Opinion
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoin
JeffZeleny.....Editor, 472-1766
Kara Morrison. Opinion Page Editor
Angie Brunkow..Managing Editor
Jeffrey Robb.Associate News Editor
Rainbow Rowell.Columnist/Associate News Editor
Kiley Christian.Photography Director
Mike Lewis.. ... Copy Desk Chief
James Me hsling....Cartoonist
I m mui w
Crocodile tears
Barney’s remorse difficult to believe
Scott Barney can’t forget what happened to Candice Harms on
the night of Sept. 22, 1992. That wouldn’t be right, he said.
On that Tuesday night, Harms was brutally raped and killed.
We know the story all too well. Intimate details of mutilation,
strangulation and torture have been published, broadcast and
discussed.
No one living in the Lincoln area will forget. That, too,
wouldn’t be right. But we must move on.
However, Barney, who is serving a life sentence, doesn’t seem
prepared to leave the media spotlight he has reveled in for the past
24 months.
The feeding frenzy, which has been fueled from all sides by
sympathetic confessions, dramatic testimony and gory evidence,
began again this week when Barney began granting interviews to
news reporters for the first time.
It s a struggle day to day just to live with what happened and
knowing that I could have stopped it and didn’t do so,” Barney
told one newspaper.
“I know an apology in this case means almost nothing compared
to what’s happened. But I am very sorry for what happened,” he
told another newspaper.
Quiet frankly, we have heard enough.
During Barney’s sentencing hearing June 21, he spoke of
nightmares.
“The night of September 22, 1992 was a nightmare for Candi
Harms, and it was also a nightmare for me,” he said.
Before pleading guilty to the first-degree murder of Harms on
March 3, he mentioned regret.
“I wish to express my sorrow for the pain caused Miss Candice
Harms. Though she is not here to personally address, I deeply
regret having hurt an innocent young lady,” he said.
Barney stressed Tuesday in his interviews with local media that
his feelings were genuine and sincere.
This is a difficult notion to swallow.
Throughout the case, Barney seems to have been primarily
concerned with one person — himself. His apparent insincerity in
the courtroom is representative of who we see as the true Scott
Alan Barney.
The Rev. Jeff Slosson, an Assemblies of God minister, has been
soliciting the media to interview Barney for months. Slosson, who
has counseled Barney since his arrest, repeatedly asked the Daily
Nebraskan to interview Barney before the convicted murderer got
too busy with requests from national tabloid broadcast shows. We
declined.
Slosson is promoting Barney’s propaganda. This round of
interviews perhaps is the first step in a myriad of public statements
Barney will make in an effort to have his life sentence reduced.
There will be more stories and interviews. As the years pass,
Barney is likely to become even more penitent. And he will reiter
ate the fact that he would switch places with Candi Harms if he
could.
To refresh your minds: Candi now would be 20 years old. And
she likely would be a junior at the University of Nebraska
Lincoln. .
It wouldn’t be right to forget that part of the story.
I i»i mm \i I’m i< \
Stuff editorials represent the official policy of the Fall 1994 Daily 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 Regents. Editorial columns represent
the opinion of the author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL
Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by
the refents< responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of
its students.
I I I I I l< l'()l l( \
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, timeliness and space
available. The Daily Nebraskan retains 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
properly 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. Requests to withhold names will not be granted. Submit material to the Daily
Nebraskan. 34 Nebraska Union. 1400 R St., Lincoln. Neb. 68388-0448
C\ W\\R$> m
' 0& HWtS
im wvzz.
thKt tos
WocWCY
is W^.,
ir
\S WHltefl
l-W?
Ho ^tR
IS NOj
BE-R£. j
1.1 I I I KS I O I III I 1)11 OU
f/> rJia ka/>aii
IA if anrl
Greed is motive
Over the past week, I have been
following the argument in the Daily
Nebraskan regarding abortion
initiated by Shane Tucker's column
(DN, Sept. 20, 1994).
I come at the abortion debate as
a person who has many roles: I am
a family physician; I am a mother; I
am a woman.
Though no one could call me a
radical feminist, I certainly believe
in equality for women and have
worked to achieve my personal
goals in a very male-dominated
field.
Speaking as a woman, I am
absolutely offended by anyone who
accepts the idea that a surgical
procedure (i.e. abortion) is “essen
tial to woman’s equality with man.”
