Monday’s opinion page garnered vehement responses from the student body. Eli Holland wrote an opinion piece on abortion. Although the writer meant for the article to sound pro-choice, many readers interpreted the opinion as anti-abortion. Andrew Fiepke reacted to Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who testified in Congress in favor of making birth control coverage mandatory. She garnered national attention, particularly after conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” in his program.

Monday, I opened the latest edition of The Daily Campus only to be disgusted by an entire opinion page filled with hateful sentiments against women. More specifically, Eli Holland’s article, regardless of its title (which was changed after publication), was offensive. I would like to take the time to respond to it.

Holland wrote a slippery slope argument, which lead to a reductio ad absurdum that all women would recreationally seek abortions for their promiscuous behavior. If satire was Holland’s aim, as he later claimed, it was immensely clumsy. Satire makes it evident that the positions the author is expressing are being held up for ridicule. Holland failed to accomplish that, as evidenced by the numerous outraged responses that required him to defend it. The entire article was repugnant far beyond satire’s goals of humor or social criticism. Instead of introducing a fresh and challenging perspective, Holland only rehashed incendiary arguments that have previously been leveled against supporters of women’s legal right to access abortions and contraception coverage by insurance companies.

This is how reproductive rights satire is done, Mr. Holland: “Instead of being concerned about abortions, we should eliminate the source of the problem: sperm. It should be legally mandated that every person born carrying a Y-chromosome must have a vasectomy by the age of eight, and if they are already over the age of eight, they must go immediately to a clinic to have this performed. It is a quick out-patient procedure, with low chance of complications. Once a man knows he is ready to become a father, he can have reversal surgery. Now we don’t need selective abortions for any other reason than to save a mother’s life, or reduce her suffering, then we no longer have to debate the ethics of abortions. Problem solved. You’re welcome America!”

Alongside Holland’s article was another opinion by Andrew Fiepke, which began with a more successful attempt at satire. His article focused on the Congressional testimony on contraception given by Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student.

While I have no problem with an editorial written from a particular political position, I do have a problem with forwarding that argument by suggesting that Fluke is unqualified to testify before Congress and that she was misleading in her testimony about the cost of birth control. Fiepke did both.

It’s important to note that Fluke was under oath on an issue of just access to medicine. Fluke’s testimony demonstrates that lack of access to contraception is discriminatory against females. If this is an issue of fairness, then Viagra and birth control should be treated the same way by insurance companies.

Both are used by married and unmarried persons. Their use doesn’t indicate promiscuity. In fact, there are many medical reasons why women benefit from taking a contraceptive pill outside of preventing pregnancies.

Nevertheless, even if forestalling pregnancies was the only benefit from using contraception, Fiepke’s economic argument fails, because fewer unplanned pregnancies means fewer births, which means reduced insurance premiums.

Turning to Feipke’s skepticism about Fluke’s estimated cost of contraception: consider that the local Walgreens sells an Ortho-Evra patch for $90.99, which includes three patches for one month of medicine. If Fluke used this form of medication, then her costs out of pocket would be over $1,000 per year, or over $3,000 during her three years in law school.

Just because one form of birth control is cheap doesn’t mean that that particular form is appropriate for all women. There are a number of severe side effects to a variety of birth control medications, and taking the cheap one would cause many women to become seriously ill. All birth control should be covered by insurance, not simply the ones that have outgrown their patents.

It’s time to stop talking about women as if abortions, rape and being marginalized for centuries is funny. It is not. No more poor excuses for satire; no more emulating Rush Limbaugh. Grow up, be mature. If you want to talk about issues of justice, let’s do it.

Rachel is a senior majoring in philosophy and psychology.

Eli Holland writes, “It won’t be long before nearly every sexually active woman in the United States will have had at least one abortion, because naturally everybody will be having more sex, and why bother with contraception when you can just terminate the next morning?”

First of all, the morning after pill is not the same as the abortion pill. Abortions are conducted through various methods, and are not a one-fits all solution. Many women, whether religious or not, don’t want abortions. Their other options include parenting and adoption. Women have options, and rightfully so abortion is one of them.

