Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a pro-free speech group that defends students' rights, has written an open letter to UA about its Orwellian grounds use policy and the way it treated abortion-supporting students during GAP:
"...UA’s grounds use policy has been unconstitutionally applied against AASRJ. Further, AASRJ should not have been required to request permission to distribute its fliers at all. Universities may in some instances have a legitimate educational interest in placing narrow constraints and prior notice and approval requirements on some forms of campus expression, such as demonstrations involving large displays, temporary structures, or the use of amplified sound. But they may not require that individual students or student organizations obtain a permit for basic acts of expression. On a college campus, there is hardly a more fundamental exercise of First Amendment rights than the act of peacefully distributing literature to students in public, open spaces."
AL.com wrote about the case, noting BSFL's support of the AASRJ's free speech rights:
"When asked if the university has any plans to modify the policy after a contentious semester, she said the grounds use policy was implemented in response to the size of the student body and therefore an increased demand for the use of campus grounds and facilities, but that the university regularly reviews the policy "to be sure that it continues to meet our needs."
...Even Bama Students for Life, which received a permit and held their protest without incident, took issue with the application process. Following FIRE's publication, they tweeted support of AASRJ's First Amendment rights, despite their opposing views."
"In response to threats of arrest toward counter- protesters at a Bama Students for Life’s protest on the Quad in April, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education sent a letter to The University of Alabama May 22 asking the school to recognize that students’ First Amendment rights had been violated and to change its grounds use policy...
“I think a handful of students, whether in their individual capacities or as part of one of The University of Alabama’s many campus organizations, when it’s a matter of a handful of students peacefully giving out fliers on the public area of the campus, that is simply a free speech activity that should never require obtaining a permit from the University to do so,” Bonilla [of FIRE] said.
...Claire Chretien, president of Bama Students for Life, said the organization intended to create dialogue with other students through the displays and was not upset when counter-protesters began handing out fliers.
“Bama Students for Life always welcomes a dialogue about abortion,” Chretien said. “The reason that we hosted Genocide Awareness Project was to create and foster a campus dialogue about abortion. So we welcome counter-protesters and people with differing opinions to come and talk to us about abortion.”
...“My officers and members discussed taking the case to the ACLU, which we will if the University administration doesn’t respond before some time in mid-September,” [AASRJ President] Johnson said.
While FIRE itself does not litigate against universities, it has assisted individuals and organizations with similar suits in the past.
“I think The University of Alabama should be well aware that FIRE has helped coordinate a number of challenges to university policies on free speech grounds, and we have an overwhelmingly successful track record,” Bonilla said.
“We stand by the AASRJ, and we’re glad FIRE is standing up for students free speech rights,” Chretien said."
"To anyone who would approve of this bill, pregnant women are not humans; they are UPS trucks. It does not matter whether you consider yourself “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” It only matters whether or not you consider yourself a human. I say again, emphatically: Reproductive rights are civil rights.
Sexual justice is not a topic that we can brush aside. Sexual justice is at the very core of who we are as a nation. Man or woman, gay or straight, Republican or Democrat: If you are not actively fighting for sexual justice in this country, then you are complicit in the systematic attempt to declare an entire group of human beings as less than human."
"The most astounding part of Mr. Gamble’s piece was his assertion, “If you are not actively fighting for sexual justice in this country, then you are complicit in the systematic attempt to declare an entire group of human beings as less than human.” Mr. Gamble, if you’re not actively fighting for justice for all people – including unborn children – then you are complicit in the systematic attempt to declare an entire group of human beings less than human. Since you oppose protecting babies five months from conception, at what point should we grant them human rights? At nine months? The day before birth? Right after birth, as if eight inches down the birth canal magically transforms a “clump of cells” into a human being worthy of rights?
It’s highly insulting to encourage women to deny the biological realities of motherhood or tell us that we have a right to murder our children in the name of “civil rights.”
Mr. Gamble’s claim that “sexual justice is at the very core of who we are as a nation” is ludicrous. Every human being’s right to life is at the very core of who we are as a nation."
