Support of abortion abroad infringes on
rights
George W. Bush recently cut off aid to family planning
organizations abroad that help people get abortions ("Bush signs anti-abortion memorandum,"
News, Jan. 23). By using our tax dollars to support abortion
overseas, the government severely infringes on the rights of many
Americans. Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization
for Women, while being interviewed on Fox News, condemned
Bush’s memorandum as being an extreme right wing act. I,
however, feel that pulling the funds is the most moderate position
one can take and it should be supported by both those who support
abortion rights and those who are anti-abortion. There are a
significant number of Americans who are religiously opposed to
abortion. Aren’t their religious freedoms being eroded when
they are forced to pay for something they find repugnant? I
understand the dangers of pulling the funding, but it should never
have been a concern of the federal government in the first place.
Since there are so many Americans who strongly feel that these
groups should continue to be funded then they should put their own
money together for this purpose. Protecting religious freedom is
one of the most important jobs our government performs. By forcing
taxpayers to support something they are religiously opposed to,
they have violated our social contract. The preservation of the
integrity of our social contract should be highly regarded by all
Americans regardless of their ideological views.
Jamie Padilla Third-year Political science
USAC amendment good for students The Editorial
Board’s opinion in "Flawed law
makes allocation of funds impossible" (Viewpoint, Jan. 25) may
have been one of the weakest arguments I have heard The Bruin make
ever. For years, I’ve seen USAC use political clout and
outrageous discrimination tactics in choosing who received
discretionary funding. Let’s be honest: if you supported the
majority, you got the money. Since the days of Students First!,
MEChA, ASU, Samahang Pilipino, and the Asian Pacific Coalition have
received increasingly disproportionate amounts of money. The
groups’ graduation celebrations no doubt must cost a lot of
money alone. The undergraduate body has a president who is doing
what she was overwhelmingly elected to do: treat groups equally. No
one is debating that pure equality is impossible, however, The
Bruin’s outright disgust with the process makes me sick.
“Dividing USAC funding among so many groups would be
detrimental to all of them,” wrote the Board. “No group
would have sufficient money to fund an activity or program on a
large scale.” This argument is ridiculous. Interpreted
correctly, the law says that the students cannot choose to fund a
group directly because of the content it wishes to produce.
Instead, USAC can feel free to give money based on the value it
would have to students, or even the breadth of students it would
encompass. There would be no “detrimental” effect to
all student groups; a chess club that never received funding will
be overwhelmed with joy if they received even $100 for an event. If
students don’t believe that some groups should receive the
strongly unequal portions of USAC funding, then they’ll vote
for candidates that push for more equalized funding mechanisms.
I’m not sure what “large scale” means, but the
special graduation celebrations that all students pay for and few
attend may be examples of events that should have their funding
reinvestigated. If The Bruin could take a step back, stop parsing
out the minutia of bad effects and give the president and the rest
of USAC the credit it deserves, students might actually feel the
need to vote.
Ryan Ozimek Graduate student Public policy