spoil
THE BATTAll ;
liock
Opinion
upsc
s as the cliK'k
went 4-12 last yej
le losing all tour
ying today, it w
played,” coach
d have lost the
d 11 penalties, wr
iCtion that negated,
ms. He also losti
field goal, buth:
h quarter by turn:
ard touchdown,
ith a 76-yard dm;
‘s 24-yard field gc®
h 4:55 left,
in front of a pi
he ball at the Mir
- n put them ahead
We fell if we could;
game into the k
ter. the pressure»
to the Dolp
use they were
rites” coach )
ers said. “Then.
just a couple ?:
hris Chambers s
ni the lead by jm
7 and 21 y;trds,
uied grab in the hie
passes tied hiscr
, completing 17 a
led to sack the sec
sacked an NFl-r;.
5-14 late in the:
ards to regain dies
rse and Fiedler thro
gh the defense arc
;>f the grasp of thr
ut Stevens,
conversation pav
decisive. At the : :-
trash-talking,
srd " Miami linebc
t have any words
snapper Chance Pc
napper Bryan Pr
e game. ... Mian
left ankle but sa
r
The Battalion
Page 5B • Monday, September 8,
hcroft chooses life for FACE
reedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act protects rights of patients, doctors
%
MATTHEW
RIGNEY
L ast month. Attorney
General John
Ashcroft pledged to
defend a section of U.S. code
which protects patients’ right
to abortion that U.S. District
Judge Kenneth Hoyt declared
unconstitutional in a misin-
fonned ruling. Frank
Layafette Bird Jr. was set free
by this decision after being
arrested on charges of violating the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. Bird
crashed his van through the doors of an abortion
clinic, according to The Houston Chronicle.
Ashcroft should be applauded for vowing to
defend the American people. Hoyt erroneously
struck down the law using an argument that had
already been proven antiquated at the time the bill
was signed into law and an argument that violates
the First Amendment rights of abortion clinic
doctors and patients.
The FACE act prohibits “by force ... or by
physical obstruction” anyone to “intimidate or
interfere with any person because that person is ...
obtaining or providing reproductive health servic
es.” It does not advocate abortion but simply
allows for the safety of those who work or make
use of abortion clinics. Obviously, driving a van
through the doors of an abortion clinic violates
this act.
Hoyt declared this act unconstitutional on the
basis that Congress had no right to make such a
law. However, Congress, through what’s com
monly known as the commerce clause in the
Constitution, can “regulate commerce with for
eign nations, and among the several states, and
with the Indian tribes.” Modem interpretations of
the commerce clause allow Congress to regulate,
among other things, the commerce that has a sig-
j nificant importance to interstate commerce.
Perhaps, when declaring that Congress did not
have the authority to sign the FACE act into law,
Hoyt failed to review the financial report of
Planned Parenthood, one of the country’s largest
abortion providers in America. In the 2001-2002
financial report. Planned Parenthood reports an
income of $254.8 million from clinics alone. The
total revenue for the company that fiscal year
totaled $692.5 million.
More than $600 million surely has a substan
tial effect on the interstate commerce of the coun
try, giving Congress the right to pass this law.
Anyone, including Hoyt, can see the relevance of
this money.
52^
If abortion clinics and abortion protesters were
confined to one state, state governments could
clearly handle the regulation FACE covers. But
just as Congress states in the findings published
for the FACE act, “... abortion-related services
have been targeted in recent years by an interstate
campaign of violence and obstruction... (that)
overwhelm(s) state and local law
enforcement authorities and
courts.”
These findings, first pub
lished in the early 1990s, identify and address
the problem that abortion protesters have
wreaked upon society. They have a nationally
organized campaign meant to spread their ideals
and organize protests and events, which today is
even more decentralized because of the organi
zation the Internet allows. It would be an insur
mountable task for each state government to
tackle this problem alone.
The intervention of the federal government
was and still is a necessity.
