The Transcript

Virginia is passing some frightening abortion legislation.
The state’s House of Delegates recently passed one bill that would declare a fertilized egg at any stage of development a person under Virginia law. This means zygotes and embryos would be subject to the same rights and privileges as adults and other people.
Another bill would require women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound test performed so they could see images of the fetus. Applying this stipulation to even the earliest, most proactive abortions (which the legislation does) would require a transvaginal ultrasound—a procedure in which a probe is inserted into the vagina to produce images of the reproductive organs that a traditional, external ultrasound wouldn’t be able to provide.
Both these measures are incredibly flawed and are extreme affronts to women.
The first is scientifically, logically and philosophically unsound. A fertilized egg in its earliest stages of development is certainly a living organism, but to qualify it is a person carries major implications.
An embryo is wholly dependent on its mother to survive. It subsists on everything she ingests—food, water, air and a number of other things. It is not biologically developed enough to live on its own.
This does not sound like a person to me.
I cannot think of a living human being who lacks the ability to eat, drink and breathe—to live—on his or her own. While people do depend on others, it is of their own conscious choice to do so. Embryos do not have that choice.
The ultrasound legislation is even more disturbing. Forcing a woman to view images of her own internal organs is a clear effort to influence her decision whether or not to have an abortion.
I personally feel that women are perfectly capable of making such a decision on their own. Legislation such as this implies that women lack the cognitive ability to do so and that it’s the government’s responsibility to do it for them.
Virginia’s lawmakers need to understand that women are not mentally incapable. This bill would make legal intensely loaded methods of coercion. Men aren’t required to go through counseling or view an ultrasound of their testicles before having a vasectomy.
I fail to see the necessity of government regulation of what women do with their own bodies when there is no question of those decisions by men. These sexist double standards imply that women are somehow intellectually inferior and that they should be given no faith or freedom.
Furthermore, the bill’s ultrasound requirement would arguably legalize rape.
A transvaginal ultrasound, which the bill would require if a traditional ultrasound couldn’t produce sufficient images, is a decidedly invasive procedure.
Under this legislation a woman seeking an abortion would be forced to have an object inserted into her vagina; an amendment to require the woman’s consent was even expressly rejected by the Virginia legislature.
According to the United States Department of Justice, this is rape. In January, the DOJ redefined rape as “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
The transvaginal ultrasound stipulation fits this definition to a T—it is nonconsensual penetration of the vagina.
I can understand the position of the bill’s advocates. They want to minimize the number of abortions that occur in their state, which is not a bad goal.
Raping women, however, is an improper, disgusting way to achieve that goal.
The most effective, practical and sensible way to do this would be the wide distribution of and easy access to contraceptives. Abortion is a way of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, whether it be a result of rape, incest or unsafe sex. The government’s interest, then, should be to minimize unplanned pregnancy, which access to contraceptives succeeds in doing.
State-sanctioned rape and other deplorable affronts to women like those in Virginia do not do so.

On Feb. 8, I wrote an editorial titled, “Early birds miss the worm: Lack of weekend breakfast leaves busy students hungry”. I was pleasantly surprised to see in my OWU e-mail inbox a message from Daniel Magee, director of Chartwells’ dining services, on Feb. 15.
I was not expecting such a timely response, let alone any response at all. In his e-mail, Magee said my editorial made him want to change the current dining situation on campus.
“Your argument was persuasive and clearly illustrated the plight of students on the weekends looking for early morning food options,” Magee said. “So, here is my idea. We will open Smith on Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a. m. for a light breakfast, which will include the following:
1. Cereals and Hot Oatmeal
2. Fresh cut fruit and whole fruit
3. Bagels, English Muffins, Pastries
4. Yogurt, Cottage Cheese”
Magee began starting the service on Feb. 18 and plans to run it until the end of the semester to gauge student response. Breakfast costs $5.50.
I am very impressed with Chartwells’ prompt response to my concern and their amply sufficient solution to it. You can definitely plan on seeing my face at Smith on Saturday and Sunday mornings—come join me for breakfast!

Some students have objected to the new JAYWalk fountain because there was a lack of information and consultation; because it impedes the traffic flow; because it creates a safety risk; because it attracts mischief; because the money for it should have gone to higher-priority items; and because it wastes water when we should be saving and stretching our natural resources.
It’s great that OWU students feel a sense of ownership and care about the campus enough to engage in a passionate public debate.
An open discussion about the pros and cons of an issue can lead to an even better final product, as is the case here.
I think we can all agree by now that there were plenty of opportunities for people to weigh in, for example at the open WCSA forum that was held on Feb. 2.
As far as the traffic flow is concerned, I envision the fountain as a sort of roundabout. It may slow you down a tad, but essentially pedestrians and vehicles can move on quickly and efficiently without losing precious time.
Is the fountain a potential safety risk?
I overheard someone say that an intoxicated student might inadvertently stumble into the water and drown. I pay close attention to safety issues of all sorts, but in all my life I have never heard of a single case where someone fell into a shallow fountain and drowned.
If anything, the cold water will wake you up. You are more likely to drown in your own bathtub at home.
Yes, the new fountain is likely to attract some mischief until its novelty wears off. You won’t get any ideas for misbehavior from me, but occasionally the water may need to be replaced.
I am sure Public Safety will patrol the new fountain to ensure that it does not get abused or damaged.
By the way, if someone decides to dip their bare feet into the water on a hot summer day or if once in a while a dog jumps in to cool off, that does not constitute misbehavior in my book.
Water is supposed to be touched, experienced, and used and not merely admired from a distance. I hope PS will be reasonable in their interpretation of rules.
Could the money for the fountain have been used for more pressing issues? Perhaps. But do keep in mind that the expense for the fountain (under $100,000) does not come from your tuition money or from OWU’s operating budget. It is a generous gift from the Class of 1962 in celebration of their fiftieth anniversary.
Alumni prefer to fund tangible structures rather than invisible things such as underground pipes or student scholarships, and I cannot fault them for that.
Lastly, does the fountain waste too much water? In my opinion, it does not.
The circulating water is filtered and reused, and only a small amount is lost due to evaporation, spraying, or intentional splashing.
The new fountain will be beautiful and a welcome addition to OWU.
The final design (option G) blends vegetation and open water and provides plenty of seating opportunities on all four sides.
It looks fantastic. Once finished, it will quickly become the pulsating heart and center of Campus.
In Europe, where I grew up, fountains are ubiquitous and create popular gathering places for locals and visitors alike – a place where people casually congregate, sit, talk, read, or eat an ice cream cone.
There, fountains serve an important social function.
Water does have a magnetic effect on people because it resonates deeply with our innermost human nature. It also has calming, healing powers and provides a feeling of serenity and belonging. I am sure that once the fountain is completed students will accept and embrace it with heart and soul and wonder what life was like without it.
As far as I am concerned, I would like to see even more fountains on Campus – perhaps a smaller one outside the President’s office in University Hall or in front of Slocum?