An infringement of ideology

When I first heard rumors that Yale allots a certain number of abortions to each student, I did not believe it. After all, I had not seen any mention of it. With fully half of the American population holding pro-life views, it seemed absurd that Yale would officially sanction such a controversial practice. So I was understandably surprised when, after much pressing, Yale University Health Services (YUHS) admitted that it funds abortions as part of the basic health plan that all students—even those who waive the Yale Health Plan—must pay for. Yale University, bastion of free speech, protector of all ideas, actually forces me, and all pro-life students, to pay for abortions. Ironically, it is the pro-life students to whom Yale refuses to give a choice.

Were this attitude not so typical, it would have also shocked me that students who call themselves "pro-choice" oppose the Pro-Life League's demands. All we want is the choice to waive coverage in order to avoid being forced to fund an act we consider to be the killing of a human being. Yet when others advocate choice, they do not mean choice for everyone, but only for those who agree with them. Posters announcing our rally were torn from bulletin boards all over campus. Pro-choice students came to the rally and shouted incomprehensibly in order to drown out our speakers.

Yale, as an institution of learning, has a responsibility to allow all sides equal footing. It must not withhold information from students without a good explanation. But Yale's current policy is in opposition to its basic mission in both ways. First, Yale keeps information regarding its abortion policy a secret in order to avoid controversy. This rationale is precisely the problem. The University hides its practices in order to prevent objectors from voicing concerns, and, in doing so, violates its own mission of free exchange of ideas.

But even if made explicit, Yale's abortion policy is still in fundamental opposition to the idea of education. A university should not compel students to sacrifice their principles by forcing them to pay for something they consider as abhorrent as murder; to do so amounts to suppression of an entire ideology in the student body. Yale should welcome both pro-choice and pro-life students into its halls, giving each side an opportunity to learn from the other. Only by allowing the conflicting ideas to meet can the truth be found.

Despite all this, members of the Pro-Life League are still being accused of forcing their religious beliefs on others. This accusation is absurd. Many members are not religious at all; some, including the group's president, were pro-choice until recently, and many are atheists. While some members, myself included, do have religious reasons for our opposition to abortion, many reach the same conclusion through science or logic. Given that most pro-choice students are not so because they see no value in human life, but because they do not view the fetus as a living human being, the burden of proof falls on abortion proponents to demonstrate that the fetus is not alive.

Yet the pro-life students may have a reasonable argument. Therefore, they should not be silenced or forced to compromise their beliefs. We accept that our money may go to organizations and ideas we do not agree with, even a pro-choice group. All we ask is that Yale move abortion from the basic universal coverage that all students must fund, and put it in the part of the health plan where most procedures that are not life-threatening are categorized. Once there, pro-life students will have the choice to waive abortion coverage and will not be forced to choose between morality and education, two ideas that should never be at odds.

William Rogel, a freshman in Berkeley, is a member of the Pro-Life League.

Back to Opinion...