Wisconsin Week; 137

Tonight's production of Wisconsin week is made possible in part by a in our pipeline company a subsidiary of the coastal corporation providing reliable natural gas service to Wisconsin's homes businesses and industries for nearly 40 years. No. Welcome I'm Joe Smith in Milwaukee and I'm Dave Iverson in Madison. Tonight how the Supreme Court's abortion ruling will affect Wisconsin. We'll hear what the legislature will do next. Also tonight the Civil Rights Act is now 25 years old some thoughts from Howard Fuller in Milwaukee and former Johnson administration spokesman George Reedy. And we'll have the latest on treaty rights negotiations between the state and the Chippewa try. First though the summary of the week's news a week that was dominated by reaction to the Supreme

Court's abortion ruling. States now have the option to either limit or leave alone a woman's right to an abortion. The Wisconsin Legislature may consider several such limitations but so far neither Governor Thompson nor Speaker Loftus seem eager to bring the abortion controversy to the top of the legislative agenda. Also this week news that University of Wisconsin students will soon pay more to receive an education. The Board of Regents endorsed a plan that will boost student tuition by six point eight percent in state tuition and fees at the Milwaukee and Madison campuses will now topped $2000 a year. Tuition at the other for your UW campuses will rise to nearly fifteen hundred dollars. Bad news of a different sort for many Milwaukee high school students. According to published reports in the Milwaukee papers over 70000 of the city's high school athletes will be ineligible this fall. The skyrocketing figures are due to a tougher policy on student absenteeism. Some schools fear they won't even be able to field football teams this year. And progress on solving the treaty

rights controversy. The lock to Flambeau band of the Chippewa tribe and state officials returned to the negotiating table on Thursday. Both sides indicate progress was made towards achieving a negotiated settlement. Joining us first tonight is the man who sits in the middle at the negotiating table treaty rights mediator Howard bellman. Mr. Bauman it was just a couple of months ago that there was a great deal of bitterness and rancor in this state about this very topic now it seems like we're inching towards the possibility of a negotiated settlement. What's changed. Well a number of things have changed of course we are different human beings at the negotiating table than we have. On the landings and the people on both sides are being very statesman like. They represent their. Their constituencies in a very cordial style frankly. What do you think is going to be the heart of whatever kind of negotiated negotiated settlement that that arises and what will be the nature of of the relationship between the state and the various tribes.

I think the heart of it is an agreement on the part of the tribe to forbear from exercising some of the rights that they have under the treaty. They're going to maintain that treaty and they're going to maintain that right. But they're going to be forbearing I hope from the exercise of some of those rights given that they are duly compensated. So it's not it's not a sellout of those rights it's a it's perhaps only a temporary relationship for compensation. It's not even close to a sellout it's no more like a sellout than it's a sot of real to real estate. To lease an apartment. What will be the nature of the compensation what kinds of things is the state going to offer. A lot of van in particular. Well that remains to be negotiated and there are suggestions and proposals on the table on this fairly difficult at this stage to forecast. But lots of it will be measurable in financial terms I'm sure. Do you have a sense that that there is a commitment from both sides that there really must be some kind of settlement that the state simply can't afford to go through another spring like we just did.

I don't think there's any doubt about that and I don't think there's any doubt about that on either side I'm absolutely sure that both sides of the table that I'm dealing with is intent on avoiding ever having that happen again. Give us a quick snapshot view of the future Mr. bellman. What sorts of things still have to happen and when are you hopeful that a final agreement will be in place. Well I think a final agreement is a problematical concept I'm not sure what that consists of because we have a relationship here between the tribe and the state that presumably goes on in perpetuity in the short run I would certainly like to have the legislatures fall session include the consideration of some tentative agreements our Delman I know everyone will join me in saying good luck. Thank you. Thank you. The Supreme Court Monday gave states new authority to limit a woman's right to an abortion.

