Abortion ban improperly written

In regards to Janne Perona’s column yesterday, “”Partial-birth abortion ban liberating,”” I would like to pose the question: For whom exactly is this ban liberating? It certainly isn’t liberating to a woman who must choose between saving her own life or terminating her pregnancy. It also isn’t liberating for a woman’s partner who might have to choose between a partner’s life and the life of their unborn child. These are just two examples of a myriad of situations that women go through on a daily basis when choosing whether or not to end a pregnancy. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 allows no place for a medical decision to be made by those who should be making it: A woman, her partner and her physician.

I have grown tired of hearing lawmakers attempting to legislate medicine. Perona’s attempt to justify her beliefs by quoting the act itself are futile: These statements have been made by men and women in Congress who care nothing about women’s health or rights. They are strictly blinded by their desire to outlaw all forms of abortion, at any time, in this country. Should the act be

re-written to include a clause allowing for the procedure to be performed to save a woman’s life, I would be inclined to support it. The problem that I have with the way the current act was written is that it puts the process of medical decision-making in the wrong hands. Patients, under the guidance of their trained physician, should make these decisions. ÿ

Perona also states, “”Is partial-birth abortion really a procedure that would be used – or should be used – if merely the mother’s health is at risk? The answer is a resounding no.”” Unfortunately, your opinion is, at best, blatantly misinformed and misguided. The answer should be a resounding yes! How can a risk to a woman’s health be only “”merely a problem.”” When exactly did the forced continuation of a pregnancy, no matter what the consequences, take precedence over a woman’s life?

The Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “”fact tank”” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America, has reported that the overwhelming majority of Americans do indeed feel that there is a right to access to abortion services when a woman’s life is in danger.

Am I the only person who finds it completely ironic that we label judges who allow the right to abortion services as “”activists”” and “”forward-thinking”” when in reality they are simply ensuring our rights and preventing us from being overtaken by legislatures who would probably condone the return of the scarlet letter?

Mexican immigrants similar to escaped slaves

Michael Huston’s anti-immigrant critique of the Samaritan movement in Tuesday’s Arizona Daily Wildcat reflects on the values of this young man. Huston posits that providing humanitarian aid to undocumented migrants in the desert is a criminal and felonious act regardless of the need or degree of aid a person may need. Huston’s views are comparable to those that some xenophobic Americans may have had in the 19th century toward folk who offered humanitarian aid and shelter to escaped slaves who fled their masters via the underground railroad. Technically, escaped slaves were also criminals. Technically, they should have faced the consequences to the felonies they committed. Because xenophobia, or slavery, is codified into law, it does not make it morally right. Slavery is as wrong today as it was when it was a legal American institution. Providing humanitarian aid to any person (regardless of race, gender, immigration status, etc.) is never wrong. How can it be?

Huston suggests No More Deaths should instead focus its work to deterring migrants from crossing. Instead, I suggest Huston re-focus the energy he wastes on xenophobic hate towards investigating the roots of the mass migration of millions of people in the past 12 years. This phenomenon is not due to some mystical occurrence, a political agenda or any other stupid reason people spout off. The reasons people risk their lives for a job are rooted in their concrete conditions created by the political and economic policies exerted on their nations by the same country that later persecutes them as they attempt to play the hand the U.S. dealt. If you hate, then say you hate. If you speak out of ignorance, which is obvious, then educate yourself.

Give men’s lacrosse recognition first

As the father of two daughters who play sports, I am all for Title IX and the access it gives women to sports, but before giving Division I status to the Lady Laxcats, how about the men’s team? The Laxcats was a varsity team back in the ’60s, lost varsity status and has thrived as a club team for more than three decades. It’s difficult for college kids to come up with the cash for club-status sports, but the men’s lacrosse team would be better suited to compete with the many varsity lacrosse teams on the West Coast – and the university wouldn’t have to put money into traveling all the way to the East Coast to find teams to play.

Multiracial cultures a natural occurrence

After skimming through another pointless liberal-conservative argument, Niall O’Connor’s fearful letter quickly captured my attention. What you call a melting pot “”experiment”” is not an experiment; it is the way nature works. When diverse populations of people are put in the same region, they will eventually breed with each other, creating what you seem to fear – the most-multiracial human beings. This phenomenon is happening at a very fast rate and will continue to speed up as the human population covers our tiny globe.

This has nothing to do with being politically correct and everything to do with nature. To scapegoat any ethnic group will just make you look like a bigot. You can do nothing but stand in the sidelines and watch that special whiteness the world has grown so accustomed to turn browner by the day on your little demographic charts. Hitler couldn’t eradicate the Jews; do you think you can eradicate the Muslims? It isn’t going to happen.