The state of Alabama caught Diane Derzis, notorious for owning and operating a handful of shady abortion centers, red-headed.
"The state of Alabama has uncovered a business relationship between the doctor of a clinic accused of being an unlicensed abortion provider and the woman who surrendered an abortion provider license for the Southside facility a year ago.
In a court filing last week, the state says that Dr. Bruce Norman is contracted with a Georgia company headed by Diane Derzis to provide staffing, supplies, medication, medical malpractice insurance and workman's compensation -- "in short to manage Norman's practice conducted at 1001 17th St. South."
In previous court filings, Derzis stated there was no relationship between herself and Norman."
This dump, which has a shameful history of hurting women, has been operating illegally and is now facing a lawsuit from the state of Alabama.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are suing to stop the Women's Health and Safety Act from becoming law, claiming that the Planned Parenthood facilities in Birmingham and Mobile and the abortion center in Montgomery will be unable to comply. They bemoaned that requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital is "medically unnecessary," despite the numerous women who have been hospitalized in Alabama after botched abortions (see the Exposing the Alabama Abortion Industry section of our website). If abortionists can't even obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital, should they even be in business?
U.S. district Judge Myron Thompson temporarily blocked the admitting privileges portion of the law and is expected to rule on it July 12.
Ben Sherman, a pro-abortion man, wrote a revolting, misogynistic piece blasting the proposed late-term abortion ban in Texas (side note: Ohio just passed a pro-life budget and North Carolina is also advancing a pro-life bill. Pro-aborts are outraged). This self-proclaimed "BroChoice" crust is worried restricting abortion will hurt his sex life. Banning late-term abortion on pain-capable babies will make it harder for him to use women:
"This bill will force thousands of Texas men into unplanned fatherhood by making it impossible for women to access an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Even if you want to have kids, you probably don't want an accident to make you a father before you're psychologically ready and able to care for a child. If you don't want kids, you don't want the narrow, personal views of politicians in the state government to force you to have them.
Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don't be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by."
This low-life is appalled that he might have to accept some responsibility for his actions. He might not be able to have consequence-free one night stands. This is the typical attitude of pro-abortion men, who reap the benefits of abortion on demand, which allows them to philander their way through life using women. Abortion-supporting men don't see abortion as a woman's right, but rather their right to objectify and use women. If something does go wrong (i.e. they conceive a baby, who from the moment of conception is a whole, distinct, living human being), these "bros" can pay (or force a woman to pay) Planned Parenthood to murder the child who was created as a result of their misogynistic recklessness.
Kirsten Powers and pro-life tweeters epically slammed this guy on Twitter. Mr. Sherman responded that "conservatives" were railing "against having sex outside of marriage," and waging a "war on sex."
We're not waging any "war on sex," Mr. Sherman. You, Mr. Sherman, are waging a war on responsibility. Man up.
Spencer Chretien (Claire's brother) at the Suzy B Blog also mused about Mr. Sherman's attitude:
"So Sherman wants to have as much casual sex outside relationships as possible. The “vibe” will be better for him so long as he has the comfort of knowing that he can simply pay a one-time fee to have his unborn child dismembered in the womb rather than accept the responsibility of fatherhood. For being so eager to sacrifice his unborn children for his sex life, though, Sherman seems oddly determined to spend a long time deliberating over his decision to pressure his women into abortions. After all, the topic of his "bro-choice" rallying cry, the Texas bill, only prohibits abortions after twenty weeks (the point at which his innocent children feel excruciating pain as they are killed). Wouldn’t he want to restore normality to his sex life as soon as possible and intimidate his hookups into abortions quickly, lest his personal life experience lengthier inconveniences? I don’t get it.
Anyway, the broader point, of course, is that what makes Sherman "bro-choice" is his amazingly callous lack of seriousness when it comes to his sexual choices. Men must respect women, not use them. Your job, bro, is to be a man: take responsibility for your actions and stand up for the vulnerable. Maybe your sex life isn’t the only thing that matters. I don’t stand with Ben Sherman. I’m proud to be bro-life."