NATION I
THE BATTALION |
tiond
isped
ti oral arguments fe
t signaled that itw®
iromise on the accts
The court toll
to invite the goveij
propose alternates
hearing, and she I*
rate government W.
motion by mediae
es that the appei
:n the hearing at;
me records now file
ecy.
lit of public access:
ly outweighed bytk
otect classified infii-
tie prosecutors saii
ere was no practki
ivide oral arginw
lassified and uncfc
ns.
government sa>;
ruled from the bet:
o the al-Qaidacapte:
g she did not to
i\ way that this coir
iteh balance the leg
:ems of the defewb
e video deposition"
he government san
rejected the possi
'stitutions by state;
nment did not pri-
unii also seeks it
Khalid Shi
d, a captive who;
ted Sept. 11 mastt:
3nly access it
i is believed to It
appeals court,
overnment believes!
y to abandon the pros
could send thecasea
— a French citite
litary tribunal, wi
ate in greater secret;
rove primary seath
ifficers to stop a o
ver is not buckledif
at belt charges oolyl
another infraction,
trict of Columbiaha«
ding to Advocates Id
killed last year was
i - they hold alltl*
head of the Nate®
listration.
or the fifth consent
since 1990. Thatcoit
1997.
' to a maze kt
ed her greatest
tations. ”
to
EDITORIAL
NO ELECTED MEDIA
The media are often referred to as the fourth branch of democ
racy, working to keep the executive, legislative and judicial
branches in check. By airing the dirty laundry of the government,
the media serves as the first line of defense against tyranny.
However, if some student leaders get their way, The Battalion will
become a promotional newsletter for student government.
The Student Government Association may hold a non-binding
referendum on whether the editor in chief of The Battalion should
be an elected position. The editor is currently selected by the
Student Media Board, whose three student members are appoint
ed by the student body president. The other five members of the
board are faculty and staff members who serve year-long terms.
Politicizing the position would be a disservice to readership
because the position would go to the best politician, rather than
the best journalist.
During the Student Senate debate, Kevin Capps, perhaps unin
tentionally, let slip the real motive behind this referendum. “The
opinions in The Battalion really bother me,” Capps said. Student
Body President Zac Coventry and several senators concurred,
arguing that The Battalion has a duty to reflect positively on the
University, and avoid stories that might upset alumni and prospec
tive students. Coventry also expressed dismay that The Battalion
would use its opinion page to express opinions on campus issues.
While some senators think The Battalion should be run like an
SGA committee, students deserve nothing less than an independ
ent newspaper beholden to no organization or interest group.
Supporters of the referendum are correct that The Battalion
should be accountable to students, and the student presence on the
Media Board ensures a balance between student input and insula
tion from political pressures. This selection process is not unlike
the one used to select the president of the Memorial Student
Center Council, which spends 100 times more student fee money
than The Battalion.
The Battalion staff is filled with students who joined because
they wanted to improve their campus newspaper. Continued stu
dent involvement in the production of The Battalion, rather than
politicizing it, is the best way to ensure the newspaper’s reflection
of students’ concerns.
THE BATTALION
Editor in Chief
Managing Editor
Opinion Editor
News Editor
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brandie Liffick Asst. News
Sommer Bunce Member
Brieanne Porter Member
Rolando Garcia
Melissa Sullivan
Sara Foley
Matt Maddox
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7B • Thursday, April 24, 2003
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or
less and include 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 submit
ted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be
mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843-1 1 1 1. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: maikall@thebatt.com
Owning the news
A merica is witness
ing one of the
most anxious and
critical times in all its
227-year history, and
although affairs overseas
happen to be the topic of
the month, pressing
domestic issues do not
just roll over and play
dead during times of
war. Arguably, the decision that will
shape the American way of life in coming
years will be made by late June, when the
Federal Communications Commission
will decide whether to eliminate or modi
fy six seemingly innocuous media owner
ship rules. The impact could be colossal.