Activists on both sides are saying that the battle on abortion has just started. Here to talk about what the court's ruling will mean for Wisconsin are two abortion activists on opposite sides of the battle line sever Austin executive director of Planned Parenthood Association of Wisconsin incorporated and Susan Armacost the legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life. Welcome to both of you. Let me start with you. It's been described as all out battle as all hell we're going to break loose now after this ruling from Monday. Well I'd like to think not but I'm I fear that that may well happen. Certainly it started to happen in other states Florida is has initiated some action. I think it depends on what certain legislators do in Wisconsin and whether there's new interaction of new legislation that would limit women's rights to an abortion. Speaking of the legislature I would I would imagine that both sides of this issue are going to try to get after the legislators are going to have to know exactly where they stand on this on this particular issue. And are you going to go after those who who may be running for particular seats in the assembly.

Well even more important than looking at the legislature is that we realize that society right now is going to have to make a choice. We all know that abortion is legal up to the nine months of pregnancy and that 99 percent of the abortions that are performed are for convenience or social reasons. And our society is going to have to decide are we going to allow the killing to continue. Is this an acceptable solution to human problems. Let me ask you is the issue really is it obscured the abortion issue obscured by the fact that really maybe the issue is birth control. The issue is not birth control. The pro-life movement has the concern after conception for each and every human life. And our philosophy says that each human life has intrinsic value simply because it exists and that one's value should not depend on the age or dependency of the individual or whether one is deemed convenient or inconvenient as I would imagine that birth control is of major importance to the educational process for Planned Parenthood you know part of this ruling could mean that your organization would not get any more money.

Why not get some funding. What's I going to do to you. Well that's the most devastating part of this and I have to respond a little bit here I don't think the issue is just abortion the issue is choice and individual freedoms and privacy that's what the Constitution guarantees. If we lose on this issue there are so many other fundamental freedoms that we that we value and cherish that those are next to go. The birth control issue certainly we were all required to believe in counseling women and choice right now. And if one were to extend one of these court decisions we might be in serious jeopardy of being able to do that with our federal funding. We would fight very hard to make sure that wasn't true. We serve 85000 low income women in Wisconsin and we'd like to continue doing that. And you can argue with that can you. Yes we can because when we're talking about the freedom to choose we have to ask to choose what and what that answer is is the freedom to choose to kill one's unborn child. And in a civilized society this is unacceptable.

Name some names for me of the of the people that you're going to be lobbying. Well we won't be talking to the state legislature Dems to say Who specifically. Well all of them specifically. But certainly we have a pro-life majority in the state Senate Senate and in the assembly. But there are a lot of people who are sort of middle of the road and will certainly be talking to them as well. Are you worried resigns. Oh of course I'm worried but I think once it comes down to a vote that we will turn out the majority of citizens in Wisconsin as pro-choice people. I'm wondering for both of your your sides are you. Are you gaining more public support for for your side pro-choice I can't tell you how many calls that have come in since Monday to our office to all of our clinics around the state. I received a call today from a legal firm saying we'd like to sponsor a booth for you were so outraged about the court decision. People are coming in with checks people are calling and saying what can I do. It is truly a mobilized public support and that's probably the good side of what's happened here.

And right to life. And certainly we have always had that type of support and it's continued even escalated with a Supreme Court decision. And we know that the people of Wisconsin through scientific polling support the pro-life position. They only support abortion in very narrow circumstances rape incest and life of the mother. And those are only 1 percent of the abortions that are performed. I mentioned at the beginning about battle lines in this being all out war and I think for a lot of people it really isn't and they're not going to stop until until your side gets what they want and until your side gets what they want just awesome. So there there is no room for compromise here. We're talking about the illegal destruction of human life for any reason. Up to the moment of birth. That is unacceptable. And we're talking about the fundamental right of a woman to choose and in the privacy of her her own situation to make that choice as a basic fundamental right of. Democratic society and those are two very tough positions in which to find and compromise. So Ross and I think you and Susan Armacost Thank you. The work is only beginning for state lawmakers. Now here's Dave with a look at how the Wisconsin Legislature will deal with

