Josh Kolic’s Beef with Free Speech

Wow. Josh Kolic, Lakehead University Student Union’s VP Finance, really has it in for pro-life clubs. Clarissa posted the NCLN press release on Friday, and Josh appeared in the comments calling the Lakehead pro-life group an “extremist” organization.

You know your argument is solid when all you can do is call your opponents “extremists.”

That same day, Kolic wrote an open letter to Lakehead students trying to garner support for his crusade. It’s hard to know where to begin, so we’ll take it from the start.

In a great victory for human rights on this campus, Life Support was denied club status in our first board meeting this year.

In other words, assuming what needs to be proven and glossing over the very centre of the debate — are the unborn human? Kolic clearly isn’t studying biology.

Sadly, a contingent of board members has continued to openly meet with Life Support members and is attempting to have that decision overturned. It is believed that these members are acting in the interest of an interest group and not in the interests of the student body as a whole.

It is believed… by whom?

I believe that Lakehead University is a campus that values human rights.

Oh, by Josh. Right. So, only board members who agree with Kolic are acting in the interest of the student body as a whole. Other board members, other student representatives, don’t represent students. Only Josh does. Because students value human rights, as Kolic selectively defines them — not including the right to life of unborn human beings, or a right to free speech of Lakehead students (or board members…).

Nice use of the passive voice. Almost had me there.

As your Vice President Finance, I met with members of Life Support in early October and suggested to them that if they truly wanted to represent “pro-life” values that they would perhaps be better served advocating for increased programs for expectant mothers on this campus or increased funding for child care services on campus rather than simply maintain an anti-choice stance by denigrating those who believe in a woman’s right to choose. The group turned down my proposal. Almost immediately.

As VP Finance, Kolic believes that he has the right to set the agenda of student clubs, and ignore the fact that many of the pro-life organizations that Life Support is connected with are doing those very things.

Kolic: If I can’t run your group, then you won’t be recognized.

I find it interesting that while Life Support refuses to change its aggressive and exclusive focus, not a single group that favours the pro-choice option ever advocates exclusively for women to have abortions. This statement might seem somewhat ridiculous in that I’m simply pointing out the obvious, but it is very telling in terms of the tactics that Life Support continues to employ. In fact, the neutral stance is simply one that allows the individual woman herself to choose. This stance is the one that I believe LUSU should advocate and certainly the one that I believe that you as a student body would advocate for as well.

At least he’s not shy about it. This isn’t about being “neutral” or even about respecting the LUSU constitution. It’s about pushing a pro-choice perspective onto the entire university through the student union. Board members and students who disagree? Well, they don’t count — Josh knows what the student body believes.

What an exemplary representative of the student body.

As your elected representative, I believe that you as a student body agree that a woman has a right to make decisions regarding her body. I believe that we as a student body agree with the BC Supreme Court that the existence of groups such as Life Support violate the rights of students on campus. It was once said in this country that the state has no place in the bedrooms of this nation. I also contend that the state has no place within a woman’s body. Neither does a student union club.

The state has no place in the bedroom… except when it involves tax dollars. The state has no place within a woman’s body, yet it’s apparently not okay to talk about the body inside a woman’s body that the state routinely facilitates the destruction of. The student union club should agree with Kolic’s politics if it wants to be recognized.

This isn’t the voice of a responsible representative of the student body, seeking to respect the LUSU constitution and treat all students justly. This is a renegade activist abusing his position of responsibility to force his own political views and sense of morality on the student body.

“Don’t impose your morality on others!” Oh, wait…

I would ask all of you who support a woman’s right to choose [choose what?] to come to our next board meeting and – as the Life Support group has done – give a deputation to the board as to why a woman’s right to choose [choose what?] is important to you.

It’s not about whether or not the group has a right to exist. It’s about whether or not people who don’t like the group can be loud enough to abuse the LUSU and shut Life Support out.

I implore you to help restore democracy and the spirit of human rights to the Lakehead University Student Union.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry. Lost it for a second.

Someone want to send Kolic a treatise on freedom of speech and democracy? Or a biology textbook? According to NCLN, Josh admitted at the Nov 5th meeting that they were in violation of their own constitution. He’s using his position of responsibility as a student representative and his ignorance of the pro-life position to hijack the LUSU and force his own political views onto the campus. Now, he has the gall to invoke ideals of democracy?

