WORLt
imm
rdei
:tivc
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Monday, November 3, 2003
CO,
lington.iml
at any suspe;
een
menca.
Juarez,
the Mexici
Nationii
ute,
n’t arrestedi
Gruesome cases
States must not wait for worst scenarios to pass adequate adoption legislation
espect headi
iid the Unit
irmed Mexii
i the U.S.sidi
l presum*
or the Hi
the FBI »:
id Custci:
national sect
prevent tfc
iher any sis
have k
cross the tie
commissi®
Customs ai
said "huncte
- from... Ij
s, such
d back at la
im Mexico,in
indication
ists.
Patrol affl
i-Mexico lilt
;h they ha'
ugly v
ility of ten#
shed peoph
they ha'
ion
d from
jck
. (AP) -I
and a gam
age-old to
•to freethiti
ms stuck toi
JENELLE
WILSON
O n Oct. 24, Raymond
and Vanessa Jackson
of New Jersey were
arrested for child abuse after
a neighbor found one of their
adopted children scrounging
for food in trash cans in the
middle of the night two
weeks before. The boy, Bruce
Jackson, 19, was only 4 feet
tall and weighed 45 pounds.
New Jersey officials also removed three other
boys from the household; the youngest is 9
years old. None of the boys weighed more than
50 pounds.
It is unfortunate that it takes a gruesome
case — one that will undoubtedly stereotype
decent adoptive parents — to bring badly
needed attention to the U.S. foster care system.
While there have been attempts to rectify the
system in the past few years, these attempts
have amounted to little more than quick fixes.
With almost 300,000 children entering the fos
tercare system e;ich year, more must be done
to ensure these children are properly cared for
or adopted into homes adequately prepared to
provide for them.
If a state deems itself to be better suited to
provide care for children, it must prove it.
These children deserve better than to be put in
state care that is only marginally better than
the situation they were in before, which means
states must come up with long-term solutions
for solving the financial and personnel prob
lems plaguing the foster care system.
Bruce Jackson was removed from his bio
logical family in 1991 because he was being
starved; his situation did not improve with his
new family. According to investigators, the
four boys were the only children in the house
who were being systematically starved. Their
diets consisted of pancake batter, peanut
butter and breakfast cereal; they
had also been locked out of the
kitchen. Investigators believe
they ate wallboard and
insulation. The boys also
had lice, rotting teeth
and had not seen a
doctor for at least
five years.
In 1997,
Congress passed
the Adoption and
Safe Families
Act, which was
meant to encour
age adoptions in
the United States.
According to The
Desert Sun, states
that finalize more
adoptions than in
previous years
receive cash bonus
es from the federal
government. States are
given $4,000 for every
child adopted; this
amount is increased to
$6,000 if the child is deemed
to have special needs.
This measure has
increased the number of
Cracie Arenas • THE BATTALION
adoptions in the United States (they have
almost doubled) and the process has been
made faster (the average time for adoptions
was down to five months in 2001), which is
generally good for children in foster
care. However, according to The
New York Times, some offi
cials worry the cash incen
tives have made the
bonuses more important
than the child’s best
interests, and the
decreased time
frame prohibits
states from fully
investigating
potential parents.
Another con
cern with the
measure is that
it does not limit
the number of
children families
can adopt, which
could leave chil
dren being placed
in overcrowded
homes with fami
lies that may not be
W able to properly care
for them. This concern
is highly relevant in the
Jackson case.
The Jackson family con
sisted of 11 children: four bio
logical, six adopted and one foster
child. Bruce was the second child
adopted by the Jacksons; his adoption was final
ized in December 1995. The other three boys
followed in the next two years, and another girl
was adopted in 2000. The Jackson family was
in the process of adopting a seventh child when
Bruce was found going through trash cans,
according to The New York Times.
The Jacksons were receiving more than
$30,000 a year from the state to care for the
adopted children, according to the Courier-
Post Online. Despite this money, the family
was $9,000 behind in rent, and the electricity
had been turned off from June 18 to Oct. 6.
One has to wonder how a family that could not
financially care for its children was being con
sidered to adopt more.
Remarkably, the Division of Youth and
Family Services visited the home 38 times in the
past two years and it even passed an inspection
in June; the official who inspected the home,
and who has since resigned, called it a “nurtur
ing, stable environment.” One has to wonder just
how low New Jersey’s standards are.
