Illustration by Maren Slobody

The only abortion clinic in Mississippi is an unassuming white building located on the north side of Jackson. Its function would probably remain unknown to passersby were it not for the frequent sight of protestors, with signs whose messages range from “Let Us Help You Love Your Baby” to “Never Again” with the image of a coat hanger.

Jan. 22 marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (1973) — a Supreme Court case that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. However, the very existence of the Jackson abortion clinic is precarious in a state whose governor, Phil Bryant, has publicly stated that he would shut the clinic down if it were in his power.

In 2012, Gov. Bryant signed a law that requires any person performing abortions to be an obstetrics/gynecology doctor (OB-GYN) with privileges to admit patients to a hospital. Local hospitals fear being associated with abortion in a state that narrowly failed to pass a “personhood amendment” — prohibiting abortion from the moment of fertilization in 2011. Now, because none of the doctors working at the Jackson clinic are certified by a local hospital, the clinic has received notice that the state Health Department intends to shut it down.

Mississippi has the highest teenage pregnancy rate of any state in the nation, with 55 births per 1,000 teens in 2010 — 60 percent higher than the national average. Eighty-one districts in the state offer abstinence-only sex education in public high schools, while the other 71 districts teach abstinence with minor instruction in how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.

In this puritanical environment in which sex is something to be repressed and feared, many young women find themselves pregnant with an unwanted child. Yet they are forced to become parents because they are unlucky enough to live in a state where legislators refuse to uphold a woman’s right to an abortion, despite it being mandated by the Supreme Court nearly half a century ago.

It is unclear whether Mississippi is directly violating Roe v. Wade by making it nearly impossible to obtain an abortion in the state, because the court case didn’t specify whether states were required to provide any abortion services. However, Gov. Bryant and his fellow lawmakers are clearly violating the spirit of the law, if not the letter of it.

Mississippi has a “trigger law” which would make abortion automatically illegal if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, clearly demonstrating that Mississippi government officials view laws on abortion as unworthy of respect. In the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, the governor swears to “see that the laws are faithfully executed.” By attempting to subvert a Supreme Court ruling and denying the women of Mississippi their right to make decisions about their own bodies and personal health, Gov. Bryant is violating his oath of office.

To assume that anti-abortion measures will prevent abortion is naive. It merely drives women to unauthorized and dangerous sources to obtain abortions. Planned Parenthood gathered data that estimated anywhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million illegal abortions annually in the 1950s and ‘60s, before Roe v. Wade was passed.

Those who assert that abortion should be illegal are denying half the human population autonomy over their bodies. And regardless of a lawmaker’s personal opinion on abortion, if he or she has sworn to uphold the law of the land, to subvert the law without breaking it is underhanded and indicative of an inability to hold office.

We support efforts to keep the Jackson abortion clinic open to ensure that women in Mississippi still have at least this one resource for their reproductive health. Every woman in America, including those of Mississippi, has a right to choose an abortion if she feels it is the best course of action for her. To deny her this right is to imply that a woman is unfit to make major life decisions for herself. Luckily, this archaic mindset was removed from American law in 1973, though the governor of Mississippi has failed to get the message in the intervening 40 years.

Illustration by Leigh Douglas

At this year’s Republican National Convention, the GOP didn’t counter the controversial comments Nebraska Rep. Todd Akin said about “legitimate rape.”

In fact, the GOP proposed a proposed human life amendment to validate Akin’s plank. This potential 28th Amendment to the constitution would override Roe v. Wade to protect the unborn, despite years of gains in rights for women. Sen. Richard Murdock (R-Indiana) spoke in support of Akin, stating that it is God’s intention if a baby is born from rape. Americans should reject this biased lawmaking.

To counter the Human Life Amendment announcement, City on a Hill Press (CHP) proposes to create a 28th Amendment for congressional consideration. Call it the “Protection of Choice Amendment.”

In our proposed “Protection of Choice Amendment,” a woman’s rights to choose will be upheld in America’s strongest institution. The law would affirm the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade in a universally applicable way for all states.

To further ensure women’s rights in our “Protection of Choice Amendment,” doctors who perform abortions will have more protection while members of congress can only serve on a committee ensuring women’s rights by written pledge. Each clause would create the accountability needed for a fair and strong law.

If current poll results hold, the Republicans will lose the female vote by a double-digit margin in the 2012 election. With a reported gender gap at its highest level since Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, consider the text of a human life amendment to see why women aren’t flocking to Romney’s binders.

