[ OUR OPINION ]

---

State should find
a way to proceed
with UH-Kapolei plans

THE ISSUE About 100 University of Hawaii-West Oahu students marched in protest of a regent's threat to close the institution next spring.

A University of Hawaii regent's proposal to close the West Oahu campus triggered a protest by the institution's students. The motion was put forth in the form of a clumsy ultimatum for the Lingle administration to come up with a plan for a permanent campus in Kapolei. State and university officials should not need that level of goading to proceed with the ambitious and worthwhile project.

Former Gov. Ben Cayetano was an enthusiastic proponent of a UH campus at Kapolei, first planning it mauka of the H-1 freeway on the foothills of the Waianae Range east of Makakilo and finally settling on a location on 500 acres of state land makai of the freeway. Cayetano envisioned a campus resembling that of the University of California-Irvine, where ranch land was transformed into an excellent university and an attractive college town.

UH-West Oahu opened in 1976 as West Oahu College, at first offering only evening and weekend classes at high schools in the West Oahu region. It now offers a range of day, evening and weekend courses at the Leeward Community College campus in Pearl City and via the Internet. The average age of its more than 800 students is 33.

The Legislature provided $8 million for the university to plan the West Oahu campus in Kapolei, estimated to cost $350 million to build. Cayetano is critical of Governor Lingle for eliminating $142 million he had proposed to allocate for the new campus. With interest rates at an all-time low, Cayetano calls the cut "penny wise and pound foolish."

Last week, regent Ted Hong proposed that UH-West Oahu be closed in April in the absence of any plan by UH to finance construction of the Kapolei campus. Hong said his motion, which was quickly shelved, was intended to prod the Lingle administration to come up with a plan to build and pay for the new campus. Patricia Lee, the Board of Regents chairwoman, assured about 100 students protesting at the Leeward campus that regents "certainly have no intention of closing West Oahu down."

UH spokeswoman Carolyn Tanaka says the administration is working on a revised plan for the Kapolei campus. Although Lingle plans no funding of the campus in her package for the upcoming Legislature, Waipahu Sen. Cal Kawamoto says he will introduce legislation to provide $85 million for the first phase of construction, beginning in 2007.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Court should reject
new abortion ban

THE ISSUE Congress has enacted a law that criminalizes a medical procedure critics refer to as "partial-birth abortion."

THIRTY years after legalizing abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court will have an opportunity to take another look at the issue. President Bush's promised signature on a bill that bans a specific abortion procedure will go straight to court. Lower courts can be expected to rule that the new law is unconstitutional, following the high court's striking down of a similar Nebraska law three years ago. Any Supreme Court decision to review an issue on which it already has ruled will be a dangerous sign that the court may want to unravel Roe vs. Wade.

With Hawaii's entire congressional delegation casting "no" votes, Congress enacted for the third time a bill that bans a procedure that doctors call dilation and evacuation and opponents gruesomely call "partial-birth abortion." It is the safer of two abortion methods used during the second trimester. The Supreme Court has ruled that abortions can be banned only after the 23rd week, in the third trimester.

Former President Bill Clinton vetoed two such bills. The bill prohibits anyone from delivering a baby "for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." It essentially would prevent physicians from using a method that gives the highest priority to the woman's safety. For that reason, the Supreme Court in 2000 struck down a similar Nebraska law that made it a crime punishable by 20 years in prison.

The Supreme Court rejected the Nebraska law by a 5-4 vote, ruling that a state "may not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the methods of abortion." That decision affirmed a ruling made by a judge nominated to the bench by President Bush and upheld by a three-judge panel that included two Reagan nominees.

The National Abortion Federation, the Center for Reproductive Rights and other opponents of the legislation will have only to cite the Nebraska case in order for a judge to declare it null and void. Any decision by the high court to review the case -- considering a specific issue it already has addressed and ruled upon -- will be cause for concern that the justices may want to reconsider the entire issue of abortion rights.