|
|
|
| A Larger View |
|
A Bi-Monthly Newsletter of the Inner Outer Partnership |
| Volume VII Edition 5 |
September/October |
2002 |
School Vouchers:
Where Religion and Democracy Meet
When the U.S. supreme court voted in favor of school vouchers last Summer, its rationale was that since they are not given directly to
religious schools, the issue of separation of church and state does not
apply. One must admit there is logic in this argument all the while
decrying the courts shortsightedness and narrow vision ignoring, willfully
or not, the known fact that vouchers will more than likely be used for
religious schools, in particular Christian ones. As such school vouchers,
directly or not, are a means to further bolster the impact of the Christian
right upon education. And that's precisely the issue that makes them a
problem. Many view the problem in constitutional terms, but it seems that
whether or not they are constitutional invites an analysis on terms
perhaps too dogmatic to truly ascertain their predictable impact. In fact
the Florida supreme court ruled last month that vouchers did violate the
state's constitution and its provisions for the separation of church and
state. That said, the issue of the harm they could cause remains.
To be frank many of us, were we to be inner city parents searching for
the best education for our children, would jump at anything that would
enhance their chances, vouchers included. But as is usually the case in a
society, the individual is woven into the fabric of the community and what
happens to one affects the other. Poor or not, religious or not, our
actions while helping ourselves would in the long run erode public
education. A free public education has been a backbone of democracies and
the United States has been a leader in that, enacting laws ensuring it way
before several European nations passed their own laws.
School vouchers hurt the very concept of a free public education and
since democracies are built on an informed citizenry, as well as a certain
access to the very system that upholds them, vouchers also hurt democracy.
They are no substitute for reform and the funding that all schools
particularly inner city ones require. They are simply a more expedient
solution. Sadly , they also play into the hands of those who believe that
government has no role in education, even if that role is to keep free
public education alive.
Biology Does Not a Parent Make
California may be home to lala land but it is also a complex and sometimes progressive state. Its supreme court recently ruled that even if
a man never married a woman, biology alone is not a determinant of
fatherhood. Certain aspects of the case probably eased Justice Janice
Rogers Brown's decision, the first of its kind in the U.S. The father,
Thomas G., started to date the 6-year-old boy's mother, Kimberly, when she
was 4 months pregnant. He has been involved throughout the boy's life, was
present at the birth and his name appears on the birth certificate. What
adds to the case's significance is that legal experts say that because the
ruling is based on the Uniform Parentage Act, a law that is on the books of
18 other states, it is likely to have considerable influence nationwide.
Thomas was not a perfect candidate for fatherhood, but Justice Brown
conceded that fatherhood "does not depend on the presumed father being a
paragon. What is dispositive is the presumed father's relationship with and
responsibility for the child."
The ruling is also being closely watched by advocates of gay rights.
Deborah Wald, an attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said
that it "clearly established that people who know from day one that they
aren't biological parents can through their conduct become parents."
At a time when the number of in vitro fertilizations and other
fertility procedures are rapidly increasing, the issue of the role of
biology in parenting is one that is sure to expand as technology makes
those options more and more feasible. At the moment, though, issues seem
confined to whether doctors are sufficiently explaining the risks, for the
failure rate is high enough that there is an emotional counterpart to these
procedures, a downside that can be heavy to bear for prospective parents.
Although such issues need to be addressed, focusing on them does appear to
short change a dialogue on the deeper more far ranging ones.
It leaves us to wonder whether the message for these potential
parents, as for so many others, ought not to be that parenthood is more
than biology.
Stem Cell Research
Dearth of Funds And Consequences
A year ago President Bush restricted federal funds for human
embryonic stem cell research, limiting the research to 78 stem cell
lines, controlled by 14 NIH-approved labs; but researchers are now saying
that the field is hampered by political, financial and scientific chaos.
The main complaint is of course the lack of money. What is currently
available comes mainly from small private foundations like those of actors
Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox, along with the Juvenile Diabetes
Research Foundation. Together these three have given $6 million and last
week Andy Grove, chairman of Intel, announced a $5 million challenge grant
to fund the research going on at UC San Francisco. In contrast the NIH
who started to make stem cell research grants available last November and
who admits some researchers have been slow to apply has pledged only $3.5
million.
