10
WWW.GUILFORDlAN.COM
A new abortion law limits women's freedom
By Haley Hawkins
Staff Writer
Thought that the basic freedom of
choice had already been battered and
bruised enough? Apparently not.
Controversy surrounds the issue
yet again, after a decision made by
the General Assembly, a decision
that further amends North Carolina's
already stringent abortion laws.
The new amendment,
which passed despite the
scarcely cumbersome
hurdle of Gov. Bev Perdue's
veto, would require abortion
providers to display and
describe fetal images prior
to the abortion. It would
also require a twenty-four
hour waiting period for
women choosing to seek an
abortion, according to the
Los Angeles Times. “
The Woman's Right to
Know Act, as it is so fondly
for Reproductive Rights.
Indeed, lawmakers don't hesitate to
put the constitutional rights of all parties
involved in danger. Not only would
doctors be expected to provide a voice
of legislative ideology to their patients,
but women seeking an abortion face a
shockingly blatant intrusion on their
private lives and health decisions.
"This bill keeps abortion legal," said
State Rep. Ruth Samuelson, Republican
from Charlotte. "It keeps abortion safe.
And, by golly, we know it helps make it
more rare. It is still her choice. It makes
it her informed choice."
If there is one thing that will keep
back-alley abortions a steady presence
in our society, it is the criminalization
that this abortion law imposes upon
women who simply wish to exercise
their freedom of choice.
of the woman's face even if the woman
says she doesn't want to see them."
Call me crazy, but this pathway to
"informed choice" sounds a lot more
like coercion and harassment.
"(The ultrasound provision) forces
patients to allow their bodies to be
treated as the source for government-
mandated speech, treats women as less
than fully competent adults, and chills
the exercise of constitutional rights," the
lawsuit claims.
This exposes the root of all the uproar.
For, what kind of law would advocate
this intimidating provision?
Answer: the Idnd of law that sees
women as less. The kind of law that
treats women as children.
Women as a whole are no strangers
to underestimation, even, surprisingly
enough, in regards to their health. It
is dumbfounding that a
detached lawmaker can even
start to regard a woman's
I III. I i J ± start to regara a womans
Not only would doctors be expected to. choice to have an abortion
provide a voice of legislative ideology to their ^
patients, but women seeking an abortion
face a shockingly blatant intrusion on their
private lives and health decisions.
If one were to grant
women recognition of their
full competent faculties,
this new law would remain
as nothing but a residual,
unjust punishment.
I dare say that, if men
—“ were the subjects in
question, their choice would
be deemed as nothing but just that: a
conscious decision.
Why should women be deprived of
the same respect?
U.S. District Court Judge Catherine
called If lawmakers truly want to make
in the Republican-dominated General abortion an entirely safe process, the
Assembly, has stirred the pot in terms of answer is not through treating these
national legal ramifications. So much so women as deviant criminals,
that it has garnered a hefty lawsuit from This safety can only be reached by
the American Civil Liberties Union, the giving them the respect and sensitivity Eagles, who is also the former Superior
Center for Reproductive Rights, and they so rightfully deserve. Court Judge of Guilford County, has
Planned Parenthood. The Woman's Right to Know Act, issued a preliminary injunction, blocking
"Politicians have no business forcing according to Katy Parker, legal director immediate enactment of the law. In
healthcare providers to push a political for the ACLU of NC Legal Foundation, the meantime, the decisive validity of
agenda on their patients," said Bebe "forces a doctor ... to describe the women in the eyes of state law must
Anderson, senior counsel for the Center embryo or fetus and put pictures in front continue to hang in the balance.
Lener to the Editor
Blair was an inappropriate choice
A READER'S RESPONSE TO COVERAGE OF TONY
BLAIR'S VISIT.
How is it that Guilford College provides space for
mass murderers to voice their opinions on domestic
and foreign policy? Isn't Guilford supposed to
support peace, human rights and, above all, justice?
None of these things were allowed when the Clinton
administration basically ordered the bombing of
Kosovo through their surrogate, NATO. As evidence
clearly showed back then, the bombing of Kosovo
caused the vast crimes that ended up taking place, not
vice versa.
At the same time that the Clinton administration
waged its "humanitarian war" in Kosovo, it completely
ignored the massive killings and human rights
violations of union members, community organizers
and political dissidents in Colombia (armed by the
U.S. back then and presently) and the Kurds in Turkey
(in fact a NATO member at the time that received vast
amount of US military aid). The U.S. does not like to
report its own crimes, a recurring theme throughout
history which we seem to ignore over and over again.
As for Mr. Blair, I don't think I need to go into that
much detail, unless people at Guilford have already
forgotten the phony reasons Bush and Blair gave for
going to Iraq and the destruction we have done there
since then. Just in human lives, over a million civilians
have died in Iraq up to now.
Finally, The Guilfordian did a stellar job giving
extra positive coverage of this mass murderer, chiming
in that Blair correctly identified a lot of the current
political problems we face today. What The Guilfordian
forgot to add was that Blair is one of those problems.
-Daniel McCurdy '10
FORUM
Differing
opinions deserve
respect
This Sunday will mark the one-year
anniversary of the Rally to Restore Sanity
in Washington, D.C. This event seemed to
resonate here at Guilford as students traveled
by bus and car to attend, most of them weary-
eyed and sleep-deprived from the long night's
trek.
This rally urged people to face different
viewpoints with tolerance and mature debate.
Unfortunately, it is often the nature of debate
to be immature. It is easier to degrade and
ignore an opponent rather than engage them
reasonably and with an open mind.
Without thinking about it, we often label and
marginalize opponents in order to attribute
differing opinions to a narrow-minded and
radical stance. If you can cast the person you
disagree with as a racist, fascist, socialist,
homophobe, or something equally stigmatized,
you have less reason to take them seriously.
At Guilford, where we tend to think of
ourselves as welcoming, it can be easy to forget
that we are capable of such degrading public
discourse. An example can be found in the
response to a recent Guilfordian article arguing
in favor of Greek life.
This view is probably not popular at Guilford,
so dissenting feedback was inevitable and even
welcome. What should never be welcome,
however, was the vitriol that accompanied
some of the feedback.
One commenter said, "Obviously you
don't belong here because you want a sorority
experience ... Oh, by the way. High Point is
right down the road."
Several other comments, both on the website
and those The Guilfordian received via email,
lacked the respect for the article's writer that
one would hope for in mature discourse. The
writer was put down without consideration,
accused of not knowing what she was talking
about and not doing her job as a journalist.
People can and should disagree on issues.
Our response when someone disagrees with
us, however, should never be to tell someone
that they don't belong here. Such rhetoric
does nothing to resolve a disagreement, and
only advances an us-versus-them mentality.
Moreover, the idea that someone who has
a minority viewpoint may not belong in a
community that prides itself on diversity is a
contradiction.
Guilford's summary of its value of diversity
reads, "We are committed to creating an
academic institution where a variety of persons
and perspectives are welcome."
If we immediately shut down varying
perspectives, then our commitment to diversity
is half-hearted at best and non-existent at
worst.
Though we may be naturally threatened
by views that challenge our own, let us
respond with maturity, respect, and open-
mindedness, rather than hostility, degradation,
and condemnation. At a place that can be
homogeneous more often that not, it is up to all
of us to actively rise above our base instincts
and initiate a dialogue that elevates and
informs all parties.
It's the only sane thing to do.