On Wednesday, the Dwight Hall Cabinet will meet to vote on, among other things, whether to grant member status to Choose Life At Yale, which bills itself as Yale’s undergraduate pro-life club.

CLAY is petitioning to join the Social Justice Network, one of four constituent networks in Dwight Hall, an independent nonprofit that is home to more than 90 service- and social justice-oriented student organizations. As the Chair of the Yale chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a Dwight Hall organization and member of the Social Justice Network, I will be voting not to admit CLAY into Dwight Hall.

This vote is not a question of free speech; Yale students have an incredibly diverse array of backgrounds and opinions, and the range of student organizations on campus rightfully reflects this. Groups like CLAY play an important role in promoting a constructive dialogue on campus about some of the most divisive political issues of our time. Members of CLAY already have every right to express their opinions loudly on campus, and have a number of channels through which they can attain funding. They do not, however, have a claim to membership in Dwight Hall.

To allow CLAY into the Social Justice Network would signal that we consider its work social justice, and would compel Dwight Hall to divert funds away from groups that do important work pursuing actual social justice and helping communities in New Haven and around the world. Social justice means fighting injustice and discrimination, and working to provide everyone with the chance to live a full and enriching life. It is about the equal provision of political, economic and social rights, and it means opening doors and breaking down barriers so that opportunity exists for all people, not just a lucky few. A necessary component of any coherent definition of social justice is bodily autonomy and the ability of all people to make decisions about their futures safely and free of stigma — this means the protection of reproductive rights.

The pro-life, anti-choice agenda stands in the way of gender equity, and thus in the way of social justice. Through legislation, deception and stigma, it seeks to limit reproductive freedom and the ability of women to control their own futures. I believe that these goals are antithetical to the concept of social justice and if fulfilled, would undermine the push for a free, just and equal society.

To see the effects of today’s pro-life ideology, one need only look to the multitude of state governments that are using all means possible to shut down clinics and place burdensome and intrusive regulations on abortion. Around the nation, protesters outside abortion clinics stigmatize a decision that should be left up to a women, her doctor, family members and loved ones. So-called “crisis pregnancy centers” mislead and deceive women, under the guise of impartiality, about the consequences of abortion. In my mind, those advocating to legally and socially limit reproductive choice are working against the goals of social justice.

I do not seek to impose my own definition of social justice onto anyone else. Members of the Yale ACLU gave significant thought to our decision not to support CLAY’s entry into Dwight Hall — that discussion was healthy and productive. I urge leaders and members of other Dwight Hall groups to consider what social justice means to them and make an informed, conscientious decision on Wednesday. If you, like we did, come to see the importance of the movement for gender equity and reproductive freedom in any larger pursuit of social justice, then vote no on CLAY.

Andre Manuel is a sophomore in Pierson College. Contact him at andre.manuel@yale.edu .

  • Joseph Hamilton

    Your own quotes undermine your argument.

    “Social justice means fighting injustice and discrimination, and working to provide everyone with the chance to live a full and enriching life.” – Defending the rights of the unborn to live a full and enriching life is exactly what you appear to be fighting.

    “I do not seek to impose my own definition of social justice onto anyone else.” – You appear to be doing exactly that.

  • bobby

    “Social justice means fighting injustice and discrimination, and working to provide everyone with the chance to live a full and enriching life.”

    Except of course for unborn children.

    “It is about the equal provision of political, economic and social rights, and it means opening doors and breaking down barriers so that opportunity exists for all people, not just a lucky few.”

    Except of course for unborn children.

    “A necessary component of any coherent definition of social justice is bodily autonomy and the ability of all people to make decisions about their futures safely and free of stigma — this means the protection of reproductive rights.”

    People exercise their right to reproduce when they CHOOSE to have sex.

    Look, I realize that according to the Supreme Court there is a recognized right to have an abortion. But it should be something that’s difficult to obtain. If you’ve taken a look at some of the research regarding both the emotional and physical effects from having an abortion, you would know it shouldn’t be taken lightly. People need to realize that when they choose to abort a child, they are denying a potential life to that human being. Only if you are naive enough to think that a baby inside a mother’s womb doesn’t constitute a seperate life can you convince yourself that abortion is not morally wrong.
    I don’t know CLAY’s inner workings or ultimate agenda, but if they exist to try and help women choose life over abortion. How can that be wrong? If you want to truly show your tolerance for the other side, you would vote to allow them in.
    I won’t hold my breath.

