SFL's official response to GAP critics

After a half-dozen Michigan Daily editorials and Letters to the Editor criticizing SFL for bringing the Genocide Awareness Project to campus, now it's our turn!

From the Michigan Daily, 10/7:

In response to the outcry against the Genocide Awareness Project, Students for Life would like to explain our reasons for bringing such a graphic display to the Diag instead of “creating dialogue” in a more peaceful manner.

Over the past few years, we’ve reached out to pro-choice advocates on campus in an attempt to engage in dialogue about the abortion debate. Last spring, we even brought in a pro-life apologist and invited myriad faculty members in women’s studies and philosophy to represent the pro-choice side. We asked every major pro-choice group on campus to come debate us — heck, to come hold a forum with us — but each group refused without even working with us to modify the event to something which both our organizations could agree.

We’ve tabled. We’ve passed out flyers. We’ve brought in speakers. No one would listen, and no one would talk about it — until Monday. Sure, the display inconvenienced you on the way to class, but it forced thousands of students to start thinking about, and even talking about an issue so important to us that we’ll tolerate the hatred of 40,000 people.

Certainly we’d rather stop the 3,300 abortions per day (a conservative number as reported by the Guttmacher Institute) and keep our friends through roundtable discussion, but when we view each abortion as the death of a unique human being, you can understand the urgency of our message. No event held in the Michigan League could have generated as much talk about the subject as the Diag display, so we’ll applaud ourselves for breaking the silence, remind the student body of the resource table we held for pregnant and post-pregnant women and invite any group or any individual out there to engage in some straight talk and real discussion with us.

Great dialogue from both sides at GAP Forum!

At 7pm tonight in the Palmer Commons, pro-lifers and pro-choicers at the University of Michigan put aside their respective differences and began a calm discussion regarding the appropriateness, motives, and presentation of the Genocide Awareness Project recently displayed on the Diag.

By 8:30 both sides were joking and laughing together.

Don't think for a moment that they came to an agreement regarding the fundamental question of when life begins. But also don't think for a moment that the post-GAP public forum was a waste of time. For in those 90 minutes, both sides began to understand each other at a level likely unprecedented in the history of the abortion debate at the University. While large divergences of opinion undoubtedly still exist, both sides came to acknowledge the legitimacy of each other's approach and concerns relative to their respective goals. Most importantly, both sides realized the importance dialogue, of coming together to discuss these differences in a mutually respectful and amicable way.

This is what a university is all about. Is it not reasonable that college students--and society at large, for that matter--should think and talk about the issues that matter most to them?

SFL kudos to everyone who participated!

BREAKING: GAP display an "act of hate crime"...

We hate women because we try to prevent them from being killed inside the womb and physically, emotionally, and spiritually scarred outside of the womb through abortion. But, remember, dismembering pre-born humans is not hate, but "choice." Follow the logic?

Apparently, some people think we shouldn't have the "choice" to exercise our freedom of speech either.

From a letter to the editor to the Michigan Daily with our emphasis and comments:

To the University of Michigan:

To be quite frank, I am disappointed in my college for the first time since visiting the University about seven years ago.

I, and every student at this great school, understand the importance of freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble — specifically on the Diag here at the University. This exercise of the First Amendment on the center of the University is what makes Michigan special [unless of couse you disagree with the message being presented].

However, while members of the Genocide Awareness Project cloaked themselves in their right of exercising free speech, their display was an act of hate crime — a hate crime against the families and friends of victims of the Holocaust, slavery, refugees from the genocides in Cambodia, Darfur and Rwanda. [And against the 50 million victims of abortion?]

Not only did members of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform — which brought the GAP to campus — show hate toward racial, ethnic and religious groups, they demonstrated hate toward women. Essentially, to compare the mass murders of people to abortion indicated that they view all women who are pro-choice as murderers. I am appalled that the University, one of the most open-minded places I could ever imagine, allowed the act of hate crimes to appear on campus for not just one, but two days. [Apparently, being "open-minded" means being close-minded to all ideas that are not one's own.] I can't even understand why one of the University's student organizations would think to invite such a thing to the campus.