According to the official Republican platform, the GOP will “assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”

What’s troubling here is the proposed application of the 14th Amendment to protect the unborn, a clear violation of the amendment’s original intention.

The 14th Amendment was enacted to protect emancipated slaves at the end of the Civil War, and has been cited in many rulings that favor civil rights. One is led to believe that the amendment’s authors didn’t intend to protect the rights of beings whose consciousness is disputed among scientists today.

While CHP does expect Democrats to veto any amendment advocating the protection of human life until birth, such a ploy must not go unnoticed.

If the Republican Party can propose amendments to the constitution that strip rights away, then we propose to protect rights the same way. It’s the only way to ensure the right to choose isn’t in the hands of people who wish to take it away.

Illustration by Christine Hipp.

9-1-1.

They’re three digits that, in sequence, hold a lot of weight. You memorized this number as a young child and grew up with the notion that, with a few quick clicks, you could be at a hospital with professional medical staff to help you.

Think again.

With the passage of H.R. 358, the House of Representatives is set on changing this ideology. The bill, which passed last Thursday by a vote of 251 to 172, includes a provision that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform emergency abortions. Doing so would override the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which states that a hospital must treat a pregnant woman in a life-threatening situation or transfer her to a facility that will.

Proponents have dubbed this the “Protect Life Act,” while pro-choice advocates call it the “Let Women Die Act.” The latter moniker is a much more accurate depiction of the bill, no matter on which side of the abortion debate you find yourself.

Not only is it a violation of the aforementioned EMTALA, but it wholly contradicts the Hippocratic Oath, a doctor’s ethical code of conduct. The oath reads that a doctor “will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required” and “must tread with care in matters of life and death.”

Physician or not, the bare bones idea behind this bill defies logic. It’s valuing the life of an unborn person over that of a living human being, one whose life is in jeopardy. If a pregnant woman has serious problems during her term — say, if she’s hemorrhaging — and is refused service because she needs an abortion, the likelihood that she and her fetus will die goes up drastically. The bill purports that one’s morality, whether it is embedded in religious beliefs or entirely separate from them, supersedes a life-or-death situation. If made into law, it would allow for gross negligence as a doctor and as a human being.

Although this bill likely won’t make it past the Senate (and even if it did, President Obama has already said he would veto it), the fact that it was even proposed on the floors of Congress is deplorable. Moreover, the fact that this outrageous bill and others like it have made their way to Capitol Hill (as addressed in Nikki Pritchard’s recently published City on a Hill Press feature, “Reproductive Rights Restricted Across the Country”) signals a paradigm shift in what politicians consider illogical.

While those within this university may be shocked that such a measure could be passed by a legislative body, clearly the extreme nature of H.R. 358 did not dawn on 251 people. So even if this bill isn’t signed into law, who’s to say it won’t be revived in the future with renewed fervor and legislative backing? That possibility alone should concern all American citizens, regardless of gender or political affiliation.

In a time when so many Americans are already fighting for their economic well-being, women should not have to be faced with the possibility that they could be in a literal fight for their lives without the assistance of medical professionals.

Hiss Kurmiņa (left) and Kristen Swig (right) argue with a Sanctity of Human Life member who was protesting abortion in Quarry Plaza on Tuesday. Photo by Nick Paris.

“We’re bringing the truth about abortion and how it not only kills an innocent human being but hurts women,” said SOHL leader Bud, who does not release his last name out of concern for his privacy.

SOHL is in its third year of Northern California college campus tours, and visited UC Santa Cruz this week.

While SOHL said their goal is to educate students on how they view abortions, some students expressed differing opinions.

“They’re throwing the Bible at us,” fourth-year Tracy Garcia said. “What are they trying to prove, bringing these pictures here?”

Bud was not surprised at students’ reactions, and wanted the engaged debates to occur.

“Images tell stories,” Bud said. “This gets their attention…professors aren’t addressing this issue, or if they do, they say the woman should have the right to choose. Right now, women have the right to choose — it’s the law of the land. Just like in slavery, people had the right to have slaves. But it’s an injustice.”

Third-year Stephanie Calderon spoke to a SOHL member, whom she said was nice, but noted the demographics of the SOHL volunteers.

“An older, white man can’t feel what it’s like to have a baby,” Calderon said.

Fourth-year Tessa Mizokami designed her own sign that read, “Your body, your right” to silently protest the anti-abortion group. Another sign made by students addressed the religious aspect of SOHL’s argument and read, “I believe in God and choice.”

The UCSC Women’s Center notified students via email of SOHL’s presence on the morning of Oct. 4.