Seriously, Josh, I’m sure you’re a nice guy. Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

Stupak Amendment — If “Reproductive Health” Folks Are Mad, It’s Gotta Be Good

I haven’t been able to keep up with the latest developments in American Health Care reform. I know the bill passed through congress the House of Representatives, which is the furthest that American health care reform has even gotten, but it still needs to go through the Senate.

But I also know that the Stupak amendment passed. It must be a great thing for us anti-choicers, because the folks at feministing.com are pissed (and using lots of colourful language). Ann writes:

I’m sure you’ve heard by now that, last night, the House passed a health-care reform bill. I got this lovely email from Barack Obama telling me what a victory this is.
[...]
I think I made pretty damn clear (as did Obama, in several speeches during the campaign) that reproductive health care is essential health care.

So what the FUCK is this Stupak amendment doing attached to the health-reform bill? You know, that amendment that takes away women’s access to health care?

What?! Removing women’s access to health care?! That’s horrible! What kind of health care are women being denied?!

It reads:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

THIS IS FUCKED.

By health care she meant… abortion. Sounds healthy.

This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey — not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives — that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

Abortion, different from regular health care? Yeah, that sounds like a terrible mistake, because other regular health care routinely involves the intentional killing of innocent human life. Oh, wait…

Sarcasm aside, this is the absolute centre of the cultural divide: is it health care to provide someone with death?

To use the euphemism of “reproductive health” to refer to abortion is profoundly deceptive. Not surprisingly, it’s controversial to refer to killing as healthy.

I think killing is a pretty lousy way of caring.

Now, I’ve read elsewhere (glancing at headlines and skimming posts, can’t remember where) that the U.S. Catholic Bishops welcome the Stupak amendment and are quite happy with it, but still may not be satisfied with the state of the bill in general (don’t quote me on that, check it out yourself if you want to be sure!). I mention them only because, unlike many pro-life Republicans, the Bishops tend to want universal health care while still being strongly opposed to taxpayer funding of abortions. If they’re not satisfied, it’s because of abortion.

I was going to end the post here. But in reviewing it, I noticed an astounding line I glazed over at first:

Reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

Wow. Is Ann trying to say that unwanted pregnancies and abortion are inevitable for women? I’d love to hear that explained…

Press Release: Lakehead University Student Union Votes to Ban Pro-Life Club

Press Release

November 3rd 2009

Lakehead University Student Union Votes to Ban Pro-Life Club

On October 29th the Lakehead University Student Union (LUSU) voted 7:6 in favour of banning the campus club, Lakehead University Life Support (LULS). This development occurred after the club had battled with LUSU for over two years and was finally granted club status in March.

Fair treatment of LULS was short lived however as their club status was called into question after a false complaint was made against the club after a clubs day display table event. LUSU never proved that this accusation was true nor did they even attempt to verify its veracity but it played a significant role during the discussion at the meeting.

LULS was denied club status with a motion brought forward by Josh Kolic, LUSU’s VP Finance. Kolic’s justification for taking away their status was that LULS is an “exclusive” club with “extremist views on abortion”.

Maggie Ten Hoeve, LULS President, explains, “We are disappointed yet again in our student union. It is understood that on a university campus ideologies and beliefs will be expressed that may be opposite to others. Instead our student union is anxious to shut down these discussions at the first mention of a false accusation without any investigation.”

The club will be appealing this decision.

Contact Information:
Maggie Ten Hoeve, President Lakehead University Life Support, 807-620-5926 / mjtenhoe@lakeheadu.ca
Emil Booyink, Lakehead University Life Support Executive, 807-251-5710 / ebooyink@lakeheadu.ca

Planned Parenthood Director Quits After Seeing Abortion Ultrasound

Ouch.

(For Planned Parenthood, that is.)

Abortion debate in the Varsity… 21 months ago

In clearing out old draft posts, I found this one which for some reason I never published. It was originally written on February 8th… 2008. I offer it to you now, better late than never — it’s not like the pro-choice arguments have changed much.

---

For those of you that missed this week’s edition of the Varisty, Peter O’Hagan had an excellent article published defending the pro-life view. Morgan Snook’s article, on the other hand, seemed a little off the mark.

Hey, of course I’m going to be biased. But let’s examine!

Anti-abortion advocates claim that abortion is murder. They say that from the moment of conception, the fetus is a living human being. What they don’t know, or at least don’t say, that is that any fetus will not be sufficiently developed to feel real pain until after 30 weeks, well after the threshold where most abortions are carried out.

