Choice key to sustaining rights
Nothing like a good philosophy
class to draw attention to the
most ingrained ofmoral foun
dations. For the past two weeks, my
Philosophy of Current Issues class has
been discussing abortion. It has been
a tough go for my pro
fessor trying to present
someone clsc’s views on
such a controversial
topic. And, considering
a recent news item I
heard and Tuesday’s
election, I felt I might
burst at the scams if I
neglected this topic any
longer.
I feel as though we arc a nation
polarized — two disparate factions of
extremists, one right and one left.
This is not only appl icablc to the issue
of abortion but also many other con
troversial subjects. And it is this ex
tremity that makes me fearful for our
country’s fate. But yet one thing re
mains pristine in my mind and holds
my faith — the Constitution.
There arc two central issues con
cerning abortion. The first is that of
personhood. Although pervasively
topical, liberals have still argued a
pro-abortion stance regardless of
whether the fetus is determined to be
a person. Although as a biologist, I
consciously recognize that life is on a
genetic continuum, I refuse to be Re
fined solely by my chromosomal
makeup. Genetically, I am defined as
human by the 23 pairs of chromo
somes in each of my cells; however,
my humanity, my pprsonhood is elu
sive and ethereal, non-dcfinablc by
epistemological parameters.
The second issue is imbedded in
law, the law as defined by our Consti
tution. Libertarians arc those who
believe in the right to life, liberty and
property. Although we may know these
to be true through our study of the
Constitution, they are thought to have
originated by the “light of pure rea
son,” meaning they arc simply self
evident truths that we must accept.
In libertarian arguments,as in most
things, these rights arc established in
a hierarchy, the right to properly be
ing the most important. This corre
lates to common capitalistic prac
tices; we arc entitled to what we ac
quire. This is manifested in a blatant
display of materialism from our
Beemers to our stone-washed Guess?
jeans.
But what of your body? Isn’t it a
distinct and unique property right of
its own? Because of the grayncss of
situations in our society, I think this
subtle distinction must be made.
Whenever a murder is committed, it is
considered a violation of the right to
life. However, with our increasing
awareness and societal denunciation
of rape, I can’t help but ask, if you
harm someone without taking his or
her life, what arc you being punished
for? Clearly, the answer here is the
inherent right to the body as property.
So it seems to be with no leap of
fajth that, if my body is my properly,
I have the right to choose what I do
with and to it every day, whether it be
local a Big Mac, smoke a Camel, run
a mile or terminate a pregnancy. Al
though the severity of these choices is
different, the principle is the same. I
CHOOSE what agenda to follow be
cause my body falls under the param
eters of my right to properly.
The underlying element here is
empowerment. Why were women for
so long denied the right to vole? Be
cause men were afraid that choice
equalled power. They were right and
the beginningsof feminism and equal
ity arc manifested in the 19th Amend
ment.
Again, the predominantly male
government — only 4 percent of the
members of Congress arc women —
has tried to queleh womens’ spirit and
integrity to our own culture. As the
1973 Roc vs. Wade decision slowly
eroded in the Reagan-Bush era, I real
ized my own responsibility to prevent
our demise into the days ol illegal,
degrading and deforming coat hanger
procedures and the systematic depri
vation of a woman’s right to exercise
a choice she felt was in her best inter
est. It was for this reason I cast my
vote Tuesday for Bill Clinton.
There is one more seemingly tan
gential issue that I feel must be the
core clement to which we all agree on
unless wc, as a society, completely
intend to morally divide our country.
That issue is education. The choice to
have an abortion is not easy or capri
cious. Although I have been spared
this horrific experience, I have friends
who have and continue to endure the
haunting memory of their choice. They
continue todefend their decision each
time the subject is raised. But some
times making the right choice is not
always the most enjoyable, idyllic
decision. I admire their strength amidst
a society that limits their options se
verely.
Finally, last week, a new progcsl
cronc-likc hormone shot, Dcpo
provera, after more than 10 years of
tests and approval in 90 countries,
reigned triumphant over FDA rheto
ric and was approved — for the sec
ond lime — for use in the United
States. It is time to ask why there is an
effort to stymie pervasive efforts to
education and offer women post-sex,
preabortion precautions. Choice is
secondary only to knowledge in in
stilling power.
To me, giving a woman the right to
a choice based on in-depth informa
tion is not only the morally, most
lawful option, but it is the key to
increasing our ability to accept and
uphold our constitutional rights to
life, liberty, properly, the pursuit of
happiness, and, most of all, the free
dom of choice.
Krnissc is a senior pre-med major and a
Daily Nebraskan columnist.
- - ~-;——
Liberals infiltrate bar association
I recently received in the mail a
dues statement from the Ameri
can Bar Association. I’ve been
a member since 1986, my first year in
law school, and have renewed my
membership every year.
Not this time. I relumed the .state
ment minus the check
for S35. In its place I put
a letter resigning from
the ABA. Two things
prompted my decision.
First, at the annual con
vention in August, the
ABA adopted a resolu
tion supporting abortion
rights. The ABA previ
ously look a neutral stance. This lime,
more than 2,20() members have re
signed; partners in several prestigious
Nebraska firms and officials of the
Nebraska Bar Association have quit
as well and allowed thcirassociates to
do the same.
