lay 2, 2003
tease
lodes a
an airpo
Jamal Halaby
ASSOCIATED PRESI
!AN, Jordan—/
a suitcase
Is of a security
is inspecting
international a
/, killing the
authorities said,
detained the suspect
of the suitcase,
journalist, u
:s he did not
'e that he hadaimplc
ce in his posses®
cials involved in
ion.
explosion woim
ither people,
ion Mini
ad Affash Ad wan.!;
ounded were guars
deal condition, Adit
told authority
In’t know than
> an explosive
ice which had
etonated.
jmmad Affash Adwas
Information ^
urnalist,
omi of the
r. told authorities!
the metal device asi
from the remnanlsal
q,” Adwan said
later told the c
s agency that the mi
ught the metal dew
aqi citizen in
he crossed
:sert border overlai
on Monday,
d authorities hei
it was an explst
ch hadn’t
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7B • Friday, May 2, 2003
Unnecessary actions
Rec Sports operational changes are spiteful, not needed to deter debt problems
flisl
)ld The Associli
said the j
id trial in Amman.
/ officials said the I
saw the metal devi#
X-ray screening ai
man to open his soil
manual search,
dee exploded in
ling him
i.
said the bap
i an EgyptAir
gypt, where the jo#
i heading after
to Iraq.
anese journalist at
mher souvenirs
ts antiques, rugs at
security officialsai
n of anonymity,
in Hod
to be
iced
ley Shannon
OCIATED PRESS
— Though
e is moving for
school finance
tv. David Dewhuf
ers said Thursda)
to take a careful
it could take long®
urrent legislative
te is meeting Frida!
its school fu
I 31 senators
the plan thatwoufl
existing share#
mm with one
operty taxes in
and increase
Speaker
fellow Republican
whether tft
)posal takes a
of funding p
ate plan
the tax aspect of H;
we call a piece
/e’re going tolc
e,” Craddick ti
riters from arou
T he Department of Recreational Sports
failed to pass an unnecessary fee referen
dum in February, and now like a sore loser,
(staking its ball and going home.
Rec Sports has decided to save money by cut-
igsome of the busiest hours in the Student
Recreation Center, seeming a move to punish stu
dents for voting down its fee referendum.
According to section 54.539(e) of the Texas
Education Code, as long as Rec Sports keeps
on its books, it can still charge student fees. Once those
debts are off the books, and it has been charging the fee for 20
years, it can no longer charge the $78 Rec Sports fee for each
student. Of the proposed fee referendum, 20 percent was going
straight to debt restructuring. Also, by continually proposing
building and expansion, Rec Sports guarantees itself to stay in
at.
According to Graduate Student Council meeting minutes,
Dennis Corrigan, director of Rec Sports, assured council members
Rec Sports could keep functioning at current levels for two
years without a fee referendum.
So in February, Corrigan told students that Rec Sports could
continue for two years, but now in May, he is cutting some of
the busiest hours out of the Rec Sports schedule. The Rec
Center will close an hour earlier and open an hour later in the
mornings during the weekends staring this summer.
Another part of the fee referendum was intended to increase
student wages. Many student workers are not paid as well as Rec
Sports workers. Sarah Schuler, Class of 2001, worked at Evans
Library for three years while attending A&M. “The most I made at
Evans was $5.65, but the convenience of having a job on campus
outweighed not making as much,” she said.
Unnecessary jobs should be cut, and Rec Sports should be
more streamlined.
Despite Rec Sports’ great marketing campaign for its fee ref
erendum, it forgot to tell students of the more than $5 million
it refuses to use to keep the Rec Center operating at nor
mal levels. If it is planning on saving it for a rainy day, they
)uld consider the current budget crunch more than a drizzle.
Now through the Budget and Facility FAQ available online at
recsports.tamu.edu, Rec Sports is trying to blame the students
who wisely voted down the unnecessary fee referendum for the
in hours. The fee is not needed, because of the more
fa$5 million reserve money it has.
Sports says that the reserve money is only for debt service
and building renewal and modification, but surely $5 million
more than covers that for the next two years, especially when it is
only looking to cut $200,000. By cutting so many hours, it would
seem it is only looking to add more to its treasure chest surplus.