Monday's court ruling. You've heard how the battle lines have been drawn by spokesmen from both sides now how the Supreme Court decision and what it will mean for the Wisconsin State Legislature. Any changes in state law will first be reviewed by the Assembly Committee on children and Human Services. Joining us now from the state capital the woman who chairs that committee Representative Rebecca young. And in our studio Representative Robert well an anti-abortion leader who would like to see the legislature impose some greater restrictions on abortion. Rebecca young you heard in that last interview the kind of polar opposites we are dealing with here. Can there be compromise. Can there be some middle ground as this now turns to you in the state legislature. I think it'll be very difficult to find a middle ground on this issue. A Supreme Court decision handed down on the Webster case Monday has significantly after Jais day. Our pro-choice community in Wisconsin. Thank God by the polls that have been taken out by the wacky Journal for

instance in January and Kate that basically are people Wisconsin are pro-choice and very. Minor. Twenty seven percent or so oppose abortion. You are also pro-choice. Does that mean that you are going to limit the kinds of legislation that your colleague Mr. welcher would like to see embarked upon. Well I certainly believe that they have proposals that undoubtedly Mr. Welch has he has in other areas proposed would severely limit their right to abortions in Wisconsin and I oppose that. Are you worried that Rebecca Young and others of her persuasion will bottle up what you would like to accomplish. Certainly the number one item on our agenda right now as far as a pro-life piece of legislation is what we call the parental consent bill which is really not abortion per se but it does say that before a minor girl could have an abortion she would have to have her parents consent. All right now in Wisconsin if your 15 year old girl you can't have your ears pierced

you can have a broken bone set you can have your appendix out without having your parents sign a consent form. We don't think it should be any different for abortion. It's a traumatic experience for a young girl to go through. And her parents should be involved in that decision. We have a broad base of support for that goes beyond pro-life groups. It's been sitting in represented Young's committee for over two years now. And I guess I challenge you right now are we going to have a chance to vote on that are we going to have a chance to to see that bill in the full assembly so we can debate it among all the records. Well I think the bill in the first place represent Welch says you can't get your ears pierced without parental consent. That's just hogwash. Of course you can go into any any child can go or any young woman can go into or any young man for that matter can go into a beauty parlor and get his or her ears pierced that's not a question of parental consent. The same holds for the other things he was talking about. But two there was you know I don't require There is no there is no surgical procedure that requires parental consent in Wisconsin for a minor

which the penalty for which is a criminal penalty. Yes there is a criminal penalty and this I looked at that provision of the question of of whether or not there will be a vote on this I guess what I'm curious about is will this bubble up to the floor of the legislation to the floor of the legislature. Well I'm very hopeful as we've been we've seen that the governor has indicated and also speak on off this indicated that the whole issue of abortion will not overtake the entire work of the legislature during this session. So any have any signs of bills that we ought to be working on that will promote Maternal and Child Health. Which will be stymied I think if we let me. The entire issue of abortion overtake us all. That's just plain ridiculous you have only 22 bills in your whole committee you've already dealt with 11 of them. Seems to me that you have plenty of room to deal with parental consent on the other things you wish to deal with too. The simple matter of holding a hearing having a vote and letting the floor deal with it it'll take us two hours of debate

and it'll be on to the state Senate. It's not like it's going to overtake the whole legislature and this is not an issue that is strictly pro-life vs. abortion we're not trying to ban abortions here we're not trying to take away the any rights from a mature woman. We're just trying to say that in the case of a young girl a 15 year old girl for example her parents should be involved in that decision and again are the people who are for this bill are not just the right to life groups not just other people interested in stopping abortion but are groups that are across the spectrum who are interested in a good family relation I guess what I want to try to get to in the in the brief moment that we have left to us is is what are we likely to see what are we going to witness Rebecca young on the floor of the legislature. What do you want to see this debated or would you really just as soon not deal with this one at all in a way in a sense and just like the Supreme Court really didn't do. Well I I guess on the abortion issue it is one which is very divisive. The abortion issue as. A Vietnam War

