|
LIMITED OPTIONS
In response to your article "From Coat Hangers to Cloning" [WW, Jan. 21, 1998], section "A New Kind of Choice," I passionately agree with Lisa Horowitz: "On one hand, we talk about a brave new world, and on the other, look how little advancement there's been in birth control. We have virtually the same options as 30 years ago." I am a 20-year-old student, married with no current aspirations to be a mother. I have been taking birth control on a regular basis for about three years now. I don't know if your readers want a lesson on what a hassle birth control is. I tried using condoms in the beginning, I got pregnant. Condoms are icky for everyone involved. Can you imagine getting a back rub with all your clothes on, the masseuse wearing rubber gloves? I started "Depo" (the shot that is good for three months). After a week on it I got pregnant. It feels like a tetanus shot. The first six months on "Depo" were great, I didn't have to think about it, I didn't have to fumble for it, etc. But the side effects are horrible by your third shot. I had no sex drive; if it is possible to have a negative sex drive I had it. After about 11?2 years on the shot, I saw a special on TV about chemical castration. Guess what lovely drug they gave to the sexual deviants? Depo!! It is used to kill their sex drive. Why did Planned Parenthood not tell me about this? I love what PP stands for, but I sure would have appreciated knowing about that. Also a good friend of mine had always taken the pill and at 27, she and her husband decided that they would like to have a child. It took her five years after she stopped taking the pill to become pregnant. The doctor said that it was the birth control pill she had taken for so long. I am now on the stupid pill that needs to be taken at the same time every day. So, when I decide to have a child do I need to plan five years in advance? I have no conclusion. My health insurance only covers abortions, not birth control. Preventative medicine? Crystal M. Watson, Northeast Monroe Street
JUST SAY NO TO KNOCK & TALK
The Portland Police Bureau officials have typically presented only one side of the "knock and talk" story ["Knock and Walk," 500 Words, WW, Feb. 4, 1998]. They conveniently ignore what frequently happens with some of their more aggressive "community policing" types. The cops will come to the door of a residence and ask to talk the occupants; the occupants will refuse; the cops persist at the door, becoming more and more demanding; the occupants finally open the door to tell the cops to leave; the cops then push their way in, search the residence and then lie about receiving consent. Or less typically, the occupants will let the cops in to talk with them and then the cops start snooping around the place, moving from the entry way and living room to other, more private parts of the house, without permission; when the occupants object to the search and ask the cops to leave, the cops ignore those objections and then, if necessary, lie about receiving consent. Unfortunately, too many judges are willing to believe the police lies and will not enforce the constitutional protections against police misconduct we are supposed to enjoy. Because of the propensity of certain police officers to lie about receiving consent, I advise my clients not to open the door for the police unless the police have a warrant and show it. It is hard for the police to claim consent after they have broken down the door. Unfortunately, as recent events demonstrate, even that tactic fails in the face of the willingness of police officers to create exigent circumstances out of thin air, or should I say "smoke." Nonetheless, I tell my clients that when the police ask for consent to come into their houses: "Just say no." Spencer M. Neal, Southwest Front Avenue
NOT DISRUPTIVE,
BUT DANGEROUS
Your 500 Words ("Knock and Walk," WW, Feb. 4, 1998) on the police shooting over some marijuana plants defended maniacally by an overarmed, trigger-happy citizen overlooks some fine points of the "Let us in the house for a little look, please" policy. Portland police sometimes have flimsy reasons to waltz into a private home and look for drugs: Two months ago, two narcotics plainclothes officers asked to "look inside" our house on the basis of what they said was an anonymous tip to a police drug tip-line. Their search was cursory at best, and not overtly disruptive. The cops said right off they could "tell" we don't appear to be dope growers (which was the tip they got), and added that often the anonymous tips they follow up are erroneous because of Police Bureau clerical error--the address is recorded wrong--a mistake from the tipster in the address or a revenge or a prank against the house being searched. Whatever the tactics of the terrible shoot-out in the Dons case, the idea of walking through a house, however politely as in our case, with nothing but an anonymous phone call for evidence, is poor, dangerous and an abridgement of our civil rights. As for your comment about Dons that "it's hard to feel much concern for his constitutional rights," he had those rights when he was confronted by police, and he still has rights to protection under the constitution, and zealously crossing the line of abridging his rights because of smoke from three or four dozen plants doesn't seem worth it, in retrospect. In our case the police were polite to us, I assume because we appeared to be a quiet, white, middle-aged couple in a quiet, white, middle-class neighborhood. I would assume they would not be so polite to others not similarly situated. We let the officers into our house only because we had nothing illegal inside and because we feared sending them back for a proper search warrant, which under ideal circumstances they should not have been granted because they had no probable cause except a "tip-line" call, but it would have meant if they returned they would have pulled the house apart--and still would have found nothing. Keith Tillstrom, Southeast 24th Avenue |
|
