Last year, USA Today reported on a Guttmacher Institute study that found “at least four in ten pregnancies in every state were unwanted or mistimed.” With unwanted or “mistimed” pregnancy come both personal difficulties and larger social problems. While abstinence may be 100 percent effective, it is unrealistic to assume that celibacy or childrearing are the only viable lifestyle options. Slowing the rate of unwanted children would take pressure off of the state as well as individuals. The focus should be on non-judgmental, preventative measures. Moral conviction is admirable. However, women should not have to choose between safe sex and the possibility of unwanted pregnancy based on where they work. Providing an exception for religiously affiliated organizations would adversely affect millions of women.

The current plan follows recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government. According to a 2010 Hart research poll, 71 percent of voting Americans support insurance plans covering no-cost birth control, hardly a minority. This statistic included 77 percent of voting Catholic women, a demographic that would have been affected by an exception for religiously affiliated schools and hospitals. Individuals may choose to use birth control or not; it is a highly private decision and should remain as such. Though some politicians, such as presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich, argue the new rule is “an attack on Christianity,” it is in fact nothing of the sort. The goal is to provide for millions of women who would otherwise have to choose between access to birth control and other necessities. It’s a program to protect women’s health, pure and simple. Furthermore, the new rule provides that churches and other places of worship still have the power to opt out based on moral objection.

Personal responsibility, coupled with options, is a winning combination. No-cost birth control, without exception, is one of the most proactive possible ways to prevent unwanted or ill-timed pregnancy. Here at Wash. U., we are fortunate to have access to oral contraceptives, as well as emergency contraception in the form of Plan B, through Student Health Services. No matter what your personal convictions, wide access to free birth control above all encourages health and personal wellness. We hope this commitment to women’s health continues, for the benefit of women and men alike.

A huge thanks to the Obama administration for its outstanding efforts to protect access to affordable birth control for millions of women, including women employed by religiously affiliated institutions serving the broader public.

Birth control use for basic preventive health care is nearly universal in the United States. In fact, Guttmacher reports that 99 percent of all sexually experienced women and 98 percent of sexually experienced Catholic women will have used birth control at some point in their lives.

Like many other young, ambitious women, I rely on birth control to prevent unintended pregnancies until I am ready to have and support a family. Yet, birth control has always been a monetary concern. Thanks to this important, commonsense health care benefit, millions of women who would normally pay $15 to $50 a month will have access to affordable birth control, helping us save hundreds of dollars each year. Not to mention, family planning care also saves $6.20 for every $1 of taxpayer funds.

The Obama administration understands the importance of improving women’s health and the health of their families through the usage of preventive services, such as birth control. I support and applaud the key players in this decision who understand that decisions surrounding basic health care are personal and should not be determined by one’s government or employer. Thank you for supporting women’s health and women’s choice.

Alyson Currey
MSW 2012

This is a tough time for a lot of Americans—especially young people. You’ve come of age at a time of profound change. The world has gotten more connected, but it’s also gotten more competitive. And for decades, too many of our institutions—from Washington to Wall Street—failed to adapt, culminating in the worst financial crisis and recession since the Great Depression.

For the last three years, we’ve worked to stabilize the economy, and we’ve made some progress. But we still have a long way to go. And now, as you’re getting ready to head out into the world, many of you are watching your friends and classmates struggle to find work. You’re wondering what’s in store for your future, and I know that can be scary.

The truth is, the economic problems we face today didn’t happen overnight, and they won’t be solved overnight. But the fact that you’re investing in your education right now tells me that you believe in the future of America. You want to be a part of it. And you know that there are steps we can take right now to put Americans back to work and give our economy a boost.

The problem is, there are some in Washington who just don’t share that sense of urgency. That’s why it’s been so disappointing to see Republicans in Congress block jobs bills from going forward—bills that independent economists say could create millions of jobs through the kinds of proposals supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.

Now, the best way to attack our economic challenges and put hundreds of thousands of people back to work is through bold action in Congress. That’s why I’m going to keep demanding that members of Congress vote on common-sense, paid-for jobs proposals. And I hope you’ll send them a message to do the right thing for your future, and the future of our country.