The argument here seems to be that abortion isn’t murder because the fetus won’t feel “real” pain when most abortions are carried out. I’m not sure what “real” pain is, as opposed to another type of pain, but let’s take this claim at face value. Is painless killing still killing? Would abortion be okay after the alleged 30 week threshold (or after birth for that matter) if it were through some sort of lethal injection? Also, last I checked pro-lifers were quite eager to point out the issue of the fetal pain. Thanks for bringing it up Morgan! Will you stand with us then and, at least, denounce any abortions that take place after the fetus can feel pain? [Edit: And as we learned that fall, it's more like 20 weeks, and the pain experience might be worse than adult pain.]

According to the United Nations, reproductive rights of individuals consist of being able to “decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing and timing of [one’s] children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.” Furthermore, everyone should have the right to make decisions regarding reproduction “free of discrimination, coercion and violence.”

Is that a euphemism for abortion? In that case, it would also be wise to quote passages pertaining to the human rights regarding security of the person, if the unborn is human. Otherwise, you’re assuming what needs to be proven for your argument. In other words, you’ve dodged the fundamental point of the pro-life argument: the unborn is a human being and therefore also deserves human rights. But, yes, outside of killing another human being, spot on. There’s nothing wrong with sexual or reproductive health or “making decisions regarding reproduction”, unless they’re euphemisms for abortion. In which case, your statements seem crafted to avoid the question of the humanity of the unborn entirely.

The motive of pro-life groups is to make women feel guilty for having sex, forcing them to give birth to unwanted children. The Roman Catholic Church views abortion as a sin. Pope John Paul II compared abortion to a mass genocide similar to the Holocaust.

Instead of enforced shame, we should show tolerance and empathy for a difficult situation. Providing support and unbiased information to aid women in their decision-making process would obtain better results than shaming them.

Woah, woah. First of all, just because the Catholic Church is pro-life doesn’t mean that one needs to be Catholic to be pro-life. And if you’re suggesting the Church’s motive is to make women feel guilty for having sex, you need to better inform your views. [Edit: start here or here or here] More importantly, that’s just plain false. We’re not trying to make people feel guilty for having sex. We’re trying to defend the rights of human beings who are losing their lives because our society doesn’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of having sex. These aren’t cultural, ethical or moral consequences; they are biological consequences! The link between sex and pregancy isn’t some invention of the Church or the pro-life movement. It’s a scientific fact.

Also, I suggest you check out some feminist view points within the pro-life movement. To suggest pro-lifers are intent on guilt-tripping woman is dishonest.

The point is, the pro-life movement’s motive is not to shame people, but rather to protect the rights of the unborn who are marginalized when convenience trumps human rights. Your comments fall into the category of “assuming what needs to be proven” again. If the unborn is human – we claim it is – unplanned pregnancies involve a third human life.

Each year 70,000 women die because of illegal abortions and slightly fewer suffer serious injuries. A grown woman should not have to risk her life to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Of course, there are also teenage pregnancies. Every year approximately 15 million girls under the age of 18 give birth. These girls are five times more likely to die in childbirth than a woman between the ages of 18 and 25. Not only is a pregnant teen’s life at risk, but also her future. Many schools with pregnant students offer them little choice. Without an abortion, they will be forced to drop out of school.

Illegal abortions and the horrors of unplanned pregnancies are terrible. The pro-life view, however, states that while elective abortion may be psychologically and even practically complex, it is not morally complex. The trend in the article to assume what needs to be proven continues. “Unless you begin with the assumption that the unborn are not human, you are making the highly questionable claim that because some people die attempting to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so. Should we legalize bank robbery so it is safer for felons?” (source) If the unborn is human, making abortion safe and legal is hardly an adequate answer to the problem of illegal abortions.

Teenage pregnancies are obviously difficult as well. But, the question needs to be asked: would you kill to get out of that situation? If the unborn is human, that’s what the abortion option is. The answer, then, would be to address schools that offer pregnant teenagers little choice, to make a change there, rather than to encourage a pregnant teenager to end the life of an innocent human being, not matter how difficult her situation may be.

And what about women who have become pregnant after being raped? Can they be expected to carry a child for nine months, a reminder of the sexual assault they were forced to endure? According to Status of Women Canada, over half of Canadian women have been the victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. With such a high degree of sexual assault in our own society, can we realistically expect rape victims to deal with the results of an attack for the rest of their lives?

