See the photos

The Los Angeles Times, August 14, 2000, featured a story headlined "The Abortion Pill: Finally at Hand? Describing various chemical abortifacient drugs the paper reported the following:

There is research, still inconclusive, that suggests a woman might be able to self-administer misoprostol at home at the direction of her doctor ….

Meanwhile, researchers report that a black market has developed for one of the abortion medications. Misoprostol, a drug sometimes called 'the star pill' for its hexagonal shape, is widely used in Brazil where abortion is banned, researchers report. And a recent survey of 610 women, primarily Latinas, in New York City found that 5% admitted having used 'the star pill' for abortion. More than a third of the women surveyed said they knew about the method.

The July 11, 1999 issue of the New York Times Sunday magazine carried an article headlined "The Little White Bombshell." It quoted Eric Schaff at the University of Rochester, who has supervised clinical trials for Mifepristone. The researcher says he is convinced "… the drug is safe and that administering it is a simple procedure that midwives or nurse-practitioners could do." The Journal of the American Medical Women's Association (2000;55: 186-188) contains a commentary by Amy E. Pollack, MD and Rachael Pine, JD entitled "Opening a Door to Safe Abortion: International Perspectives on Medical Abortifacient Use." The abstract states that "In some countries where safe abortion is neither accessible nor legal, even unsupervised, off-protocol use of misoprostol can provide women with a means to safely terminate pregnancy."

The assertion that outlawing convenience abortion will herald a "return to the days of coat hangers and perforated uteri" is cynical nonsense. The supposed risk to women is the most dishonest argument yet advanced in opposition to outlawing abortion. When elective abortion is again against the law, pro-lifers will, of course, seek to restrict traffic in illicit abortifacients. But safe, accessible, abortion-inducing chemicals will be as difficult to regulate then as marijuana is today.

ADOPTION CONFUSION

Even a month after our time at UF, the paper was still featuring articles on abortion, albeit goofy ones. Opinion columnist Alexis Smart wrote in part:

Pro-lifers are quick to claim that the fetus has human rights, and therefore the person carrying the fetus is obligated to care for it in every way possible. How is it fair to force a woman to carry a child she does not want? How is it fair to the fetus to be left helpless inside the body of someone uninterested in caring for it?

Doesn't this lack of interest constitute an unfit mother? How can anyone find comfort in knowing a child is trapped in such a situation? Who's rights are being protected? Pregnancy carries an immense amount of responsibility that some people simply cannot handle. However, removing the option of abortion brings infinitely more. To be a pro-lifer does not simply require you to respect all forms of life; it makes you responsible for adopting all of the unwanted babies you force into this world, regardless of their condition.

Has Ms. Smart never heard of adoption? The National Council for Adoption (NCFA) (www.NCFA-USA.org) says that in any given year there are between one and two million individuals and couples who wish to adopt children in this country – more than enough to accommodate the 1.3 million babies killed each year by abortion. The Council also reports that available babies, regardless of medical problems, "generally don't wait long for families." There are "waiting lists of couples who would like to adopt infants with Downs Syndrome or Spina Bifida." Concerning the lack of minority babies available for adoption, NCFA also states that the percentage of “Latino/Hispanic women who plan adoption for their newborn babies is substantially lower than even the tiny percentage of Blacks who do so." And even if there were hugely more babies awaiting adoption than the numbers of available adoptive parents, a country which, according to The US Department of Commerce spends $58 billion on consumer electronics (wide-screen TVs, etc.), is a country that can afford to take care of its "unwanted" children.

THANK GOD FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Thank heaven not everyone was as confused as Ms. Smart. My wife Lois had a male student approach her and say that "I am neither pro-life or pro-choice but you're starting to get through to me. Your message is coming across."

One of the most important benefits of GAP is its consistent ability to improve student understanding of the First Amendment and UF was no exception. On Tuesday, January 12, The Gainesville Sun carried a story headlined "UF free speech commitment bears up."

Offensive ideas welcome. Harassers go home.

Those six words sum up the University of Florida's approach to on-campus expression.

It's an approach that has been sorely tested lately. On Monday, a highly charged but peaceful display of disturbing death exhibits was shown by an anti-abortion group, and last week an allegedly harassing [street] preacher was arrested.

'The universities have traditionally been the most tolerant,' said UF General Counsel Pam Bernard. 'But not when the speech is disruptive or otherwise harassing.'

Short of that, officials say, almost anything goes.

The University of Florida, as a public university, is a place where the First Amendment must be exercised and the free exchange of ideas allowed,' said UF Student Affairs Vice President Art Sandeen. 'While we regret the pain to some members of the university community that results from that free exchange, the university must maintain its role as a forum for reasonable dialogue.'

* * *

That's why, despite protests – by Jewish, black and pro-choice groups – UF officials had little choice Monday but to allow a 'Genocide Awareness Project' display depicting victims of the Holocaust, blacks killed by lynch mobs and aborted fetuses. The First Amendment doesn't distinguish between displays for a sorority fund-raiser and displays depicting death.

That's just the way it should be [UF President John] Lombardi said.

'In universities and the country at large no one has a monopoly on wisdom, taste, sensibility or outrage,' he said. 'One person's offensive speech is another person's clarion call to justice. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect our freedoms, and the price of that protection is that we are, from time to time, mightily offended by the speech of others.'

CBR salutes President Lombardi's integrity.

The Sun also carried a "give and take" article on CBR/GAP in that same issue, this one enigmatically headlined "Anti-abortion group raises few hackles."

The project accomplished its desired effect on some students.

'I think that if I ever had to make a decision about having an abortion, these pictures could play a role in that decision,' said UF English senior Nicole Spellman. 'They tell me that everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions.'

* * *

'Their tactic is to engage in heated debates,' said Anti-Racist Action member Kate Gilleece. 'They take buzz words such as – 'torturing babies to death' – and use them over and over again to accomplish their means.'

University police reported no incidents of violence.

'I think that they are lying to the community by using true genocide and racism to stop women from the right to control their own bodies,' said UF/Santa Fe Community College Campus National Organization for Women president [whew] Candi Churchill. 'I think that what they are doing is not only insulting but also hateful.'