Also, “after-birth abortions” is an incorrect term. The correct term is “infanticide.” There are many reasons (war, poverty, etc.) for infanticide, but this can be prevented and decreased with abortion and adoption.

In conclusion, the article clumps all women together without considering ideological differences. There are many pro-life women out there. Also, the women who side with pro-choice are not serial killers or antisocial people: “They’ll actively seek out the thrill, the feeling of power that goes with swaying the balance of life and death. Some might even enjoy the sensation. Abortophilia, it will be called.”

If a woman were to choose the abortion option, she is faced with stigma. Many undergo counseling because societal pressure has brewed guilt. Others are content with their decision because they know they would not be a good caretaker otherwise.

My last comment is on the following: “Women, as we know, are prone to addictions. In this case, though, who could blame them? Abortions will be the drug of our generation.” This is sexist and factually incorrect. Actually, men are more prone to substance addiction. Furthermore, it takes a certain kind of personality.

In conclusion, the article lacks correct information and is based on an age-old fallacy.

Nancy is an anthropology major and women and gender studies minor.

This past Monday’s edition of The Daily Campus has unfortunately been plagued by misogyny, ignorance and lawed arguments.

First, each article has been written and strung between a rigid gender binary and have heavily relied upon a rhetoric that only propagates superficial and oppressive gender stereotypes.

If concepts such as these are unfamiliar, then please seek more information. We believe it is vital that objective and comprehensive education is obtained before adding to the debate — in fact, if these were taken into account, articles like these would never be written in the first place.

Yes, Eli Holland’s article was meant as a satire while the other was of a more serious and genuine nature. However, regardless of the title, this “satire” was poorly executed and anything but funny. The article was confusing and demonstrated a misunderstanding of the topic and its arguments. Its language and content unwittingly attacks women in its haphazard and generalized sexist claims concerning women’s psychology and sexuality and does not undermine th
e arguments of right-wing or pro- life proponents.

Andrew Fiepke’s article is more egregious. It suffers from the same problems, but for its writer, this article digs a deeper hole that verges on abysmal. The Fluke article disregards the context of Planned Parenthood coverage, such as lower prices for uninsured women as well as that of providers that will not cover birth control. Fiepke should read the private vs. public debates, religious reasons, taxes, etc. — there are decades’ worth of Supreme Court constitutional cases concerning these issues. Regarding the issue of “universal birth control,” law of general applicability is constitutional, thus any rhetoric of “attack on religion/religious liberties” is inaccurate and in need of re-evaluate.

Additionally, each “I think” statement presented (almost as logical fact) misinformed opinions and came from a place of privilege — such rhetoric is common in propaganda or contemporary political debate that is full of lies to manipulate women and their allies. The statements are misleading and insensitive because they disregard the complex variables, such as class and geographic location. These variables can impede women from access to contraception and women’s health care, so disregarding these factors denigrates women.

This denigration is most evident in the writer’s final statement proposing that “personal responsibility and less sex” are the methods that will help both men and women on this issue. For the record, birth control, as well as other means of family planning, IS personal responsibility — its purpose is to legally validate women’s control and choice over their bodies and to acknowledge that women have autonomy in how they want to lead their lives. By limiting access, we are revoking that control, that choice and that autonomy. Furthermore, this statement is pure sex shaming at its worst. With its juxtaposition of responsibility and less sex, the statement implies that the only women that seek abortions are sluts and whores who deserve to carry a child because they were too wild in their sex lives.

When reading these articles, one thing became very apparent: that sexism and patriarchal ideology is rampant. Unfortunately, they are phenomena that can afflict all sides of the discourse on this issue.

Neither of the articles acknowledge the individual realities (economic, social, racial, etc.) of those who choose to undergo abortions or desire access to other means of birth control. There will always be a need for abortion. If women do not have access to an abortion due to legality or cost, they will seek out illegal abortions, which leads only to darker consequences.

Birth control is not merely used to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is a medical condition. Women should have the right to elect to be pregnant. No woman should be forced into pregnancy. This is essentially a discussion of human rights.

Sammy is a sophomore majoring in anthropology and women’s and gender studies; Breanna is a senior majoring in political science; Jessica is a senior majoring in anthropology.