Rights Policies in Tustin and Irvine

So, the majority of the Tustin City Council is praiseworthy for opposing two anti-abortion resolutions on April 3? Only if that coincides with your apparently preconceived notions about the issue in general. And while it is granted that all newspapers have their own editorial biases, it seems fair to us that your readers be given additional information that was lacking in The Times commentary on the events of that April evening.

Shortly after the abortion debate subsided and the bulk of the record crowd dispersed, our same council majority, so lauded by your editorial staff, seriously considered one of the most flagrant attacks against the principles of representative government and freedom of speech ever conceived by elected officials in a free society.

The troika of Ursula Kennedy, Richard Edgar and Ronald Hoesterey--in this case led by Hoesterey--promoted a resolution prohibiting placing on council agendas any item that did not first meet with approval of the consensus of the council majority! Cited specifically as justification for this lamentable action was the abortion debate, which constituted, in their opinion, an abuse of the purpose of the council and its precious time.

The implication of this is clear. Their effort to screen and pre-approve agenda items, when stripped of its veneer, simply means that “if most of us don’t like it, we ain’t gonna discuss it.” (Or, maybe even more simply, “To hell with opposing viewpoints.”)

Now, there is a newsworthy item. Yet The Times--purportedly a bastion for the right of free expression--didn’t seem to think so. Instead, it focused on what it considered a favorable outcome of the abortion issue and concluded its editorial in part with “cities ought not to take official positions on issues that already are covered by federal law.” This is an amazing statement from a respected newspaper in a state that often leads the nation in initiating federal action from local beginnings.

A caveat to The Times: Beware the pitfalls of assuming that because a view is widely held, it is somehow an absolute principle upon which to order society. This is at the core of many of the fallacies and follies of what has been called the “liberal agenda.” Certain premises and cliches --e.g. “you can’t legislate morality”--become so fixed in our language and thinking that few people take the time to challenge their validity. Those who do are often considered extremists who should be ignored or dismissed.

Yet, some such premises are indeed being challenged by very capable minds. The “right to privacy” will be not only challenged but dissected when the Webster case is heard later this month, and it is not certain if the current Supreme Court will find it as conveniently automatic and absolute as is now supposed in some quarters. Most important, it will have to be compared to other existing rights, such as the right to protection of life, and states’ rights. Many judicial debates are substantially comprised of trying to determine which right constitutes a greater right when two or more seem to be in conflict. The legacy of the Warren Court is evidence of this.

The issues regarding abortion in this country are not so settled as to allow the Los Angeles Times’ brand of moral imperialism to rule on either side. The dialogue must continue--locally and federally!

It is a shame when those who champion open-mindedness and freedom of expression prove to be intolerant of or, worse, indifferent to opposing views. If you doubt that, consider your own editorial stance in light of all the unreported events that occurred at the Tustin council meeting on April 3.

JOHN KELLY

EARL J. PRESCOTT

Council members

City of Tustin