Michael Powell, chairman of the FCC,
has made it known that he favors eliminat
ing these restrictions, which would usher in
a new wave of massive media mergers by
striking down long-standing safeguards
against media monopolization. Up for
reevaluation, according to
www.pbs.org/now, are the following six
rules: the Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-
Ownership Prohibition (1975), which bans
ownership of a newspaper and a television
station in the same market; the National
Television Ownership Rule (1941), stating
that a broadcaster cannot own television
stations that reach more than 35 percent of
the nation's homes; the Dual Network Rule
(1946), which prohibits any
entity from owning more
than one major television
network; the Local
Television Ownership Rule (1964), pro
hibiting a broadcaster from owning more
than one of the top four stations in a single
market; the Local Radio Ownership Rule
(1941), limiting the number of radio sta
tions any one entity can own in a single
marke, and the Television-Radio Cross-
Ownership Rule (1970), which limits the
number of television and radio stations a
single entity can own in any given market.
If these rules are struck down, democracy
cannot survive without the diversity of ideas
presented by a truly free press. According to
United States Senators Wayne Allard, R-CO,
Susan Collins, R-ME, and Olympia Snowe,
R-ME, it may not.
In a letter to Powell calling for a
broader public debate in the FCC’s media
ownership review, the senators contend,
“the mass media provide the news and
information that the citizens of this coun
try use to participate in our democratic
society. A fully functioning democracy
depends on media sources with diverse
voices and opinions as well as content
relevant to local communities.”
According to the media watchdog group
“Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting,”
America’s once diverse media are increas
ingly being monopolized through
mergers and media
consolidation. Six
companies —
Disney, AOL Time
Warner, Vivendi
Corporation,
General
Electric, News
Corp and
Viacom — now
own a hefty
majority of
media out
lets.
Deregulation will only give these corporate
giants uninhibited rule over the market
place and severely limit the ability of jour
nalists to be independent. As America’s
window to the world grows increasingly
narrow and falls into the hands of fewer
people, independent, objective and unbi
ased journalism will get squeezed out of
the picture, and society’s perception of
reality becomes severely distorted. A glar
ing example is the war coverage around
the globe. The media tend to mirror the
stance of their respective government, sift
ing out information not conforming to that
view. Thus, several different wars were
being fought at one time; depending on
what country and on what channel it was
being watched.
On Feb. 17, the Project for Excellence
in Journalism, a non-partisan research
group, in collaboration with Princeton
Survey Research Associates, released a
five-year study on media consolidation
and quality. It concluded, “Overall, the
data strongly suggest regulatory changes
that encourage heavy concentration of
ownership in local television by a few
large corporations will erode
the quality of news
Americans receive.”
Of course, to pay for the
staggering costs of
mergers, media
moguls must bom
bard consumers
with a barrage of
cross-media promo
tions, and as their
pervasiveness into
every facet of our
lives intensifies, so
too does their influ
ence on govern
ment, politics and
pop culture.
Fortunately, the
FCC has allowed a
public comment
period up until
June 2, during
which it has
requested the pub
lic weigh in on the
issue. Public comments can be made on
the FCC Web site, at www.fcc.gov/owner-
ship. It will use the public opinion as a
deciding factor in its decision.
If all of this is news to the public,
think about it. Shouldn’t the public be
aware of it? The very media responsible
for providing everyday Americans with
information important to their daily lives
have a valuable stake in not letting the
public know this.
Scott Monk is a sophomore
agronomy major.
Graphic by Josh Darwin.
Partial-birth abortion ban passes the Senate
law is dangerous and unconstitutional
L ast month the U.S. Senate
passed Senate Bill 3, also
known as the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 2003,
which criminalizes the abortion
procedure known as “intact dila
tion and extraction,” or D&X.
The House of Representatives is
expected to pass the bill this
spring, and President George W.
Bush has made it known that he
will sign the bill into law, according to CNN.com.
