Brand’s column misses the point

n It’s interesting that Matuya Brand’s column is called “Permanent Daylight” when her most recent column, entitled “New law a gateway to abortion ban” (April 7, pg. 3), suggests that she writes with blinders on. I find no fault in the criticism of the way in which President George W. Bush signed the bill nor the laundry list of current problems, though one does question their relevance to the rest of the column. However, Brand’s analysis of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act smacks of unsubstantiated bias. Issues with the UVVA, such as accidental versus malicious intent or the Feinstein Amendment, are, while important and requiring serious discussion, lacking in the column.

I have no problem with genuine discussion on abortion; however, blatantly attacking “family and religious groups” as well as Republicans is inaccurate. As a Democratic-leaning moderate who is both pro-life and a member of a pro-choice religion (Reform Judaism), I find it uninformed to assume that only the right supports the UVVA. A Newsweek poll (with a 3 percent margin of error) published in May 2003 showed that 56 percent of the country supports a separate murder charge in all cases, 28 percent when the fetus is viable and only 9 percent in no cases. For just Democrats, the numbers were almost identical: 54 percent, 29 percent and 10 percent respectively. Are women really being “silenced by a few?”

She says “the law’s true intention is visible” because it was worked on in 1999 by the National Right to Life Committee “as opposed to non-partisan groups or women’s groups with ambiguous views toward abortion.” The National Organization of Women’s position on abortion is anything but ambiguous, yet Brand quotes them as if they were some great impartial authority on the matter. The fact that it was worked on in 1999 leads one to the conclusion that the president does not bear all the responsibility for “the rights of the unborn [taking] precedence over the rights of the living.”

Brand can’t leave it at just discussing abortion – she decides to do an ad-drop for a Washington, D.C. march and bash all pro-lifers as “the few Republicans who cannot separate brainwash from church from state.” The same Newsweek poll went on to report that 48 percent of the country views itself as pro-life contrasted with the 47 percent who view themselves pro-choice. Democrats were divided 42 percent pro-life, 52 percent pro-choice. Republicans, 57 percent pro-life, 38 percent pro-choice. Perhaps the same “associations, activists and concerned individuals that will swarm the capital” are the ones stifling dissent in the Democratic Party.

But returning to the original argument about the UVVA, the pro-life pro-choice labels don’t hold up. Only 11 percent of respondents that consider themselves pro-choice would have separate murder charges in no cases. More than 90 percent of the country wants the UVVA in some form or another, and while that by no means proves anything, it does mean a comprehensive debate is needed.

Whatever one thinks, one can agree that “brainwash from church” does not belong in an argument at the college level and is insulting to anyone engaging in intelligent debate.

Adam Black

CAS ’07