Voice for Life protests Planned Parenthood

COURTESY OF JESSICA JANNECK Voice for Life’s display was presented on Keyser Quad.

COURTESY OF JESSICA JANNECK
Voice for Life’s display was presented on Keyser Quad.

By ABBY BIESMAN
News & Features Editor

Hopkins Voice for Life (VFL), a pro-life organization, presented a display against Planned Parenthood on the Gilman Quad with the goal of spreading pro-life ideas on campus. The display lasted from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. last Thursday, Oct. 22.

The Planned Parenthood Project display that VFL hosted is provided by Students for Life of America, a non-profit organization that helps students on college campuses advocate what VFL Co-President senior Jessica Janneck deems “the culture of life”. Students for Life of America is a pro-life organization, which not only addresses abortion, but also euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other issues. The organization does not have chapters of students.

The Planned Parenthood Project has been offered by Students for Life of America for a few years, before controversies around Planned Parenthood arose in 2015.

Janneck discussed the reason Hopkins Voice for Life hosted The Planned Parenthood Project display.

“The display event, provided by Students for Life of America, allowed us to invite the Hopkins community on the Homewood campus to discuss life issues and to raise awareness of life-affirming options,” Janneck wrote in an email to The News-Letter.

On Thursday, infographics and display pieces were paired with information about local health clinics and pregnancy centers along with information about the Pregnant on Campus initiative. Pregnant on Campus is an initiative fueled by Students for Life that creates a platform to help provide resources for pregnant students.

At the display there were 897 pink crosses stacked on the ground. The crosses represent the average of 897 abortions performed by Planned Parenthood each day.

“Of the abortions done in the United States a day, 1 in 4 are done by Planned Parenthood, making them the nation’s largest abortion provider,” Janneck wrote.

Janneck discussed student reception to the displays, saying the group had 40 in-depth discussions with students during the event.

“One particular conversation lasted for about one hour and we have received some follow-up emails regarding the display,” Janneck wrote. “We also had a resource table with 12 different pamphlets and a double-sided local resource list where many students stopped by to pick-up information.”

With the exception of some people who would make anti-abortion comments, Janneck felt that the display invited respectful discussion about the issue.

Among other scheduled events, VFL will host a Diaper and Baby Supplies drive for Pregnancy Center North, which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit medical clinic.

“We hosted this display to raise awareness of who Planned Parenthood is (using their 2013-2014 Annual Report, which is their last publicly released report) and to invite the Homewood campus to open, honest discussion on life issues,” Janneck wrote. “We believe that Hopkins students who become pregnant should not have to choose between their pre-born babies and their education.”

VFL says that pregnantatjhu.org offers resources for pregnant women at Hopkins, including an anonymous online chat with Hopkins student counselors and a 24-hour hotline, among other resources.

“We acknowledge that being a student-parent is difficult,” Janneck wrote. “We are here to help and support pregnant and parenting students as much as we can from the pregnancy test, to birth and beyond.”

Janneck became active with VFL during her sophomore spring when she served as the Pregnancy Resources Coordinator, working on implementing their Pregnant on Campus Initiative and helping to create a supportive community for pregnant students at Hopkins.

“I strongly believe in standing up for what you believe in, especially when there are lives at stake,” Janneck wrote. “I especially like that Voice for Life supports pregnant and parenting students and local families through providing resources, emotional support, volunteering time, and hosting diaper/baby supplies drives.”

Voice For Choice (VFC) shared their reaction to the VFL display, discussing ways that they thought the display was misleading. The color of their displays, according to VFC, used Planned Parenthood’s well-known shade of pink. The displays also had “Planned Parenthood” written in large font and “Project” in smaller font. Voice for Choice shared a statement with The News-Letter.

“This attempt to deceive Hopkins students is incredibly disrespectful and inappropriate,” the statement said. “Voice For Choice will soon be hosting a Planned Parenthood representative on campus to provide Hopkins’ students with facts about Planned Parenthood and sexual health.”

One of the claims the display makes is that “Planned Parenthood encourages a daily regimen of hormonal birth control, which have dangerous side effects such as increased risk of cancer and even death.”

“Hormonal birth control can increase the risk of cancer in women with family histories of cancer. However, although hormonal birth control increases the risk of some cancers, it also decreases the risk of uterine cancer,” the statement says. “Hormonal birth control is also a critical treatment for many painful and debilitating menstrual disorders. Further, hormonal birth control plays a role in reducing unplanned pregnancies.”

The display also claims that 94 percent of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services were abortions in 2013. However, that number is only a percent of specific services. This 94 percent is only reached if one adds abortions with adoption referrals and prenatal services and then takes abortions over this total. Planned Parenthood also performs other pregnancy services like providing contraception.

Some argue that Planned Parenthood exists not for abortions, but to help people make decisions when they are pregnant, abortion being one of those choices. Senior Mellora Ansbro commented on the importance of their free speech, regardless of any political views or notions, so long as protests are conducted in safe and respectful ways.

“I do have to say I very much am pro-them being allowed to demonstrate their opinions,” Ansbro said. “As much as I disagree, I’m going to support their right to say it.”

Senior Chrissy Schnabel shares a similar opinion and discussed the benefits of having these resources on campus. She believes they went about portraying their message appropriately by providing resources or a solution to what they envisioned as the problem at hand, rather than simply protesting Planned Parenthood.