But we can’t wait for Congress to do its job. So where they won’t act, I will. That’s why I’ve announced a new policy that will help families whose home values have fallen refinance their mortgages and save thousands of dollars. We made it easier for veterans to get jobs putting their skills to work in hospitals and community health centers.

And at the University of Colorado at Denver, I announced steps we’re taking to make college more affordable and to make it even easier for students like you to get out of debt faster.

Michelle and I know what it feels like to leave school with a mountain of debt. We didn’t come from wealthy families. By the time we both graduated from law school, we had about $120,000 worth of debt between us. And even though we were lucky enough to land good jobs with steady incomes, it still took us almost 10 years to finally pay it all off. It wasn’t easy.

Living with that much debt forces you to make some tough choices. And when a big chunk of every paycheck goes toward student loans, it isn’t just painful for you—it’s painful to our economy and harmful to our recovery.

That’s why we’re making changes that will give about 1.6 million students the ability to cap their loan payments at 10 percent of their income starting next year. We’re also going to take steps to help you consolidate your loans so that instead of making multiple payments to multiple lenders every month, you only have to make one payment a month at a better interest rate. And we want to start giving students a simple fact sheet called “Know Before You Owe” so you can have all the information you need to make your own decision about paying for college. That’s something Michelle and I wish we had.

These changes will make a real difference for millions of Americans. We’ll help more young people figure out how to afford college. We’ll put more money in your pocket after you graduate. We’ll make it easier to buy a house or save for retirement. And we’ll give our economy a boost at a time when it desperately needs it.

That’s not just important for our country right now—it’s important for our future. Michelle and I are where we are today because our college education gave us a chance. Our parents and their generation worked and sacrificed to hand down the dream of opportunity to us.

Now it’s our turn. That dream of opportunity is what I want for my daughters, and for all of you. And even in these tough times, we are going to make that dream real once again.

In the weeks ahead, I’m going to keep doing everything in my power to make a difference for the American people—including young people like you. Because here in America, when we find a problem, we fix it. When we face a challenge, we meet it. We don’t wait. And I hope you’ll join me.

Green Action organized yesterday’s protest because the Keystone XL pipeline threatens our generation’s future. The pipeline would stretch all the way from Alberta, Canada, to Houston and would more than double the amount of oil produced from the tar sand oil fields. The tar sands contain roughly 200 parts per million of carbon; if the oil in the tar sands is refined and burned, NASA climate scientist James Hansen says that it will essentially be “game over” for climate change. But you don’t need to be a climate scientist to already see the changes in our climate: Droughts, floods and food shortages are already occurring throughout the world. Things will get a lot worse if we keep building projects like the Keystone XL, and as young people, we have the most to lose.

While about 30 students did attend the Obama protest, many more students declined to attend because of classes or other obligations. As a Washington University student, I understand the intense pressure to succeed academically and the need to maintain a fulfilling social life. We are all incredibly busy and have many other things to do besides protesting pipelines. But if we don’t speak up for our future, who will? Sometimes, there are more important things than classes to worry about.

There is no Gandhi to lead the movement for a sustainable future. There is no Martin Luther King, Jr. to lead us toward freedom from oil. There is only us. We as a generation must steadfastly choose to work toward a clean energy future. We need the help of people like President Obama, but our leaders will only move toward clean energy if we hold them accountable. The real work lies with us. As Obama himself told us, “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

On Sunday, Nov. 6, thousands of people will converge in D.C. to send President Obama an unmistakable message: preserve our future and block the Keystone XL pipeline. The goal is to gather enough people to encircle the whole White House compound. We need to remind Obama of the power of the movement that he rode to the White House in 2008.

No one has ever organized enough people to encircle the White House, but if enough people show up this will be a moment that President Obama cannot ignore. This movement starts with us, right here at Wash. U. Green Action is organizing a caravan for the Nov. 6 protest, but we need you to attend to help make it historic. Don’t look back in 20 years and regret not standing up against this pipeline. Now is the time to fight for our future.

Will you join us?

E-mail Adam Hasz at adamhasz@gmail.com if you are interested in attending the November 6 protest. For more information on the Tar Sands and the recent Obama protest, please see Green Action’s website at greenactionwashu.wordpress.com/.

