Letters

Public has the right to voice opposition I am
writing in response to Chey Tor’s article about the
nomination of John Ashcroft for United States Attorney General
("Rage over cabinet nominee
useless,” Viewpoint, Jan. 26). First of all, I would like
to make clear that I am an adamant opponent to Ashcroft’s
nomination. I am fearful of having a man that conservative in such
an important position in the U.S. government. But that is not why I
was compelled to write a response. What bothered me most was how
Tor stated that opponents of Ashcroft “are wasting their time
and resources” in voicing their opinions. True, the concerted
voices of many different advocacy groups probably won’t
convince the Senate to deny him confirmation. But that does not
mean that they should just passively accept it and “move on
to the next battle mode.” I hate to sound preachy, but one of
the few redeeming factors of our nation is our freedom of speech.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that Tor is a
proponent for the end of the First Amendment. But to withhold their
protesting voices would be to submit to the American government
without letting them know that they still have to acknowledge the
voice of the people. A silent populace would only equate to a
consenting public. The large outcry that arose out of
Ashcroft’s nomination forces Ashcroft to be cautious in his
actions and sensitive to his critics. We are all carefully watching
him, and he needs to know that.

Anthony TJ Lee Third-year Asian American
studies

Religious beliefs should not infringe on
rights

Jamie Padilla argues in the letter “Support of abortion abroad infringes on
rights,” (Viewpoint, Jan. 29), that religious freedoms
are being eroded when Americans of certain religious backgrounds
are forced to support programs they find repugnant, like abortion.
Could someone please notify me which United States religion has its
rights infringed upon because of family planning? In the religion I
have followed throughout my life we have read the Bible. In my
studies I never once read a passage referring to family planning as
an infringement on my freedom. I can still do whatever I want to
within my own beliefs whether the U.S. government is funding
overseas family planning facilities or not. A significant number of
Americans believe that family planning is an important outreach
program. In fact, a majority of Americans believe that even
abortion should be legal (at least in some cases). Bush’s
decision could not be any more extreme or right wing. Because of
his decision to stop funding family planning organizations abroad
that provide women with the option of having an abortion, the rest
of the modern world will have to foot the bill to prevent the
spread of disease and slow a population explosion that could
endanger the global food supply. I wonder if Jamie Padilla thought
of these people throughout the rest of the world when writing to
the Daily Bruin. People, especially women, in some less developed
countries may not be able to get treatments and education necessary
to stop the spread of disease. Tax payers throughout Europe will
have to pay more to support the now underfunded family planning
programs. Now supposing someone in Padilla’s religion said
that “abortion is bad,” does that mean everyone else in
the world does not have the freedom to decide for themselves?

Jason Wise Third-year Political Science Member of the
Bruin Democrats