Newspapers / The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, … / July 3, 1980, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
I Editorials Court Right On Abortion The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to 4 decision on Monday that the federal government may refuse to pay for the majority of abortions for low income women. In its narrow split decision the nation’s highest court upheld the constitutionality of the contro versial Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment is an anti-abortion restriction that prevents the use of Medicaid money to pay for most abortions desired by women living on some form of public assistant. How ever the amendment permits federal payment for abortions in quickly reported cases of incest, rape or when the pregnant wo , man’s life is in danger. The amendment, originally en acted in 1976 and in limbo since February of this year pending a court decision on its legality, led to bitter outbursts by many abortion rights groups following the court’s decision. For ex ample, Karen Mulhauser of the National Abortion Rights Action League said, “We are outraged (because the amendment is) an unconscionable government in trusion into the right of a woman to make the personal, private ; decision of whether to carry a pregnancy to term.” We disagree with Ms. Mulhau ser’s viewpoint and support the high court’s majority decision. Our support of the anti-abortion amendment is not because of any pro-life or firm moral issues but rather because too many un wanted pregnancies appear to be the result of sexually promis cuous behavior emerging from our sexually permissive value system. Furthermore, with the abundance of birth control de vices readily available there seems little justification for un wanted pregnancies. For example, during the 31 months the Hyde Amendment had been in effect the yearly Medicaid cost of abortion de clined from $50 million to an incredibly low $300,000. Signifi cantly there have been no report ed corresponding increases in the birth rate or deaths from illegal abortions. In addition, the N.C. Depart ment of Human Resources re ports that in 1979 the state paid out $1.3 million for 6,125 abort ions. Significantly, 39 percent of these abortions were performed on young women 19 years of age or younger and 90 percent of the 6,125 women were unmarried. Public funds simply should not be used to subsidize the irrespon sible behavior and too often the sheer laziness of women who cannot control their sexual de sires or use preventive mea sures. Illicit Drug Use Rising Two recent federal government studies indicate that Americans, ■ V particularly young adults be tween the ages of 18 and 25, are consuming an ever increasing amount of illicit drugs. The situation has,been characterized as “extraordinarily dramatic.” For example, in the 18 years since 1962 the percentage of the 18-25 age group that had tried marijuana at least Once has increased from 4 percent to 68 percent and 40 percent continue to smoke the. stuff, at least, occasionally. The number is the same age group who have taken stronger drugs - including co caine, heroin and angel dust - has risen from 3 percent to 33 percent. These facts don’t tell the entire depressing story. The two stu dies note further that in the decade of the ’70s, experimen tation with marijuana and co caine had in fact increased by 100 percent among youth be tween the ages of 12 and 17. In reacting to the studies, at the Health and Human Services, Secretary Patricia R. Harris said, “The American people in general, and parents in particu lar have shown an increasing concern about the rapid rise in illicit drug use over the past few years. Their concerns are well founded.” We find it difficult to believe that “parents...have shown... concern” when they, older adults, continue to allow, for example, television to repeated ly tell us that a simple pill - aspirin, bufferin, Ni-Tol or whatever - will let us sleep, wake us up, relieve all manner of pain, and even change our personality. It is the parent adults too who often want to inflate his or her own ego by pushing a youth into competitive sports while ig noring the often time abusive use of drugs to keep these youths in playing condition. It is older adults too who give social acceptability to the use of alcoholic beverages,' cigarette smoking, and even the use of marijuana by their own behavior and example-setting. It is our judicial system that is increasingly letting drug users use the influence of drugs as an excuse for not being properly tried in courts of law for even such crimes as murder. No, we don’t think parents are concerned, because too many of them are also drug users of one sort or another. Until America re-thinks its values, including the rational meaning of fair competition, and until we find a way to ease the social pressures we place on young people, drug users in our nation will continue to rise. i _ _ . As I See It i Mandatory Retirement: Yes Or No? By Gerald O. Johnson Should a person be re quired to retire once he’s reached a designated age? This question has become an issue recently. To get the answer to this question older people have formed a lobby group to place pressure on governmental officials. This lobby group is saying that mandatory retirement is unconstitu tional because of age dis crimination. * A very complex issue, but one that is easily sol unable once both sides are aired. Therefore, this week I have chosen to give both sides of the argument and in conclusion give the prac tical solution to the pro blem as I see it. Let us start by taking the older people’s viewpoint. It is felt, and rightfully so, that to designate an age when all people will be fojCed to retire is discri minatory. Since we are all individuals a set age seems ridiculous. One man at age 65 may be senile while another is as sharp and witty as he ever was. Why then must one man who still has productive years left be forced to retire? Moreover, the retiree has nothing to say about it. He cannot choose if he wants to