Letters to the Editor
Posted on September 7, 2006

Define ‘abortion’ with science, not politics

I am writing in response to Brooke Nestor’s Letter to the Editor in Tuesday’s issue about Plan B. I felt it necessary to redirect the rather mistaken attitude she seems to have toward those opposed to this method of birth control.

For all who think the opposition is wrong in calling this an abortion pill, do a little research. “Abortion” is a term used to describe the expulsion of the embryo (you may instead use the term “induced miscarriage” as the embryo is as yet nonviable); “embryo” is a term used to describe a zygote that has multiplied at least once. According to many religious sects, the sacred essence of humanity (or “soul”) of the human being begins at conception, and anything that causes the death of the fertilized egg is considered disrespectful to human life. Yes, the zygote hasn’t even been implanted yet, but in the book of some doctrines, a human is a human as soon as those two famous gametes intersect. Therefore I see no need to attack the opposition for calling it an “abortion” pill if that’s technically what it does. It is for this reason that some religious practices also prohibit the use of any hormonal birth control pill, as they will occasionally allow fertilization to occur but successfully prevent implantation. So the opposition is not showing an ignorance of science, though there seems to be in ignorance in religious ethics.

I also understand that the term “abortion” is both politically and ethically loaded, but that makes it even more important for those concerned with this product to be fully aware of exactly what it does and what it implicates.

Bess Dalby, junior health science major

Congress not culpable for college costs

In his Aug. 31 editorial, writer Patrick Callahan offered several interesting thoughts on the rising costs of higher education. Unfortunately, not all his facts were entirely accurate. Callahan stated that Congress raised federal student loan interest rates by two points under legislation passed earlier this year, presumably the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

In fact, prior to July 1, 2006, federal student loan interest rates were variable and calculated based on the current market rate, thus allowing students to take advantage of the record low interest rates over the past several years. The interest rate rise that Callahan scolds Congress for should instead be attributed, for better or worse, to the market. What the Deficit Reduction Act did in fact do was replace the variable interest rate, capped at 8.25 percent, with a fixed 6.8 percent rate for federal Stafford loans. Instead of making students pay more, this legislation is actually saving students .34 percent this year on new Stafford loans given continued rise in interest rates.

Furthermore, this is on top of the creation of a new, $4.5 billion federal grant program for math and science students as well as increased loan forgiveness for certain teachers, up from $5,000 to $17,000.

Right now, the federal government provides nearly 65 percent of all student aid — a record $90 billion this year! While Callahan did make a good effort to raise awareness on the ever-increasing costs of college, it’s hard to make the argument that the blame lies with the Republican-led Congress given all the facts.

Tom Culligan, Class of 2005, student body president ‘04-’05

Evacuation shows ISAT not handicap-friendly

ISAT was evacuated on Tuesday, and my class learned just how handicapped-inaccessible this building is. One of my classmates relies heavily on crutches to get around; she uses the elevator to get to our classroom on the second floor of the HHS building. Unfortunately, when there’s a fire alarm, the elevators are automatically shut off. So our professor and another classmate escorted her to one of the “designated areas” for people with disabilities when there’s an emergency. There they pushed the button to call the police so they would know there was someone who needed help to get down the stairs. They tried to tell the situation to the dispatcher, who responded that they couldn’t understand them and hung up on them. No help came. I don’t know how she managed to climb down those stairs to finally evacuate the building.

Luckily this wasn’t a major emergency and the professor was there. But imagine you’ve sprained an ankle, been in an accident, fallen down a flight of stairs and are on crutches or in a wheelchair at just the wrong moment. How would you get out? As JMU students, we need to tell our Board of Visitors, our president, our SGA and anyone who will listen that this is unacceptable. We are a community here and won’t wait for a real fire and a real near-death or fatal experience before changes are made.

Jessica Horning, senior social work major