Beth Sheeran, a student at Spokane Falls Community College and a member of their Christian Club, has filed suit against her school after they barred her organization from posting pro-life literature in a campus display case. Apparently, Sheeran’s message was discriminatory because it did not include a pro-choice viewpoint.

The school’s Director of Student Funded Programs threatened Sheeran and her counterparts with expulsion if they did not also show pro-choice statistics with their display. This director is also part of SFCC’s Stop the Hate Committee, and said that someone could take the statistics Sheeran cited as hate.

I have to wonder if the same fate would befall a campus gay rights organization. Would they be asked to present anti-gay viewpoints? I think they probably wouldn’t. Apparently it’s hateful to cite statistics opposing abortion, but not to threaten the students doing so with expulsion from the college.

Of course, this is all absurd, and it didn’t take long for Pomona to realize it was facing a PR disaster. As FIRE notes (see link above), this victory is in large part due to the writing of Charles Johnson, a member of the Collegiate Network:

This case was broken wide open by Charles Johnson of the blog Claremont Conservative, who pointed out that the February 19, 2009, lecture was publicly advertised and that the students had ceased videotaping the event when asked to do so, contrary to official reports.  Johnson also noted that Pomona College had taken no similar action against truly disruptive events on campus in recent years.

Kudos to Johnson and the rest of the crew at the Claremont Conservative and Claremont Independent. This is the kind of watchdog journalism that makes independent college publications so vital.

Unfortunately, the actions at Pomona, while extreme, are not an isolated case. One of the growing trends at college campuses, which I’ve witnessed at the University of Oregon, is the idea of “safe space.” (For example, check out the LSU Safe Space Campaign.)

The deans at Pomona explained that the abortion discussion was “an opportunity for students from across the Claremont Colleges to learn about deeply personal narratives regarding the experience of abortion … in a supportive and safe space.” The deans then wrote that by questioning the presenters, the students were “attempting to create an antagonistic space,” “intimidate participants,” and “chill the free exchange of ideas.”

From what I can discern, a “safe space” is simply a place where no one disagrees with you. And while there is nothing wrong with having supportive place where minority groups can gather, applying this kind of idea to public forums and public spaces is simply not in line with the spirit of the First Amendment.

While I support a woman’s right to choose whom she marries, where she works, what she wears, I certainly do not support the woman’s right to choose to kill a child. It is puzzling to me why America can be outraged by so many things, but this issue just can’t light a fire hot enough to reverse the work of a woman who now sees her own mistake and avidly fights to overturn Roe V. Wade. A product of adoption, I believe that 9 months of inconvenience is in order for the mother who will refuse to care for the child, perhaps that will give her sufficient time to think about being more careful next time. Abstinence anyone?

I am tired of the argument that abortions are necessary because of rape or health risks. Only 1% of abortion cases are rape/incest, and 6% are potential health risks for the mother or the child. So 93% have to suffer because 7% cannot?

These are not hard questions folks, just real life issues. Sometimes we make choices we regret, that’s why there are options for adoption, but taking the easy way out by ridding oneself of the problem (insert child here) is cowardly, and should be a felony. Child abductions and murder are prosecuted as some of the most heinous crimes, why cant the same matter be treated in the same way days earlier (prior to exiting the womb)?