“We are merely concerned that the group’s methods of exposure to violent imagery and use of inflammatory language may upset or disturb some folks on campus, especially those who are survivors of violence themselves,” the email read.

Women’s Center director Stephanie Milton said she heard about students’ interactions with SOHL at other schools through her network of Women’s Center staff throughout the state.

“This method of subscribing to Christianity is harming to UCSC’s principles of community,” Milton said.

Like the students, Milton experienced mixed encounters with SOHL members. One approached her cordially, but another loudly commented about something Milton said to someone else.

“I found him sarcastic and I don’t hold that in good faith,” she said.

The Women’s Center and several student organizations tabled in Quarry Plaza around SOHL, and the Women’s Center is inviting a reproductive justice organization to table this quarter to expand this discussion of reproduction, Milton said.

“They believe in what they’re doing and we believe in what we’re doing,” she said. “As a woman, I’d say it hurts me. I have a problem when people try to subscribe morality to my body.”

Additional reporting by Chelsea Hawkins

Illustration by Jamie Morton.

Bettina Aptheker, a UCSC feminist studies professor, answers questions regarding abortion legislation during her officer hours. She emphasized the need for providing adequate reproductive health care services for women. Photo by Toby Silverman.

“There is a great debate about when life begins,” Bettina Aptheker said.

Known by thousands for her retired Introduction to Feminist Studies course, UC Santa Cruz’s feminist studies professor Bettina Aptheker is a long-standing proponent of reproductive rights.

“A doctor will tell you life begins when the fetus is viable, when it can survive outside the womb,” Aptheker continued.

Although the time comes at a slightly different time for each child, the Supreme Court’s 1973 landmark decision Roe v. Wade declares women have the right to terminate their pregnancies until the fetus is viable. According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that conducts sexual and reproductive health research, a fetus becomes viable around 27 weeks.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid,” while noting it “is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”

Many anti-abortion advocates maintain that life begins at conception, the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. A physician might say the same thing.

The Association of Pro-Life Physicians is an organization based in Zanesville, Ohio that provides a listing of physicians who will neither perform abortions nor refer them.

“Life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte,” according to the association’s website. “In time, we will re-stigmatize the abortionists in our communities and lives will be saved.”

In the past decade, more restrictions on abortion laws have been reappearing on state ballots: mandatory counseling sessions and wait periods; 20-week limits on time to get an abortion; and parental letters of consent for minors.

“Trigger laws” in place in several states, including Louisiana and Mississippi, would outlaw abortion automatically if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Some states, like California and New York, have enacted “trigger laws” that would preserve women’s right to abortion.

Republican leaders across the country are pushing to reduce the amount of time women are eligible for abortion to 20 weeks or less. In the last decade, over 350 laws have been passed making abortion services less accessible and more invasive.

In 2010, Nebraska passed the first law to prohibit women from getting abortions 20 weeks after conception. Several states have followed suit since then, including Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback signed a law disallowing abortion 21 weeks after conception.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 16 states have laws in effect prohibiting “partial-birth” abortion. The term, generally used in political discourse, refers to a method of late-term abortion that ends a pregnancy and results in the death and intact removal of a fetus, medically known as intact dilation and extraction (IDX). The term is not recognized by the American Medical Association or the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Only four of these laws apply exclusively to post-viability abortions.

On May 9, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” in a 251-175 vote. More than its name suggests, if passed in the Senate this coming year the act would cease federal funding to federally subsidize insurance plans that include abortion services.

Among those who would be affected by the proposed policy are women on Medicaid, women in federal prisons, and women serving in the armed forces. Their insurance plans would need to be reshaped to exclude abortion services.

Planned Parenthood, a nationwide health service organization, provides comprehensive health care services to millions of people. In 2009, Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million in grants and contracts from the state and federal government.

Lupe Rodriguez, Mar Monte Planned Parenthood public affairs director, said H.R. 3 misinforms the public regarding where funding for abortions currently comes from.

“One of the misleading aspects of the law is it implies there is currently government funding for abortion services,” Rodriguez said. “There isn’t.”

In California, Planned Parenthood funding would not be affected by H.R. 3. However, many patients with federally subsidized health care plans and low-income families that may not have health insurance altogether would feel its impact.

Additionally, anti-preventative health care bills have been proposed federally, and in several states. These bills seek to slash the Title X funding Planned Parenthood and other health care providers depend on across the country. Title X, the Public Health Service Act, is the only Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Hyde Amendment passed in 1976 restricts government funding for abortions. H.R. 3 takes the Hyde Amendment a step further by disallowing the funding of abortion coverage except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in immediate danger.