and in significant terms a divisiveness of this society. I think what the Supreme Court decision has done is energized those who support reproductive choice in this country. I just as the pro-life people the right to life people in Wisconsin have been energized for many years and using this as a signal issue in terms of elections. We will have to leave it at that. Robert Welsh will you be similarly energized to put this forward to the floor. I think we have to move from the extreme pro-choice position we now have in the state toward a more moderate position. I think it's reasonable we have a majority of the people in the state on our side a majority of legislators. And clearly when you're in the minority you try to avoid the issue. We like to see at least something done. Well of course there's debate on that as well as you're just young and I know we will hear from both of you in the weeks ahead. Thank you both. Thank you. This marks the 25th anniversary since President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. The anniversary was celebrated quietly and with a growing apprehension among some that the tide has shifted against civil rights in this country. Joining me are two longtime supporters of civil rights although in different arenas Dr. Howard Fuller is head of Milwaukee county's Health and Human Services Division. He's been a civil rights activist in Wisconsin for many years. George Reedy is Newman professor of journalism at Marquette University. Professor Reedy was press secretary to President Johnson and Johnson's chief aide when Johnson was majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And welcome to both of you. Mr. Reed let me start with you has the tide shifted against civil rights in this country. I don't think the social climate issue. I think however that we now have a situation in which we have a court that is they're going to repeal civil rights for a socially but they certainly aren't going to advance it. And I think that we have an administration that again is not going to repeal anything so to speak but is going to put something of a damper on it.

However my own belief is that the civil rights movement has become so strong and so well established that this will merely being a be a temporary situation and that will come back a few years later with some further advances which are badly needed. Doesn't seem like a step backward. Well you know I thought of for a long time that what people have characterized as the civil rights movement I thought that a long time ago frankly I've always felt that we had entered another era of a struggle for economic rights or human rights. And the reason why I characterize in that way is that in truth civil rights was a struggle for laws for gay people quote for citizenship rights and so forth. And as I see the problems facing particularly like the black community today quite honestly I don't think that that's the problem. I think the problem has to do with the realization of what it really means to be free which really means economic freedom. Well that's interesting President Bush said about the anniversary that you know let's get

beyond the protection of rights and get on with with the the matter of opportunity and really is that the case is that we have to do at this point Howard makes a point there that really must be considered which is that the so-called civil rights movement was basically a confrontation movement. Which was successful in getting certain laws to forbid a number of discriminatory practices. But all a law does is give you an opportunity to try to go on out and make some deep changes in society. Now I think some changes have been made in society that are irreversible. It's not gone nearly as far as honesty and justice would require but nevertheless things have been opened up that were closed before. And again I think that while there may be a damper on positive action I don't think that this is a real setback. Well I guess I'm a little bit more pessimistic in the sense that I

think the history of black people in this country has been a history of moving forward and then having things shift I hope backwards. I mean you know I have you know certain things taken away. While I think that certain fundamentals of the civil rights movement I don't think are going to be shaken. I think the general atmosphere that's been created is a negative one. But it is very difficult to see there is even a danger of even tampering with with with civil rights. Well you know but ultimately you got to define what is be intemperate. I mean so that we move if we're going to have a real discussion about it it has to be less on emotion and more on actually what has been changed. What things are being tempered. Let me put it this way. The most you can do with legislation is to forbid certain types of practices or quite possibly put out certain types of care and incentives to advance. But beyond

that you have got to go ahead and change society which is something that you cannot do with law. The law gives you an opportunity to change society but in and of itself it does not change society. And when I take Howard's point is that what we have to do now is really work on the things that will change society. That means like increasing educational levels trying to get try to kind of solve the housing problem which can't be solved solely by forbidding segregated housing. Right. With me on climate issues and so for this is a make this point. See the immediate setbacks that people talk about out of the civil rights was the stuff on affirmative action. I've never viewed the affirmative action movement as a quote civil rights issue per se. I've always viewed that as an economic issue. I mean in terms of its implications. So that is a setback in the decisions that have been made. Clarence Page in a column this week suggested that compared in 1064 today's great

racial divide is defined less by skin color and by economic and cultural differences. I think the reality of it is disproportionately people who are suffering those divides are black. But it is not so anymore a racial issue I think is correct. I think that's correct I think what you have to understand is that even if formal segregation was totally and there was just absolutely no trace or vestige of it you would still have to deal with the institutions that had been created by segregation. The fact that you had all these centuries in which blacks were not capable of getting anything like a decent education. And there's no sense in talking about Frederick Douglass or things like that those are exceptions. But it was a whole 10 percent of our people at least were held back and over a long period of time. That is not going to be overcome merely by passing some laws. And we do have to get education we don't have to get the training we do have to get off.

