By Jordan Jardine
It may surprise some Review readers to hear this from me, but there is one political issue on which I have a moderately conservative stance: abortion. I am an anarchist, so I tend to err on the side of less state intervention in the lives of the people, but I also believe in the sanctity of all life and that the state, while it exists, should protect innocent lives by any means necessary. Also, people with views like mine on abortion should not be expected to pay for it with our tax dollars because it conflicts with our view that human beings are infinitely precious and that unborn children should not have to die because their parents were irresponsible and did not take the necessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy. Abortion, ideally, should only be permitted in cases of rape and when the mother’s life is in danger from the pregnancy. But I digress. It has come to my attention that certain campus liberals such as those in the Women’s Student Union have been thoroughly triggered by pro-life advertisements on some of the OCCT buses. As Pipe Dream has previously reported, the advertisement in question simply features a young woman calling the pregnancy planning and assistance organization, Birthright (and also lists the phone number for the Binghamton chapter). To most sane people, this is a fairly milquetoast and innocuous ad. However, the Women’s Student Union seems to object to the ad because Birthright does not offer pregnant women referrals for abortion. Pipe Dream reported that the organization is anti-abortion, but upon further investigation of Birthright’s website, I cannot confirm or deny this notion because the website makes no obvious mention of abortion.
Regardless, some of these ads and flyers have been torn down. We reached out to the Women’s Student Union to give them a chance to offer their perspective on this matter and they emphatically declined to comment. No matter what your opinion on abortion is, the actions by these pro-choice activists are egregious. This is a blatant violation of the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. If you tear down ads you disagree with, it only demonstrates that you have no good or coherent arguments to counter said ads. If pro-choice organizations want to advertise on OCCT buses, there is little doubt that the OCCT would not object to displaying it. If the WSU wants to see pro-choice ads on these buses, they should approach the heads of the OCCT and petition to have their views represented through advertisements. No one should have a problem with that. However, vandalizing buses is not a rational or even moral solution to this issue. If you are inclined to be pro-choice, that is your prerogative, but attacking the speech of others who may have a pro-life stance is indeed a serious problem. Why waste time caring about what someone else thinks about abortion? You do not have to like their opinion, but you can also choose to mind your own business and move on with your life. There should be more pro-life advertisements, not fewer, so women can be reminded to take sufficient measures in order to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Abortions should only be performed in the event of serious medical catastrophes like the ones mentioned at the beginning of this article.
All human life is sacred and beautiful and should be treated as such. Who could possibly be so heartless as to voluntarily inflict excruciating pain on an innocent and vulnerable fetus? This is nothing short of pure insanity. Protection of innocent lives should not be a partisan issue. Yet, this is the one area of politics where I personally feel the Republicans are largely correct. To be fair, there have been numerous strawmen of the Democrats’ position on abortion. The Democrats are not pro-infanticide. However, they set up an incredibly perverse incentive structure when they fund organizations like Planned Parenthood which offer people a means of shirking responsibility for reckless behavior. Of course, the Hyde Amendment of 1976 prohibits federal funding of organizations that perform abortions. However, even according to the site IStandWithPP, Medicaid funds effectively DO fund some of Planned Parenthood’s abortion services. While the vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s services are not geared toward abortion, NONE of its services should concern abortion. The organization is called Planned Parenthood, not Avoidance of Unplanned Parenthood.
Abortion is among the few issues on which I give President Trump a great degree of credit. For instance, the New York Times reported on February 22 that the Trump administration will block funding for organizations which perform abortions and reallocate that money to faith and pro-life groups. This is a great move on President Trump’s part. Too many people have gotten away with avoiding sexual responsibility for too long and it is encouraging that an administration is finally taking steps to ensure that subsidizing abortions will truly no longer be accepted at a federal level. Once again, do not expect me or my fellow pro-lifers to pay for you to weasel your way out of the consequences of poor decision-making.