Aside from this, a member of the center at one point actually insulted the demographic it targeted — a.k.a. students themselves — by refuting an individual student's argument with the statement, "You're a college student. You can't understand."

No one, pro-life or pro-choice, should ever condone this "project." Ever. Especially one of the most diverse universities in the world. [diverse, adj--"Showing a great deal of variety" Word choice?]

GAP and the 1st Amendment: ACLU undergrad group members show mild support

Yet another Michigan Daily letter to the editor:

Monday’s article in The Michigan Daily (Pro-Life group displays controversial images on Diag, 10/4/2011) showed that many students reacted to the enormous and graphic images of aborted fetuses with outrage and disgust, questioning why the University even allowed such a display by the Center for Bio-ethical Reform and Students for Life. The First Amendment empowers and encourages a critical and constructive response to the shocking protests on our campus.

The First Amendment necessarily and intentionally protects even the most abhorrent speech in order to protect the free expression of all individuals in our society. If government laws or University rules are used to silence the speech of one group, they can be used — and have been used throughout our nation’s history — to silence any speech found objectionable.

Still, as important as it is to maintain our commitment to free speech, it is imperative to realize that such blatant attacks on women’s rights are aimed primarily to instill fear and guilt in those confronted with reproductive decisions. We must stand by our commitment to free speech while continuing our dedication to the protection and advancement of reproductive freedom.

It is undeniable that this week's incendiary pro-life demonstration facilitated a vibrant community discourse; our campus is freshly abuzz with discussion of both free speech and abortion rights. In order for our University to remain a dynamic community that promotes a free exchange of ideas, the Diag and its other public spaces must remain open forums. If the Diag is to be a place for any dialogue, it must be place for all dialogue, no matter how unpopular or disturbing. Our response to the hateful speech ever-frequent on our campus must be a re-dedication to these constitutional rights that are threatened.

Michigan Daily video interviews featuring GAP!

GAP here! (And already getting media attention!)

From the front page of the Michigan Daily! All in all, a very fair article. (Hey, they even used "pro-life" instead of the usual "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion" mainstream media tags!)

Pro-life group displays controversial images on Diag

Large signs warned passersby entering the Diag yesterday that graphic images were up ahead.

The images were part of a day long photo exhibit of the Genocide Awareness Project that displayed photos of aborted fetuses next to images of Holocaust victims, the genocide in Darfur and a lynching of an African American person. The project is an effort of the California-based Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, and the campus organization Students for Life reserved the space on the Diag for the exhibit.

A truck bearing images of aborted fetuses also circled Central Campus throughout the day. In an interview on the Diag yesterday, Darius Hardwick, regional director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, said the exhibit makes a relevant connection between genocide and abortion.

“The basic comparison of the similarity between abortion and (the) Holocaust is lots of dead victims,” Hardwick said. “There (are) lots of other comparisons — like you have to dehumanize a victim before you can kill them, and that was done in the Holocaust.”

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform brings the exhibit to different places throughout the country, mainly to college campuses, according to Hardwick.

“It is the prime demographic of people having abortions,” Hardwick said.

He added that college campuses are also better suited for the organization’s exhibits because there are fewer children present. While some students expressed concern regarding the graphic nature of the exhibit’s photos, Hardwick said the shock value of the photos is justified.

“The only reason our display is so graphic is because abortion is so graphic,” Hardwick said. “If you don’t like these pictures, then maybe you shouldn’t like abortion.”

LSA junior Carmen Allen, president of Students for Life, said the organization asked the Genocide Awareness Project to come to campus because many students here aren’t concerned about abortions.

“I think that the University of Michigan is the subject of a lot of apathy on campus that we have labeled tolerance,” Allen said. “I think that abortion is an issue that has really fallen under that apathy. The only thing that can really shake up this campus is to see what’s going on through the graphic image.”