Changes to the foster care system are usual
ly made in response to public failures, such as
the Jackson case. Undoubtedly, new legislation
will be passed; in fact, some has already been
introduced. However, encouraging adoptions
and promoting child safety deserves better than
these emergency fixes, which can lead to even
more problems, particularly in New Jersey.
Jenelle Wilson is a senior
political science major.
Ban on abortion procedure violates women’s rights
as inspecfc
irthern-Sait
ar Butte'f
aw three I
i tracks. Off
rnd one i®
ie third haii
spike andii
untain liott
ossed Siltf
10-degree®
ito the stef
tuck.
)ects
pot for
iy
is (AP) -
;en a factf
for geneu
Jped settlei:
ed land
i deep wittf
officials (
cities ho|f
n power Ik
usiness.
:hin the n®
ae will be Ik
energy,” sat I
i/o HiKoMOT *
O n April 25, 2004, thousands around
America will merge in Washington D.C.
to rally for something that hangs in seri
ous jeopardy: women’s reproductive rights.
Many abortion rights activists feel that 2004
may be the last opportunity Americans have to
repel the vicious attack on women’s health
clioices by the radical religious right. With the
Senate’s passage of the Partial Birth Abortion
Ban Act of 2003, which bans the procedure
known as intact dilation and extraction, people
across the United States are beginning to wake up and realize
that a woman’s right to choose when and where to start a family
is something that cannot be taken for granted.
President George W. Bush and his Republican rubber-stamp
Congress have not only waged war on Iraq, but also on American
women and their basic rights. The right for an individual woman
to control her body is something religious fundamentalists have
never supported, and if they get their way, will abolish in the near
future. According to The Nation, the recent ban on late term
abortions is the first federal ban on an abortion method since the
Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which granted
women a constitutional right to have an abortion.
The issue of late term abortions has itself been distorted with
half-truths and falsehoods. Most of the anti-abortion propaganda
floating around about late term abortions refers to them as “par
tial birth” abortions. Yet this term itself is not medically accurate.
Partial birth abortions are not mentioned in any medical text
books. The term is nothing more than political jargon aimed at
making the procedure seem cruel and deserving of a ban. The
anti-abortion movement has been effective in misleading the
public on issues such as the late term abortion procedure.
Late term abortions make up a small percentage of the overall
abortion procedures practiced in the United States. They are often
done when medical information about the fetus or its affect on the
mother’s health becomes fully realized. Expectant mothers whose
fetuses have physical deformities are often left
with no other option than the late term abortion.
The pain and possible damage to the mother due
to this type of circumstance would be enough of a
reason, to many women, to terminate the pregnan
cy early rather than go through with childbirth.
However, the new law would make this type of
medical procedure illegal, even in cases where the
mother’s health could be in jeopardy.
The battle between abortion rights supporters
and anti-abortion activists has grown over the
past 20 years and has led to the latest ban. People around the
United States, especially women, need to realize their rights to
decide when to bring children into this world are being jeopard
ized to the point that many abortion rights activists are afraid
abortion could be made illegal soon.
The current apathy over the issue, where the right to repro
ductive freedom is simply taken for granted by many young col
lege women, is apparent in political control in Washington.
America now has the most anti-abortion Congress and White
House since Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973. According to C-
Span, the Senate vote in favor of the ban was 64-34, which is
hardly along party lines. Nearly one-third of Senate Democrats,
including Minority Leader Thomas Daschle, D-South Dakota,
voted for the measure.
This represents a group of people who lack the courage to
stand up for their convictions, fearing instead o.f possible politi
cal retribution. They failed to be the true opposition party in this
vote and instead helped to pass it.
The truth about the new ban on late term abor
tions is that it is nothing more than control over
women’s choices. Whether legal or illegal, abortions
will always happen. If they are made illegal by the
government, women will merely turn to desperate
means of having an abortion, much like they did
before Roe vs. Wade.
If women cannot seek a safe and legal abortion in
a clinic with trained, certified staff, they may seek
one in back alleys or with the help of a coat hanger.
That is the blunt reality of the issue.
Next year’s elections may very well determine the future of
women’s reproductive rights. When entering the voting booth,
Americans should ask themselves if they want to return to the
days of the coat hanger or back alley abortions. The latest ban on
late term abortions is nothing more than the beginning of major
setbacks for women in controlling their own bodies. Americans
must wake up and understand the real threat posed by anti-abor
tion legislation. Liberty demands freedom of choice.
