Letters to the Editor

Saying no gives women reproductive rights

According to the Collegian Board of Opinion editorial Wednesday, women have no "control over their own bodies" nor over "their reproductive rights." Not only is that statement simply untrue, but it reduces women to little more than uncontrollable beings whose only drive in life is to reproduce. Even as a man, I find that portrayal horrifyingly degrading. The problem with teen pregnancy does not lie in a lack of insurance coverage, nor is the cost or availability of contraceptives. What corner store today doesn’t have a rack of several varieties of condoms? And who can’t afford five for $1 at a condom co-op? Organizations such as Planned Parenthood even give them out for free!

Granted, guys can be pretty pushy, and often display that same lack, but that doesn’t make it OK.

Ultimately it is you, the responsible women reading this, who have the power to prevent an unwanted pregnancy simply by saying no. You are not as helpless or irrational as the Collegian would have you believe.

Adam Drake
sophomore-computer science
Lehigh Valley Campus

Ridge not fighting for education

I am shocked at our state government and most of all Gov. Tom Ridge. In the new budget, he only gave Penn State a 2.5 percent increase ($7.4 million) in state money. That gives us a total of $306.5 million. We aren’t the only state school that got shafted either. Pitt and Temple also got hit pretty hard.

What baffles me the most is that Ridge has proclaimed himself a fighter for education. This man once again cuts the increase in funding for state schools and hopes to appropriate $600 million for sports stadiums. What kind of fight for education is that? It is isn’t one. It is the continuation of the victimization of public education in order to cater to big money and big business. Ridge is not for education. He is a self-serving man and a hypocrite.

The state’s real strength doesn’t rest in its stadiums and wealthy individuals. It rests in the hands of those that are informed. Write to Ridge and our representatives and protest this outrage.

Peter D. Buck
junior-music theory

Petition not directed at representatives alone

I want to thank Matt Wunsche for his article about the petition for same-sex partnership benefits I’m helping to organize. I’d also like to comment on the statements made in that article by some of our local legislators.

Rep. Benninghoff states that "the issue is misunderstood" and that the petition is targeted at the wrong people. We’re not criticizing our legislators for any votes they’ve made, as he suggests, because we’re well aware this issue never faced a vote in the General Assembly. Nor are we targeting our local representatives alone; the petition is directed to the entire legislature. It calls upon members to state publicly that they will not use economic pressure against the university if it implements this policy. The petition also calls on President Spanier to make a principled decision on this issue, regardless of external pressure.

We will, however, deliver copies of the petition to Reps. Benninghoff and Herman and Sen. Corman. We have two reasons for doing this. First, they’re the state legislators from our area, so they’re the appropriate officials to contact when we have any comment about the state Legislature.

Second, all three were quoted in either the Centre Daily Times or The Daily Collegian as being personally opposed to domestic partnership benefits. All three cited reasons of morality and the value of traditional marriage, while Herman and Benninghoff also cited economic concerns.

Because we disagree with these comments, and because the petition addresses both of these arguments, we’ve decided to send them each a copy.

Benninghoff states his concern that the institution of same-sex partner benefits "sets the stage for anybody to say their live-in is covered by insurance." However, according to the Office of Human Resources, Penn State currently extends benefits to unmarried opposite-sex couples who fulfill the definition of a common-law marriage in Pennsylvania. All we seek is to have an identical set of criteria established for same-sex couples.

The petition drive will end Feb. 20. Anybody who would like to sign the petition or help distribute or collect it should contact me at smg12@psu.edu.

Steven Goodreau
graduate-anthropology

Senate trial issue of legality, not popularity

The Board of Opinion editorial "Senseless Trial" underscores what too many don’t understand about the process, and the bias that pervades the press in general. The article urges the Senate to abide by public opinion, when in reality opinion polls have no bearing or influence in the matter -- it’s about whether laws were broken, and if so, if that warrants impeachment under the Constitution -- all legal issues, not popularity ones.

The article goes on to cite partisan politics, implying that only Republicans are being "partisan." Both parties are being totally partisan; the Republicans for their steadfast convictions that impeachable laws were broken. However, the Democrats’ partisanship should be of far more concern to us all, for some of them even agree laws were broken, but still vote en masse along party lines against any hearings or proceedings that are Constitutionally required. That should be the scariest part of this whole mess; too bad too few have a clue about the law and the Constitution, and get swayed so easily by the media and spin-doctors.

Stan Allsopp
Class of 1970