Allen said she didn’t think the pictures are unnecessarily graphic.

“This is exactly what’s happening,” she said. “I think that we have the right to our constitutional freedom of speech … It’s important for people to be aware of what’s going on.”

LSA junior Anna Paone, vice president of Students for Life, said she was initially concerned about the graphic nature of the photos that the organization brought to campus.

“At first I didn’t agree,” Paone said. “At first I thought this was too bold, and I thought it would offend too many people to be useful.”

But she said she has since decided that the images are necessary to challenge people’s opinions about abortion.

“I think that sometimes you need to go bold, and you need to have images,” Paone said.

She added that she thinks the exhibit makes an accurate comparison of abortion to genocide.

“Our fundamental argument is that the fetus is a human,” Paone said. “If the fetus is a human, it is an accurate comparison.”

Students for Life contacted the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and brought its members to campus for a similar event in 2000, according to Paone.

The campus group also had a booth on the Diag yesterday dispensing information for women who may be considering abortion and set up a “Free Speech” board on which students could write their opinions about various issues.

LSA senior Rachel Fentin, co-president of Students for Choice, said the campus organization tried to prevent the Genocide Awareness Project from coming to the University.

"We had concern for the students on campus who are going to be walking through that have experienced abortion, who have family members that have had abortions or (had) family members that were in the Holocaust,” Fentin said in an interview on the Diag.

She added that students representing Students for Choice gathered on the Diag to oppose the exhibit.

“It’s their freedom of speech, so we’re exercising our right to free speech and reminding people that there is an alternative narrative to this,” said Fentin, who added that the Genocide Awareness Project was using “scare tactics.”

LSA freshman Annie Bauer-Levey said the photos repulsed her and are too graphic for students walking through the Diag.

“I think it’s ridiculous that they’re comparing abortion to genocide,” Bauer-Levey said.

Engineering freshman Reed Lillie described the exhibit as “shocking” but said he understands the group’s use of the images.

“It gets the point across that they’re trying to make that abortion isn’t a pretty thing,” Lillie said.

SFL partial-birth response published in the Daily

At long last, our official response to the Michigan Daily's disgusting editorial on partial birth abortion was published! The long delay turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as our letter to the editor came out on the perfect day. (Why? If you passed by the Diag today between 9-5pm, you already know...)

You can read our letter in it's entirety below. As you could probably guess, it has generated quite the response in the Daily's online combox!

The Michigan Daily’s editorial that ran Monday, Sept. 26 takes the position that the death penalty has no place in civilized society (From the Daily: A fatal penalty, 9/25/2011). But the very next day, the same space on the page states, partial-birth abortion is a personal decision (From the Daily: The right to choose, (9/26/2011). We at Students for Life find it hard to take the position on capital punishment credibly with the Daily advocating against a ban on partial-birth abortion. It is unreasonable to ask the United States and the 34 states with capital punishment to abolish it for the sake of preserving the lives of those found guilty in court, while one does not oppose the taking of life from those who have committed no crime at all.

Given how many people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death have had their innocence proven by DNA, it seems fundamentally inconsistent on human rights to forcibly end someone’s life when his or her unique DNA proves he or she is a living human being who has committed no crime. How can the editorial disregard such a basic scientific fact and state that the unborn is part of a woman’s body when it does not have her DNA, much less heart beat, brain waves and sometimes blood type? The ignorance is astounding.
Students for Life as a club is also opposed to the death penalty. However, we assert that it is self-evident the guilty cannot have a greater right to life than the innocent. Additionally, it is far less inhumane to kill someone by lethal injection than cutting open their skull and vacuuming out their brain. Individual liberty should never be subject to anyone’s choice or personal preferences. Ultimately, we believe the Daily conveys the height of hypocrisy by seeking to abolish the death penalty while refusing to even condemn abortion.