As NRL News Today reported last week, California is moving closer to requiring student health centers at all public universities to provide abortifacients—aka “medication” abortions/RU-486.
Last Friday the California State Assembly Health Committee voted 10-4 in favor of SB 320. The state Senate had already passed the measure in January.
As you might expect (and be encouraged by), it is a pro-life student who has provided one of the more complete and thoughtful op-ed pieces under the headline,” Why pro-life and pro-choice advocates should oppose bill for abortion medicines.”
Writing for the Fresno Bee, Bernadette Tasy makes her argument in a series of four bullet points. But prior to this, Tasy, a Fresno State graduate student and president of the Students for Life group, makes clear what proponents insist on blurring: chemical abortions are neither painless nor safe.
A report that came out years ago (and not updated, to the best of my knowledge) documented that the deaths of 14 women had been associated with the use of the two-drug RU-486 abortion technique along with 2,207 instances of “adverse events.” And that was as of 2011!
Here is Tasy’s case against an abortion technique that in many cases will take the life of a baby who “has a head, hands, feet, fingers, toes, a heartbeat and brain activity. “
1.”While proponents of SB 320 insist that it is to facilitate student ‘access’ to abortion, there is no demonstrable lack of access.” This is one of those talking points that pro-abortionist trot out no matter how nearby a student may be to a chemical abortion “provider.” In Fresno State’s case, it is 1.9 miles.
2. “The bill sends the wrong message to pregnant students on our campuses. Parenthood and success are not incompatible. Thousands of student-parents within the CSU [California State University] and UC [University of California] systems graduate every year, and we should advocate for programs to support and encourage pregnant and parenting students.” Pro-abortionists start with a defeatist attitude and rule life-affirming options out of order.
3. “The bill’s funding mechanism is deliberately vague.” Supposedly the services will be “privately funded” the first few years, which leaves the door open for public financing after 2011. “The vast majority of Americans and millions of Californians continue to oppose taxpayer-funded abortion,” Tasy writes. “Taxpayers will certainly be on the hook for costs associated with malpractice.” And
4. “A university campus is no place to be distributing abortion drugs. Campuses are places of learning and enhancement, and abortion furthers neither of those causes. ”I could add more—and note more of her elaboration—but this says it all.
Tasy’s conclusion reminds us of how a default resort to abortion is both a resignation in the face of a challenge and incompatible with genuine feminism whose 19th century foremothers were pro-life.
As a CSU student, I hope that my fellow students, alumni, donors and taxpayers will make their voices heard to university administrators and lawmakers, and urge for this bill’s defeat. A bill that treats motherhood as incompatible with educational and career fulfillment is an insult to authentic feminism and deserves our fervent rebuke.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.