This is not the first time Congress has tried to
ban the so-called partial-birth procedure. Since
1995, Congress has passed this same law on two
separate occasions. However, former President
Clinton rightly vetoed the bill each time because it
did not contain a provision allowing the procedure
when a woman’s health was in danger.
The new bill has many problems and should not
be signed. Senate Bill 3, or S.3, is based on highly
misleading information and half-truths. The
American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists — which represents nearly 90 per
cent of physicians who provide health care for
women — call any D&X bans “inappropriate, ill-
advised and dangerous.”
D&X bans are also unconstitutional. Six state
supreme courts independently struck down these
bans during the 1990s. With the case of Stenberg v.
Carhart in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared
the remaining state D&X bans to be unconstitu
tional, according to Salon.com. The new federal
D&X bans have the same constitutionality prob
lems the state laws had.
Two main reasons were given for the ruling in
Carhart. The first was that the language of the bill
was vague; it did not specify that it meant to ban
only intact D&X procedures. During a D&X, fetus
is aborted by dilating the cervix, pulling the fetus
out of the uterus and collapsing the head. With
other late-term abortion procedures, the fetus is not
taken out of the uterus intact. The Court found that
other abortion techniques could also be targeted
under the law. The second reason was that the law
contained no exceptions in the event that a
woman’s health was in danger, which is a require
ment for any late-term abortion regulation.
The state laws failed to distinguish between
pre- and post-viability abortions. A D&X can be
performed before or after viability, or the point in
which a fetus can survive outside the uterus. Pre
viability abortions and post-viability abortions are
subject to different rules under Planned
Parenthood v. Casey.
Early term abortions may be regulated if those
regulations do not constitute an “undue burden” on
the woman. The Supreme Court in Carhart ruled
that D&X bans do form an undue burden by pre
venting a woman from obtaining an abortion by
using the technique that is the best for her situa
tion. In Roe v. Wade and Casey, the Supreme Court
asserted that any late-term abortion legislation
must have a provision allowing the procedure to
protect maternal health.
The bill that passed through the Senate did not
fix these constitutionality problems. The pro
posed law still fails to specify intact D&X as
being the only procedure criminalized. It does
not distinguish between pre- or post-viability,
and it does not have exceptions that would pro
tect maternal health. The Congressional findings
of S.3 arrogantly claimed the Roe v. Wade ruling
does not apply because D&X procedures are
never medically necessary to save the life of the
mother. While this is technically true—different
abortion procedures can be performed—in many
cases, a D&X is the safest and most appropriate
technique to use, according to the ACOG.
Only a doctor, in consultation with the patient,
can decide which procedure is the best based on
the woman’s particular circumstances, which is
why the ACOG and the American Medical
Association oppose the ban.
The proposed bill has another major constitu
tionality problem: Congress does not have the
authority to pass the law. Congress is trying to pass
this law using the Commerce Clause, which gives
it the ability to regulate interstate commerce. For a
regulation to be upheld, however, the activity has to
“substantially affect” interstate commerce, accord
ing to the ruling in U.S. v. Lopez.
Only a few thousand of these procedures occur
each year. Even if some women traveled out of
state to obtain a D&X, the notion that one extreme
ly rare type of abortion procedure can have a sub
stantial affect on commerce is ridiculous. As a
1997 Connecticut Law Review article states,
“Unless a physician is operating a mobile abortion
clinic on the Metroliner, it is not really possible to
perform an abortion ‘in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce.’”
In passing this dangerous and deceptive law.
Congress is trying to take away what may be a
woman’s safest and most appropriate abortion
option. Congress is usurping doctors’ rights to
make the best medical decisions for their clients,
but Congress lacks the authority to pass the regula
tions in the first place. Unfortunately, this ban will
inevitably become law and women will be hurt
before the Supreme Court strikes it down.
Jenelle Wilson is a senior
political science major.