    • drracket

      I think it is impossible for the pregnant parents at the heart of the issue to ever ‘take abortion lightly’ (I may be wrong, but I hope not.) My understanding of opposition against ‘pro-life’ groups is that the ‘pro-choice’ camp dislikes how they pressure parents into staying with pregnancies that would be ruinous for both the parents AND the eventual child, or attempt to effectively deny parents that Supreme Court-recognized right to abortion. I understand their arguments as being more about protecting the right of parents to make the difficult decision to abort should they, after due consideration, reach the conclusion that carrying the pregnancy to term would be worse.

      • bobby

        Convenience should never be a reason to have an abortion. Sadly, however, I’m guessing it is the #1 reason women choose to have one. But even if a woman thinks that life might be tougher than it otherwise would for both her and/or her child. Is that really a good reason to have an abortion? You use the word ruinous, but what could be more ruinous than taking life away from that child?

        I realize that there are a lot of gray areas (rape, incest, health of the mother, etc.) but setting those aside (about 1% of all abortions) people should deal with the consequences of their actions, not just get rid of them by aborting unborn children. If it takes a little bit of extra pressure to convince them, so be it. We shouldn’t be afraid to express what we believe to be morally right simply because it might offend someone or make their life more difficult. Ultimately, a woman still has that right to have an abortion. Trying to convince her to do otherwise should never be wrong. (I do of course realize there are extremists on both sides of this argument and I am not endorsing the extreme tactics of some pro-lifers)

        • bananas

          Some abortion statistics for you to become better acquainted with: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

          You would be wrong in guessing that “convenience” is the primary reason women choose to abort a fetus. “The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their
          understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.” –from the report. And no, a baby interfering with work or school is not a matter of “convenience.” That’s an oversimplification of the myriad concerns these women must consider when they make an incredibly difficult and deeply personal decision.

          More stats: “Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions.” 61% already have children. 69% of those who obtain abortions fall within 200% of the poverty line. These women have made a rational, conscious choice that reflects their socioeconomic positions. They truly do not believe that they can properly provide for a child — nor can the child bring them any good. It can only burden them. I am not comfortable pressuring, burdening, and perhaps ruining the life of an already existing individual all for the sake of a potential life. I recognize the value of a fetus, but I do not believe it trumps that of the woman carrying it — and the law reflects that.

          I fully understand and support a pro-life group’s prerogative in trying to educate women. But I do believe that the women who have worked up the courage and strength to ask and go for an abortion don’t need further interference from other groups. And I don’t believe that efforts to pressure an already vulnerable woman is promoting social justice.

          • Rock NE

            What you posted indicates that convenience is the number one reason for abortion:
            “half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner”

          • drracket

            I think that also indicates concern (conscious or not) about not wanting their children growing up in a less-than-ideal family environment.

          • John Doman

            Any statistics taken from guttmacher.org have to be take with the rather large grain of salt that the Guttmacher Institute originated as the research arm of Planned Parenthood.

      • $92688566

        You would be wrong. Some simply see it as a method of birth control.

  • guest

    It could be argued that CLAY is indeed a social justice organization, by the definition you provide. If “social justice means fighting injustice and discrimination, and working to provide everyone with the chance to live a full and enriching life,” it would seem that CLAY is the perfect social justice organization — unborn fetuses deserve the chance for a “full and enriching life” just as much as their mothers do.

  • Rock NE

    Manuel’s is a ridiculous up-is-down, right-is-wrong, sophomoric, argument.

    • drracket

      Please do elaborate. (I’m not baiting you, I really want to know.)

      • Rock NE

        Gender equity does not trump the ability to live as a social justice issue.

    • yalestalinist

      Well, I’ll give you sophomoric.

      But really, these comments are so stupid. If you think that “unborn fetuses deserve the chance for a ‘full and enriching life’ just as much as their mothers do,” then obviously you’re inclined to disagree. But that isn’t what’s up for debate!

  • NSA Snooper

    Saving young lives is social justice, to vote no should automatically lead to the dissoluition of CLAY and expulsion of their close minded bigots.