Actually, what abortion has served
to do since the establishment of its
legality 21 years ago is to further
objectify women — make us
objects, able to be used for pleasure
at the whim of men with the
assurance mat no negative conse
quence will come of their action as
long as this surgical procedure is
readily available.
And, after 21 years of this
“liberalizing” procedure being
legal, women are certainly no better
off economically that they formerly
were. Neither are children. As a
matter of fact, the only people who
are better off financially with
abortion being legal are those
involved in the industry itself.
Anyone who thinks that the fight
to preserve the legality of abortion
is not, at least in part, fueled by
greed is pretty naive as to the
motives of people when it comes to
a multimillion-dollar industry.
Don’t kid yourself — physicians
and the people with ownership in
the abortion industry are not going
to take the economic loss produced
by banning abortion lying down. I
know from my involvement in
medicine that, sadly, medicine is a
field where greed influences many
who practice it.
Part of my job as a family doctor
is delivering babies — babies who,
five minutes prior to delivery, are
known as “fetuses.” According to
present law, a baby is entitled to all
the protection that I am; a fetus is
not.
Each time I deliver an infant,. I
am absolutely amazed. There I hold
a whole new human being whose
genetic makeup makes him or her
completely different than any
human who has come before him or
her or anyone who will come after.
That genetically unique human was
BretGottshall/DN
the same being five minutes prior to
delivery, 24 hours prior to delivery,
nine months prior to delivery, as he
or she is at the moment of delivery.
From the moment of his or her
conception on, “this bundle of
genetic material” (i.e. fetus or baby)
has all he or she needs to “gradu
ate” to “personhood,” except time.
Issues introduced into the
abortion debate by pro-abortion
groups, such as the trauma of labor
to women, the social problem of
men who duck child support, the
pain of relinquishing a child to
adoption, incest, rape, the world
problem of population control, etc.,
also are concerns of mine. However,
they are not part of the abortion
question at all; they are all back
ground issues that need to be
addressed in a different forum.
The real abortion question is
this: Is it right to keep a surgical
procedure, the purpose of which is
to destroy human life, legal? I
cannot, nor can anyone, define a
time during the approximately 40
weeks of human pregnancy when
one could say that before that time
a life does not exist, but after that
time it does; therefore, it seems
logical that protection should be
conferred on a person at the time of
his or her conception.
When debates over abortion
arise, I could argue as a physician,
as a mother, as a woman. I choose
to argue as a human, speaking out
for those humans who have no
voice and who unfortunately never
will have a voice: the unborn.
Until abortion is recognized as
the insult to women’s dignity that it
is, women will continue to be
objectified through it, babies will
the abortion industry will continue
to profit from it.
Jo Witter, M.D.
David City
life
In response to Melanie Chin’s
letter (DN. Sept. 22, 1994):
I am sorry you are so misin
formed. Abortion is not about “the
woman’s right to decide whether
she wants to bring a fetus to life.”
The fetus is already alive. He or she
is already a living human being.
Abortion is an issue of biology
and science. The fact is, when the
mother’s 23 chromosomes join with
the father’s 23 chromosomes, a new
human life begins. Period. It’s not
theoretical and it’s not theological.
It’s not even scientifically debat
able. It’s the simple biological
truth. So the “unknown issue is
not when life begins, but at what
point we are going to protect it.
Life IS a beautiful choice,
because the alternative is death. So,
if those commercials are too heart
wrenching for you, maybe they
have a point you need to look into.
You speak of pro-lifers taking away
your “choice.” What about the
unborn baby's choice?
Men do have a very important
role and say in the destiny of their
child. I personally take offense to
your belittling of them. You don’t
have to be a handicapped person to
fight for the rights of handicapped
people. Likewise, you don’t have to
be a woman to fight for, or believe
in, the rights of the unborn.
Pro-life individuals believe it is a
tragedy that any woman would
choose to terminate her pregnancy,
especially if they chose to break the
law and do it illegally. Women are
never forced to abort their children
— it is something they choose to
do. The solution to crisis pregnan- .
cies is not to kill the baby but to
help the mother.
I would encourage Melanie
Chin, and all other confused and
mistaken pro-abortion people, to
look at scientific facts. It has been
proven life begins at conception.
By denying logical facts, such as
when life begins, you are making a
mockery of your group. Why not
base your beliefs on facts?
I am dedicating this letter to all
the unborn babies — that they may
be given the choice to live. Because
life IS a beautiful choice.
Sara Schlife
freshman
business