The change in hours is a punishment for students who voted
down the referendum. If they were really more interested in cut
ting costs, Rec Sports would be trimming the fat by not cutting
the busiest hours of the day such as closing at 11:00 p.m.
instead of midnight during the week. Keep student workers at
their current wages, let students swipe their own ID card as they
enter, cut working hours for unnecessary shifts, find jobs that
can be covered by more than one person and suspend raises until
the budget crunch is over. Taking punitive actions toward the
students not wanting to pay more for less is ridiculous.
Graduate Student Aerospace Engineering Representative Matt
Wilkins said the Graduate Student Council has formed a com
mittee to investigate Rec Sports’ change of hours. “Dennis
Corrigan spoke to GSC prior to the fee referendum seeking sup
port and made statements in direct contradiction to published
statements in the current hours FAQ on the Rec Sports Web
site,” Wilkins said. “GSC formed a committee to investigate
possible motives behind the changing of the Rec Center hours.”
So far, Corrigan has worked well with the GSC committee,
Wilkins says.
Corrigan and Rec Sports need to come clean with students.
No more playing games and acting childish. Punitive hour
changing is taking this much too far. Rec Sports has the money
to keep their current hours, but they are acting underhandedly,
and students should not support their decisions.
Thomas Campbell is a senior
agriculture journalism major.
Graphic by Ivan Flores.
Here’s to your health Abstinence isn’t only answer
w —™ When the time enmes for a teen to fieeide
Proposed health care policy is useless
A merican journalist P.J.
O’Rourke once wrote,
“If you think that
care is expensive now,
wait until you see what it
costs when it’s free.”
O'Rourke was right — social-
kills efficiency, and it is
the public that ends up paying
the price. Despite this, and
the fact that the state of Texas now faces a
i-billion dollar budget-crunch, certain mem
bers of the Texas Legislature are looking to
make Texas state health care “free.” Free for
:gal immigrants, that is.
Bills sponsored by Sen. Mario Gallegos and
p. Rick Noriega that would destroy Texas
ilth care are currently making their way
passage in the Texas Legislature. House
Bill525 and Senate Bill 309 would amend the
current law forbidding medical practitioners to
state for non-emergency health care pro
vided to non-citizens. The bill reads, “As amend-
, a municipality, a county, or a public hospital
ay use money from local sources to provide
alth care services to a person regardless of
their immigration status....” If this plan is imple
mented, the quality of the Texas health care will
crash as the costs skyrocket.
In July 2001, then-Texas Attorney General
John Comyn took action after receiving com-
that state hospital districts were violating
law by offering free health care to illegal immi
grants. Federal law only mandates that states
cover the costs of health care to destitute illegal
Immigrants in emergency cases. The federal gov
ernment then reimburses Texas for those emer
gency services provided. Cornyn ruled that in the
case of non-emergency care, the state legislature
has jurisdiction to decide whether to fund free
care for non-citizens. It is because of this ruling
current Texas law that Gallegos’ and
Noriega's bills were proposed.
Proponents of the bills argue that it will not
cost Texas anything. According to a Legislative
et Board report in regards to the bill, “No
fiscal implication to the state is anticipated.”
However, during its investigation in 2001, the
attorney general’s office discovered that the
Harris County hospital district alone had funded
«30million in health care costs for illegal aliens
^ring a three-year period. Since two-thirds of
•hose costs covered by the Harris County hospital
district were non-emergency care, they were inel
igible for a federal refund and Texas taxpayers
were left holding the bag.
Oregon recently voted on Ballot Measure 23,
which would have instituted a universal health
care system in the state. Proponents argued that
the program would benefit uninsured children.
Business leaders argued that its increased costs
would put parents out of jobs. Luckily, the pro
posal was defeated by a wide margin. This is
one of the rare instances where Oregon might be
able to teach Texas a lesson in common sense.
In Canada, where health care is provided by
the government at the expense of taxpayers, the
waiting period between visiting a general prac
titioner and receiving treatment was four
months in 2001, according to the Fraser
Institute. Offering free health care for the world
means that Texas hospitals will be flooded with
immigrants seeking expensive procedures and
medical care, knowing that once they have been
treated, they will not have to pay.
Overcrowded hospitals mean waiting lists
with fewer skilled doctors to go around. All the
while, the paying citizens of Texas will foot the
bill through taxes and higher costs of their
medical treatment. As the cost of health care
rises, more patients will be unable to afford the
treatment they require. Insurance rates, already
unstable after a series of crises, will also rise,
making health care increasingly difficult with
out government subsidy. When the government
is paying, patients and providers will not hesi
tate to take an elective surgery or spend an
extra week in the hospital. The route of social
ized care is a vicious circle.