retire or not, the choice is made for him. Taking this one step further, it seems ridiculous to place an able bodied individual on relief pro grams when he is capable of running a few more miles. If age makes one wiser then we are placing a lot of wisdom out to pas ture. On the other hand, the arguments for mandatory retirement are headed by the old “getting the young into the work force” idea. Young families (especially minorites) are faced with unemployment because of jobs that are currently be ing held by older people. iieraia u. jonnson ' this idea has two prongs, t_ both of which are true and deserve attention. The truth is, a company can save money by bring ing in inexperienced young personnel to replace the older personnel with seniority. This seniority af fords one higher wages, longer leave periods, and many other fringe benefits that the new personnel will not receive. Thus, if the young personnel can be trained in a reasonable length of time he will un doubtedly save the com pany money once they oust the senior citizens. Finally, the truth is, by allowing senior citizens to hold jobs that could be filled by younger person nel, you would possibly stifle the growth of the country. A senior citizen being employed generally is not a case of survival, but rather one of ego. The senior citizen has more often than not only himself and possibly a mate to support. The children have gone, the mortgage is paid, and the bills are less in comparison to that of the: younger families getting started. The younger fami lies are in a more de sperate need for jobs than the older families. More over, the cost for having the older family on relief is far less than that of having a younger family on relief. Another problem a lot of companies feel will occur if mandatory retirement is lifted is the discrimination involved in choosing who stays after 65, how long, etc. If there is no designated age that means somebody has to be able to tell elderly employees when their time is up. Obviously, if they felt that they were not ready for retirement at 65 then they probably won’t be ready at age 70. So then, how is one going to be told his services are no longer needed? Even more im portantly, what distin guishing characteristics or guidelines will be used to tell one person that he need not retire at age 65 while telling another he must retire at 65? This type of decision making will surely open pandora's box to all sorts *of discrimination charges. finally, wirn age comes a closed mind. Because of the years put into doing things a certain way; it is difficult to succumb to change. Yet our business society is based on inno vative ideas that are con stantly changing the way we do things. Consequent ly, getting younger, more up-to-date minds contri butes to the continuing well being of the business structure. As I see it the arguments are strong on both sides. But in careful analysis of this situation the issue boils down to emotionalism vs. rationalism. Consequently, I am in favor of mandatory retirement at age 65. I don't think that age discrimination in this case is discriminatory at all. Unlike being born black or white, male or female, where we will remain in this state until death; age or growing old is one bridge we will all cross if we are lucky. f—. VERNON JORDAN , TO BE EQUAL • / List Is Veritably Endless By Gerald C. Horne, Esq. Special To The Post Many recognized that affirmative action is at root a political struggle moreso than a legal one. Politics got us the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Politics are taking over our hard-earned gains of the Sixties. Hence, 1980 as an election year should be viewed with more than passing interest by affirm ative action advocates. The November elections are just around the corner and it appears that the choice we are being handed is Jimmy Carter (“born again” right winger with more guns and less butter) vs. Ronald Reagan (sometimes spelled “Ray-gun,” a man who achieved prominence by attacking the “welfare mother”). For Black voters and all fair-minded people, this choice is a Hobson’s choice - no choice at all. Some might argue that we should vote for Carter as the “lesser evil”; but voters have been doing that for years (recall Carter Vs. Ford in ’76 or Johnson vsa Goldwater in ’64 or Truman vs. Dewey in ’4fn - the list is veritably endless) and look where it has brought us. The so-called “misery index” (the rate of unemployment added to the rate of inflation) is at the highest level in the nation’s history with Blacks being disproportionately hit Another “victory” for Carter and we’ll be in the positions of the “victor” Pyrrhus, King of Epirus or the troops at Thermopylae - i.e. another “victory” like this and we’ll be totally undone. The political situation of Blacks is exacer bated by the miniscule percentage of Black elected officials. If ever there was an area deserving of affirmative action, this is it. And the sad fact is that the situation is not improving but getting worse. For example, the number of Black elected officials in the United States increased by only 2 percent between July, 1978 and July, 1979 - the smallest annual increase since v J970, when the figures first were collected by the Joint Center for Political Studies. But even this figure is misleading since the 2 percent reflects 23 officials from the Virgin Islands included on the roster for the first time. Yes, the number of Black elected officials has increased over the past 10 years but they still represent only l percent of tW' entire total of 490,265, while Blacks comprise 15 percent of the nation’s total population. A closer examination reveals once again that like most employment areas, Black elected officials are disproportionately represented at the lower rungs of power. Forty-eight percent of all Black elected officials are at the municipal level. Of the 191 Black mayors, 70 percent are from communities with populations of 5,000 or less. Twenty-five percent of all Black elected officials serve in education posi tions, school boards and