Anti-abortion advocates recently told The New
York Times that Hoyt’s ruling reinforced the First
Amendment rights o^protesters. Although the
FACE act limits the speech and assembly of these
protesters, they are wrong in calling them First
Amendment rights.
In the 1919 Supreme Court case Schneck v.
United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
outlined speech the First Amendment does not
protect. Holmes asserts that words must be
reviewed to see whether they “are of such a
nature as to create a clear and present danger that
they will bring substantive evils that Congress
has the right to prevent.” Holmes uses this to jus
tify his famous finding that “the most stringent
protection of free speech would not protect a
man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded the
ater and causing a panic.”
Clearly, driving a van through the doors of
an abortion clinic presents a danger to not only
those who are in the clinic, but the driver of the
van. The anti-abortion factions are attempting
to use the First Amendment as a last-ditch
attempt to justify their actions, but it holds no
constitutional merit.
Hoyt obviously made the wrong decision last
month, and any sensible American citizen should
support Ashcroft in his defense of an act that
Congress had the absolute right to sign into law.
Matt Rigney is a junior
journalism major.
week. ... Backup
iis right hamstnnp
1 1
*
*
► „
*
I , v
i
#
*
*
#
*
\
States must be able to pass Internet privacy laws
T he Internet has brought about an
information revolution that has made
it possible to find nearly anything
about anyone online, including one’s personal
information. No one is immune from this
potential threat, as the Foundation for Taxpayer
and Consumer Rights, a California-based con
sumer advocacy group, demonstrated. It
recently purchased the social security numbers lindsye
and home addresses of top politicos such as forson
CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General
IJohn Ashcroft and Bush’s chief political adviser Karl Rove,
online for a meager $26 each, according to CNN.
This high profile case of privacy invasion exemplifies the
need for stricter credit reporting laws. These laws, however,
should not be restricted to the federal sphere; a state must have
the ability to create its own legislation in case the citizens from
state to state differ.
Acknowledging that current credit reporting laws are flawed
at least to some extent is probably the least controversial aspect
of this issue. After all, when social security numbers are on sale
for 26 bucks a pop, one cannot help but be concerned about
consumer privacy issues, the worst being the looming possibili
ty of identity theft.
Credit reports, by their very nature, are invasive. A credit
■report is essentially a rap sheet of a consumer’s every financial
Igaffe, from paying a bill late to filing for bankruptcy. Some
icredit reports even include one’s criminal record. When a con-
Isumer applies for a loan or even a job, corporations may choose
to order a credit report to make a more informed decision.
However, sometimes corporations that compile credit reports
sell this information to their affiliated companies and even
those that aren't affiliated, allowing consumers’ private infor
mation to be circulated widely and with little regulation,
according to CNN.
Rep. Bachus, R-Alabama, and other House members have
responded to this threat by sponsoring bill H.R. 2622, the Fair
Credit and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. The act
aims to “amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to prevent iden
tity theft, improve resolution of consumer disputes, improve the
accuracy of consumer records, make improvements in the use
of and consumer access to credit information and for other pur
poses,” according to the House of Representative’s Committee
on Financial Services Web site.
Some states have also begun to write consumer privacy and
protection legislation. In what some have called a desperate last
attempt to appeal to voters in California, Gov. Gray Davis
recently signed into law a bill that will force institutions such
as banks and insurance companies to obtain their customers’
permission before sharing any account information with an
unaffiliated company. It will also give consumers the option to
share their information with affiliated businesses or to keep it
private, according to CBSnews.com.
Unfortunately, the federal bill H.R. 2622 in its current form
contains an addendum that would severely limit states’ sover
eignty to pass their own financial privacy legislation. According
to CBSnews.com, the accurate reporting act would bar states
from passing legislation that would prevent banks from sharing
consumer information with affiliated companies, the kind of
legislation California just passed.