  • excelsior

    “Social justice means fighting injustice and discrimination, and working
    to provide everyone with the chance to live a full and enriching life.”

    Thank you, Mr. Manuel, for convincing me that the pro-life movement unequivocally falls under the umbrella of social justice.

  • eli1

    The “tolerance” of leftists at this school never ceases to amaze me.

    • aaleli

      It’s not just limited to this school. Total hypocrites.

  • Thomas

    To quote Melissa McEwan, “[to frame pro-life as an unequivocal good] elides the realities of pregnancy. As I’ve said before (and will almost certainly have occasion to say many times again … if anyone not seeking cover under the auspices of a “difference of opinion on abortion” suggested that I should be forced to submit my body against my will to nine months of potential discomfort and pain, followed by an act that might include the skin and muscle between my vagina and anus being torn open, I don’t think we’d mince words about whether they were using violent rhetoric.”

    The “pro-life” position is an inherently anti-woman, violent position that denies, not advances social justice in the world. Vote no on CLAY.

    • ChrisM

      Exactly how many female children need to be murdered for a position to no longer be considered “pro-woman” in your opinion?

      Let’s take a single year as an example: in 2009 there were 784,507 reported abortions per CDC statistics. Rounding the typical 1.07 male to female birth ratio to a simple 51% male/49% female projection and that’s 384,408 females.

      Being extremely generous, let’s also say that a quarter of those would have been subject to the upper end of theorized miscarriage rates anyway, which is 25%, leaving us with 288,306 future women.

      Also, since callousness isn’t much of a consideration from your perspective (as long as it doesn’t include the possible tearing of the perineum!), we can apply the gross CDC statistics of 3% births resulting in birth defects…and since you clearly hate women already these “defective” women don’t count so we can remove them from the equation as well, leaving us with a total of 279,656 (rounded down, for your benefit) future women murdered. In one year.

      Yes, such a bold champion of women.

    • smith15

      If pregnancy didn’t involve another human being, Ms. McEwan would be absolutely correct. If it were merely a health condition that caused a woman’s belly to swell for 9 months, that caused her to be nauseous and gain weight and labor for several hours, then pro-lifers would be placing an egregiously undue burden on her by asking her to continue on with it against her will. The truth is, though, that pregnancy does involve another person. A living, growing, biologically unique human being. And the truth is, a human being’s life always takes priority over another person’s comfort.
      To exclude CLAY from Dwight Hall would be to tell them that protecting and preserving human life is not an issue of social justice.

    • bobby

      This “anti-woman” argument is a complete cop-out. Nobody’s forcing anyone to engage in sexual activity.

      It’s really quite simple. A woman and a man have the CHOICE whether or not to have sex. One of the possible consequences of that choice is pregnancy. If you consider the unborn child a life in any way, then denying that child life by aborting it is morally wrong. If you don’t believe that the unborn child is a life then there is nothing anyone can do to convince you that aborting that child is wrong. Lastly, if Melissa McEwan (whomever she is) uttered those words then I would describe her as the epitome of selfishness. The problem with people like her (based on that statement) is that they want the freedom to do as they please but not deal with any of the results of their actions. It’s moral relativism at its finest.

      • YellowPines

        I would argue that it’s also morally wrong to deny contraception or reproductive health services to women who can’t afford them and then refuse to support those women once they have children with paid maternity leave, affordable childcare, or adequate social services, like the SNAP program (which just suffered major cuts), to support their kids.

        Unless, of course, you’re arguing that people, including married couples (yes, people who are already married with children do seek and have abortions), should be completely celibate unless they’re actively planning on having children. And that’s never going to happen.

        In a society where people will inevitably be having sex regardless of whether they can support children, we must either provide people with affordable and accessible means to prevent/end unwanted pregnancy or we must aid those who are raising kids they didn’t plan for. We can’t have it both ways.

        • John Doman

          How exactly is a pregnancy ended? Let’s pretend I don’t know. Explain it to me.

      • NotWow

        “Nobody’s forcing anyone to engage in sexual activity.”

        But… this is blatantly false? 1 in 4 college women will be sexually assaulted. A pretty huge percentage of women are forced to engage in sexual activity.

