GU Reacts to Obama's First Week
While President Obama pledged throughout his campaign to work effectively in a bipartisan manner, campus response to his first week in the Oval Office reveals that his aim of unifying the country may take longer than expected. The reversal of a controversial abortion policy and the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba have left the Georgetown community deeply divided.
Last Friday, Obama reversed a policy that banned the provision of federal money to international groups that perform abortions and distribute information on abortions. A source of political debate for years, the policy was originally instituted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, de-instituted by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and then re-adopted by President George W. Bush in 2001.
On campus, leaders of the Georgetown University College Democrats praised the policy.
“Reversing the executive order will allow groups to offer effective health services without being restricted by ideology. It is a wise and prudent decision, which will help those in need receive good medical counsel and safe access to reproductive medical services,” said Fitz Lufkin (COL ’11), the vice president of the College Democrats.
H*yas for Choice, a pro-choice and pro-reproductive health group, also supports Obama’s decision to lift the ban.
“I think not giving aid is counter effective — even if you think that abortions are wrong,” said Anila D’Mello (COL ’12), a member of H*yas for Choice. “Maybe the number of abortions would be lessened if people had more information. The more educated people are, the better.”
Members of the Georgetown University College Republicans, however, argue that lifting the ban will further divide Republicans and Democrats.
“Obviously, I think this is an unfortunate decision, which means that millions of taxpayers will be subsidizing abortions performed abroad, including those who believe abortion is morally unconscionable,” said Dustin Walker (SFS ’11), GUCR chief of staff. “I think it was also a poor choice to make such a deeply partisan and divisive decision now when this country needs bipartisan cooperation on more important issues.”
The reversal of the ban has also been criticized by members of GU Right to Life, an on-campus organization dedicated to banning abortions, the death penalty and euthanasia in an effort to protect human life, according to their Web site. Brigid Bower (COL ’11), the vice president of GU Right to Life, expressed regret about Obama’s decision to lift the ban.
“Obama courted voters during the election with the promise to reduce the number of abortions; however, the institutions who will now receive money from the U.S. do not share the same goal as our new president,” she said.
Similarly, Obama’s order to close the U.S. military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba within one year has also been controversial on campus. Along with the command to close the base, the executive order signed on Thursday also mandated the CIA to close secret detention centers overseas and to halt the creation of new detention centers, as well as directed top Cabinet members to form a task force to review detainee policies. Furthermore, all interrogators must follow the U.S. Army Field Manual guidelines when questioning prisoners.
According to some members of the Georgetown community, closing the military base is ideal, but there are still many serious questions to consider.
“I think it is a critical first step toward restoring the rule of law in our approach to terrorism,” said David Cole, a professor at the Law Center. “It would have been more dangerous to keep it open, given how much it has hurt us and helped Al Qaeda’s image around the world. But closing it opens a host of difficult questions that still need to be answered.”
Some students also agree that closing the military base will require continued direction and oversight to avoid harmful implications.
“I think closing [Guantánamo] does help the image of the U.S. Ordering it to close on his first day is a strong and positive gesture,” said Joseph Luk (SFS ’11), communications director for the International Relations Club, “but it will have negative repercussions if it is not followed through with clear plans on how to deal with remaining prisoners.”
Other members of the Georgetown community disagree with Obama’s decision.
“In regards to the executive order to close Guantánamo Bay, I believe that the prison should remain open; however, we should bring charges against the detainees and give them trials because habeas corpus does apply,” Geoffrey Bible (SFS ’12), director of campus affairs for GU College Republicans, said.
- The Hoya originally printed that President Obama planned to close the "the U.S. military base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba." In reality, Obama plans to close the Guantánanmo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba.
Jan 27 2009 at 11:19 a.m.
The reversal of the "controversial" abortion policy has another dimension which no one seems to want to address. Namely, the racial aspect of this policy.
US foreign aid is generally targeted towards the developing world. So in terms of Obama's executive order, let's call a spade a spade. Funding health groups who provide abortion services in the developing world with US foreign aid means that we are actively supporting abortions of non-whites. We can dance around the issue and reassure ourselves with nice platitudes that we are "helping" people when in fact what we are really doing is actively supporting an insidious and clearly racially targeted practice.
Providing women's health services is one thing, actively funding abortions of Africans is quite another.
Jan 27 2009 at 3:46 p.m.
I agree with Atlas. What we should be doing is encouraging the poorest people in the most war-torn, resource-scarce regions to have as many children as possible. Those children will then have great lives and not contribute to their areas' problems in any way.
Hell, maybe if we help everyone have more babies, they can market their way to first-world profitability through reality TV shows. Bekele and Amana Plus Eight! It'll be a hit on TLC, and Africa will finally pull itself out of its doldrums which were induced by America inventing AIDS on purpose.
Making up conspiracy theories about the government is one thing; actively using logic is, apparently, quite another.
Jan 27 2009 at 5:33 p.m.
Thanks Midori...its one thing to point out the "consequences" of a policy change and define what it actually means...even if its difficult to contemplate.
And its quite another to twist my logic into a conspiracy theory...but it did expose your viewpoint that we should use US foreign aid to ensure that the poorest people in the most war-torn, resource-scarce regions should have as few children as possible because those children will not have great lives nor contribute to solving their areas' problems in any way.
This is downright cynical.
Jan 27 2009 at 8:38 p.m.
Here is this novel idea: abortion is wrong. It is undeniably the destruction of a living human fetus. Who stands up for their rights?
On the other hand, Midori might be on to something. If children are going to be a drain on society, then they should be destroyed before they are born. Or even after if they born during an abortion attempt. Maybe the sick should be killed as well. And anyone else contributing to their area's problems.
Wait, didn't some infamous facist start out thinking thinking this way?
Come on, you go to a catholic school. Think about it.
Jan 28 2009 at 2:18 p.m.
Protecting Innocent Life
The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
To state the blatantly clear, living murderers, in prison, after release or escape, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
Although an obvious truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.
No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.
Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
That is. logically, conclusive.
16 recent US studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
A surprise? No.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one .
The evidence is compelling and unrefuted that death is feared more than life.
Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?
Unlikely.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
Feb 01 2009 at 7:19 a.m.
Ask Mr. Dudley Sharp about Shepherd's 2005 study on the "brutalization effect" of the Death Penalty and he will draw a blank. Ask him about Paul R. Zimmerman's analysis indicating that lethal injection has no deterrent effect--and another blank. Ask him about the limitations of the econometric models used to support the Death Penalty--and yet another blank. Ask him how many White man have been executed in Texas for killing a Black man. Ask him if Texas juries are racist. Ask him if the Death Penalty kills the people who create the most harm to society--and just more blanks.