UCSC Professor Aptheker pointed out what she perceived to be the historical hypocrisy of refusing to fund self-selected abortions in light of the U.S.’s history of sterilizing Native American women.

“Under the Hyde Amendment, no tax funds are allocated to abortion,” Aptheker said. “The government has, however, used funds for sterilization. In the 1970s, Native American women were sterilized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The federal government funded that, but not abortion.”

To be covered for abortion services under H.R. 3, women would need to purchase a separate insurance plan for it. In the last decade, unintended pregnancy increased by 29 percent among poor women while decreasing 20 percent among higher-income women, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

The majority of women who get abortions already have children, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Emily Steiner, a recent UCSC graduate, discusses the possible negative effects of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (H.R. 3). Steiner says the bill forces impoverished women into a tight spot and might lead them to take dangerous measures to abort their pregnancy outside of a hospital. Photo by Nick Paris.

UCSC graduate Emily Steiner found an internship last year with the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center through the feminist studies department. She counseled women in a weekly group for women with or expecting children. She also completed a major in sociology.

“H.R. 3 targets women who are impoverished and minority groups,” Steiner said. “It could also make it harder for girls who are scared to go to their parents because they don’t have insurance and can’t afford it.”

On the outset, poor women and women of color would be most impacted by the bill. Medicaid health care is reserved for the poorest people in the country. To qualify, a woman must have an income below the “very low” eligibility ceiling set by her state. Nationally, the average qualifying salary is $11,160 per year for a family of three.

Women in their twenties account for more than half of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. As affordable options to terminate pregnancy dwindle, many women seek unsafe abortions.

“These policies are forcing women to seek illegal abortions, which can be very dangerous and exorbitantly expensive,” Aptheker said.

If H.R. 3 passes the Senate vote, it could severely limit the access women have to abortion services by raising the cost to unaffordable levels.

While the government does not directly fund abortions, it funds some insurance plans that include abortion services. Republicans in the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the federal government from funding these services.

“We have a very conservative House now,” said Louis La Fortune, a Free Radio Santa Cruz DJ. “Congress has continually attacked abortion rights since Roe v. Wade.”

La Fortune hosts a political show at a secret location in Santa Cruz. Every wall in the broadcast studio covered in graffiti and art, La Fortune’s humanitarian-centered program flows through the airwaves and aims to liberate.

Self-determination is an issue that has been at the heart of the abortion debate for decades.

“[Congress] wants to take away a person’s control over their own life,” La Fortune said. “It’s tragic that they’re going after women.”

Satirical newspaper The Onion reported on May 18 that Planned Parenthood opened a 900,000 square foot abortion facility in Topeka, Kansas. The “abortionplex” story was a jab at the assumptions behind HR 3 and similar policies.

The services listed include valet parking and a food court. The outrageous headline “Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Dollar Abortionplex” appeared all over Facebook with disgusted reactions to the article, which was thought by many to be factual.

“My heart and soul weeps for these deceived people,” said one posting responding to The Onion’s article.

The Tumblr site “Literally Unbelievable” documented outbursts of rage against Planned Parenthood and the “abortionplex.”

“Some anti-choice people don’t want to hear the real facts,” UCSC Health Center pharmacist Diane Lamotte said.

Lamotte said reactions to The Onion article may represent the tendency for some in opposition to abortion to misinterpret or ignore the truth about what Planned Parenthood does.

“I love The Onion,” Lamotte said. “And I love that they take on the absurd and point it out for what it is. One Arizona Congressman said over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions, when it’s really in the 3 percent area.”

Ninety-seven percent of services Planned Parenthood offers are preventative health care. Lupe Rodriguez, director of public affairs at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, said the popular perception of their organization is skewed.

“It’s not very widely known that we provide general health care,” Rodriguez said. “Our focus is on comprehensive services.”

Illustration by Jamie Morton.

Pro-life activists like projects manager Corrina Gurra of the Pro-Life Action League are set on preserving the fetus by supporting legislation that restricts abortion.

“We’re going to stand behind laws that we think will save lives,” Gurra said.

The League, based in Chicago, Illinois is one of thousands of organizations dedicated to teaching Americans about the graphic details of abortion procedures.

“We are an activist organization,” Gurra said. “Tomorrow we have what we call a ‘Face the Truth’ and going out to the suburbs and in the busy streets. We go out twice a month to show pictures of aborted fetuses.”

While the Pro-Life Action League is not directly involved in policy-making, there are several organizations that lobby for restricting abortion rights. The National Right To Life Political Action Committee is the largest of them.

