From: goforth-AT-igc.apc.org
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 00:43:04 -0800
Subject: Bad Haircut E-Zine #10


"We find it unthinkable that the...employer can assert a right to
isolate the migrant worker in any respect significant for the
worker's well-being...Title to real property cannot include
dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come
upon the premises." 

     Judge Joseph Weintraub
     State v. Shack
     277 A.2d 369 (N.J. 1971)  
     Holding that a farmer couldn't prevent his migrant laborers
     from receiving medical and legal assistance. 



                    BAD HAIRCUT E-Zine #10
                      FEBRUARY 9, 1996
                         Kim Goforth
                         Ray Goforth



Welcome to the latest issue of Bad Haircut.  B.H. was a zine for
several years and now it has been reanimated as an electronic
magazine (e-zine) for free distribution through the internet. 
Feel free to make copies and share with friends (or enemies).

Those wishing to be added to the subscription list (or
conversely, those who want off the list) should write to us at: 
goforth-AT-igc.apc.org

Some of our other projects:

Progressive Web Site:  http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/2915
Feminist Web Site:  http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/2995
Ray's Personal Site:  http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/2115

For those who have inquired:  We (Ray and Kim Goforth) spent
several years doing progressive political organizing work in
southern California.  We moved to Seattle, Washington, USA in
1988 where we took positions with different social service
agencies. In 1995, we both completed undergraduate degrees in
political-economy.  We are currently law students.  Kim's area of
interest is women's and children's advocacy.  Ray's is
sustainable development and human rights.  

****************************************************************
****************************************************************

IN THIS ISSUE:

1) AMERICAN LAW STUDENT RECEIVES THREATS AFTER PRO-CHOICE TV      
   BROADCAST
2) ESSAY: DOES THE RIGHT TO "LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF     
   HAPPINESS" INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO BE HEALTHY?

3) AUSTRALIA: TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD REPEAL DISCRIMINATORY
   LAWS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS 

****************************************************************
****************************************************************

Law Student Receives Threats...
by Ray Goforth

     On January 21st, Sarah Weddington spoke in Seattle,
Washington at a 23rd anniversary commemoration of the U.S.
Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade.  The Roe v. Wade decision
established reproductive freedom for women in the United States
by among other things, legalizing abortion.
     Ms. Weddington's speech brought tears to the eyes of many in
the meeting hall and gasps of horror from the law students in the
room as she recalled that Roe v. Wade was her FIRST contested
case after graduating from law school.
     After the meeting, local Seattle television broadcast
footage of law students speaking with Ms. Weddington.  One
student's name tag was clearly visible in the broadcast.  Later
that night Sharon (last name omitted) received threatening phone
calls from anti-choice terrorists. What is especially
disconcerting is that this student's phone number is not listed
in a public directory.  This had lead to speculation that the
threats came from an employee or student at the University of
Washington, where the student attends.
     When news of the threats spread among the pro-choice
community, there was an outpouring of support for the student. 
An impromptu pledge drive emerged where donations were made to
Planned Parenthood for each threatening phone call the student
received.  In this way, the anti-choice terrorism has been
converted into a force for good.

****************************************************************
****************************************************************

Michelle Murrain teaches biology and health issues at Hampshire
College in Amherst, Massachusetts.
More information on her research interests can be found at:
http://www.hampshire.edu/Hampshire/ns/html/Murrain.html
and she can be reached at mmurrain-AT-hampshire.edu.


Does the right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
include the right to be healthy?
by Michelle Murrain

