file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1993: PLN-0313.TXT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 3, No. 13 June, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This Pro-Life Newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life Issues. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve (frezza@ee.pitt.edu). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Free Speech Attacked at UCR The May 18th issue of _The Highlander_, the University of California at Riverside (UCR)'s student newspaper, contained a 12-page pro-life supplement for which a group called the Human Life Alliance of Minnesota paid the regular advertisement rate ($750). Knowing it would be a controversial decision, the editorial board of _The Highlander_ voted 6-0 (with 3 absent and not voting) to accept the ad. The controversy exploded all over the editorial pages of the next issue [25 May]. Surprisingly enough, not a single response letter printed stated that the writer disagreed with the sentiments in the supplement but supported the right of _The Highlander_ to publish it. _The Highlander_ regularly accepts ads for a family planning clinic that provides abortions, the Family Planning Associates Medical Group. They also have ads for a nudist association, and lots of non-controversial ads. _The Highlander_ claims to be funded entirely by ads, although it is housed on the campus and is the "official" campus student newspaper. The publication of the pro-life ad unleashed a torrent of abuse, some of which was published in _The Highlander_ as letters to the editor. Here are some samples from letters to the editor in the May 25th issue: From a 20-inch letter by Ron Balsamo, Botany and Plant Sciences. (Note: 20 column inches is almost half of a page.) Balsamo's wife talked to the editor-in-chief on the phone, when she called to express her and her husband's outrage: "... [the editor-in-chief] tried to hide behind the old facade of `free speech and a free press.' Give me a break! ... " From a senior in Women's Studies, Ethnic Studies: " ... I'm just ashamed that our own UCR newspaper can be paid off to include such tasteless propaganda in its respected publication ... " From Sara Davey, Junior, Theatre: "I was absolutely appalled to see the supplement to last week's _Highlander_. I cannot believe that a college newspaper would allow such a right-wing advertisement. Are you really that hard-up for sponsorship that you would include this type of hysterical propaganda in your issue? I believe in freedom of the press ... [You sure don't seem to, Sara. LLL] "The feminist movement has struggled for years to allow the freedom of choice to an abortion, and this type of propaganda is part of what we fight against. ... " " ... I hope that _The Highlander_ will no longer allow such narrow- minded conservatives to advertise in our paper again." Also, several letters were included that attacked the other letters: from Steve Mast, Senior, Liberal Studies: "If you were upset by the insert, please ask yourself the following question: Would you be angry if it were an insert supporting abortionist views? If not, then you are calling yourself a hypocrite. To say that the newspaper is free to advertise something you are in favor of and not free to advertise something you are against is very hypocritical. " ... You, the same people who scream and yell for freedom of the press on a pornographic art display, are now rallying to the cry of censorship at a paid advertisement ... " From Norman Ravitch, Professor of History: "I was please to see that you accepted for inclusion in your last issue a paid supplement ... demonstrates that you have not been intimidated by the advocates of political correctness into regarding those against abortion as no more worthy of favorable attention than white supremacists." The reply by the editor-in-chief Tom Pigeon of _The Highlander_ defended their stand to accept the ad, including this observation: "There are those who think it is our job to protect the campus from "sensitive" material. On the contrary, it is a newspaper's job to print and publish, not censor. We are not decency police. We should not decide what our readers should or shouldn't be exposed to. That is their decision." My conclusion? It is a good thing that we have the First Amendment to protect the Student Newspaper (and all the press) from being shut down by the forces of whatever the prevailing opinion is in a given situation. I am also glad that the editorial board at the Highlander is willing to stand up to those forces... free speech laws do not protect people from their own cowardice. The supplement contained a lot of useful information, e.g., phone numbers for several local organizations that help people in a troubled situation. - Larry Larmore ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Feminists For Life Join The Net The Feminists for Life now has an e-mail service consisting of a newsletter (published about once a month) and a "reflector" to allow anyone to broadcast a message to the entire readership. For more information, submission of articles, or simply to join the list, please contact the current editor, Dean Schulze (schulze@argus.lpl.arizona.edu). Submissions to the newsletter and broadcasts to the readers are also welcome. - Dean Schulze ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Corrections - News Media Distortion of the Abortion Issue [v3n10] In the guest editorial [ProLife News v3n10] it incorrectly stated that "29% of all pregnancies end in abortion." This was a typographical error. The correct number should be 26%. This figure comes from the Centers for Disease Control annual report on abortion which show that in 1989, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 346 abortions per 1,000 live births in the US (Associated Press story published on 11-28-92). Apparently these figures do not include miscarriages. It is somewhat embarrassing to admit an error in an editorial in which I took the media to task for biased reporting. But there is an enormous difference between making error and intentionally slanting the news through selective reporting and editorializing in "news reports". - Dean Schulze ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) New Resources Added: "1993 U.S. Senate Phone and FAX Numbers" - a listing containing the office phone numbers for all, and FAX numbers for many of the Senators, dated June, 1993. FAX transmissions are an effective way to get letters directly to the Senators office. [Ask for "93SenateList"] "1993 U.S. House of Representatives Senate Phone and FAX Numbers" - a two-part listing containing the office phone numbers for all, and FAX numbers for many of the Representatives of the 50 states, dated June, 1993. FAX transmissions are an effective way to get letters directly to the Representative's office. The first part lists representatives from the states of Alaska -> Montana, and the second part lists those for the states of North Carolina -> Wyoming. [Ask for "93HouseList1" or "93HouseList2"] "The American Holocaust: Abortion in the 90's" - a series of postings from the John Ankerburg Show, which aired an 11-part series on abortion beginning in February, 1990. The topics were: Introduction / Fetal Personhood / Right to Control Her Own Body? / Life Before Birth / Methods of Abortion / Putting the Pieces Together / Court Decisions and Their Impact / Inside the Abortion Industry / Call To Action / Unwanted Pregnancies / Christian Perspective. The series was very broad in nature, excellent in its coverage, and quotes many of the known experts on abortion in America. [Ask for "AmericanHolocaust"] "Dred Scott, Again" - A transcript of the speech given by Robert P. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania at the 1993 conference on abortion and public policy. Casey addresses the relationship of the public servant and the constitution, especially with respect to the infamous _Roe v. Wade_ and _Dred Scott_ decisions. [Ask for "CaseySpeaks93"] [For a current listing of the backissues for this volume, or for a complete listing of the other resources available, please ask for "v3Topics" from your friendly editor.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Fact for the Fortnight: In 1990, Planned Parenthood Federation of America provided prenatal care to 7,053 mothers...and performed 129,155 abortions. An additional 80,937 women were referred for abortions. [1] This represents ~14% of the estimated 1.5 million elective abortions performed in the United States in 1990. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Reader Comments Has the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour Become a Biased Forum? I caught the last couple of minutes of a focus segment that MacNeil- Lehrer had on the nomination of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. I think this broadcast was on June 14. There were 5 panelists: a former ACLU attorney, the president of Columbia University, Kate Michaelman (president of the National Abortion Rights Action League), and two other people who I think were reporters. However, there wasn't anyone there from the pro-life side to offset Kate Michaelman's extreme views on the relationship between the courts and the abortion issue. The discussion that I heard, which was at the end of this focus segment, had mostly to do with President Clinton's apparent ineptness in handling the selection of a nominee by suggesting that he was about to name someone else on two occasions before settling on Bader-Ginsburg. It then turned to how politics affected the choice of nominees to the supreme court. The liberals on this panel predictably blamed Ronald Reagan for politicizing this process. Michaelman said that the politicization of the Supreme Court began with Reagan. I found this discussion quite out of character for the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour because of the complete lack of balance in the makeup of the panel and the content of the discussion. In all previous focus segments about the Supreme Court that I'd seen they always had a conservative to offset the views of liberals and vice-versa. As far as politicizing the Supreme Court goes, in my opinion the court is self-politicized. This self-politicization began with a 1965 decision regarding a Connecticut law that restricted access to birth control. This decision fabricated a right to privacy based upon "penumbras, formed by emanations" from the Bill of Rights. The "privacy right" grew into the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision that fabricated a right to abortion, the epitome of the politicization of the Supreme Court. And all of this happened long before Ronald Reagan became president. Did anyone else see this focus segment on MacNeil-Lehrer? Though I only saw the end of this discussion, it has seriously eroded my confidence in the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour as a fair and impartial forum. Do I have a wrong impression of what was said on that broadcast, or is my disappointment well-founded? - Dean Schulze ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Reader Responses v3n12: An Analogy for Rescuers: I have a great deal of trouble with this analogy, because it assumes that the judgment of the lady [being blocked from having an abortion] is impaired or deficient-- a demeaning notion at best. That she may not have enough information: that is certainly true. That she is about to injure an innocent: that is also true. But to imply that she is "drugged" or "drunk" through this comparison is certainly not going to win over any fence-sitters (if that was the intent). Keep in mind, however, that I am not a big fan of Operation Rescue. From what I have seen during OR's protests I must conclude that it is a morally bankrupt organization. I did not see OR leadership (or even fellow members!) police the abusive language used toward young mothers. I recall the word "slut" being used-- (personally, in Washington DC) --that is *not* going to get her to a Crisis Pregnancy Center. From videotapes I have seen OR members *grab* at women going into the clinic... this is something that will make a young lady hate *all* pro-lifers and work against us fervently, as well as killing her child! Until I see Operation Rescue police its more "enthusiastic" members more effectively, I feel I must in good conscience distance myself and the cause I believe in from them. In the meantime, I shall follow my (albeit wimpy :-) conscience and promote life in what I feel is a loving, insistent way. (I have lost a few friends over this issue.) Perhaps I was watching at the wrong time, or the videotapes (admitted filmed by a choicer, but it was clearly a Pro Lifer doing the grabbing from what he said) were unfairly slanted. I will watch and pray when OR comes to San Jose for its Cities of Refuge. I pray that babies will be saved and hearts will be turned. I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone. -- In His Love, Dorothy Nelson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1 - The pro-life supplement mentioned appeared as an advertising supplement | | in Vol 41, Number 29, May 18, 1993, of the Highlander, University of | | California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521. The letters to-the-editor | | quoted appeared in Vol 41, number 30, May 25, 1993. | | 5 - Quoted from "Planned Parenthood Federation of America 1991 Services | | Report," pp. 10-14, c/o PPFA. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.