Proponents of the accurate reporting act cite logistical con
cerns as the primary reason why an overarching federal law
would be more efficient than having many and varied state laws.
They argue that different rules in different states could ultimately
hurt consumers more than it would help them by increasing the
cost of loans and the amount of paperwork, according to
CBSnews.com.
That argument could be made about a lot of things, though.
Sure, it would probably be simpler if drivers’ licenses were fed
eralized, but a logistical headache is not reason enough to deny
states a right that should be theirs.
The accurate reporting act makes major strides in protecting
consumers’ financial privacy and even personal safety. Its pro
posed measures to thwart identity theft — which affects one out
of eight Americans, according to CNN — and improve the
accuracy of credit reports are badly needed, and this country
will be the better for it if this bill is passed. However, the accu
rate reporting act should be amended either to give consumers
the choice of who does and does not have access to their per
sonal information or it should not pre-empt the states from
granting their citizens this right.
Given the choice between filling out a few more papers and
having their identity stolen, Americans would probably chose
the paperwork any day.
Lindsye Forson is a senior
journalism major.
: Taxpayers should not
: foot bill for gay class
In response to Chris Lively’s Sept. 3
1 column:
| The purpose of a college education
; is just that: education. From super
‘ string theory to underwater basket
; weaving, every course is intended to
I provide its students with skills and
; knowledge that will aid them in the
» future. The University of Michigan’s
; new course, however, has very little to
^ do with helping students’ careers.
; Granted, other cultural studies cours-
• es impart valuable knowledge to
! those willing to take them, but if the
! class truly were a “cultural study,” then
! it would seem Professor Halperin is
! deliberately inviting criticism by nam-
I ing the course “How to be Gay.”
I In his article, Chris calls for equal
! representation, and accuses oppo-
; nents of the course of “trying to sup-
I; press a movement” and “taking away
i the choices of others.” A public univer-
f sity, funded by our tax dollars, is sim-
; ply not an appropriate place to provide
a class on “How to be Gay,” no more
than a “How to be Straight” class
would. The acceptance the homosex
ual community strives for is hindered
by their choice to set themselves
apart.
Jessica DeMaio
Class of 2005
Students should carry
costs of education
In response to Jenelle Wilson’s
Sept. 5 column:
As budget cuts continue to affect the
financial policy of the University, stu
dents should be more willing to bear
the costs incurred for their education.
Many people probably do not consid
er on a daily basis the degree to which
the taxpaying citizens, through the
state government, subsidize their edu
cation, but it is a reality that we are
beholden to these taxpayers.
Unfortunately, with the economic
downturn hitting not only the state of
Texas but our nation as well, the tax
revenues that once allowed state cot-
MAIL CALL
fers to lavishly fund state programs
must be used with more constraint. If
that causes a university to naturally
receive less funding, then so be it. But
the University must fund itself and its
programs somehow, and this leaves
more opportunity for students to bear
these costs.
Does anyone genuinely think that
they are entitled to a top-quality uni
versity education? Perhaps we would
all become better students, and better
people, if we viewed education as
something to be earned, that some
times requires financial sacrifice, than
something for which taxpayers should
gladly and willingly foot the bill so that
we will have the means to purchase
Play Stations and beer.
Jonathan Shilling
Class of 2005
Tolerance necessary
for diversity
In response to a Sept. 5 mail call:
With everything happening at Texas
A&M concerning aims to increase tol
erance and diversity, I found Lindsey
Arms’ letter very disturbing. In her let
ter she called homosexuality “per
verse and disdainful.” Who’s right is it
to determine what is right and wrong
concerning how one chooses to live
their life?
The case of what is right or wrong is
not concrete, or we would have no
need for the extensive court system
and loosely written Constitution in this
wonderful place to live called America.
We need to be tolerant of how people
choose or are forced to live their lives,
not shun it as being “vulgar” or “moral
ly wrong.”
Christopher Kowalski
Class of 2004