Courtesy of Kait Mauro

Green Action members Adam Hasz, a senior, and Wei-Yin Ko, a junior, rally outside the President’s fundraiser on Tuesday along with other protestors.

When she saw the man she voted for three years ago on Tuesday, she interrupted him during a pause in his speech to ask him to veto the Keystone XL Pipeline Project.

“He had been talking about our future, and that’s what vetoing Keystone XL is about: It’s about protecting not only the climate, but also our water sources and our agricultural fields and our indigenous land for the people that come after us,” Klagsbrun said.

Klagsbrun and junior Ken Kumanomido, the president of Green Action, spent $250 each on tickets to an Obama campaign event at the Renaissance Grand Hotel. The money was donated from outside sources.

The two students, who were dressed in their best, put messages on the inside of their jackets urging the president to veto the pipeline. On their backs, they donned Obama’s campaign symbol.

Courtesy of Kait Mauro

President of Green Action Ken Kumandomido, a junior and Arielle Klagsbrun, a senior, bought tickets to President Obama’s fundraiser at the Renaissance Grand Hotel Conference Center. The two were there to encourage the President to veto the Keystone XL Pipeline, and decorated the inside of their jackets to read as such.

“We care about the president a lot, and we were not there to bash him but to show our support and push him to do the right thing,” Klagsbrun said. “Listening to his speech reminded me that he’s just a person and that we need to push him and hold him accountable, and that it’s not bashing him to tell him what we think, because he is our president.”

The proposed pipeline is a 1,700-mile-long line that would bring tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries in the Texas Gulf Coast.

Activists across the nation have been urging Obama to veto the pipeline because of its possible environmental consequences. They say the pipeline would introduce the potential of oil spills, require construction across the country’s heartland (including Nebraska, Oklahoma and Illinois) and be a significant investment in oil as opposed to alternative, cleaner energy sources.

In July, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial in support of the pipeline, arguing that the multi-billion-dollar project would create 100,000 jobs and reduce the U.S.’s reliance on foreign oil.

When Obama visited St. Louis for a few hours on Tuesday for a campaign event, 30 members of Green Action and even more from Occupy St. Louis, the local branch of Occupy Wall Street, decided to remind him that they want him to veto the proposal.

“They gave the president the message of ‘Yes you can; you have the power to veto the Keystone XL pipeline. We want to work for you, but we need you to re-inspire us,’” Klagsbrun said.

Klagsbrun said that the crowd members’ reactions to her interruption were mixed. Some people told her she had been rude, and one crowd member even tried to pull Kumanomido’s jacket away from him.

A few other people, she said, thanked her for reminding the president about a pressing issue. Others had never heard of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and promised to look into it.

“We [Green Action members] support Obama. We know that he knows what the right thing is, and our job is to create the support for him to be able to do what’s right,” Klagsbrun said.

Matt Mitgang | Student Life

President Obama boards Air Force One Tuesday night at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. The president was in town for the evening for a fundraiser and private dinner.

Specifically, the plan is to move away from the No Child Left Behind Act, including provisions to circumvent the act’s 2014 deadline for nationwide academic proficiency. Other requirements, such as preparing students for post-high school plans and creating evaluative benchmarks for teachers, are required for the waiver to be accepted.

We at Student Life support this plan. The American education system needs a serious overhaul. As students and soon-to-be graduates, we understand the value of a good education. We would, however, like to propose a few changes that we hope to see.

We realize that testing will never be the best indicator of academic performance. The ability to fill in bubbles on a Scantron does not necessarily indicate critical thinking skills or academic potential. However, as an indicator of performance overall, the tests do have merit and standardized testing is the only way to track student performance on a large scale. But, we believe standardized testing can be improved significantly. One of those improvements can be requiring testing on more subjects.

At Wash. U., pre-meds and English majors alike understand the importance of a solid science-based education. Tests should evaluate basic knowledge of the sciences because with science education comes innovation and global influence. The American Jobs Act will create new science labs in schools across the country, hopefully improving science curriculum and fostering future advances. No Child Left Behind should put the same emphasis on science.

The president consistently says that the U.S. needs to be better at math and science, but No Child Left Behind requires testing only on math and reading. The country would be better served if education funding for school districts was linked to the sciences as well.