JENELLE
WILSON
On the path to overturning Roe
J ust as joyous Iraqis are
finally being liberated from
Saddam Hussein’s reign of
terror, the U.S. Congress is
beginning to free innocent
American children from the
murderous clutches of the abor
tion-rights lobby.
Encouraged by an over
whelming 64-33 Senate vote, the
U.S. House of Representatives
looks poised to pass the Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Act of 2003, according to CNN.com. The bill
would finally end the brutal form of abortion that
has been a stain on America’s soul for way too
long.
Termed “intact dilation and extraction” by the
American Medical Association, this gruesome
procedure is nothing short of infanticide.
Performed to terminate late-term pregnancies
(normally in the 20-24 week range, but some
times up to the ninth month), the doctor begins
by grabbing the live baby by its feet, and pulls
the body out all except for the head. Scissors are
then stabbed into the base of the cranium and
opened to create a large hole, into which a suc
tion tube is inserted to vacuum the brains out.
The head is then easily collapsed and delivered
and the child is discarded.
This barbaric procedure, performed more
than 2,200 times every year in America,
according to Fox News, is an affront to human
dignity. Still, some people are fighting to keep it
legal, even as passage of the ban looks immi
nent. Why? Two reasons are generally given,
neither of which is valid.
First, many claim that partial-birth abortions
are sometimes a medical necessity, and that to
ban the procedure would endanger women with
problem pregnancies. But hundreds of physicians
have testified before Congress and elsewhere that
this is not the case at all. For example, after for
mer President Clinton vetoed an earlier version
of the bill in 1996, the Physicians’ Ad Hoc
Coalition for Truth formed specifically to counter
his claims of medical necessity, stating that “par
tial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to
protect a mother’s health or her future fertility,”
according to prolifeinfo.org.
Even some abortion doctors have admitted to
the fallacy of the health claim. In an interview
with the American Medical News, Dr. Martin
Haskell said 20 percent of the late-term abortions
he performs are for fetal genetic abnormalities,
and the other 80 percent are “purely elective.” In
other words, absolutely none of them were per
formed to save the life or health of the mother.
This procedure was used for convenience.
The second argument commonly used to
defend partial-birth abortion is used to defend
abortion generally, and it brings us to the heart of
the matter.
Abortion advocates claim that women have a
constitutional right to decide whether the unborn
child inside them lives or dies.
Strangely enough, this so-called “right to
choose” exists nowhere in the'Constitution.
Instead, it is derived from a vague right to priva
cy cited by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.
And even though the Supreme Court declined to
say, definitively, which part of the Constitution
guaranteed such a right to privacy, the justices
declared that it included a “woman’s decision
whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
Troubled by the Court’s nihilistic activism,
dissenting Justices Byron R. White and William
H. Rehnquist wrote that they “find nothing in the
language or history of the Constitution to support
the Court’s judgment,” and that the decision is
“an improvident and extravagant exercise of the
power of judicial review.”
Tragically, this alleged right to privacy
expanded in Roe can only be exercised at the
expense of the most fundamental of all rights, a
right explicitly protected by the Constitution and
the Declaration of Independence, and a right
without which all other rights are rendered use
less. That, of course, is the right to life.
Roe v. Wade and abortion advocates deny this
essential right to unborn children, and with it the
human dignity and protection they deserve.
Without offering any definitive or convincing cri
teria of their own, they say the unborn child has
not developed into an actual human life.
Yet the answer to this central question of
when life begins is absolute and unequivocal.
Life begins at conception. At this point, the new
cell is a unique individual, complete with 46
chromosomes and everything it needs to thrive
inside the mother’s womb. If undisturbed, nature
will take care of the rest.
Like the “separate but equal” doctrine of
Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision
that mandated the return of escaped slaves, Roe
v. Wade denies to a disadvantaged group of peo
ple-unborn babies-the God-given and inalienable
rights due to every human being. And, like these
infamous cases, Roe will eventually be over
turned. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of
2003 is the first step down that righteous path.
Jerad Najvar is a senior
political science major.
JERAD
NAJVAR