Jonathan Steed is a senior
political science major.
a
Whether illegal
or not, abortions
will always
happen.
MAIL CALL
Coalition, i'
wind pwf
lufacturers
I resource:
n concerr:
■d for hoicf
jrces Ilk
wind powf
?$!
A&M
Policy used to increase
conservation support
In response to Justin Hill’s Oct. 28
article:
There is legal hunting and then
there is poaching. The distinction
must be drawn. The Safari Club,
which he was generous enough to
list, is a group that has funded con
servation projects in several coun
tries. Zimbabwe, a country that has
received a grant from the Safari
Club, has begun using its policy in
the management of the elephant
population. The policy which was
mentioned in the article, but never
explained, is to generate funds for
conservation through the payment
of fees by hunters. These funds will
then be distributed to law enforce
ment for the prevention of poaching
and to the people living in the area,
tying the locals to this worthy cause
and creating a more receptive
atmosphere for the program
through community involvement.
This also provides an incentive to
the local inhabitants to prevent
poaching and conserve the wildlife
as a resource. This has increased
the elephant population significantly
in Zimbabwe, a result that has not
been seen in countries without such
a conservation management policy.
Mark Warner
Shane Gupton
Class of 2007
Kennedy award protest
is ridiculous
In response to an Oct. 28 article:
While certainly within their rights, I
find it pointless and stupid for the
Young Conservatives of Texas to
protest the Bush Award for Public
Service going to Sen. Edward
Kennedy. It is true that Kennedy
would undoubtedly have philosophi
cal disagreements with a majority of
the Texas A&M population, but he is
not receiving a “Best Aggie Value
Personifier” award, rather a com
mendation for his contributions to
public service. Having spent multi
ple terms in the Senate and consis
tently fighting for what he values, I
do not deny that he is qualified for
such an award.
Secondly, the final say on the
award came from former President
George H.W. Bush, a man with far
more political experience, knowl
edge and, it would seem, more
class than the members of YCT. If a
conservative and Rep. — not -to
mention world leader — such as
Bush can concede that Kennedy is
worthy of such an award, who are
the Young Conservatives to argue
with such a conclusion? It seems
inane for YCT, whose Web site touts
that they value the “freedom of the
individual,” to concern themselves
with how an individual such as
George H.W. Bush distributes his
award.
Jonathan Shilling
Class of 2005
Arguments against
Kennedy petty
I take great issue with the com
ments the Young Conservatives of
Texas made in regards to the selec
tion of Sen. Edward Kennedy as a
recipient of the Bush Award for
Excellence in Public Service.
I understand if the YCT has a
problem with Kennedy’s record, but
why bring up his alleged alco
holism, especially when two of the
paramounts in modern conser
vatism are an admitted gambler and
an admitted drug addict? Bringing
up the “drinking problem” and derid
ing Kennedy from dissenting
against the current administration is
petty and spurious to Kennedy’s
years of service to his constituency.
As stated in the article, the senator
is receiving the award in recognition
of his consistent stand in his 41 years
in the Senate. Why does the YCT
consider themselves a better judge
of public service than former
President Bush — a decorated war
hero, former congressman, former
ambassador, former CIA director and
former president? For those of you
not old enough to remember, Bush
as a president was a coalition builder
and knew the value of diplomacy and
leadership. To blatantly disregard his
judgment in recognizing other public
servants is disrespectful and conde
scending to one of the greatest pub
lic servants alive today.
Brian Olivarri
Class of 1997
Attendance at football
games disappointing
I was reading Bill Byrne’s weekly
update online and was sad, but not
totally shocked, to see that senior
pulls for tickets this week were
lower than they have been for any
other game except for the one
before school started. Although our
team has not had the best year, I
would still expect more from the
Twelfth Man.
I was at the game this past week
end and the empty seats on the stu
dent side were very noticeable and
disappointing. It was also the qui
etest Kyle Field has ever been that I
can remember. While I don’t miss
standing up the whole game, I do
miss the feelings of excitement and
the camaraderie 80,000-plus fans
yelling at the top of their lungs and
waving their white towels could
induce in me.
I hope that all current students will
cherish their time at A&M and real
ize that whether it is football, bas
ketball or otherwise, their time is
short and having the accessibility
as well as sports passes is some
thing that doesn’t last forever.
Don’t let the Twelfth Man spirit and
the home field advantage of Kyle
Field die just because we aren’t
winning every game.
Erika Spector
Class of 2001