        Not that that even matters, because every woman deserves agency over her own body regardless of her sexual choices or lack thereof.

        • John Doman

          With pregnancy, there are two bodies involved, by definition.

    • $92688566

      That pain would be in comparison to say a baby, (including a girl baby) who REALLY has no choice, having its brains syringed out, in a partial birth abortion at a time when it is viable outside the womb? Sounds like a reasonable trade-off.
      Yes folks, I give you the “progressive” left: champions of women, tolerance, and justice for all.

    • John Doman

      This discomfort would be caused by your child, who is a human being. Just wanted to point that out.

  • techvet

    I cannot think of a greater social justice than saving the lives of the unborn, regardless of race, creed, or color.

    • yalestalinist

      Really? Think harder.

      • yalechurchillist

        Stalin was a great defender of social justice; the gulags attest to that.

        • yalestalinist

          OK this is really getting out of hand.

          • http://lemonparty.org Rentacle Tape

            Lol, nice response. Sure showed him

  • jorge_julio
  • Guest

    According to Dwight Hall’s mission statement, the goal of
    Dwight Hall is “’to foster civic-minded student leaders and to promote service
    and activism in New Haven and around the world. ‘[…] Dwight Hall exists as a
    place to cultivate student leaders invested in ethical productivity,
    creativity, communication, and collaboration.” Dwight Hall’s mission statement
    doesn’t define ‘ethical’ precisely because organizations that value free
    exchange or diversity (especially intellectual diversity) cannot declare particular
    political views to be dogma. Marxists believe capitalism to be exploitative and
    oppressive: must capitalists be excluded? Conservatives believe (generally)
    that government assistance to the poor enslaves them in a trap of dependence
    and robs them of the ability to take care of themselves: should we ban the GOP?

    The only ethical goal that Dwight Hall claims to promote is
    ‘social justice,’ a term so vague that it means nothing. But the term must remain
    undefined, for any institution that precisely defines a ‘just’ society stymies
    dissenting views as less-than-just and betrays the ideal of diversity. Although I’m pro-choice, CLAY clearly represents a group of students dedicated to
    promoting justice through protecting the lives of what many, including biologists,
    consider to be human. (Remember, in many countries, women abort babies to avoid
    bearing a daughter. This certainly represents an affront to women’s equality.)
    This stupid stifling of a particular (and nationally popular) political and
    ethical opinion conflicts with Dwight Hall’s mission in that it prevents its
    participants from being exposed to the full diversity of opinion on this issue,
    having the effect of further ensconcing Yalies from the American public.

  • unetudiantengage

    According to Dwight Hall’s mission statement, the goal of
    Dwight Hall is “’to foster civic-minded student leaders and to promote service
    and activism in New Haven and around the world. ‘[…] Dwight Hall exists as a
    place to cultivate student leaders invested in ethical productivity,
    creativity, communication, and collaboration.” Dwight Hall’s mission statement
    doesn’t define ‘ethical’ precisely because organizations that value free
    exchange or diversity (including intellectual diversity) cannot declare particular
    political views to be dogma. Marxists believe capitalism to be exploitive and
    oppressive: must capitalists be excluded? Conservatives (generally) believe
    that government assistance to the poor enslaves them in a trap of dependence and
    robs them of the ability to take care of themselves: should we ban the GOP?

    The only ethical goal that Dwight Hall claims to promote is
    ‘social justice,’ a term so vague that it means nothing. But it must remain
    undefined, for any institution that precisely defines a ‘just’ society stymies
    dissenting views as less-than-just and betrays the ideal of diversity. Even
    though I’m pro-choice, CLAY clearly represents a group of students dedicated to
    promoting justice through protecting the lives of what many, including biologists,
    consider to be human. (Remember, in many countries, women abort babies to avoid
    bearing a daughter. This certainly represents an affront to women’s equality.)
    This stifling of a particular (and nationally popular) political and ethical
    opinion conflicts with Dwight Hall’s mission in that it prevents its
    participants from being exposed to the full diversity of opinion on this issue,
    having the effect of further ensconcing Yalies from the American public.

    • John Doman

      With pregnancy, there are two bodies involved.

  • tcl

    Thanks for writing this, Andre! You did an awesome job of explaining how CLAY’s work is extremely problematic from the social justice perspective, and why we need to deny them Dwight Hall membership tomorrow.