While we recognize that widespread change cannot come from the president alone, he can only do so much with an executive order. While his changes will hopefully bring a beneficial change to the law, a real overhaul is needed in Congress to repair our failing schools. The price to really improve our schools can be incredibly daunting, but we have to keep in mind the future payoff. A country with a better-educated populace is more likely to compete, and more likely to grow. As students, we should bear in mind how imperative a good education is not only to individual success, but also to the success of America as a whole. The economy might be the top concern on everyone’s minds in the next election, but if you look past the next five years, the education and the economy are inextricably linked.

Although both College Democrats and College Republicans have yet to start their campaigns, individual members from both groups have been working with national campaign organizations.

Junior Michael Rosengart, a member of Students and Young Professionals for Jon Huntsman (GenH) is working on Huntsman’s campaign for the Republican presidential candidacy.

“[Huntsman] has a lot to offer for voters of various political denominations,” he said.

GenH, chaired by Jeb Bush, has 139 campus chapters in 42 states, including four in Missouri.

“Governor Huntsman is a candidate who isn’t attached to talking points but to reality. Personally, that’s why I support him,” Rosengart said. “I interned in both the House and the Senate this summer, and there is nobody willing to tell it straight. Governor Huntsman will. It’s why he understands the threats of climate change and supports civil unions.”

Rosengart has been reaching out to the other members of the College Republicans about supporting Huntsman as the GOP candidate.

“We are planning to watch the next GOP debates [as a group],” junior Joel Yambert, president of the College Republicans, said. “As a College Republican, I cannot tell you who we are supporting yet.”

Sophie Schuit, the College Democrat campaign coordinator and a member of the Organizing for America (OFA), has actively campaigned for President Obama.

Organizing for America is a community-organizing project of the Democratic National Committee and is present on three campuses in Missouri. On Sept. 17, OFA led a phone-calling campaign, encouraging residents of University City to reelect the president. On Tuesday, the organization held a conference call among all the different university campuses across America to celebrate the DADT repeal.

Schuit was unavailable for comment.

“We haven’t started our campaigning yet, but we are supporting [Schuit] by telling our members about the phone bank,” College Democrats President Sherveen Mashayekhi, a junior, said.

Although the College Democrats are still planning their campaigning strategies, they will support President Obama in the upcoming election.

“While Obama hasn’t executed on the innovation of government we expected, he has done a solid job at keeping the nation moving forward, considering the truly difficult circumstances the economy and wars abroad have left him in,” Mashayekhi said. “His speech to Congress on the American Jobs Act was invigorating and demonstrated that he still knows when push must come to shove when it comes to the tragic comedy we call American politics.”

Difference in politics aside, most students working on campaigns are enjoying the experience.

“The Governor says it himself all the time. Most candidates will run away from their record. Governor Huntsman is running on his record. That’s refreshing and as a young Republican, it’s exciting,” Rosengart said.

The College Democrats and the College Republicans will meet head-to-head in the upcoming Campus Crossfire on Oct. 18.

A similar situation is presented when President Obama calls on Americans to pay higher taxes to deal with the debt burden. By asking Americans to fork over more of their earnings to pay for past mistakes of both parties, the president is legitimizing the status quo. Americans will not receive better government, better leadership or more efficiency as a result; they will merely have less money to spend.

Just as students would flock away from a poorly performing school, some Americans and companies will leave the country, taking investment, capital and jobs with them. Other Americans will reduce their income, as the incentive to take risks in the economy is diminished. Most Americans will pay the increase, unable or unwilling to move. The tax increase might cause a slight rise in government revenue, but at the expense of money available in the private sector.

Tax rates have fluctuated throughout the past century, but tax revenue has remained constant at around 18 percent of GDP. Whether the government takes 75 percent or 25 percent of American’s earnings, it is to going to receive a constant percentage of revenue. While tax receipts remains relatively lower as a result of the economic downturn, there is little evidence that increasing taxes at this point will lead to higher revenue. It will cause a decrease in private capital, though, threatening to further delay a recovery.

The solution lies in fixing the government. A budget over $3 trillion is not only unsustainable, and it is unwanted. Americans don’t need a government that polices the world. Americans don’t want a government that gropes them at airports and listens to their phone calls. The notion that only the government can protect us from cradle to grave should be rejected; it removes responsibility from the individual and fosters a dependence on Washington. Despite taking in around $200 billion a month in revenue, our government has failed to properly manage its finances; a $1.5 trillion deficit isn’t even close!

Americans should not be asked to forfeit more of their earnings to a government that has failed in its duty. Instead, Americans should demand real change in Washington, beginning with a dismantling of the welfare-warfare state. To be sure, there are many government programs that provide some benefit to low-income and elderly Americans; the cuts need not begin there. Instead, the corporate welfare expenditures from agriculture to energy to military should be eliminated. Unnecessary entanglements abroad should be halted, as they are counterproductive to American security. The ability of a central bank to manipulate currency is dangerous when unchecked; more transparency should be required. The government’s intrusion into our bank accounts, businesses and health isn’t needed; sacrificing liberty for safety results in the loss of both.

Our federal government faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The underlying role of government in our lives should be questioned and changed. A poorly performing university would be forced to adapt or go out of business. We should force our government to change before our debt leads to bankruptcy.

The University hosted the 2008 vice-presidential debate, between then-candidates Sarah Palin and Joseph Biden.

Before that, the University hosted presidential debates in 1992, 2000 and 2004. It was also chosen to host a debate between President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole in 1996, but the debate was later canceled.

Eleven other universities, including Indiana University and Wake Forest University, have also applied to host debates in 2012.

According to Rob Wild, assistant to the chancellor, the University hopes to bring the debate to campus in order to increase student political involvement.

“We push to get students registered [to vote], and certainly when there is a debate on campus we have an easier time getting people on campus engaged,” Wild said.

He also said that the debates help enhance students’ academic experiences by increasing their knowledge of the political issues affecting the country as a whole.

Still, not all members of the University community agree that the 2008 debate contributed to their educational experience.

“As a student in polisci, I don’t think it added to my learning. Although I would have had a different experience if I had gotten in [to watch the debate],” said senior Peter Bush, who didn’t have a ticket.

The presidential and vice presidential debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission requires that each university hosting a debate be able to contribute to the cost of the debate. According to Wild, the University was required to give $1.65 million toward the 2008 debate.

The University received funding from outside sponsors to offset the cost of the debate. The administration hopes to do the same if it is chosen to host a debate in 2012.

“We do our best to make sure we minimize that impact,” Wild said.

According to Steve Givens, associate vice chancellor for pubic affairs, the University usually looks to St. Louis-based corporations to provide sponsorship. Emerson, AT&T and Wachovia sponsored the 2008 debate.

Givens, who was the head of the debate steering committees in 2000 and 2004, noted the historical importance of hosting presidential debates.

“No one knew five years ago when we agreed to host the vice presidential debate what an important event that was going to be toward the election,” Wild said.

The University has a long-standing tradition of giving all the debate tickets that it receives to students.

In 2008, the University released debate tickets to students via a lottery system. The University chose 432 of the 7,942 students who entered the lottery to attend the debate.

Students of the campus community hope that the University has more tickets to give to students if a debate is held on campus in 2012.

“I was here for the 2008 debate. I didn’t get to go because of the lottery system. It would be nice if more students could go,” junior Emilie Weisser said.

Many members of the Washington University community think that the debates increase the University’s name recognition.

“I think the VP debates are cool because they bring recognition to the school. Most people on the coasts don’t know about Wash. U.,” sophomore Allie Brand said.

According to Wild, the Commission on Presidential Debates chooses host sites based on a number of factors, including facilities and funding. In the past, leaders of the Commission on Presidential Debates have visited the campus prior to making the decision to evaluate the facilities.

The 2008 debate was held in the Athletic Complex. The AC also housed members of the media during the debate.

Administrators say that debates have consistently created enthusiasm among members of the University community.

“It has proven to be something that brings a lot of excitement to the University,” Wild said.

Givens attributes this enthusiasm among students to the degree of political involvement it affords them.

“It brings a level of excitement for our students, that the students find themselves in the middle of an historic, maybe even game-changing event,” Givens said.

With additional reporting by Wei-Yin Ko.