        In the United States, there is a broad spectrum of
economic privilege (or disadvantage), which is increasing. I
think we are all aware of the growing gap between rich and poor,
and the diminishing middle class.
        There is a fundamental underlying effect to these
differences in economic privilege. For a large variety of reasons
that I will detail in this article, the "haves" and "have nots"
do not share equally in the ability to keep bodily integrity,
that is, to remain healthy. This is an effect of economic
disadvantage that we don't often speak of. When we all
were embroiled in the debate about health care, it was mostly
from a point of view of those already covered. Questions such as
"how do I guarantee I can see the doctor  I want to," or even,
for many "how do I guarantee that I'll remain covered" were
important issues. There was some talk of the close to 35 (now 40)
million Americans who are uninsured. Clearly, one's ability,
financial or otherwise, to see a physician (or alternative health
practitioner) when in need is crucial to one's ability to stay
healthy.
        However, there is more to the story of the lack of
economic privilege and health than how well people are able to
access medical care. Most people, I think, although quite well
aware of poverty, assume that in the US, everybody is assured
some basic level of subsistence. For the most part, excluding
homeless Americans (of which there are more each day), people
have clean drinkable water, good sanitation, and access to basic
foodstuffs.  It is important to note, that in this day and age of
eliminating entitlements, that this guarantee of basic
subsistence (by the way, guaranteed for the most part only to
families with children), will erode.
        There are a variety of ways in which lack of economic
resources leads to poor health. They include the obvious (access
to health care) and the much less obvious (low income communities
and communities of color are far more likely to have toxic waste
dumps situated in them than upper income and white communities).
In fact, people without economic resources are bombarded with
daily living situations that adversely affect their health, both
physical and mental.
        Health researchers have known for quite some time that
there are a variety of health factors that correlate with
economic status. For example, although the typical perception of
someone at high risk for a heart attack is your "type A"
executive type, in fact, rates of heart disease are inversely
related to income. That is, the higher your income, the less at
risk you are for heart disease, the lower your income, the more
at risk.  There are a whole host of other diseases, which clearly
afflict people of lower economic status more often, including
cancer. In addition, there are differences in the prevalence of
and mortality from a variety of diseases, including high blood
pressure and diabetes.
        Another important factor is working conditions. There are
some situations where high risk work is high paying, but for the
most part, work that involves unhealthy working conditions is
low-paying work. Migrant workers, for example are very likely to
be exposed and get sick from pesticides. If you remember that
chicken processing facility in the South that caught fire, and
many died, those workers were mostly minimum wage workers. The
new sweatshops, which hire illegal aliens at below minimum
wage, have often been found to be especially hazardous.
        So what can we do about this? Well, there are a variety
of remedies that can be applied to this problem. First and
foremost is equal access to quality health care. This health care
needs to be holistic and preventative. In this way, some of the
kinds of factors that may lead to adverse health outcomes in
people who are poor and working class could be identified in
individuals, and interventions could be designed.
        This is just a beginning, however. Community organizers
have been doing some very good work in these communities to
combat the kinds of problems I've described above. There are
"healthy cities" coalitions that are trying to deal with some of
the environmental issues. There are groups working on substance
abuse, AIDS and teen pregnancy prevention programs.  These kinds
of grassroots efforts to combat the kinds of health problems
present in the community are crucial to tackling this problem. In
addition, community efforts that are not geared directly toward
health, but are geared toward economic development, and housing
for example, can have important positive rippling effects on
health.
        In general, solving these problems can't all be done on a
governmental (local, state or federal) level. That said, however,
a government commitment to working with the community on these
problems, and allocating resources for them is just as crucial as
community involvement and commitment. One of the most difficult
problems that communities face when dealing with these issues is
a lack of resources and overall government support. Many of these
community programs get resources from local and state departments
of health, which tend to be more progressive in general than
other branches of government (because they know what the
problems are). However, in an atmosphere of increasing cuts from
the federal and state governments, and increasing numbers of
people in poverty (and thus needing services), the process is
like "one step forward, two steps back."
        Because of the budget cuts being engineered in
Washington, and the increased economic burden on the states for a
variety of programs that support those in poverty (Medicaid,
AFDC), and because of the continued downward pressure in wages,
it is inevitable that more people will find themselves without
health coverage, homeless or in poverty, and therefore,
in a worse situation in terms of health. We need to focus our
attention on this issue, because all Americans should have the
right to stay healthy.

*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************

This News Service is posted by the International Secretariat of
Amnesty International, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 8DJ
(Tel +44-71-413-5500, Fax +44-71-956-1157) 
E-Mail: AINS-AT-GN.APC.ORG 

AUSTRALIA: TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD REPEAL DISCRIMINATORY
LAWS AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS

Amnesty International today called on the Tasmanian
Government to withdraw its plans to increase the maximum
penalty for private homosexual acts between consenting males.

      On 24 January, State Premier Ray Groom announced the
State Government~s plans to increase the maximum penalty from
21 to 25 years imprisonment. 
      ~It is outrageous that anyone should face 25 years in
prison merely for exercising their sexual orientation,~
Amnesty International said. ~Nobody should spend any time in
a prison solely as a result of their sexual orientation. We
would consider anyone jailed under this legislation as a
prisoner of conscience.~ 
      In a letter today to State Premier Groom, Amnesty
International called on the Tasmanian Government to repeal
all legislation under which consenting male adults can be
jailed for homosexual activity in private. This is the third
appeal made by the organization: previous appeals were made
in 1992 and 1993.
      The Human Rights Committee ruled on 31 March 1994 that
sections 122(a) and (c) and 123 of the Tasmanian Criminal
Code were in direct breach of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
      Following this decision, the Australian Federal
Government passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994,
which enshrines the right to sexual privacy. However, the
Tasmanian Attorney-General was reported in February 1995 to
have said that the Act was ~[...] political window dressing.
It doesn't make our law invalid and it doesn't affect the way
it has applied for decades.~
      ~Concerns for public morals are no defence against
charges of human rights abuses,~ Amnesty International said.
~The Tasmanian Government should fulfill its obligations
under international law to uphold human rights by accepting
the decision of the Human Rights Committee.~

**************************************************************
**************************************************************


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------