Lines may discourage voters
To the Editor:
I am writing this in response to Scott Robinson's letter ("Dems not playing by rules," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 10/14/04). As a registered Independent, I am disappointed with the College Republicans' decision to not support the petition for additional polling places in Philadelphia's 27th ward. Their blockage of this petition shows a disregard for Pennsylvania electoral law and the two districts that do not have a polling location within or adjacent to them.
Robinson accuses the Penn College Democrats of playing dirty, yet blissfully ignores the controversial decision of the College Republicans a week ago to drop their support for this petition. So what changed about the upcoming election, leading up to last week? The first thing that I can think of is that, with Sen. Kerry's resurgence in the polls after the first debate, the College Republicans effectively blocked the petition in an attempt to suppress student voter turnout in a heavily Democratic area. It makes a whole lot more sense than the hackneyed explanation that they gave instead.
Further, the number of polling places is not determined by geographical distance, as Scott Robinson would have you believe. It's about having enough poll sites to adequately serve the voting populace. Of course Scott's family members who are living in less populated counties are going to have to travel farther to vote. But I will bet that when they get there, they aren't going to be lined up out the door and around the block waiting. The congestion that is inevitable at David Rittenhouse Laboratory will no doubt cause many students to miss their opportunity to vote due to class schedule conflicts. So while Scott may try to obscure the Republicans' terrible decision by yelling louder and longer, when you're standing in line outside of DRL on Nov. 2, remember who made it that way.
Jason Mowery
College '06
More choices for women
To the Editor:
In his column ("Pro-choicers imposing their own morality," DP, 10/14/04) Frank-Paul Sampino demonstrated that he has no idea what the word "impose" means. According to dictionary.com, to impose is to "establish or apply as compulsory" (Webster and American Heritage dictionaries agreed). I am completely lost as to where Sampino derived "compulsory" from "pro-choice." It means the very opposite.
To be pro-abortion rights means you want women to have choices during their pregnancy (that's where the "choice" in "pro-choice" comes from). Does Sampino want to suggest abortion rights advocates have a secret agenda to make every woman get an abortion? Obviously, such advocates don't favor compulsive abortions for every woman. They are certainly OK with a woman having a baby.
So when are they imposing anything on anybody? Sampino brings up a NARAL Pro-Choice America statement objecting to doctors' rights to conscientiously object. "Whatever happened to the 'right to choose'?" Sampino asks. Perhaps he forgot that the right to choose in "pro-choice" is for the women, not the doctors. If it doesn't seem right for public-practice doctors not to have a choice in this case, perhaps a similar situation will be elucidating. Last year in Chicago, a white doctor refused to deliver a black baby. I wonder whether Sampino would have applauded the doctor for exercising his right to choose.
What about the lucrative abortion industry Sampino suggests? Does a lucrative medical practice mean that doctors won't advocate anything that would give them fewer patients? Heart doctors make good money, but they aren't running around trying to make sure everybody eats butter and salt all day so they can have more patients. Sampino's attempt at an argument is ridiculous and unsubstantiated.
Ultimately, to be pro-abortion rights means you want a woman to have two choices; to be anti-abortion means you want a woman to have one. "Choosing life" is only a choice for a woman if she had another option.
Marc Tarlock
College and Engineering '04
