the opportunity to .hear all relevantnevidence in the case.” But, of course,nall relevant evidence is precisely whatnthe jury will not hear. Dishonest andnincompetent though they are, the mediannow offer the only avenue thenpublic has to learn the full truth surroundingnrape charges. Even thenACLU opposes anonymity for accusers.nAt last we come to the presumptionnof innocence that criminal defendantsnsupposedly enjoy, and again liberals arenof two minds on this subject. On thenone hand are the feminists, feisty withntheir newly minted definitions and sensitivities,naccosHng anyone who withholdsnjudgment on the validity of thencharges until all the evidence is in. Onnthe other hand are the few ultra civillibertarianntypes who insist that societynmust declare a criminal defendant innocentnof all charges until a verdict ofnguilty is read. Wrote one very liberalnIndianapolis Star columnist on thenfeminist reaction to Mike Tyson’s rapenindictment, “Those who would callnsomeone a criminal because the statensays so are swinging a rope.” Actually,nthe presumption of innocence is nothingnmore (but nothing less) than annevidentiary presumption at trial. Annaccusation cannot act as a conviction,nbut it would not have been unconstitutional,nfor example, for the federalnboxing commission to hold its ownnhearing of the evidence in the MikenTyson case. If the evidence hadnseemed convincing, Tyson’s title fightncould have been canceled without upsethngnthe presumption of innocencento which he is entitled as his criminalntrial begins.nThe trends in our law and culturenwith regard to rape remain inconsistentnand contradictory, but tyo things arenclear. As the definition of rape becomesnlooser, convictions becomenharder to obtain, and as society becomesnfreer in the sexual activity it willntolerate, the state becomes more protectivenof what sexual behavior it willnallow. Caught in the middle of thesentrends and societal interests are thenaccused rapist and the accuser. Fairntrial, anyone?nBetsy Clarke is a former assistantnpublic defender for the state ofnMissouri and currently practices lawnin Indianapolis.nCOMMONWEALnReproductivenTyrannynby Anne Marie MorgannThe New TechnologynofnFertihty ControlnAbsolute control of women overnfertility has been the unparalleledndream of radical feminists for decades.nMillions of women now view this aspirationnas their sacrosanct right and have,nwith the advent of anti-fertility andnother reproductive technologies, exercisednthis new right vigorously. Thisnfeminist dream, however, is fraught withnirony. Many of the very women whonhave postponed childbearing throughndevices, hormones, chemicals, and surgerynin order to pursue career andnlifestyle, later find themselves infertile ornsterile, and it is often then that theyndiscover that they want children after allnand begin pursuing biological childrennof their own with the same fervor withnwhich they initially avoided them. Fornthese women, fertility-control technologynhas ultimately resulted in helplessnessnand a lack of control over fertilityn— the opposite effect of what was intended.nReasons abound for the modern phenomenonnof escalating rates of infertility.nA principal cause is actual postponementnof childbearing, since a woman’snfertility is age-related: it begins a gradualndecline in her 20’s, and by the age ofnnn35, it is reduced by 31 percent, decliningnmore rapidly thereafter.nAnother irony of the feminist revolutionnis that some of the very technologiesnsaid to liberate women — or sexualnpractices made possible by those technologies—nare at the root of manynsubsequent infertility problems. Thendevastation precipitated by the intrauterinendevice, the Dalkon Shield, wasnonly the tip of the iceberg. Adolescentsnhaving abortions, because of their likelihoodnof experiencing cervical injurynduring the procedure, have a greaternrisk of miscarriage in future pregnancies.nThe thousands of mid- or late-termnabortions performed on women everynyear are far more likely to cause damagento reproductive organs and future fertilitynthan are first-trimester abortions. Fullyn1 5,000 women who were voluntarilynsterilized seek to have the procedurenreversed every year. The widespreadnuse of nonbarrier methods of contraceptionn— oral contraceptives — fosterednthe unintended consequence ofnendemic sexually transmitted diseases,nat a rate of at least 12 million new casesnin the United States every year. Thenresults for women’s health and fertilitynhave been disastrous.nThe enormity of the problem ofndisease needs to be emphasized. Becausenthe emotive spotlight has beennon the HIV virus, the attentive publicnis not fully cognizant of the scope ofnthis problem and how women havenbeen harmed by this proliferaHon ofndisease. Fully one million young womenncontract Pelvic Inflammatory Diseasen(PID) every year, and because ofnthe severity of the infections in theirnreproductive systems a minimum of 10npercent of them become sterile everynyear. Multiple sexual partners are thensingle greatest factor in contractingnPID. Massive infections are also thenprincipal cause of the startiing increasenin rates of ectopic or tubal pregnancies,nwhich are often not only a permanentnobstacle to fertility but the leadingncause of maternal deaths among womenntoday.nChlamydia has become the diseasenmost frequently contracted by youngnwomen, and an astonishing one out ofnfive single women (one out of four innurban areas) has contracted it. Becausenit can remain in a woman’s body forntwo years without major symptoms,nchlamydia is easily and unknowinglynMARCH 1992/47n