bottom corner reads,
BChoice on Earth.” The phrase, replacing the word
■peace” for the word “choice” as an attempt to push for
■bortions’ rights, reflects a lack of understanding and
Sensitivity from the creator of the cards.
I More importantly, the card contradicts itself. A card
created for a holiday celebrating the birth of a child
and how that birth brought great peace, is being sent
out to further the aims of a group that promotes the abortion of
unwanted children. If the card creators had done a little more
lesearch, they might have understood the implications of sug
gesting abortion on a holiday where a main piece of the story
fds focused on Mary, the mother ot Jesus, who surely might
■ave had doubts about her ability to carry her child and care
■or him. Many women, in fact, have doubts about their own
abilities to care for children and support them, and it has now
Become more acceptable to abort these children. However,
mixing this message with the message of Christmas brings
|about contradictions, the likes of which Christians will not be
lappy with.
I Furthermore, many Christians are against abortion. The
Issue at hand is not necessarily abortion, but sending a card
■hat openly antagonizes Christian beliefs on a Christian holi-
lay. Producing these cards is the most innapropriate action the
Iprganization could possibly take.
SARAH FOWLER • THE BATTALION
Although the cardmakers may have had good intentions by
providing an avenue for their supporters to endorse their mes
sage through personal greeting cards, they have clearly left out
some considerations. Not only have several religious and
moral idealist groups protested the cards, but reactions from
the actual recipients of these cards have yet to be factored in.
Families who are religious or sensitive to the topic of abortion
due to personal loss or inability to conceive children could
respond abrasively to such a message in their mailboxes.
Although women may currently have the right to make
choices about abortions, individuals promoting this right of
choice during a season that concentrates on the significance of
a child is an unethical and thoughtless message.
Sara Foley is a sophomore
journalism major.
Repealing sodomy laws Times coverage biased
R ecently, the Supreme Court
announced it would recon
sider the constitutionality of
| anti-sodomy laws by hearing
Lawrence v Texas, No. 02-102, a
Houston case in which two men
were arrested for having sexual
mtereou^e. The case began in 1998 when sher-
j s deputies were called to the residence of
ohn G. Lawrence by a neighbor who reported a
weapons disturbance.” The report was later
ound to be bogus and the neighbor, who was
I spurred by a personal dispute, was later charged
j with giving police a false report. The couple,
I owever, was later anested for violating a Texas
I aw which prohibits “deviant sexual intercourse
1 h another individual of the same sex,” accord-
I "ig to CNN.
I asking the Supreme Court not to review the
I ase, the state oi Texas claimed in its court brief
I as a right to implement morality and may
I sanctior 1 deviation from those (moral) stan-
I. , s ' “ also claims the law “does not impose
re ated or irrational penalties upon persons of
homosexual origin.”
to H* U TL at * S exactl y w hat the law was designed
„ . Texas sodomy law applies only to gay
ni P f sbian couples; it permits heterosexual cou-
anv f° partici P ate ' n the same behavior without
bh i u lr P un ishment. It allows the state to
el homosexual citizens as criminals,
of a S ^ U ^' ce John Anderson of the Texas Court
p P ea ® wr ote in his recent dissent, the law
b e ex Pi a ' nec l as anything but animus
simni 1 t le persons it affects.” The legislation was
Slm ply a piece of hatred.
