Of the many issues flowing out of the war on terrorism, there are two that need some thought this week:

First, are there civil liberties issues we should worry about? Are we giving the government too much power? Is that power a potential threat to us? Last week the US Congress voted into law a new set of measures curtailing civil liberties, especially giving law enforcement officers broader powers. It grants police and intelligence operatives greater freedom to share the information gathered in their investigations. Greater access to business and educational records are now available to investigators. There is greater latitude in gaining warrants to search homes and offices. Some of the provisions also recognize the reality of cellular and computer technology.

Currently, a US system called Echelon allows the interception of international digital and electronic messages transmitted by satellite and cellular means. In addition, Americans have already given up substantial civil liberties in the interest of fighting terrorism: They are subject to hand searches of personal luggage at airports; there are long delays at airports; and most of us willingly do so to prevent another highjacking. The bill does have a "sunset" clause that would require a review in four years before the law is renewed. That is a good idea.

See George Melloan, Wall Street Journal (23 October 2001), p. A27.

Second, connected to this is the question all of us ponder how do we balance the security measures we need to forestall future attacks with our much-cherished doctrine of civil liberties. Important questions like when is detention going too far? When is the surveillance too much? Is email fair game for surveillance? Is wartime censorship acceptable? At present the Bush administration's request for broadened power pales in comparison to previous wartime administrations. Whether it be John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson or FDR, each president, when faced with the choice between security and civil liberties, to a man chose to drastically curtail civil liberties.

In the end, there was little or no long-term or corrosive effect on society after the security threat subsided. As historian Jay Winik has argued, "When the crisis ended, normalcy returned and so too did civil liberties, invariably stronger than before." Several things to remember here: Save perhaps Lincoln, Adams, Wilson and FDR issued their orders with no credible, widespread, subversive threat within our own borders. However, today we are facing such a threat without historical parallel. So, the Bush administration has shown remarkable restraint in a time of unprecedented and enormous risk to American citizens on our soil. Our democracy can and will emerge stronger than before but in times of national crisis, sometimes it is necessary to curtail some liberties for greater security.

See Jay Winik, "Security Comes Before Liberty," Wall Street Journal (23 October 2001).

Finally, the Taliban have absolutely no support from the countries of Central Asia. Why is that so? After five years of Taliban rule, no country in the world has fewer friends than Afghanistan. Of the six countries that border it Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China not one has come forward to support the Taliban. The Taliban not only export terrorism and instability through bin Laden and al Qaeda, but other extremist groups, harbored and supported there, have struck into Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Kirgizstan and Tajikistan. From the perspective of these (often undemocratic) governments, the Taliban, although not deliberately seeking to destabilize the region, have allowed their territory to become a base for a worldwide export of terrorism. From their perspective and from the world's, Afghanistan is the most dangerous example of a failed state.

Pakistan encouraged, supported and fostered the Taliban and have seen it turn on Pakistan. General Musharraf, the new President of Pakistan, argues now that American has far more to offer than do the Taliban. But the other nations touching Afghanistan have never supported the militant Islamic groups and have witnessed the Taliban harbor Islamic groups bent on destroying their nations. The most vulnerable is Uzbekistan, where a radical, well-financed and brutal Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has threatened to overthrow the current government. That is why Uzbekistan has so supported the United States. China has somewhat fallen in line as well because its northeastern province (Xinjiang) is 60% Muslim. The Taliban have no suppor,t and all of these nations will have a vital stake in what the new government of Afghanistan looks like.

See The Economist (29 September 2001), pp. 20-22.

Back to top

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER

For the first time in nearly two months, I am sharing a perspective that does not directly relate to the 9/11 tragedy. Amy Jo Mattson has filed a lawsuit against the Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo, North Dakota, under a law that allows her to file "on behalf of the general public." At issue is a brochure handed out to women considering an abortion, which argues that there is no evidence linking abortion and breast cancer and also arguing that abortions are ten times safer than childbirth. She seeks to stop the distribution of this pamphlet, requiring that the clinic disclose two additional facts:1. At least one full-term pregnancy before the age of 30 protects a woman against breast cancer in later life and 2. The vast majority of studies demonstrate that having an abortion at any age increases the risk of breast cancer later in life.

What are the facts:

37 studies have researched the connection between abortion and breast cancer and 28 show a connection. In fact, 7 of them show more than two-fold increase in risk.

British physician Thomas Stafford recently wrote: "Breast cancer is diagnosed in 33,000 women in the UK each year; of these, an unusually high proportion had an abortion before eventually starting a family. Such women are up to four times more likely to develop breast cancer."

American endocrinologist, Dr. Joel Brind, argues that "During the first two trimesters of pregnancy, the breasts undergo a growth spurt and an explosive proliferation of cells caused by sharply increased production of the female hormone estrogen. Thus the breasts contain more and more undifferentiated, cancer-vulnerable cells as the pregnancy progresses. The third trimester normally sees these cells differentiate into milk-producing cells, cells that are less vulnerable to carcinogens." But if the pregnancy is terminated, "Abortion thus robs a woman of the natural protection against breast cancer that a full- term pregnancy provides and moreover increases her risk beyond what it would have been, had she gotten pregnant at all."

The National Organization For Woman and The National Abortion Rights League (and others) claim that they stand for women, womens' rights and that they care about female health. The evidence is increasingly compelling that the connection between abortions and breast cancer is real and incontrovertible. But neither these organizations nor clinics like the one in North Dakota really care about women. If they did, they would give women accurate information.

Back to top

THE NEW FEMINIST HERO

Right before the 9/11 crisis, the National Organization for Women had enshrined Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her five children last June, as the new feminist icon. There is no doubt that Yates is mentally unstable and probably did indeed suffer from postpartum depression, a mental/emotional disorder that can produce suicide attempts, deep depression, hospitalization and anti-psychotic medicine all of which Andrea Yates experienced. But what NOW and others have done is make Andrea Yates a victim of, in the words of Anna Quindlen, "the insidious cult of motherhood." Is this accurate?

The term postpartum depression refers to a substantial depression that occurs in 10-15% of all new mothers. It is marked by feelings of hopelessness, despair, diminished interest. Some feel guilty about being undeserving mothers. It is real; yet, the case has not been proven that Yates suffered from this.

From a legal standpoint, the Yates case will turn on whether she was psychotic and as a result did not know right from wrong when she killed her five children. NOW would like the US to adopt laws similar to England, Canada and Australia which have special infanticide statutes that rule out murder charges against new mothers and typically impose sentences of probation and counseling. These are gender-specific laws and that does not seem wise.

In the words of Sally Satel, "Andrea Yates is not a symbol of motherhood under duress nor of the embattled state of the American woman. To portray her as such is a cynical move that trivializes a serious mental illness and misinforms women about their risk of committing one of humanity's most unspeakable acts" the killing of children.

See Sally Satel, Wall Street Journal (4 September 2001).

Back to top