    • CharlieWalls

      I second your view, tcl. I’ve never talked with a so-called pro-lifer who speaks out against capital punishment or the lethal use of force. They are a narrow group against a legal right of actual people in our country. I appreciate the outcome of yesterday’s vote.

      • Brittany

        I am pro-life, agnostic, and oppose capital punishment. A number of my friends are the same. The caricature of the typical pro-lifer as the gun-toting, capital punishment-supporting, Bible-thumping Evangelical is mostly inaccurate

      • CentralJerseyMom

        I guess you’ve never talked with a member of the Catholic clergy then, then since pro-life, anti-capital punishment (and general opposition to use of lethal force except in the very narrowly and quite clearly defined circumstance of “just war”) is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

    • Brittany

      tcl, this is the general vibe I get from your statement: “They disagree with our definition of social justice, so they can go pound dirt.” Fascism much?

  • terryhughes

    Many people, perhaps most, with as least as thorough an understanding of the abortion issue and the underlying facts as this author, believe in complete good faith that abortion rights as broad as those defended by the ACLU and this author to be completely pernicious and the exact opposite of social justice. There is no one definition of justice. The ACLU certainly has no corner on the concepts of truth or justice or, for that matter, civil liberties. It is obvious that the country generally is deeply divided over abortion issues.

    This column is virtually a parody of the kind of narrow minded partisanship masquerading as “progress” that Dwight Hall and the Social Justice Network must avoid to be able to function as foci of general social action. It’s argument should be thoroughly rejected. If its narrow minded partisan approach, or one like it, becomes operative doctrine at Dwight Hall or the Social Justice Network, the University should suspend recognition of that organization with as much determination as it would suspend recognition of a fraternity that adopted an official policy endorsing sexual assault.

  • Saybrugian Who Wants Answers

    The Yale administration has already made its position on abortion clear; abortions are offered openly on campus and are completely covered on the Yale Health Plan. What CLAY is asking for is a chance to be heard, and to be treated like the other groups which seek to do good for society.

    A vote for CLAY is a vote for tolerance.

  • phantomllama

    If CLAY is prevented from joining Dwight Hall, there needs to be a serious conversation about Dwight Hall’s continued use of campus space.

    And I say this as somebody who wouldn’t choose to ban abortion.

  • http://lemonparty.org Rentacle Tape

    Forced dichotomy much? Also, I love how since the introduction of “genuine sex ed” in inner city schools, abortions have fallen SO drastically.

  • confused

    Chair…of the American “Civil Liberties” Union…working to provide “everyone” with the “chance to live” a full and enriching life…I’m curious as to how these positions coincide with the gentleman’s opposition to CLAY’s organization and its mission.

  • puffthejapanesedragon

    Stop perverting the ACLU’s name and mission.

    I’ve worked with the ACLU in the past, (the *real* ACLU, not some knockoff Yale version that sits on their arse and does virtually nothing) and the ACLU that I know would not oppose CLAY’s inclusion in Dwight Hall.

    The ACLU is an organization that is proud to defend fair access to political expression; the organization even defended the rights of KKK members to freely express themselves. Given that Dwight Hall’s mission is so vaguely defined, silencing alternative definitions of “social justice” would be unfair and hypocritical.

  • ChrisM

    That’s actually not the math error I made. But I also sincerely doubt you’re bright enough to find the actual math error.

  • RightAtYale

    I just find it ironic that this writer says “Social justice means … working to provide everyone with the chance to live a full and enriching life”, yet he believes CLAY should not be allowed into Dwight Hall because they oppose the killing of babies.

    • kit

      Fetuses are simply not babies…Would that make miscarriage or stillbirth manslaughter? This is a ridiculous position to take, frankly. Perhaps in a religious sense they may be considered babies, but we have a legal separation of church and state that makes “religious senses” irrelevant to lawmaking. The decision to not have an abortion for religious reasons is a completely acceptable choice but to limit other’s choices based on a personal moral code is unconscionable.

      • http://batman-news.com Publius Scipio

        On a purely scientific basis, it’s human life, with a unique DNA signature.

        I hope the irony of calling to “provide everyone with the chance to live a full and enriching life” while denying a pro-Life organization a place at the table isn’t lost on you.