t * ie case > the Supreme Court will
one a ° • eci( ^ e whether or not to overturn a previ-
tho r T In 1986 with B ^ers v Hardwick,
the ef°f Ult c . a Georgia law, which allowed
for a dte t i° ,ni P r i son a person for up to 20 years
wae rf!. e P r i vate ’ consensual act of sodomy
homn° Un( r onst itutional. The 5-4 majority found
whilp SeXUa - S ^ ave no r i§ht to private sex lives,
lv ' gn , onn g tbe * act ihe Georgia law technical-
oniv n i t0 sexua l orientations, but was
toone^f !° P rosecute homosexuals. According
Punkh° 116 concurr ing opinions in the case, the
one's , nient * or ar, al and oral sex in the privacy of
hie withTif Llnc * er the Georgia law was compara-
arson androbbery 81 '^^ 6 ' 1 battery ’ first ' degree
ted^hK' CC ^ CW ' S ^ Powell later publicly regret-
%v Ji° nty VOte ’ n the case, according to the
declarer) \ and a state cour t has since
One nfrE e0rg ^ a * aw unconstitutional,
deckinr, the majority arguments in the Bowers
dec, nn an ? the recent Texas Court of Appeals
been ’ n , Lawr ence is that sodomy has long
“abomin S , lt ei ^ d a cr ' me - It's described as an
was a S ,0n ln the Bible (Leviticus 18:22). It
Reform it- 1 C,lrne in Pome and during the English
aature” ana 0 ’ U Was the infamous crime against
than rane ^ an odense of “deeper malignity”
r *ng maj ’ dcc0rc hng to Justice Burger's concur-
Howl y opinion in Bowers.
Krause H-ft''° ; ay Plc * aw should remain
a valid a r a ls the way it has always been is not
gument. If the purpose of the Supreme
JENELLE WILSON
Court is to maintain the status quo,
then civil rights and women's rights
would be greatly different today.
The use of a handful of biblical
arguments to justify the mistreat
ment of homosexuals doesn't fly,
either. Leviticus 11:10 classifies
eating seafood without fins or scales as an
“abomination” as well, yet people who enjoy
shell-fish are never arrested and jailed for violat
ing the “moral code.”
In a secular society, Americans must rely on
the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment
clearly says all citizens should have equal protec
tion of the law. Making an act illegal for a partic
ular group of society and not the rest just because
some legislators don't like homosexuals violates
the equal protection clause.
At the time of Bowers, only one-half of the
states had anti-sodomy laws. Now, according to
the New York Times, only 13 states do; in four of
those states, including Texas, the laws specifical
ly apply to homosexual couples only. Other laws
apply more heavily to homosexual couples.
The state of Kansas was ordered to respond to
another gay rights case involving a statutory oral
sex law, which carries much softer punishments
for heterosexual couples than homosexual. An
18-year old was sentenced to 17 years in prison
for having consensual oral sex with a 14-year old
boy. If the partner had been a female, the penalty
would have been probation.
The disparity in sentencing is ludicrous. To
take away someone's freedom for a consensual
act simply because of his sexual orientation is an
affront to the basics premises of liberty and the
right to privacy.
The Supreme Court has continually limited
the right of states to interfere with American's
right to personal privacy, especially regarding
family matters and intimate relationships. Skinner
v. Oklahoma in 1942 confirmed the rights of citi
zens to bear children if they so desired. Loving v
Virginia in 1967 allowed the marriage of biracial
couples; Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v.
Wade asserted the right to decide when to have
children.
If Americans have the right to decide who
they want to marry and if and when they want to
have children, they also have the right to decide
who they can have sex with. Justice Blackmun
summed up this right beautifully in his Boweis
dissent. “The fact that individuals define them
selves in a significant way through their intimate
sexual relationships with others suggests, in a
Nation as diverse as ours, that there may be
many 'right' ways of conducting those relation
ships, and that much of the richness of a relation
ship will come from the freedom an individual
has to choose the form and nature of these
intensely personal bonds,” Blackmun said.
Americans have the right to control the nature of
their most intimate associations with others, and
the Supreme Court must strike down the laws
that unconstitutionally limit those rights.
jenelle Wilson is a junior
political science major.
W hether it
is The
Battalion
or The Wall Street
Journal, the job of
any newspaper is
to report the news,
not to create it. But The New
York Times has recently found
itself the subject of many head
lines. The new focus on “The
Old Gray Lady” has come
about due to its controversial
coverage of the current debate
surrounding the Augusta
National Golf Club. The club
only allows males to join and
the chair of the National
Council of Women’s
Organizations, Martha Burke,
is leading a charge to make the
club admit women as mem
bers, according to
cbsnews.com.