Correction: The article previously stated that there were 897 pink crosses at the display to represent the number of abortions performed in the U.S. each day. However, the crosses represent the 897 abortions performed by Planned Parenthood each day. Additional clarifications have been made to better explain the intended purpose of the event.

11 responses to “Voice for Life protests Planned Parenthood

  1. Since when is it a “fact” that “Planned Parenthood sold body parts of aborted fetuses to third parties for profit”?!

    Like

    • Planned Parenthood disputes the use of words like “sold,” but they don’t dispute that they give the tissue to people who were giving them money because they were giving them the tissue. If you want to engage in that sort of wordplay, that’s your right. But, when you give someone something, and they give you cash as a result, normal people call that selling.

      Like

      • Agreed with Mike M!

        Further, again, it is very suspicious on behalf of the News-Letter that the sentence (as quoted according to alumna) “The group was protesting the fact that Planned Parenthood sold body parts of aborted fetuses to third parties for profit, a claim that Planned Parenthood denies.” has vanished from the article.

        Would you like to clarify as to why?

        Like

  2. I also came to question this sentence in particular: “The group was protesting the fact that Planned Parenthood sold body parts of aborted fetuses to third parties for profit, a claim that Planned Parenthood denies.”

    Can the N-L editor-in-chief spell out for writers what the difference between a claim and a fact is, and maybe also give them some tips on concealing their biases a little better?

    Like

    • I would like to second exactly what alumna writes:
      “Can the N-L editor-in-chief spell out for writers what the difference between a claim and a fact is, and maybe also give them some tips on concealing their biases a little better?”

      Your bias is palpable (not only here, but also in the poor reporting in the past, particularly of Fall 2014 with the changes made to the article Abortion and Human Rights: Who Counts as One of Us?) and very unfortunate.

      Maybe a good solution is to have to authors work on pieces for VFL and VFC to represent each side kindly?

      Like

  3. “Planned Parenthood also performs other pregnancy services like providing contraception.”

    Contraception is a pregnancy service?

    Like

  4. Since when is a prescription for contraceptives or an anti-pregnancy procedure (IUD, NuvarRing, Depro-Vera, etc) a pregnancy service??

    That is called a doctor prescribing. Not providing care for an expectant mother, which is inherent and implicitly understood for a pregnancy service.

    Like

  5. Also, question for Abby and/or the News-Letter!
    What does “Several other clarifications have been made.” even mean??

    It is unfair to readings, and to both Voice for Life and Voice for Choice, if changes to the article were made for “clarification” without specifying.

    Particularly, there are two comments (by JHU alum and alumna) that I am curious to understood. But, alas, cannot considering the quote from the article was completely removed. For example, alumna writes in her comment: ““The group was protesting the fact that Planned Parenthood sold body parts of aborted fetuses to third parties for profit, a claim that Planned Parenthood denies.””

    But this is completely missing from the article, so either the News-Letter never said it or the News-Letter has failed to acknowledge what they did wrong in saying this?

    From what Janneck said in her email to the News-Letter (according to the article), it appears that the News-Letter made an assumption about the purpose of the display. I would appreciate clarification because this is fishy and, frankly, poor reporting.

    It is a shame.

    Like

  6. Is “spreading pro-life ideas on campus” this ever the goal of Voice for Life?

    No. No it is not. As an alum of the club, I would like to point out the club mission as an advocacy and awareness club. It is not to bully anyone into any beliefs (that is definitely more the domain of the Voice for Choice club and, most recently, the N-L Editorial Board whose bias is so palpable in their opinion of the Planned Parenthood Project and in their hatred towards Voice for Life– I digress).

    The mission of the Johns Hopkins Voice for Life club is to defend life by being the voice for the voiceless, in particular for the most vulnerable members of our society threatened by abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and more. We seek to educate on current life issues, to foster a culture of life within the Johns Hopkins and the surrounding communities, and to help those in need so that life is always a promising choice. (Look at their website jhuvoiceforlife.org).

    Thus, I have no doubt that the club invited Students for Life and the display to the Homewood campus to host open, honest discussion on life issues.

    Voice for Life always asks the question “who counts as one of us? what value do you give the pre-born? where/why do you hold your beliefs regarding life issues, such as abortion and end-of-life care?”. Voice for Life urges that the Homewood campus should be open to the discussion of serious topics and offers life-affirming options to the student population and JHU staff/faculty (PregnantAtJHU.edu is one example where their efforts are explicit to help pregnant students and student-parents).

    It is a very sad thing that the “pro-choice” side and the “pro-choice” bias of the News-Letter urges Hopkins students to hold distain towards the kind pro-lifers on campus who just want to talk and hear what you have to say.

    This is much more than the Voice for Choice club has ever done. They claim to be “pro-choice” but get up in arms if your “choice” is life. Just say it how you are already– you are pro-abortion. Don’t hide behind a word that you don’t even mean.

    Also, the Voice for Choice club is in need of a medical dictionary that clarifies the word “pregnancy” for them.

    Keep up the good fight, Voice for Life!!

    As Martin Luther Kind, Jr. said: “Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency ask the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience ask the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.”

    Like

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s