        • kit

          Aside from CLAY’s work with manipulative pregnancy crisis centers, pro-life advocates deny the rights of women and thus deny more than half the population an enriching life. Making abortion illegal does not reduce the amount of abortions but simply makes the procedure more dangerous for desperate women who, from a host of complex and varied reasons, find themselves unable or unwilling to carry the child to term.

      • Brittany

        Your definition of manslaughter is a little off. Miscarriage and stillbirth are naturally-occurring tragedies. Would it also be manslaughter if a person were to unknowingly pass on a fatal disease to another person?

      • Guest

        This argument is simply ridiculous. First, stillbirths and miscarriages are no more manslaughter than SIDS, death from congenital heart failure, or any other natural cause. The reality is that when a stillbirth or miscarriage occurs, as a culture we recognize that there is a loss, the woman mourns, if she has a partner or community that cares, they mourn and we treat it as a personal loss. As a human, baby loss. Please recognize that and respect the loss that many women and men around the world are confronted with and continue to mourn. In contrast, abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life. That is incontrovertible fact. Please try to keep your information straight.

        Your consideration of fetuses as only babies in a ‘religious sense’, is frankly ridiculous as well. Instead, to term these infants as babies is simply a recognition that in many cases these infants can be legally killed while they still have the potential (at that very moment) of live birth and existence outside of their mother’s womb, even if only through intensive care units. This is evident by the mere existence of abortion survivors, individuals born alive despite the attempt on their lives while still in-utero.This is not an issue of personal moral codes, but rather a communal issue of loss of care for those who are helpless – both infants without voices and mothers who lack the resources whether emotional, financial, or human to support the life within themselves.

        • kit

          My relation of abortion to manslaughter is based on a legal case that occurred recently that charged a woman who experienced a miscarriage with the crime. It is not something I made up in my head, but a dangerous legal precedent.

          • Guest

            A dangerous legal precedent that is likewise ignorant to the tragedy that the woman who experienced the miscarriage underwent. Your perpetuation of the argument by equating it to abortion is likewise inappropriate. These are two separate issues and unless we keep them separate these dangerous precedents will be allowed to continue. By reiterating it, you become a part of that problem.

          • kit

            I didn’t equate it to abortion…I spoke about the dangers of other people doing so…Other people above equated it to abortion, which is why I brought it up, saying that it is DANGEROUS to do so. Reading comprehension…

  • RightAtYale

    People who condemn abortion and support abstinence aren’t condemning efforts to fix the roof, but are instead suggesting a 100% foolproof fix. If you abstain from sex, you can’t get pregnant.

  • Fakey McFakename

    Andre – are you saying that the problem is that CLAY is anti-abortion or that they’re anti-choice? There’s a world of difference between an organization that emphasizes the “rare” part of “safe, legal, and rare” and one that seeks to criminalize abortion. To the extent that CLAY is anti-choice, I tend to agree with you; to the extent that they simply counsel women about what choices they should make – and seek to ensure that women do not choose abortion simply because of economic pressures – that sounds like a solid social justice mission to me.

  • Terry Xu

    Like most left wing apologists, Manuel has confused equality with justice. Not only are men and women not equal, treating equally that which is inequal is the greatest injustice of all.

  • Kimo

    Intolerance and hypocrisy, thy name is Yale.

  • ChrisM

    Thanks for proving my point.

  • John Doman

    If fetuses aren’t people, what exactly are they ?

    • ummmm

      fetuses

  • John Doman

    People can oppose abortion simply because they have the outrageous idea that a human fetus is a human person, and therefore should have at least the same legal rights as a dog, as opposed to none at all.

  • John Doman

    Is a human fetus a human being?

  • Michael Kennally Lewis

    What proof do you have that crisis pregnancy centers mislead women? As in women go there seeking an abortion, only to find out they don’t do them? No one is forced to go to them or forced to keep their child. I’m sure Manuel couldn’t name a single person who mistook a crisis pregnancy center for a Planned Parenthood/abortion clinic or a hospital. Straw man argument indeed.

  • truthteller13

    “In my mind, those advocating to legally and socially limit reproductive choice are working against the goals of social justice.”

    a mind is a terrible thing to waste andre.