The Times has made its
position on the issue clear. It
wants to see Augusta, a private
club, integrated by gender. It
has even singled out golfer
Tiger Woods as the person who
should lead the campaign to
see Augusta integrated, sug
gesting he boycott the upcom
ing Masters tournament to be
held at Augusta next year. In a
Nov. 18 editorial, the Times
said, “A tournament without
Mr. Woods would send a pow
erful message that discrimina
tion isn’t good for the golfing
business ” according to The
New York Daily News.
Every newspaper is afforded
the right to declare official
stances on important issues via
its editorial page. Actually, the
Times expressing its opinion on
the editorial page is not the
issue. The source of the contro
versy is many critics’ assertion
that the Times' bias on the
Augusta and other issues has
seeped into its news coverage
and has seriously affected other
editorial decisions. No matter
how its editors may feel on
certain subjects, the Times
must learn to control its bias so
it may preserve whatever jour
nalistic integrity it still has left.
Many blame Times execu
tive editor, Howard Raines, for
the biased coverage of Augusta
and other subjects. Raines
believes in “using all the
paper’s formidable resources to
COLLINS EZEANYIM
pound away on a
story,” according
to Newsweek.
Raines even has
a specific term
for this tactic —
“flooding the
zone.”
Sometimes it is necessary
for a newspaper to aggressively
pursue a story — otherwise the
public would remain ignorant
of some important issues and
events. But the Times is going
overboard in its coverage of the
Augusta controversy. For
example, a Nov. 25 headline
claimed “CBS Staying Silent
In Debate On Women Joining
Augusta.”
...the Times' bias
on the Augusta and
other issues has
seeped into its news
coverage and has
seriously affected
other editorial
decisions.
This is ridiculous. It is not
news if CBS doesn’t say any
thing on the issue, it is only
news if CBS actually says
something regarding its posi
tion about the Augusta contro
versy. It is obvious the Times
was trying to punish the broad
cast network for its plans to
broadcast the Masters tourna
ment in Augusta. If the Times
continues to attempt to enact
change through its news cover
age, its journalistic integrity
will be seriously undermined.
In fact, a Times staffer told
Newsweek with regards to the
CBS article, “It makes it hard
for us to have credibility on
other issues.”
The article critical of CBS
isn’t the worst thing the Times
has done to ensure only one
point of view is received on the
Augusta issue. Early this
month, the Times killed two
columns on the Augusta con
troversy that were scheduled to
run because they disagreed
with the Times opinion, accord
ing to The New York Daily
News. If this is so, then the
temerity of Raines and other
Times editors is outrageous.
One of the columns, written by
Harvey Araton, argued there
were much more important
issues feminists should be
focusing on. Araton cited the
battle over Title IX — the 1972
controversial law that made it
illegal to discriminate based on
sex in schools receiving federal
funds, according to The
Associated Press. The other
column was written by Pulitzer
Prize winner Dave Anderson
who argued in his article it is
not Tiger Woods’ responsibility
to campaign for an integrated
Augusta. Ironically, “Anderson
... has written previously that
Augusta should admit women,”
according to the AP.
Raines offered an official
explanation for killing
Anderson’s column. He said its
focus on the newspaper’s edito
rial board made the paper
appear “self-absorbed”, accord
ing to the AP. But the Times
cutting the columns was a self-
absorbed act, therefore the
description is appropriate. With
regard to Araton’s column,
Raines said there were prob
lems with “structure and tone.”
Under increasing public
scrutiny, the Times capitulated
and decided to run both of the
columns in a later edition. But
a newspaper shouldn’t have to
receive national attention
before printing opinion pieces
that disagree with its positions.
According to Jack Shafer,
who is a press critic for online
magazine slate.com, the Times
does everything in its power to
deflect criticism of its press
coverage. Meanwhile, other
major newspapers, such as The
Washington Post, have many
mechanisms in place to ensure
readers have the opportunity to
express their views on the
paper’s news coverage —
whether it is good or bad. It is
unfortunate the Times does not
have such a system in place.
The newspaper that touts itself
as “the paper of record” needs
to learn the first responsibility
of a newspaper is to serve the
public and not itself.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.