Rape is profoundly evil. But, we claim, so is abortion. This falls into the category of assuming what needs to be proven and appealing to the hard cases. Morgan, if you use rape to justify abortion, then will you stand with us and denounce elective abortion in all other cases? Otherwise, how do cases of rape pertain to the other 99% of abortions?

Rape victims deserve our care. But how does the case of rape justify the vast majority of abortions?

Women carrying a disabled child should also be considered. Children born with a mental or physical disability require a significantly greater amount of care and place financial strain on their parents. An illequipped mother giving birth to a child with special needs can only choose adoption or abortion. This child is much more likely, if adopted, to receive inferior care. Therefore, her choice is likely to be an abortion.

I froze when I read this. Morgan, you questioned analogies between abortion and genocide, yet a few paragraphs later you yourself provide an example of how we systematically discriminate against segments of the human population through abortion. First of all, as expected, this statement assumes what needs to be proven. But more importantly, even if the humanity of the unborn were considered to be in question, systematic discrimination against the disabled is not tolerated in other places in our society. Why would we allow it in the case of abortion, when it’s a matter of life and death?

Why do many women choose abortion over adoption? One-third of all abortions are performed on unmarried women who not only wish to avoid becoming attached to a child, but also to escape judgment as they carry the child they will be giving up. Most of all, many women do not choose adoption because of the uncertainty of their child’s future. How will they know their child is being cared for?

Is the unborn human? Again, assuming what needs to be proven. Also, how is abortion a better option than adoption in terms of knowing the child is being cared for? Is it more comfort to a mother to know that her child is mutilated in a trash can somewhere? There’s a multi-year wait list for parents to adopt in Canada (which means there are way more would-be parents than children). Obviously, caring for these children is a serious matter. Which is why we shouldn’t kill them, since that would be worse than any attempt at care.

Then there is the issue of contraception. In some places, contraception is not available to the majority of the population, or is too expensive for most to afford. In Canada, youth in rural areas cannot acquire contraceptives or information due to a shortage of sexual health centres. Sexual education in the school curriculum has become a joke, as many teachers are not qualified while some schools lack sex-ed programs entirely.

Rather than opposing abortion, we should be supporting contraception and sexual education. We should improve the lives of the children who are brought into the world, often abandoned or abused.

Students for Life has no position on contraception. Ultimately, no form of contraception is perfect though. Unplanned pregnancies still happen. If we’re only throwing contraception at the problem, what happens in the cases where contraception fails?

Put simply by Michael Jay Tucker, editorial advisor for OBGYN.net, “If the anti-abortion movement took a tenth of the energy they put into noisy theatrics and devoted it to improving the lives of children who have been born into lives of poverty, violence, and neglect, they could make a world shine.”

Improving the lives of children who have been born into difficult circumstances is extremely important, and most pro-lifers I know are involved in other charity organizations. But, as a pro-life organization and movement, we also focus on the thousands of children who lose their lives daily, before they are even given a chance for their circumstances to be improved.

School must be underway again…

… because pro-life clubs are getting censored.

From NCLN:

October 5th, 2009

Abortion Event Censured by Students’ Society of McGill University
Student Union Threatens Club with Defunding for Hosting Event

A controversial pro-life presentation will continue tomorrow at McGill University, despite the student union’s attempt to censor it.

The Students Society of McGill University (SSMU) voted 25-2-2 to censure an event entitled “Echoes of the Holocaust” at their meeting last Thursday, October 1st. The event, scheduled for tomorrow, October 6th, has been organized by Choose Life, a pro-life club on campus, and will carry on as planned.

The presentation, hosted by a university-sanctioned club, Choose Life, is to be given by Jose Ruba of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. His presentation, titled, “Echoes of the Holocaust” outlines how societies have justified and perpetuated great atrocities, including the Holocaust and abortion.

Natalie Fohl, president of Choose Life says, “The Holocaust was a major affront to the dignity of the human person, and resulted in a horrific loss of life. Choose Life, through this event, fully recognizes that reality. Moreover, we recognize that abortion is also an affront to the dignity of the human person, and that the denial of personhood to the unborn is unjust and arbitrary.”

At the meeting, SSMU Councillors accused Ruba of comparing women who have had abortions to Nazis and therefore violating their Constitution and Equity Policy. The speaker has clearly stated, however, that he does not make this comparison.

Though the students’ society cannot directly stop the event, they have promised to punish the club for hosting the presentation. The motion passed was amended to include a resolution that by continuing with the event despite the censure, Choose Life will be automatically ineligible for funding from the SSMU for the remainder of its existence.

