Aborting Views on Abortion

October 10, 2012: Abortion and the Right to Privacy

The right to privacy isn't exactly stated in our Bill of Rights.  But hey, it's basically implied, right?  We couldn't have protections from things like unreasonable searches and seizures of the Fourth Amendment without suggesting our right to privacy, now could we?

In dealing with the right to privacy, the big controversial issue of abortion comes to discussion.  What aspects of abortion can the government control?  Some believe that abortion should be banned.  Others believe that women should have the right to decide whether or not an abortion is the best option for them.  And for others, there's a blurred gray area, making view points on the topic extremely varied.

In my investigation of this issue, I came across an interesting article dealing with Mitt Romney and his views on abortion.  Since there are such unique and various opinions on this issue, it becomes difficult for presidential candidates to appeal to everyone's beliefs.  Up until reading this article, I had been informed that Mitt Romney was pro-life and completely opposed to abortion.  It had even been brought to my attention that he expressed support for the reversal of the decision of Roe v. Wade .  Well, it seems Mr. Romney is now going in another direction.

As stated in the article, Mitt Romney has stopped replying to comments on abortion and does not take a definite side.  It seems as if he is "hid[ing] his position in abortion in an attempt to close the deal with voters".  While it may be wise to appear to remain neutral, I fear that it may be too late to conceal his feelings now.  We've all seen his views by now, so it probably won't make much of a difference to voters unless he drastically changes his mind about the issue.

There is no winner in this situation.  Whatever one's views on abortion, there are no right or wrong answers, and there will continue to be disagreement.  I applaud Mitt Romney's attempt at hiding his views on this controversial topic, but it's too late in the game to take back what was previously said.  No matter what, there will always be a debate on the issue.

When Life as a Student Seems to Get Worse

October 7, 2012: Students' Not-So-Equal Rights

Upon opening the Students' Rights Handbook, I felt a bit apprehensive.  Could it be possible that my school was hiding something from me and limiting my rights?  Did I really want to know about a variety of inequalities between my status as a student and normal citizens?

Within the first two pages, my fears were already being confirmed.  Although students' rights are established and protected by the U.S. Constitution, the New Jersey Constitution, federal and New Jersey state laws and the courts, "rights that you might have on the street may not apply when you are in a public school."  The first headings that caught my attention were Types of Clothing and Hair.  As the handbook states, "A student does not necessarily have a First Amendment right to wear a particular type of style or clothing."  The courts seem to need some explanation as to what message certain clothing conveys.  What if I just like the way it looks or makes me feel?  Why does it matter if the male students in Illinois who wore earrings did not convey some message?  It is certainly not fair to prevent a student from wearing certain clothing because it does not convey "a particular message", especially if it does not really affect the school environment.  Similarly, "school officials may...require students to alter hairstyles if they interfere with work, create a disruption in the classroom or elsewhere in the school, or present a clear and present danger to health or safety." This seems a bit extreme.  Hair is another form of self expression, and I honestly don't see many ways in which it could really pose a danger to the school environment.  Other issues should be dealt with other than the controversiality of someone's hairstyle.

Under Student Newspapers and Publications, I quickly found a point I did not agree with: "School officials may exercise editorial control over both the style and the content of school-sponsored newspapers and other publications, so long as the restrictions they impose are reasonably related to a valid educational policy."  In the real world, newspapers are relatively free to publish what they desire.  It does not seem reasonable not to translate this value to the school.  I do see the need to limit it somewhat to keep an orderly environment, but students should otherwise be free in expressing their ideas and opinions.

The last statement in the handbook that caught my eye was under Censorship of Information: "As to classroom texts, the school's authority is much broader because of the school's duty to teach "community values" in the classroom.  Accordingly, schools may select books that are consistent with those values."  If public schools are not allowed to teach and advertise a certain religion, they should not be able to select books to teach their "community values".  These "community values" can act in the same way as a religion can, imposing a certain mindset on students.

Overall, I see the need for limiting some students' rights.  We are just kids, after all, and we need some guidance.  However, we shouldn't be so limited in areas of our dressing and hairstyles, school newspapers, and censorship.  In the real world, citizens are free to express themselves, so we should get this same right.  Going to school with an abundance of work and lack of sleep makes me mad enough already--you don't want to push my buttons by putting restraints on my student rights.