If the adoption of the resolution
wasn’t enough, at the same conven
tion, the ABA sponsored a luncheon
by the Committee on Women in the
Profession. At this luncheon, the ABA
had the unmitigated gall to honor
Anita Hill with an award. Giving the
keynote address was none other than
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton praised Hill as a “symbol
and inspiration to women in this coun
try.” Hill said women lawyers must be
social engineers to ensure that sexual
harassment was not tolerated. It was
an orgy of standard liberal feminist
cliches.
At this same convention, the ABA
openly snubbed Vice President Dan
Quaylc. At the 1991 convention,
Quaylc launched an attack on the
legal profession and generated a fire
storm of protest, mostly from law
yers. It was an embarrassing spec
tacle. Qjuaylc gave his address, and
the presidentof the ABA rushed to the
microphone immediately afterward
to scold Quaylc for his remarks. This
year, Quaylc was ignored. It was more
than mere disrespect for the office.
All this points to the inescapable
conclusion that the ABA has become
nothing more than another left-wing
interest group attached to the Demo
• # ' -
cralic Parly. What the ABA did Iasi
August was a political ploy, pure and
simple.
Turning Hill into the Martyred Saint
of Oppressed Womanhood by sub
orning her perjured testimony before
the Judiciary Committee and doing it
'through the wife of the Democratic
nominee, no less, the ABA lost what
ever credibility it ever had. I refuse to
be an accessory to it.
To make it worse, J. Michael Wil
liams, ABA President, denied it all.
The ABA, he wrote in the November
edition of the ABA Journal, is a non
partisan organization. It docs not en
dorse political candidates, nor docs it
take an active role in partisan politics.
This is the sort of sheer hypocrisy
and arrogance that permeates the pro
fession. It’s one of the big reasons I
got out of it. The profession has spun
out of control. It has become the
business of law rather than the prac
tice of law.
Lawyers have come to see them
selves as a ruling elite, apart from the
masses. To them, we’re just more
billable hours, a personal injury suit
waiting to happen or another face to
be plea-bargained through the sys
tem. ~
Itall begins in law school, a col lec
tion of obsessive-compulsive neurotic
ovcrachicvcrs. Law students arc told
they’re special. They become myo
pic, believing that The Law is all they
will ever need to know, that the rule in
Shelley’s Case is worth a tinker’s
damn in the real world.
Many of them arc bright college
seniors, ambitious, but with no direc
tion. Law school to them looks like a
good resume builder, and the lifestyle
and the money arc good. Their im
pressions of the law may well have
been formed from watching “L.A.
Law” reruns.
A few, like myself, wanted to use
the law to make our own little comer
of the world a belter place to live in.
Money wasn’t the reason I did it—or
else why would I have taken an assis
tant county attorney position in West
ern Kansas?
After graduation comes the bar
exam. After spending a month re
viewing arcane knowledge about con
tracts, torts and properly, on test day,
I kept being told by some superannu
ated corporate counsel representing
the state bar that it’s testing my knowl
edge of The Law.
Yet another lie — knowledge of
The Law is the last thing they care
about. It’s merely a weeding-out pro
cess, designed to see who cracks un
der the strain and who doesn’t. If a
slate has loo many lawyers, like Cali
fornia and New York, then the pass
rates arc a sort of economic protec
tionist barrier keeping out competi
tion.
After the bar, they arc told they arc
fit to practice law. Again, an untruth.
Ninety percent of what you learned in
law school is useless, and 90 percent
of what you need to know in the real
world is come by through trial and
error — at the client’s expense. I
know this from personal experience.
Think about what we’d do i f we trained
doctors that way. It would be intoler
able.
So what docs any ofthis have to do
with you, the average citizen? Well,
the cost imposed on the United Slates
by this elite runs near S300 billion a
year. In their zeal to be advocates for
anything if the price is right, lawyers
have pul society on the defensive.
Insurance rates arc sky-high for
doctors — to the point where many
are quilling or no longer performing
certain kinds of medicine. Lawyers
cannot getaway from the bottom-line
mentality, cannot look past the vi
sions of getting a third of any jury
award to see the larger effects on
society.
Their increasing willingness to
politicize the ABA means any at
tempts at controlling this profession
arc bound to fail. A law unto them
selves, they will continue to piously
inject their beliefs into society, put
ting us ever more on the defensive.
And they will do it all in the name
of justice.
Kepfidd is a graduate* student in history,
a UNL College of Law alumnus and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
iJdSfijT) Annual
Pancake Festival
children ■giBmfi!!E1!!mnff!0 'lw,r "r
Under 6 Free ■■nMliVIMHI K,"an,sLluh
L J
Acacia and Chi Omega
Presents
I
/? #8k I
Super Greeks
One Act
King of Oz
November 5 at 8:00 pm
November 6 at 7:00 pm & 9:00pm
November 7 at 2:00 pm
Student Tickets Available In The Union
Nov. 4-6 $5.00
Tickets At The Door $6.00
For more information: Visit the booth in the Union
10th Anniversary
10-1
See c
N -P 10-6 2530 * U • Mreet
T-Th 10-8 Lincoln, NE 68510
Saturday 10-5 Phone: (402) 475-3741