So long as Texas is a democratic republic,
those elected to serve in the Legislature must rep
resent their constituents, the citizens of Texas.
The interests of non-citizens should not factor
into their legislative decisions, whether they are
from Mexico or New Mexico. Only those who
pay into the Texas tax system should be able to
take from it. Especially in this time of cuts to
education and other public services, the cost of
free health care is a price too high for Texans.
JOHN DAVID
BLAKLEY
Matt Maddox is a senior
management major.
T he debate between
abstinence-only and
comprehensive sex edu
cation is not new, but with
unplanned pregnancies and
STIs abounding, the need for
comprehensive education is
greater than ever.
According to the 2001
Youth Risk Behavior Survey
by the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 45.6 percent of
high school students nationally reported having
had sexual intercourse at least once. There are
one million teenage pregnancies in the United
States a year, 78 percent of which are
unplanned. The Guttmacher Institute reports that
roughly four million new sexually transmitted
infections (STIs) occur among U.S. teens annu
ally. Half of the 40,000 Americans infected with
HIV each year are young people under the age
of 25, according to the United Nations.
When so much is at risk, shouldn’t America’s
youth be provided with all of the correct infor
mation about sex? If the Bush administration has
its way, the answer is no.
Abstinence-only sex education, which is being
pushed by President George W. Bush, appears to
be secure under legislation pending in Congress,
according to the ACT UP Web site. By law, local
programs will not receive federal money if infor
mation about contraception — beyond failure
rates — is included. This pushes any chance of
comprehensive sex education out the door, taking
with it information that studies have shown to
prevent unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmit
ted diseases and AIDS.
According to Surgeon General David Satcher,
abstinence-only programs are less effective than
comprehensive ones. According to the
American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, students who receive comprehen
sive education are more likely to use condoms
and other forms of contraception, delay the onset
of sexual activity, have sex less often and have
fewer sexual partners than their abstinence-only
counterparts. Perhaps Bush should take a hint
from Secretary of State Colin Powell, who on
MTV last February urged America’s youth to use
condoms to ensure safe sex.
The argument for abstinence-only sex educa
tion is based on two points. First, contraception is
not 100 percent effective, and second, that absti
nence until marriage is the moral and proper
choice. It is true that abstinence is the only
method of guaranteeing the prevention of unwant
ed pregnancies and the contraction of STIs, but
those who choose to have sex should be encour
aged to use contraceptives and condoms.
When the time comes for a teen to decide
whether to have sex, this most intimate decision
will be his own, dictated by parental guidance,
faith and self-knowledge. An hour long presenta
tion by a stranger on abstaining from sexual
activity will fail to be effective. Some teens do
choose to have sex, and these teens should be
equipped with all the right tools and protection to
make it a safe act.
Abstinence-only legislation denies teens
from getting the proper education needed for a
healthy sexual experience. When it comes down
to it, it encourages educators to withhold infor
mation from their students. Comprehensive sex
education teaches abstinence as the only guar
antee to prevent pregnancy and STIs as well as
providing contraception as a beneficial backup.
It is not the federal government’s place to ban
comprehensive sex education and to sacrifice
the protection and health of America’s youth for
the upholding of moral values.
So what about abstinence-only being the
moral and proper choice? This argument is fal
lible because not everyone believes that the act
of sex is immoral or improper when committed
in the correct circumstances. No one can deny
the authority of the government to encourage
what it defines to be proper behavior; it has the
power to sustain the general welfare. However,
denying important information about safe sex
jeopardizes the health of many people, and it
goes far beyond encouragement.
The intent of legislation funding exclusive
abstinence-oriented education is to dictate peo
ple’s most intimate decisions. The legislation
says you have only one choice, abstinence, or no
protection against the dangers of the alternatives
even though they do exist and protection could
be provided.
The U.S. government cannot expect all of its
citizens to just stop having sex to prevent unwant
ed pregnancies and the spread of sexually trans
mitted diseases. If conservatives are committed to
lowering the occurrence of abortions performed in
America, the government cannot hide the means
for having safe sex from adolescents.
When it comes to discussing sex, there
should be no secrets. All of the information
about sex — the dangers and the risks, the irre
placeable benefits of abstinence and the effec
tiveness of contraception as a safeguard from
pregnancy and STIs — should be talked about,
because it is what teens do not know about sex
that could hurt them the most.
John David Binkley is a freshman
political science major.