I am very concerned and angry that the Republicans’ “Contract With America” has gone as far as it has without serious revision. If we allow this, we must truly be desensitized to dangerous trends which begin as accepted social and political norms. To reiterate John Kanelis’ statement (BDN Dec. 12), threatening to withhold welfare benefits for unwed mothers under the age of 18 simply will not work as a national chastity belt. The cleverly titled “Personal Responsibility Act” shelters the ammunition for diverse anti-feminist and classist agendas. Such restrictions imply that unmarried poverty-line women and girls must be prevented from attaining economic self-sufficiency and be prevented from reproducing. In the unfortunate case that one of them should fail “irresponsibly,” we would issue her a scarlet letter (“U” for unwed) and deny her financial assistance. Individual states would have the opportunity to raise the age limit to 21. I am disgusted that our current political atmosphere could even give rise to such suggestions. But it is almost predictable. Consider for a moment the implications behind our choice of public officials: who we tolerate and who we won’t, and why.

The resignation of former surgeon general Joyclyn Elders, after her statements supporting education of all aspects of human sexuality, only reaffirms that the United States still hopelessly promotes silence and social stigma as our nationally preferred method of birth control. We want to block education of human sexuality in schools so we can huddle together protecting our own, shutting off welfare benefits to those that do not conform to the standards of the moral majority. The reception Elders received only further proves our own hypocrisy: Instead of confronting the problem of teen pregnancy by teaching children that their bodies are their own, we actively deny them the opportunity to think about their own sexuality and punish them when they do. Dismissing education about human sexuality as something unfit for public schools is also dismissing our foremost opportunity to educate about the HIV virus, birth control, sexual abuse and many other important issues.

So now Elders is out and orphanages are in, ready to take in the scores of unwanted children from parents who had no access to information about birth control or abortion options, health care, welfare assistance. There they go, into the arms of a middle-class family, along with a $5,000 tax credit for taking in an “unwanted” child that restrictive and ignorant measures forced into this situation, convenient for many pro-life group who plead the cause of the many families willing to adopt. Perversely, this proposed Gingrichian utopia is receiving more serious consideration than any previous proposals regarding accessible and affordable child care. Perhaps if women had the fantastic equal rights we are purported to have, being a single mother would not have the negative economic implications that can often lead her to welfare. Welfare system reforms are long overdue to maximize its efficiency and to alleviate welfare abuse, but it is unforgivable to abuse those who benefit from welfare services. We have denied the connections between these issues for too long; I only hope that we can identify them as problems and actively work against them. Sarah Mossman Hampden