the like. With all due respect to the officials involved, though it is positive that we have Black mayors of villages and hamlets and Blacks on school boards, this does not represent where power rests in this country. So where does this leave us? Well, the old-timers recall that Blacks have not voted rmm I ha |_louse Democratic at all times. Carter Reaffirms His Non-Committal To Humphrey-Hawkins Alfreds L. Madison Special To The Post The platform committee which was overwhelmingly composed of Carter forces prevailed in seeing that the President’s issues domi nated the platform. The public would certainly like to take the platform mea sures seriously, but usually candidates on the cam paign trail are entirely dif ferent from the elected person. Candidates ge nerally tell the people whatever they think might get them elected. Then having achieved that goal, all promises are laid aside. In his platform, Carter reaffirmed his commit ment to Humphrey-Hawk ins. After the fanfare of signing the Act into law, hd has done nothing at all about meeting its goals. Humphrey-Hawk ins calls for an unemployment rate of 4 percent by 1983. Yet, the Administration's policies have been geared to increasing unemploy ment from the time of signing the bill in 1978 which was 5.9 percent to 8.2 percent in 1979 and 7.4 8— Alfred* L. Madison percent at present with a prediction of a rise of more than 8 percent for 1081. The Act also calls for inflation reduction of 3 percent by 1983. At present it is over 11 percent and all indications are that it will rise higher. In the platform reaf firmation of its Humphrey Hawkins commitment, the President has extended the goals' time for unemploy ment until 1985 and infla tion to 1987. Mr. Carter has used the Nixon-Ford trade off the ory of raising unemploy iui icuuuii^ miia tion. This is a clear viola tion of Humphrey-Hawk ins, and inflation has not been reduced. No frame work has been provided by the Administration for car rying out the mandates of the Act, which requires policies for employing people to reduce needed goods and services which are economically sound, socially desirable and anti inflationary. Further violations of the Act by the President have been the budget cuts, be sides employment, the training program, aid to state and local govern ments, youth employment programs, student loans, education for handicapped, low income housing assist ance, child nutrition pro grams and others. The President's platform states that the Administra tion has added 8.3 million new jobs to the work force with 1 million of those being for blacks. It failed to show that overall unem ployment has risen to 7.4 percent with black overall unemployment to 14.7 per ceni. i ms unemployment rate is higher than it was when President Carter came into office. So if the Administration calls the disaster it has made, through its complete violations of the Hum phrey-Hawkins Act a com mitment reaffirmation of the same, can only lead to complete devastation for the majority of the Ameri The platform states that the people have gained more confidence in the go vernment. Evidently the Administration is relying on the belief that the Ame rican public is gullible and unthinking. How can any one whose living conditions have grown progressively worse have any faith and confidence in a leadership which has shown only idle rhetoric for improving their lives? A clear analy sis of the entire platform seems to prove that the Administration has aban doned its resporcgftlity to be fair and just With the people and its moral con science for political ex pediency. rush Hits Housing Inei—^ m A recent Chicago Tri bune series has pointed out how blacks in that city experiencea “hidden" now of their dollars from the community to the suburbs. The study has shown that as many as 10 times the number of loans are grant ed to those outside of the city, than to those actively utilizing a bank’s facilities The dollar amounts grant ed in the loans reflected the same disparity between suburban and urban dwellers. Through difficulties in procurement of loans for housing and home im provements, inner-city neighborhoods are suffer .- *1 Ing, while those in the suburbs prosper. An unofficial "black tax" as The Tribune put It, affects those living in ur ban centers elsewhere It is one of several impediments to home ownership and improvement which affects millions. To address such pro blems in housing and eco nomics, Operation PUSH has devoted an entire day of its upcoming convention in New Orleans to black business and housing. Ad dressing these problems directly will be Moon Lan drieu. Federal Secretary of Housing and Urban De w velopment in Washington; George Johnson, president of Johnson Products; the Rev. Jesse Jackson, pre sident of Operation PUSH, in addition to others in the position to instigate change. Among topics on the. week-long agenda are edu cation, employment, Inter national affairs, health and other areas of vital inter r1— -1 NOT TO KNOW IS BAD, NOT TO WISH KNOW IS WORSE AFRICAN PROVERB Summertime Need Not Be Littertime I I-- ^ THE CHARLOTTE POST Second Class Postage No. 965500 “THE PEOPLE’S NEWSPAPER’’ Established 1918 Published Every Thursday by The Charlotte Post Publishing Co., Inc. 1524 West Blvd.-Charlotte, NC 28208 Telephone (704) 376-0496 Circulation-9,200 62 Years of Continuous Service RILL JOHNSON...Editor, Publisher i BERNARD REEVES-Ceneral Manager Second Class Postage No. 965500 Paid At Charlotte, N.C. under the Act of March 3,1878 Member National Newspaper Publishers Association, North Carolina Black Publishers Association Deadline for all news copy and photos is 5 p.m, Monday. All photos and copy submitted become the property of the POST, and will not be returned. National Advertising Representative Amalgamated Publishers, Inc. 2400 s Michigan Ave. 45 w 5th St., Suite 1403 Chicago, 111. 60616 New York, N Y. 10036 Calumet 5 0200 (212) 480-1220 ■ .4
The Charlotte Post (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 3, 1980, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75