Commentary: Pregnant women need both education and services

In her recent attack on the unborn child, Kate Rohdenburg reminded us all of why the feminist movement has become so misguided (“South Dakota anti-abortion law deserves criticism,” April 12).

What was once a noble crusade for equality and justice is now a movement largely concerned with the preservation and glorification of selfishness and perverse lifestyles.

Rohdenburg charges that the recent South Dakota abortion ban violates women’s rights and proclaims, “Embryos should in no way take precedence over a living, breathing, loving mother/daughter/sister/friend, already established on Earth.” Using the despicable “fetuses are just a clump of cells” misrepresentation, she shows the true face of the pro-choice lobby.

In fact, embryos are not simply meaningless and lifeless groups of insignificant biomass. Within hours, these embryos contain all the genetic information of full-grown human beings, and within less than 3 weeks, the nervous system is functional and the heart is beating. It is no wonder that over 90 percent of women who see their living and developing unborn children on ultrasound screens choose not to have abortions.

Furthermore, less than 3 percent of abortions are performed in the interest of protecting the health of the women, and the merit of many of these cases is often questionable i.e. the mother’s “emotional well-being” would suffer, thus constituting a “health risk.”

One last interesting tidbit of information: Margaret Sanger, the galvanizing figure responsible for the eventual legalization of infanticide, was a seething racist. Here are two quotations from the goddess of the pro-abortion movement:

“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

However, the pro-abortion feminist movement would rather women don’t see these facts or the ultrasound images that end up saving thousands of lives a year. Instead, they constantly indoctrinate women into believing that it is somehow their “right” to terminate the lives of their children, because of the inconvenience or hardship that childrearing would impose on their lives.

Rohdenburg argues that the constitution protects a “woman’s due process right to privacy.” How she equates privacy with murder is beyond me. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

You’ll notice that not only is the word privacy never once mentioned, but also that this amendment has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand. The Fourth Amendment protects private property and personal effects, not the right to destroy your developing offspring. Roe v. Wade is an undeniably unconstitutional U.S. Supreme Court decision, and must be reversed immediately if we are to protect the rights of our children, not to mention states’ rights.

Ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the facts have become a hallmark of the pro-choice movement. Instead of fighting for equality, these neo-feminists are more concerned with protecting and promoting casual promiscuity and irresponsible behavior for both men and women.

So maybe instead of struggling for the right to kill the unborn, Kate Rohdenburg and the rest of the Students for Choice should start fighting for real women’s rights. We all can push for more options and more education for pregnant women. Right here at Northeastern, we should be offering pregnant students the accommodation they need to both get their education and raise their children – not force them to choose between the two. Daycare services, specialized housing, tuition assistance, sex education (and, no, I’m not one of those people who promote only abstinence-based sex education) and counseling are some of the services and choices we should be working for.

Rohdenburg finished her article by saying, “Women have the right to

life,” which is absolutely true – that is, unless you believe what Margaret Sanger preached:

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

– Dave Moberg is a sophomore political science major and the president of the Northeastern University College Republicans.

Leave a Reply