way of a munitions train. Unable tonget up from his cross-legged sittingnposition in the middle of the tracks fastnenough, Mr. Wilson lost both his legs.n”With all the evidence we have,” saidnhis wife, “there was some attempt tonrun the train at the protestors. It isninexcusable to let this go by.”nIt is now an unalienable right tonconduct a break-and-enter sit-down onna private track, so long as the motive isnopposition to an elected President’snpolicies. Mr, Wilson (46), it is true, isnfree to proclaim his kinship with thenchildren maimed in the Nicaraguanncivil war, and his sponsors, the NurembergnActions, are free to continuentheir protests at the weapons depot,nproviding they do not claim immunitynfrom the laws of physics. (Laws of thenland are a different story.)nThose who break the law for “conscience’snsake” are always surprised bynthe consequences of their actions.nMoral outrage beckons them beyondnthe law, which they don’t mind invokingnin cases like Watergate or Irangate.nBut whether it is the Sanctuary Movement,ntrespassing upon military propertyn(a free-fire zone in most of thisnworld), denying the right of speech ton”fascists” and heterosexuals on collegencampuses, they exhibit little regard forn”unjust” laws and customs, even thenlaws of nature. If Sir Isaac Newtonnwere around today, his response to thenfamous falling apple that struck himnon the head would be something like,n”Hunh?”nRepresentative Pat Schroeder hasndropped out of the race for the presidency,nembarrassing many galvanizednfeminists with the copious tears shenshed as she aborted her candidacy.nWhy, after all, couldn’t she act morenlike a man? But long after her tears arenforgotten, Schroeder’s political influencenwill be felt, especially in hernstrong advocacy for federally fundednday care. By advocating greater publicnsupport for day care, Schroeder hasnhelped to bring the issue to the floor ofnCongress and the cover of Time magazine.nAlmost one million American preschoolersnare already in day-care centers,nwith another four million receivingnsome other type of nonmaternalncare. The chief force behind the newnpopularity of day care is the risingnemployment of women. Fully 35 percentnof women with children undernfive now work full-time, with anothern20 percent working part-time. By comparison,nin I960 only one-fifth of mar­nried mothers with children under sixnwere in the work force, even part-time.nYet in the rapid proliferation of daycarencenters in recent decades, theneffects upon young children have receivednonly scant and belated attention.nIn their zeal for female employment,nsome feminists brush thenquestion aside. Many day-care professionalsnfear that investigation into thenrisks of nonmaternal child care willnimperil their income. Parents of childrennin day care frequently take comfortnin reassuring early studies, unawarenthat specialists now discount thenresearch techniques then used.nMany questions about day care remainnunanswered today, but leadingnresearchers are beginning to reachnsome disturbing conclusions. Someneven wonder if day care—so widelynaccepted without precautionarynresearch—will not prove to be then”Thalidomide of the I980’s.”nPerhaps most shocking is the discoverynthat, like thalidomide, day carenmay be linked to serious birth defects.nRecent research has shown that childrennin day care are twice as likely asnhome-reared children to contract anvirus (cytomegalovirus) which, whennpassed on to pregnant mothers, canncause birth defects affecting hearing,nbrain development, muscle function,nand vision.nOther diseases, less threatening tonthe unborn but more dangerous toninfants and toddlers, also flourish atnday-care centers. Medical authoritiesnhave implicated day-care centers innthe spread of intestinal diseases such asndiarrhea, dysentery, giardiasis, and epidemicnjaundice. Pediatricians alsonblame day-care centers for alarmingnoutbreaks of bacterial meningitis andnhepatitis A. One prominent healthnofficial in South Carolina expressesnfears that day-care centers are exposingnchildren to risks “reminiscent of thennnpre-sanitation days of the 17thcentury.n”nBesides the health problems, childnpsychologists now believe that day carencan cause serious emotional and socialnproblems. A number of carefully designednnew studies reveal that day carenweakens the mother-child bond evennamong “low-risk” infants from intactnmiddle-class families, even at qualitynuniversity-administered programs. Innthe opinion of Peter Barglow of thenPrizker School of Medicine in Chicago,nthe new findings provide strongnevidence that the mother is “by far thenbest caregiver for the child in the firstnyear.”nCompounding the problem is thentendency (newly documented) fornworking mothers to monopolize thenchild’s evenings and weekends, thusnweakening the child’s relationshipnwith the father as well. Psychologistsnpredict that children whose bonds tonparents have been strained will becomenmore aggressive, less cooperative,nand more emotionally distant innlater life. Some observers worry thatnday-care fostered attitudes will eventuallyntranslate into marital discord andnhigher divorce rates.nUnfortunately, because many workingnmothers work out of financial necessity,nthe latest research will onlynintensify their feelings of guilt. Accordingnto a recent survey conductednby Cornell University, two-thirds ofnfull-time working mothers with childrennunder 12 already say that theynwould prefer to work fewer hours sonthat they could spend more time withnthe family.nClearly, America needs new policyninitiatives to alleviate some of the financialnpressures that now force mothersnto leave their children in the care ofnothers. First, the tax credit for childncare, now given only to working mothers,ncould be made available to workingnand nonworking mothers alike.nSecond, the personal tax exemptionncould be enlarged to $3,500 or evenn$4,000 for dependent children, allowingnone-earner families to keep morenof their earnings. Both proposalsnwould mean a substantial loss in federalnrevenues. But failure to act will onlynexpose ever-more children to the hazardsnof day care. And that—unlike thenend of Schroeder’s campaign—wouldnbe a real reason for tears. (BC)nDECEMBER 19871 5n