You don't ask a blind man to point out the color blue, and you don't ask Mr. Ryan Chapman to provide a thoughtful column. Every Wednesday, our resident Conservative reproduces some illogical banter supporting Conservative talking points, though his analysis never reveals a hint of original or complex thought.

Proof: his regurgitation of the phrase "liberal activism." A nice phrase. Probably coined by the Limbaugh Right as a way to mischaracterize their "enemies'" position and baffle stupid people using clever syntax that, in the end, doesn't mean anything. How is NOT making a subjective moral law judicial activism? Especially when this morality is not shared by most people in this country (last I read nearly 60 percent of U.S. citizens support Roe v. Wade). To me, it sounds like Conservatives are calling for judicial activism and mischaracterizing something that is the exact opposite of action.

Not that Chapman is the only Conservative missing this point, but his column reads like he cut and pasted text from an anti-abortion advocacy Web site, and we get nothing but tired arguments and strong assertions supported by weak analysis. How is Roe v. Wade "liberal activism," Chapman? What is "liberal"? What is "activism"?

I wholeheartedly support Chapman's columns, and not for some touchy-feely reason like my admiration of free speech. His weak arguments and ridiculous assertions strengthen discourse on the side of the thoughtful and against weak-minded ideologues, like Chapman. But this brings me to my real point for writing: is this sort of two-dollar analysis honestly something the Collegian condones? I've enjoyed the semi-conservative commentary of Jake Blumberg and Tyler Wittman. Those gentlemen provide well-executed thoughts that are more or less their own. Perhaps it is the Collegian editorial staff that is blind. As a Collegian reader, I demand better analysis from page four. Chapman's columns aren't even worth lining pet cages.

Vincent Adams

English

graduate student

Ryan Chapman's Oct. 12 column "Scary Times for Roe v. Wade" contains some factual errors that need to be corrected.

Chapman incorrectly states that Roe "solely" created abortion rights in this country. In fact, between 1967 and 1973, the year Roe was decided, four states – Alaska, Hawaii, New York and Washington – repealed their abortion bans, while 13 others enacted limited reforms. Even before Roe was decided, lawsuits challenging criminal abortion laws had begun to work their way through the courts in more than a dozen states.

Before Roe, the need for access to safe and legal abortion was overwhelming and clear. In 1965, for example, abortion was so unsafe that 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortion.

Chapman also incorrectly says that Roe created "the pro-life and pro-choice camps as we know them today." In fact, Planned Parenthood has been advocating for safe and legal abortion for almost 90 years now – well before Roe was decided – and we are proud to continue the important work of preventing unintended pregnancies to reduce the need for abortion.

Chapman's piece was about politics, not about helping women. Planned Parenthood believes access to comprehensive health care is the real solution. After all, the ability to control your own fertility is a fundamental human right, and in this country, a constitutionally protected one.

For more information, please come to a CSU Vox: Voices for Planned Parenthood meeting. Our meeting times can be found at www.health.groups.yahoo.com/group/csuvox

Daniel Kessler

Public affairs

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains