ism like the anti-tobacco lobby, but on arnlegal philosophy that claims unborn babiesrnought to be protected from aggression.rnSecondly—though I am loathe tornadmit this—laws have a pedagogical effectrnon society. Tax-funded abortionsrnare more persuasive to larger numbersrnof people than personal conversations.rnA working strategy for the next centuryrnwould complement the educationalrnwork of pro-lifers, circumvent all threernbranches of the federal government, andrnstill claim the populist moral highrnground of democracy; pro-lifers shouldrnpersuade Guam to secede. While a callrnfor territorial secession will undoubtedlyrnmeet stiff and astonished opposition,rnit is hard to see how the federal governmentrncould justify refusing the islandrnindependence. After all, why should arnsecular democracy rule over a Catholicrncountry that it acquired through eonquest?rnPro-lifers could use the precedentrnset by the breakup of the formerrnSoviet Union. They could appeal to thernright of self-determination and accusernCongress of imperialism. How couldrnthe government possibly object?rnGuam’s attempt at independencerncould start several other movements.rnFirst, it might help to spread the variousrnsecessionist movements that existrnin the United States. In states like Alaskarnand Hawaii this is a distinct possibility.rnIt might also give conservatives arnchance to popularize the notion of staternnullification. At the very least, the discussionrnsurrounding Guam might givernAmericans a chance to get reacquaintedrnwith the Tenth Amendment. Thisrnwould not only help to break up thernabortion consensus but would providernan opportunity to unravel other strandsrn”of the fabric of American political life.”rnHow could federal New Deal programsrnsurvive such a challenge?rnWith the Freedom of Choice Actrnlooming on the horizon and the transnationalrnNew World Order now upon us,rnwe desperately need a secessionaryrngroundswell. I can’t think of a betterrnplace to start than with Guam.rn—Mark A. HomernOFFERING NORPLANT in on-siternclinics at public schools in Baltimorernmight seem like one of those evils that isrnnecessary or even inevitable: this is, afterrnall, a city where one in ten girls betweenrnthe ages of 15 and 17 gave birth in 1990.rnBut the language used by the plan’s advocatesrnreveals a dangerous mindset.rnFor in providing teenage girls with arn”contraceptive that will get themrnthrough their school years” (as Dr. PeterrnBeilenson, city health commissionerrnterms it), citv leaders are assuming responsibilitvrnfor matters that were oncernhandled by individuals and their families.rnDr. Beilenson has taken it upon himselfrnto organize a consortium of hospitals,rndoctors, clinics, and a private foundationrnthat will facilitate discussion ofrnthe merits of Norplant not just in publicrnand private clinics (where it has a place)rnbut in “family-life” classes in publicrnschools. While it is true that over threequartersrnof the students in the Baltimorernschool system are sexually active. Dr.rnBeilenson’s plan for a fool-proof pregnancyrninsurance should give us pause.rnAs Baltimore City Council memberrnCarl Stokes argues. Dr. Beilenson’s typernof thinking “runs toward social engineering.”rn”There is a strong moodrnamong some folks,” he savs, “that werncan’t control these girls’ behavior so wernjust throw up our hands and put thisrnimplant in them. It relieves us of thernproblem of them having babies that wernhave to pay for.” Encouraging or requiringrnwomen on welfare to use Norplantrn(proposals that not a few conservativesrnsupport) are one thing; butrnsomehow dispensing Norplant devicesrn(not to mention condoms and birthrncontrol pills, which are already availablernat six high schools and two middlernschools in Baltimore) at schools like thernLaurence G. Paquin School for pregnantrnteens and young mothers is quiternanother.rnIt’s difficult to say which is morernmaddening to contemplate in this case:rnthe teenagers who can’t or won’t exercisernsome restraint or the adults whornstep in to make sure they don’t have to.rnTake the story of 19-year-old ConsuelornLaws, a senior at Paquin and singlernmother of two young children. MissrnLaws opted in September 1991 to receivernNorplant at no cost to her from arnpublic clinic in Baltimore—a prudentrndecision, if somewhat belated. Yet thernreasons she gives for this choice revealrnjust how irresponsible we have allowedrntoday’s teenagers to become: “I decidedrnto use Norplant because it seemed tornme to be a very effective form of birthrncontrol,” Laws said. “I’m not one torntake the pill. I always forget to take it. Irnneeded something I didn’t have to worryrnabout all the time.”rnComments like these are typical of arnnation whose inhabitants arc fond ofrnshirking responsibility for their actions.rnYet when they are echoed by supposedrneducators like Paquin’s principal Dr.rnRosetta Stith—who happily reports thatrnher girls “look at Norplant as a muchrnmore advanced method [of contraception]rnthat would let them go on withrntheir lives without worrying about gettingrnpregnant, or remembering to getrntheir birth-control prescription hlled”—rnwe must wonder how far such abdicationrnof accountability will go.rnApparently pretty far, if we can judgernby Dr. Doris Tirado of the MarylandrnPlanned Parenthood unit, who is everrnready to hold adolescents by the handrnso that their frolicking can go on carefree.rn”Teens have a whole differentrnmindset,” Dr. Tirado explains. “We dornhave some who find their way tornPlanned Parenthood on their own andrnask for Norplant. But what we need torndo for most adolescents is go into thernschools and tell them what Norplant is,rnhow it works, where it’s available, whatrnthe hours are, and what bus to take.”rnThe Baltimore plan points up a familiarrnpattern. Families, under the unyieldingrnpressure of schools, welfarernagencies, and Planned Parenthood, havernabdicated their duties and no longerrnmake any effort to teach children responsibilityrnand restraint. And what isrnthe response of the community agenciesrnthat started the whole process inrnthe first place? Why, to up the ante hrntaking away the last possible incentivernto exercise self-control.rn—Christine llaynesrnT H E JOHN RANDOLPH CLUB recentlyrnaccepted me as a member. (Forrnthose unfamiliar with it, the John RandolphrnClub is, basicallv, the conservativernand libertarian answer to the TrilateralrnCommission, the Bilderbergcrs, andrnthe Council on Foreign Relations and,rnso its officers assure mc, of roughly comparablerninfluence.) Thus, I was particularlyrninterested to learn from a NewrnYork Daily News article last winter thatrn”Public School 47,” located in the thrivingrnSouth Bronx, is also known as thernJohn Randolph School. Its “namernshame” was revealed when a parent “didrnresearch” and discovered that Randolphrnwas “a slave owner from the South” whornopposed ratification of the Constitutionrn8/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn