. \
NT |
Nebraskan
14,1M3
S_ ' .
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Chris Hopfensperger.Editor, 472-1766
Jeremy Fitzpatrick.Opinion Page Editor
Alan Phelps.Managing Editor
Brian Shellito...Cartoonist
Susie Arth. Senior Reporter
Kim Spurlock.*..Diversions Editor
Sam Kepfteld.Columnist
Break the cycle
Welfare reform experiment worth a try
The Ginton administration gave its approval Tuesday for
an experimental welfare program in Vermont that could
serve as an example to the rest of the nation.
The program, which has passed the state senate, would allow
welfare recipients to cam more and accumulate more assets
without losing benefits. It also would cut benefits for people who
don’t find jobs or accept public service work after two and one
half years on welfare and place restrictions on how welfare money
could be spent.
The White House approved the plan as part of its strategy of
giving states maximum flexibility to test welfare reform ideas.
Ginton had promised comprehensive reform at the federal level
during the presidential election campaign.
The Vermont plan seems to be a step in the right direction. It
would allow welfare recipients to work to provide additional
income for their families. This experience will in turn help them
to gain more permanent employment.
The penalties included in the program are lough but fair.
Welfare recipients who did not find work within two and one-half
years would lose their benefits, but could accept public service
work. That is not too great a sacrifice to ask.
wenarc is a program desperately in need 01 reiorm. u is, iur
too many Americans, an endless cycle of poverty with no way
out.
Vermont’s proposal could help break that cycle. If it passes and
works, it could serve as an e*ajnplc to the rest of the nation for
welfare reform.
On March 30, a White House official announced that
President Clinton would ask Congress to end a ban on
federally funded abortions. Enacted in 1976, now 17 years
old, the ban most certainly needs to be repealed.
By nature, the ban is discriminatory. Known as the Hyde
Amendment after its author, Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), the ban is
prejudiced against poor women who rely on federal programs for
health care. As a result, several thousand women each year ate
unable to get safe abortions.
If repealed, states would then be required to pay for abortions
for women who could not afford them. The money used would
come from federal Medicaid funds. Those who oppose repealing
the ban do not want to sec their tax dollars being used for abor
tions.
Other groups and individuals against lifting the ban do not
necessarily oppose abortion but still do not want to help finance
something they generally consider to be a matter of choice. Their
arguments include abortions being analogous to other basic rights
such as bearing arms. The fallacy of this logic lies in the fact that
choosing to own a gun is also an indulgence of sorts. A person’s
decision to certain indulgences is usually based upon money — if
he or she wants something and can afford it, then he or she will
usually have it. However, a woman would not have an abortion
simply because she could afford one.
Although abortion is a right, n should not be confused with just
another choice or desire. Once the private, personal and difficult
decision to have an abortion has been made, the process then
becomes a fundamental health need — a need that should not be
questioned. A need that should not be denied because of a lack of
funds.
— The University Daily Kansan
University of Kansas
-i - -I
SulT editorials represent the official policy of the Spring 1993 Duly Nebraskan. Policy is set
by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the
university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regenu. Editorial columns represent
the opinion of the author. The regenu publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL
Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by
the regenu, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of
hs students. . ■■
-1 . I
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others.
Letters will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity, originality, limelineu and space
available. The Daily Nebraskan reuins the right to edit or reject all material submitted. Readers
also are welcome to submit material as guest opinions. The editor decides whether material
should run as a guest opinion. Letters and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become the
property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be
published. Letters should included the author’s name, year in school, major and group
affiliation, if any. Requesu to withhold names will not be granted. Submit material to the Daily
Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St.. Lincoln, Neb. 6*5*8-044*.
■ :
Ishtar
Here’s a fascinating tidbit for you
trivia fans out there. Ever wonder why
we use eggs and Easter bunnies as a
symbol for Easter? In early Christian
times, most of those being converted
were pagans, a very superstitious
group wno worshipped many gods.
Among the gods was the beloved fer
tilir "d, Ishtar.
and bunnies were also fertil
ity symbols. The less change required
of pagans to become Christians, the
easier it was to convert them, so the
celebrations were integrated. In this I
manner, celebrations such as sunrise'
service (worship of the sun) and Eas
ter came to be.
Paul Koester
senior
agronomy
Rights
I am writing this in response to
James Gustafson’s letter (DN, April
13,1993). It seems to me that every
where I look anymore, someone is
complaining that his or her rights
have been violated. These claims may
be true, but they arc blown out of
proportion, just as Gustafson’s case
is.
I don’t claim that everyone at this
school is, or is even supposed to be, a
Midwestern Christian. This is the
majority, though, and I am not ignor
ing those who don’t fit into the major
ity.
