Bush doesn’t support family planning
The Bush administration’s recent decision to back out of an international agreement — this time an agreement made between 189 countries around the world to provide poor women with family planning and reproductive health services — reveals a blatant disregard for human life and the true extent of the president’s shift to the right and away from the moderate views held by most Americans.
The agreement the president is now preparing to abandon grew out of a worldwide recognition that rapid population growth in developing countries was undermining economic development and exacerbating the grinding poverty in which billions of people live. And it determined that improving women’s access to education, to economic opportunities, and to civic life — as well as to family planning and related health services — was the best way to address these problems. This is just the latest step in a long series of attacks on women’s health and family planning.
Earlier this year, the president decided to eliminate all funds for the United Nations Population Fund — an organization leading the effort to provide poor women in developing countries with quality reproductive health care and family planning services. This despite strong bipartisan support in Congress and the recommendation of the president’s own fact-finding team. While a small minority of outspoken extremists has captured the president’s ear on this issue, the vast majority of Americans — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents — support family planning. More than half a million women die every year from pregnancy related causes — nearly all of them preventable with quality reproductive health care.
Aren’t their lives more important than the whims of a handful of anti-family planning extremists?

Albert Kaufman
Portland

‘Hate’ should prompt contract review
University administrators will be meeting in June to consider whether to renew the University’s controversial contract with radio station KUGN-AM. Hopefully, concerned parties will take a good look at the University’s mission statement and two of its key principles: tolerance and respect.
It is important to note that this is not an issue of censorship. This is about whether the University should continue a high-profile business relationship that juxtaposed with its stated mission principles reeks of hypocrisy.
What is “hate radio”? Some would have you believe that it is simply an airing of controversial issues with some hosts who push the edge a bit. In reality, it is unrelenting character assassination, ridicule and demonization of anyone whose philosophy differs from the extreme right-wing persuasion. It routinely bashes minorities and women.
A favorite pastime for Michael Savage and Michael Medved is homeless bashing: Savage, on April 4, talked about “forcing the homeless to eat geese until they gag.” Medved often refers to the homeless as “human trash” and “scum.”
If these themes were occasional, or perhaps tongue-in-cheek, it might diminish the conflict of interest. Unfortunately, this is not the case. These are recurring and incessant mantras. So when Michael Savage says “(Senator Joseph) McCarthy was 100 percent right. … McCarthy was a hero,” (March 28) and keeps the tone day after day, he means it. The University should remember this when it decides whether to renew its contract with KUGN next year.

Gerry Rempel
Eugene
Editor’s note: This piece was submitted before KUGN’s decision to stop carrying Michael Savage.

Victim’s rights take precedence
A statement in “Student contends grievance that alleges threatening speech” (ODE, Dec. 6) left me absolutely appalled. It appears that our society’s perception of constitutional rights have swung too far in favor of the individual over those of the masses.
I’m surprised at how predictable it is to read about a student admittedly guilty of directing inflammatory comments and accused of threatening members of a social group historically discriminated against. With such
statements as were quoted in the article (“That’s a stark violation of my constitutional rights”), the subject is allowed to overshadow his own guilt with petty protestations about violations of his own rights.
Understandably, provisos were imbedded in the Constitution as safeguards against gross violations against individuals committed during the process of investigations and consequent legal proceedings. This is interesting in light of the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court might overturn the Miranda ruling.
A confessed rapist was set free due to his attorney contesting a violation of his rights which may soon be deemed invalid; how ironic. When do the rights of the victim overshadow the rights of the perpetrator?

Carla Reitan
senior
music/pre-medicine

Forgiveness may prove more successful than war
Please read this letter with the understanding that it was written from the heart, with love and sincere sympathy for those who have suffered profound losses. It is not intended to be religious or aggravating, disrespectful or unpatriotic.
Costs of not forgiving: The costs of not forgiving are immense. The anger and humiliation we feel appear to be eroding the values that make our country great. Our suspicion may destroy our privacy. Our fear may cause us to voluntarily trade our democracy for a dictatorship. Our insecurity may compromise our economic prosperity. Our lack of self-efficacy may cause us to blindly follow our biased news sources. Our xenophobia may cause us to forgo justice. Our rage may bring us into an unnecessary war.
Benefits of forgiving: Fortunately, the benefits of forgiving are equally immense. If you, personally, will make this change of heart, you will feel a renewed sense of power, trust and optimism. This country can undermine terrorism with forgiveness. This is how we can win the generic war on terrorism. We can heal. We can overcome. We are a resilient people in a free country. Our power is not in our military defense; it is in our citizen’s willingness to defend our nation’s values of democracy, independence and justice.
Forgive now: It is time to forgive Sept. 11, 2001. We live in an accelerated world and we don’t have the convenience of withholding our forgiveness. We can trade rage and indignation for peace and clarity.

Randolph Joslyn Sill
Seattle