What is equally troubling is that large foundations like the American
Heart Association and the American Cancer Society, have not funded stem
cell research. Dr. Robert Bonow, president of the AHA acknowledged that
it is a controversial area inviting debate and disagreements among the
doctors, researchers and patients inside the organization. The controversy
is of course based on the objections of the pro-life movement and its
philosophy that abortion is murder, and stem cell research which relies on
5 days old embryos is an adjunct in that.
While pro-lifers have the right to their point of view, it is harmful when that view is allowed to exert such power over the
scientific community and indirectly over the welfare of the many who
could benefit from the results of the thus far very promising research. And
when large foundations such as the AHA and the ACS refuse to fund research
in this area no matter their reason, they wittingly or not participate in
imposing the pro-life movement point of view on the whole of society. It
behooves us to remind them that they exist to serve a population larger
than those whose orthodoxy stands to trespass into realms other than the
private exercise of conscience.
Taxing the Rich And Sleeping Better At Night?
In another example of California trailblazing, a group of some of the state's wealthiest tax payers including people like actor Ed Asner are
urging the government to increase taxes on the wealthy. California is
in the throes of adjusting its budget shortfall and has as a result closed
or curtailed several trauma centers. Clearly the closing of traumas
centers while most keenly affecting the poor, the uninsured, and
underinsured affects everyone. Realizing that, this group of concerned
citizens is suggesting that the added tax could be earmarked to keep
trauma centers open. As Roy Urich, a Santa Monica attorney and president of
the California Tax Reform Association, put it, "This is about the
devastation to needed services in the state and thinking about something
other than your wallet... We may be separated by neighborhood, but we are
not separated in terms of a failed health care system. We all use
trauma-care centers." And, speaking of the idea, added, "It makes me sleep
better at night."
The merits of the proposal, its rightness, wisdom, need, or courage
still may not be enough for it to become a reality. The Republicans in the
state senate are against tax hikes and are blocking the plan including
raising the state cigarette tax to $3 a pack, a boost to revenues that
could also be earmarked for health care. But Democrats are not flocking to
the idea either. The governor, for one, thinks the state's revenues are too
reliant on personal income tax and has not signed on to the proposal.
Regardless of the fate of this particular proposal, a precedent has
been set, and at some point in the future, other groups believing in other
causes will act out of an understanding that the haves and the have-not
may not be as separate as the numbers indicate .
Web Site of Interest: www. ethicalwill.org
A Legacy Beyond Money
Ethical wills are a way to convey our vision, our values, or what we've learned or believe is important to those we love or to our
community. The site calls them a love letter to one's family, putting down
on paper the spiritual values that have defined us. In concept, they're
very old, but seem to be making a comeback with the publication of Barry K.
Baines, MD's book. In fact the web site is built around the book, but that
does not lessen its value. The most interesting part of the site was not
how to go about making an ethical will, or who might use one, but rather
excerpts from those who have made them and were willing to share them. The
one I found the most moving, and also the most apt is quoted below.
What the site does not mention is how easy it would be to commercialize
this concept. Already estate planners and motivational speakers are making
use of it. Were it not to remain as the private sharing of our innermost
thoughts with those whose lives we hope to touch, were it not wrought of
our own pains and need to spare those we love, were it not to speak for
us in a loving, constructive manner, and as such be the product of much
inner reflection, then it would quickly turn to a formulaic version of its
intent and end up just a bunch of words. Meanwhile ethicalwill.org
contributes a valuable idea.
To Ponder On
"I have profoundly experienced that love is all that
matters. Like many people, I occasionally got caught in my pettiness and
separation, thinking I knew the right answer. I judged others and I have
judged myself even more harshly. But I have learned that we carry within
ourselves the abundant wisdom and love to heal our weary heart and
judgmental mind."
From the ethical will of Bettina Bricknell, who
died at age 29 from melanoma
|
|