Howard you were in Milwaukee I'm at a point when you when you were well Ray right in the thick of things with civil rights. You had an especially in this city and in this state which is pretty segregated. Safer in 25 years where have we come how far we come. Well again unlike the battles that are fought in and still trying to fight in the walking again I've never seen them as civil rights issues the legacy issues North Division the whole school issues those are issues that I think proceed to civil rights. But that's why I'm saying they're wrong I think that they've always seen what happened was that any time black people went to the streets they were characterized as civil rights. What I'm trying to argue is that was a was a correct characterization and that we have to understand that so that when we look at setbacks we really have to determine is that a civil rights issue or is that something else and a reason why that's important is because if it's a civil rights issue it dictates one type of strategy. If it's something else it dictates another type of strategy and that's why I keep pressing home on it in another way.

Anatole France once said the law in its equal Majesty forbids both the rich and the poor to sleep under bridges. Now the law in its equal Majesty now says both the white and the black can go in to be granted to a restaurant and order a meal which they can. But how many blacks have enough money to be able to go into the ground to do a restaurant. What of the point that I'm making is that we do have one part of the population that was held back. I want to ask you I want you to go back 25 years I very quickly went when you were very close to President Johnson and what advice did you give him when he was trying to get his legislation through. Oh the advice that I gave him was it was rather technical in a sense. I stressed two things and I'm not sure whether he'd caught on to themself wanting to make this a monument to President Kennedy in other words sort of like let's do this for the Gipper. That was one of them. The second all was to come down heavily in the southern Southerners with private conversation look you were

up against an inevitability. If you don't pass this bill that means you're going to have to face this issue day after day after day after day and you're going to cut yourself off from the rest of the country. Get it over with. All right who today when take up the cause and if they did who would who would be able to do something about it. Well I think Kennedy I mean if you come out nationally in legislative terms you look and quote some Democrats in Congress and so forth. The issue though is even as we take it up. Are we going to take up the right issues and come forward with the right solutions to the right issues. And I have to keep stressing that. And how is making a very important point here this is a different type of struggle in 1980 and 1984. What you had was an effort to pass a bill that had all kinds of powers in it and everything else that was kind of like a crusade. But today what you're up against is what one does to bring people up to the.

Let me make one last quick point not just Kennedy of course but there are many black. Legislators today who would take up these issues. But again I would argue we've got to define it correctly. OK Dr. Howard Florey Thank you Mr. George Reidy thank you appreciate it. Now here's Dave with this week's commentary. Some last thoughts on the abortion dilemma. For months we waited and waited for the Supreme Court to finally resolve the abortion debate. That's what the Supreme Court is for after all to provide a resolution to be the arbiter of our times. But we didn't get off that easily. The Supreme Court came up with a ruling but not a resolution. Instead the court tossed the gavel to some 50 separate state legislatures who must now cope with what the court left unfinished. How will they perform in Wisconsin. We've already heard that Governor Thompson and speaker Loftus hold little enthusiasm for bringing the abortion debate to the floor of the legislature. Small wonder the legislature has a tough enough time dealing with the mundane. This is a body after all that sometimes has spent hours debating things like the St. Roch

And now comes the opportunity to cope with the most contentious dilemma of our times. How will this legislature respond. Some representatives will choose to retreat from such a task. Others will choose to grandstand. But abortion is a dilemma where no one should get off easily. For those willing to step forward there is opportunity for leadership opportunity for thoughtfulness and not the tricks for vision and not vote counting. Perhaps we will all learn something in the months ahead about our leaders and about who should lead us into the 1990s. Goodnight Joe. Good night Dave. Thank you for joining us for this edition of Wisconsin week. I'm sure some of the Milwaukee will see you in one week. Tonight's production of Wisconsin week is made possible in part by a n our pipeline

company a subsidiary of the coastal corporation providing reliable natural gas service to Wisconsin's homes businesses and industries for nearly 40 years.