Ruba has given this talk at a variety of campuses including McMaster University, University of New Brunswick Saint John, St. Francis Xavier University and University of Prince Edward Island. When students tried to shut down the same lecture at St. Mary’s University in February 2009, it only resulted in the university being subject to embarrassment in the media for not upholding freedom of speech.

A video of Ruba’s presentation and the subsequent protest can be found on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eulKIaVM9DE.

Event Details: Tuesday, October 6th, 6:00PM, McGill University, Leacock 232.

For more information, please contact:
Natalie Fohl, Choose Life President, 716-796-5946, chooselife at ssmu.mcgill.ca

James Pouillon, Pro-Life Activist, Gunned Down Outside Michigan High School

Via @PoliJam: an anti-abortion activist was shot and killed today outside of a Michigan high school.

Fr. Frank Pavone has released a statement. The motive of James Pouillon’s murder is not yet known. Life News digs further into James’ pro-life activist, saying the elderly, disabled gentleman was known as the “peaceful sign guy,” and was shot while holding a sign protesting abortion.

Update: Apparently there was a second victim as well: 2nd shooting victim in Owosso Fri. AM, Fuoss Gravel Co. owner Mike Fuoss, 61, knew alleged shooter, say police. According to the Chicago Tribune, it seems like the second victim was killed by the same person, but not in the same location (i.e. don’t think he was an activist).

South Dakota strikes down part of abortion informed consent law, but leaves in the dead babies part

Feministing highlighted a federal court decision which struck down parts of the South Dakota abortion informed consent law:

In another win for reproductive justice this week, a federal judge called a South Dakota anti-choice law – which mandates that doctors tell women seeking abortions that the procedure increases the risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts – “untruthful and misleading.”

Guess what they didn’t strike down?

But the judge upheld a portion of the informed consent law, which says abortions “terminate the life of a whole separate unique living human being.”

Oh, you mean, the unborn are human and abortion causes dead babies?

That’s what we thought.

UTSFL Google Calendar

We’ve updated our Google Calendar with a tentative schedule of events for the fall term. Hope to see you around campus!

Changing hearts and minds about abortion

ProWomanProLife alerts us to an interesting article in the post about efforts from new pro-life groups to change people’s hearts and minds about abortion, rather than seeking legislative change.

Both here and in the United States, new groups are popping up, their ranks made up mainly of young professional women, who say that after years of lobbying from traditional anti-abortion forces, nothing much has changed in terms of the law nor the number of abortions performed. They want to radically shift the conversation from the polarized rut it has been stuck in for years to something more productive.
…
“Frankly, I’ve never seen much good come from the life issue on the political sphere in my lifetime,” said Andrea Mrozek, who runs Ottawa-based ProWomanProLife. “My approach was to go after cultural change and pull it out of the legislative arena and not even talk about it or discuss it. Politicians will not take this on any time soon.”

Unfortunately, though, the article tries to establish this as some sort of “third way” and pit groups that adhere to more traditional approaches against groups like ProWomanProLife by twisting words:

Established anti-abortion groups don’t believe this middle way is the route to change. They believe in changing the law before public opinion is on side, as in civil rights campaigns.

“Laws don’t change the heart but they restrict the heartless. I think that’s what has to happen,” said Mary Ellen Douglas of Campaign Life Coalition, in Kingston.

“The people in the middle are not really seeing the victim,” she added. “If they saw the unborn child as the victim then they couldn’t say … ‘I’ll go this far, but not further.’ “

Mary Ellen is clearly talking about a different “middle” than the author. She is referring to people who are “personally pro-choice,” she’s criticizing the “well, I wouldn’t choose abortion, but I couldn’t force someone else to have a baby…” argument. She is not criticizing Signal Hill or ProWomanProLife as the “people in the middle.”

It’s true that the approaches are different in terms of whether or not there’s a legislative effort, but I think the tension between these various pro-life groups is exagerrated here. These are different, but potentially complimentary strategies. As Andrea Mrozek says, “I’m hopeful with all these groups working hard, even including those who want to change the law, that we’ll see some change.”

Anyways, the first half of the article is great, but don’t let the author fool you into believing the new pro-life groups are somehow working against the old ones. I’m less familiar with some of the other groups, but that blatant word-twist makes me suspicious of some exaggeration and bending the truth for the sake of drama.