Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Changing Hawaii
ALLOW me to introduce myself: I am a hypocrite. Make that a former hypocrite. Thanks to the recent U.S. legalization of the "abortion pill" RU-486, I now realize why I shouldn't vote in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs election next month. A hypocrite
sees the lightRU-486? The selection of OHA trustees? What could these two issues possibly have in common?
In late February, OHA Chairman Clayton Hee dropped by to meet with the Star-Bulletin editorial board. It was a week after the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down the Hawaiians-only vote for OHA leaders.
During our session, I asked Hee what percentage of non-Hawaiian voters might participate in OHA balloting, now that they were allowed to do so.
The chairman said he didn't know, paused, then queried, "What about you, Diane? Are you going to vote for OHA trustees?"
"Oh, yes," I answered emphatically. After all, I thought to myself, why not -- even if I'm not Hawaiian? I "know" which candidates would be good (and who wouldn't be good) representatives on the OHA board.
Gentleman that he is, Hee said nothing. But perhaps he was mulling my arrogance and rightly so.
What was I thinking? I realized how presumptuously wrong I was only after viewing the presidential and vice presidential debates on television.
During these separate events, four guys (George and Al, Dick and Joe) were interrogated by two other guys (Jim and Bernard) about a myriad of things, including whether legalization of RU-486 -- after 12 years of study by the Food and Drug Administration -- was "good" for the country.
Meanwhile, in the nation's capital, congressmen like Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) are trying to make RU-486 harder for American women to obtain, as syndicated columnists and talking heads on TV (again, mostly male) declare whether this is OK with them.
And, all the while, I'm wondering: Why aren't we asking the ones affected by this development -- namely, the female citizens of this country?
Women get pregnant (not by themselves, mind you), gestate for nine months, give birth and then are handed the societal mandate of being primary caretakers of their kids, whether they want to or are capable of doing this well or not.
Yet what has been called "the most significant technological advance in women's reproductive health since the birth control pill" has been stalled by men in power, like George's dad, President Bush, who banned it in 1989.
RU-486 is already in use in 13 countries, including France and Britain. Its upcoming availability won't mean American women will become more promiscuous. They won't merely pop a pill to get rid of unwanted pregnancies in record numbers. That didn't happen in Europe.
FIRST of all, the new prescription must be used in the first seven weeks of pregnancy. This alternative and required follow-up procedure will be just as or even more expensive than an abortion.
And the fact that the first dose must be followed in two days by a drug that causes intense uterine contractions, bleeding and nausea won't make it an enjoyable experience for the patient. Honest, fellas.
Therefore, Chairman Hee, I've changed my mind. I won't be picking any OHA trustees -- unless I first ask my Hawaiian friends and acquaintances for their recommendations.
Who knows better about who's best to make decisions for Hawaiians than Hawaiians? Who knows better about what's best for women than women? Ask them. They should know.
Diane Yukihiro Chang's column runs Monday and Friday.
She can be reached by phone at 525-8607, via e-mail at
dchang@starbulletin.com, or by fax at 523-7863.