The Planned Parenthood speech this week shows Georgetown’s divide over abortion

As we all know by now, on Wednesday April 20, the Georgetown University Lecture Fund hosted Cecile Richards, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood. When the event was announced many were excited about what some would call an historic opportunity for students and our university — and so was I, to hear the story of a woman in a leadership position like Richards. She spoke about her job, her life and imparted many words of advice regarding activism to the packed room.

President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards speaking at Georgetown

On Tuesday night, while scrolling through my Facebook feed, I found this article. I read it multiple times and each time, I found myself sadden by the many assumptions it presents and some of which many of my peers apparently believe. I wanted to take the time to respond to it, and address some of the things I experienced and observed on Wednesday on the campus I have called my home for the last two years.

First, the author claims to have been “shaken to her core” because “the face of the pro-abortion movement will be given an unchallenged platform to promote her agenda” to fellow Hoyas. While I certainly can’t tell the author what or how to feel, much like the majority of pro-life students I have met have tried to do to me, I certainly must disagree with the entire statement.

Richards is the President and CEO or an organization which, as the author herself contends, seeks “to provide health care and education around reproduction and sex to women, men, and young people throughout the U.S.”. She is not the face of a pro-abortion movement. She is not the face of any movement. Were she the face of something, it would be of years and years of efforts to provide basic reproductive health services to mostly young women who find themselves in what they feel are tragic circumstances and turn to abortion as a last resort.

Believing in the right of women to have autonomy over their own bodies is not a pro-abortion movement. There is no such thing as a pro-abortion movement. I have never heard of anyone going around to pregnant women trying to convince them to end their pregnancies out of the blue. People make the very difficult and emotionally draining decision to have abortions because they feel like they are out of options. And frankly, regardless of their reasons, it is once again a woman’s right to govern her own body. The author trivializes this decision by claiming Richards and other pro-choice women believe getting an abortion is “nothing of consequence”. It is insulting and hurtful.

Protests against Cecile Richards’ speech

These are my own beliefs though, and I can’t force anyone to share them. The author is entitled to her position and this response is not meant to challenge her beliefs or convince her of mine. Rather it is meant to bring attention to how misguided her ideas of what my position as one of those excited, pro-choice Hoyas is, and how unfounded her claims on campus activities on Wednesday were. This is also where I should note that the “To My Georgetown Sisters” article was written a day before Richards actually came to campus and gave her speech.

So, unless there is a magic crystal ball lying around Healy, I have an issue with the author assuming what the speech would be about or that the students who would go to hear it were naive souls walking into the arms of a pro-abortion cult like she made it seem. In fact, abortion came up mostly when pro-lifers asked their questions and rather Richards spoke in general about the history of reproductive rights in the US, the power of young people in speaking up and demanding the changes they see fit, and more inspiring words that could help anyone with a goal to make a difference in the world.

Richards’ appearance was not unchallenged. It was an open event, where pro-life students could attend and even got their opportunity to ask questions. Judging by the protesters at our front gates or Vita Saxa’s tabling and flags on Copley lawn, all sides of the issue were able to express themselves. Some, the pro-life protesters, more aggressively than others. Furthermore, Abby Johnson, a pro-life activist also spoke on campus the same day in Dahlgren Chapel as part of an entire week and line-up of pro-life speakers. It is worth mentioning that she was given a place of worship to share her beliefs with students, while Hoyas for Choice is not even recognized by the university.

I’m sure the author and many others would bring up Georgetown’s Jesuit affiliation to justify this. However, the role of the university is not to convert anyone to any religious beliefs or shove them down my throat and inbox. As an institution, it is its job to recognize and validate the beliefs of the entire student body, the majority of which seems to be pro-choice given the standing ovation Richards received on Wednesday. If one side of the issue is supported, so should the other. Otherwise, my brochures and tour guides should not have told me that I don’t need to be of any particular faith to find my place on campus.

Moving on to the second part of the article, I found it rather disturbing that the author would try to critique pro-choice feminists by claiming their beliefs in giving a woman a choice caters to the patriarchy. She writes, “to tell women that abortion is an acceptable method of achieving equality with men is to tell women, specifically poor women and women of color, that in order to achieve success or evade poverty they must make their pregnant bodies un-pregnant”. She then continues, writing that pro-choice feminism is “to be told that we must chain ourselves to the idealization of the male body and masculinity in order to achieve success”.

My feminism however seeks to create a world where a woman’s value, beliefs and worth are not acknowledged simply in relation to men. Not only is it insulting, it is flatly wrong to assume that women end their pregnancies in order to achieve equality with men. Furthermore, that argument lies in the assumption that a “feminine body” is supposed to be pregnant, and if it is not, it is trying to be male. I would like to believe that my worth as a woman does not rest on my ability to become and stay pregnant, even if I don’t want to be.

I would like to believe that women who go through the traumatic experience of an abortion are not doing it to cater to the male gaze or opinion, but rather because it is a decision that will directly affect their own bodies and lives. I would like to believe that I have a right to stop by a student table on my own campus to ask about their stickers, or walk from class without being harassed and called a murderer by another student who has no idea what my lived experiences have been regarding abortion or simply because I don’t share their views.

I would most like to believe that whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion, her decision and character will not be criminalized or assumed to be volatile or dependent on the desire to please the male gaze.

The fact that this is not the world in which I live is what shakes me to my core.