I realize that we all have the same
right to attend this university, but the
majority must be considered. There is
no documentation that a single court
case has been overturned because the
differing minority of the jury fell its
rights were violated. Such actions
would be absurd, and so arc the accu
sations that Todd Burger and myself
believe majorities arc the only people
who matter and minorities can go to
hell.
I am a member of a greek house,
which happens to be a minority. How
ever, we arc not forcing you to partici
pate in greek week, so don’t force
your beliefs or traditions on me. 1
believe everyone has his or her rights
regardless of race, sex or religion.
The problem is that someone’s
rights were going to be violated here,
and I think that the number of people
who feel alienated should be as mini
mal as possible, so a majority rule
would be appropriate. I don’t think
I’ve ever heard anyone bitching about
having an extra day of vacation, but it
sounds like that’s what you’re doing,
and 1 think the majority will agree
with me.
Brian Classen
sophomore
business administration
Choice
In response to Gary Young’s
“Choice argument is not enough” (DN,
April 12,1993), I would like to offer
the following commentary.
I will not presume to speak for all
abortionists, but I have an argument
that supports the need for abortion
and docs not rely on the proposition
that we must observe an individual’s
right for choice. Indeed, I am pre
pared to state my argument on moral
grounds, toe to toe with any anti
abortionist’s.
. David Baddars/DN
Let me discuss the morality of the
future. The morality of responsibility.
The responsibility of providing life
for future generations. Let us discuss
the moral ily of ecosystem destruction
on a planetary scale, justified to sup
port the burgeoning population of
human beings. Let us discuss the
morality and responsibility of fore
sight, hindsight and insight.
Those who truly givea damn about
future generations of humanity have
the responsibility to realize that can
cerous growth is occurring on this
planet today. Humans arc the cancer,
and today's righteous are the catalysts
for global destruction. Can anti-abor
tionists rationalize and accept the re
sponsibility for the destruction of all
forms of human life in the future to
save unwanted lives in the present?
To date, anti-abortionists do not
provide for the unwanted, they simply
demand the cessation of abortion.
Soon, the carrying capacity of the
planet will be met, at that point, and it
is near, when the earth's ability to
sustain life is compromised, then
what? What future will there be for
humanity if human population growth
continues unchecked, or, if in the
name of preserving humanity, we re
duce the diversity of life on earth to
mono-cultures of plants and animals?
I do not wish to live in such a world,
and I would not wish it on anyone's
grandchildren. But these arc the
choices, so I guess it really docs boil
down to a question of choice.
So, whose morality is right: mine,
an altruistic selfless morality, or the
anti-abortionists, a shortsighted, ulti
mately selfish morality? It is curious
to me that the anti-abortion camp is a
loose confederation of Christians un
dcr a common banner,*4lifc.”Tcll me,
when your grandchildren ask about
thcanimalson Noah’s ark, will you be
honest and tell them although your
God saw the need to preserve them,
you in your infinite wisdom willingly
annihilated them so that human life
could be sustained? What a confused
and unhappy grandchild you shall
fiave!
I implore you, all life is important,
not just human life. Abortion is not so
inhumane when you look at it in terms
of the ramifications that unchecked
human growth entails.
Well, Gary, is the preservation and
respect for all life on earth a compel
ling enough argument to justify abor
tion? Make a choice.
Terry Vidal
Lincoln
‘Blindness’
I would like to commend Gary
Young for his excellent column (DN,
April 12, 1993) on the “pro-choicc
defense." I have fora long time been
confused about the apparent blind
ness on the part of the many people
who use these arguments and whom I
otherwise consider to be intelligent
and reasonable persons. The argu
ment from a “choice” position is only
valid as a peripheral argument. As a
foundation it is, at best, weak, and at
worst, as Young demonstrated in his
column, dangerous and even lethal
It seems to me that the truly funda
mental issue of the abortion debate
never gets the attention it deserves.
h(ciltec?idc denies the fetus is alive,
forBiological processes are undoubt
edly at work. And in as much as a life
process is occurring w ilhin a mother s
womb, termination of that process is
undeniably “killing”— if the word be
taken in its most general sense. But is
the “killing” only in the sense that we
use when we speak of killing germs on
a toilet seal, or in the sense of putting
a horse to sleep; or is it, as the pro
lifers say, just like killing your own
children?
The fundamental issue, the point
that noeds to be resolved before pro
gressing the argument, is whether or
not the fetus is to be considered hu
man. Before this is determined, none
of the other arguments carry much
weight, or at feast they are being
asked to carry a weight disproportion
ate to their nature.
John Heuertz
senior
English