Those who oppose abortion might want to take a lesson from Attorney General Ashcroft, who personally believes abortion to be wrong but who has pledged to uphold the law. He has ordered U.S. marshals to ensure the safety of Dr. George Tiller, who has been shot twice by an anti-abortion militant, while protests against abortion are under way in Kansas. Abortion foes should
let logic be their guideThe issue: Attorney General John
Ashcroft has ordered U.S. marshals
to protect a doctor who has
performed abortions.Equally important is the signal that the tactics of violence will not be tolerated. Anti-abortion activists, moreover, should understand that bombing abortion clinics, or harassing those who seek abortions, or shooting at those who perform abortions or seeking to harm those who favor abortion rights only hurt the anti-abortion cause.
The way to change the laws on abortion is through the ballot box, legislation, lobbying and the courts. Abortion opponents have shown themselves to have been less effective politically than those who call themselves pro-choice even though reputable polls suggest a gradual erosion in support of laws permitting abortion.
The anti-abortion movement should put more effort into getting sympathizers elected from the local to the federal level. Anti-abortion groups should introduce bills that favor their cause and lobby for them in a reasoned manner. Lobbying the executive branch in state houses and Washington for decisions that hinder abortion is proper in a democracy. Scouts should look for cases that have a good chance of anti-abortion rulings in court.
Too often, those who oppose abortion rights base their arguments on moral principle. That's all very well and idealistic but in America's pluralistic society, honorable men and women can have rational differences on what is moral or immoral. Arguments over that issue are usually futile.
In contrast, the Constitution establishes rights for all Americans and in that arena the debate over abortion should take place. The Roe vs. Wade decision making abortion legal a quarter century ago was based on constitutional rights as determined by the Supreme Court. That decision, like others of constitutional import, is not set in stone and could be changed.
A critical question on which abortion opponents should focus: When does a fetus come under the equal protection of the law and Constitution? At conception? After the first trimester? After the second? During birth before the umbilical cord is cut? After birth when the baby can breathe on his or her own? When?
Finding a constitutional answer to that question should be a top priority for anti-abortion activists.
EVEN anti-pornography activists are shaking their heads about the 10-year sentence of a man in Columbus, Ohio, for writing in his private, fictional journal about the molestation of children. How it was possible for a defense attorney, prosecutor and judge to allow this to happen raises questions about what our nation's law schools teach about privacy and the First Amendment. This is a case about thought police gone berserk, with the cooperation of the defense bar. Verdict in porn case
defies explanationThe issue: An Ohio man has been
sentenced to 10 years in prison for
writing in his private journal fiction
about children being molested.Brian Dalton's thoughts happen to be disgusting. He was convicted three years ago of pandering pornographic photographs of children. During a recent search of his home, a probation officer found a journal in which Dalton had written stories about three young children being caged in a basement, molested and tortured. Prosecutors said the stories were fictional and were for Dalton's private use, not for dissemination.
Dalton was charged with pandering pornography and agreed to a plea bargain resulting in the 10-year sentence. Ron O'Brien, the Franklin County prosecutor, hailed it as a breakthrough in child-pornography prosecution. It is believed to be the first case in the country in which a person has been convicted of child pornography for writings and not images. Dalton's attorney declined to disclose the advice she had given her client but said Dalton "felt it was in his best interest" to plead guilty.
"His thoughts may be disturbing and repugnant, but he has got a right to have them and write them down for his own use," said Raymond Vasvari, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union's Ohio chapter.
Janet LaRue, senior director of legal studies at the Washington-based Family Research Council, which fights child pornography, expressed amazement: "It's like an arsonist with matches," she said. "But while we admire a prosecutor who is concerned about the potential of children being harmed, we recognize that this case has serious problems." No kidding.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that child pornography is limited to images, not writing. It also has held that obscene material is illegal only if it is disseminated, not just possessed, unless there is an overriding societal interest in protecting children. There was no indication that children were or would be harmed by Dalton's private writing. In this case, the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney pose a greater threat to society than Dalton's prose.
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, President
John Flanagan, publisher and editor in chief 529-4748; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.com The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
