If you want to see how far this cancer — titled the “No Public Funds for Abortion Act” — has metastasized, look no further than the Lewis-Clark State College Center for Arts & History.
There, you will find missing from the “Unconditional Care” exhibit taped interviews artist Lydia Nobles of New York City compiled for her “As I Sit Waiting” series:
Claudia Coons describes her experience as a 20-year-old California university undergraduate who found herself pregnant while in an abusive relationship: “I knew right away I did not want to keep this pregnancy. I didn’t want to have anything to do with this person.”
Deja, a mother of two, who found herself pregnant in a “complicated” relationship: “I knew I would have no support being pregnant, let alone having a child. Period.”
Cat Hadley of Ann Arbor, Mich. — now a mother of two at 33 — became pregnant at 18: “The gift of this experience is that I realized as a woman very early on, there’s no winning because if I have an abortion, then I’m a monster. If I keep the baby, then I’m a monster. If I give the baby up, then I’m a monster.”
An unidentified woman became pregnant with twins, including one fetus that would not survive but could put the healthy child at risk.
Also missing from “Unconditional Care” is New York City-based artist Katrina Majkut’s cross-stitched depiction — and straightforward explanation in a detailed text — about medical abortion, its history, application and the evolution of Idaho’s ban on abortions.
“Receiving abortion pills in the mail in Idaho falls into a gray legal area,” Majkut’s text reads. “The federal government says it is federally legal for people to receive abortion pills in the mail in states that outlaw abortion; however, receivers of the medicine are still subject to state laws.”
You could read as much in any newspaper in this country.
Even a century-old letter that artist Michelle Hartney of Chicago secured was off limits. It was mailed to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, from a woman who was seeking access to contraception after having given birth to three children, losing one child at birth and undergoing two abortions: “I am getting weaker and losing weight and color, but with all my pleas with doctors, they don’t do anything for me.”
That is not advocacy.
The word for that is education.
How far afield Idaho has traveled in the few short months since University of Idaho officials interpreted the “No Public Funds for Abortion Act” to preclude “counseling” or “referring” students toward getting an abortion. Wasn’t it just last fall that Boise State University looked at the act and concluded its student health operation could no longer dispense emergency contraceptives?
Now the mere acknowledgement that abortion occurs or that it’s even controversial has LCSC campus officials censoring an art exhibit.
Free speech advocates such as the American Civil Liberties Union and National Coalition Against Censorship have taken LCSC President Cynthia Pemberton to task. But even the most civil liberties-minded lawyer would be bound to ask Pemberton this question: How much is she willing to lose?
The law in question is vague — perhaps deliberately so. It prohibits “promoting” abortion.
Get that wrong and you’re facing:
At least a misdemeanor, with a possible one-year jail term and/or $1,000 fine.
Depending on the number of offenses, a felony conviction stretching into a 14-year prison sentence and/or a $10,000 find.
Termination from employment, a ban from future state employment and being charged restitution.
Pemberton would not be alone in facing this threat. Between her and Center for Arts & History Director Emily Johnsen on the LCSC organization flow chart are five administrators, including Communications and Marketing Director Logan Fowler. Does she put them at risk?
What about LCSC’s budget? Idaho’s vindicative Legislature already cut $2.5 million from higher education’s appropriation two years ago because administrators were insufficiently enthusiastic about its anti-diversity agenda.
If we’ve gone from banning health care discussions on campus to barring straightforward education, what’s next?
What would the “No Public Funds for Abortion Act” have to say about courses that look into how development of the oral contraceptive fueled the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s?
Would campus discussions of feminist Gloria Steinem or U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg be limited?
What about former Secretary of State — and presidential aspirant — Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertion to the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women that “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights”? Would that be silenced?
For that matter, how long would it take before some self-righteous politician complains about showings of “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” at the student union building or airing “Sex and the City” in dorm rooms because they touch on abortion storylines?
Sounds fantastic?
Not really. Here’s betting the lawyers advising Pemberton and her colleagues are telling them to be afraid. Be very afraid. — M.T.