Rodriguez said Planned Parenthood has been responding to political attacks by activating supporters and encouraging them to speak out against restrictive policies.

“We are helping Planned Parenthood affiliates in other states,” Rodriguez said. “Our volunteers call constituents in other states and ask them to contact their legislators.”

Women are being arrested across the country under the suspicion of causing or attempting to cause their own abortions. Jennie McCormack, a 32-year-old mother of three from eastern Idaho, stands accused of performing a self-induced pill abortion after the 20-week limit. She was arrested and could face up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine, according to Reuters.

Younger women have tried to end their pregnancies on their own rather than confront their parents about it. Steiner said she had friends in high school who attempted to end their pregnancies.

“When I was in high school, I had friends that were too scared to get an abortion and tried to terminate on their own,” Steiner said. “One abused alcohol during her pregnancy; one hit herself against the back of her sofa.”

In California, voters have repeatedly struck down a parental notification letter requiring women under the age of 18 to obtain permission from their parents before getting abortions.

“California has not been nearly as affected by these draconian laws as other states,” Lamotte said. “But I have been involved in three campaigns against parental notification letters in the past two decades.”

Anti-abortion advocates assert that young women need guidance from their parents to make informed decisions about their pregnancies. However, advocates like Lamotte question the ethic and effectiveness of the proposed law.

“We can’t legislate family dynamics,” Lamotte said. “Some families are very dysfunctional and it would be terrible for young women to seek consent. They could be thrown out or hurt.”

Lamotte said the proposed law is problematic because it makes the assumption that young women have a safe enough home environment to disclose their sexual histories and personal decisions in.

Lupe Rodriguez of Planned Parenthood shares the same opinion as Lamotte.

“Young women are often in fear of telling parents what they need,” Rodriguez said. “The people who would be most affected by this kind of bill are those in danger by it. It’s a small, but very important percentage of youth.”

Professor Aptheker said anti-abortion laws arise out of religious fanaticism and are detrimental to women’s health.

“There has been a backlash against the women’s liberation movement, and all it encompasses,” Aptheker said. “The political motivation behind these laws are very anti-women. They come from an unfortunate ignorance about social realities.”

For Santa Cruz DJ La Fortune, there is hope after these tumultuous years of restrictive policy.

“It’s got to get worse before it gets better,” La Fortune said. “I’m glad to see organized opposition and there is some pushback, which is great. But every day we lose more of our civil rights to legislation.”

“In the Waves,” directed and written by UCSC students, examines the subject of abortion from many points of view. Perspectives favoring abstinence and women’s right to choose are both represented, as are the effects an abortion can have on family and partners. Photo by Nick Paris.

Evie Tomasso and Alex Bellman, played by third-year Veronica Tjioe and second-year Alex Caan, share a passionate moment. Photo by Nick Paris.

In the midst of the current political dialogue and the rise of Palin-esque “feminists,” the question of women’s rights and the right to choose lingers on the tongues of many. “In the Waves,” a play written and directed by UC Santa Cruz students, addresses these questions through the story of Evie Tomasso, a 17-year-old girl who must decide what course to take after unexpectedly becoming pregnant.

At one point early on in the play, the character, Evie, played by third-year theater arts major Veronica Tjioe, proclaims, “I’m glad the world is crooked.”

And that is how the world the Tomassos live in is: crooked, imperfect. There is no right answer, but there are many answers and even more questions, something the play attempts to tackle.

“What’s right for someone is not always right for others,” said Alexandrea Bezdeka, a graduate student in theater arts and director of the play. “We want to open people’s eyes, letting people know there is a right [to choose] … and why abortions are important.”

The play does not attempt to lecture the audience on the politics of women’s rights but aims to open up a discussion.

“It’s about the right to choose and whose choice is that — should we involve parents? Should we involve the man? Whose choice is it, and is it right or wrong?” Bezdeka said. “The great thing that [the playwright] Kathryn Walhberg did [is] she focuses on a lot of the sides of the story. It’s not just the woman’s side.”

The play deals extensively with the strain that is placed on the relationship between Evie and her father, Osmond, played by fourth-year Porter student Grey Skold, as they deal with Evie’s decisions. The dynamic of the father-daughter relationship highlights the way in which the conversation on abortion rights includes not only women but varying voices with opposing ideas and perspectives.

“It’s a pretty well-rounded play,” Tjioe said. “It’s not saying abortion is an easy thing, or that pro-choice is an entirely positive thing. It’s dealing with how difficult the issue is to deal with.”

“In the Waves” does not provide a universal answer, instead focusing on the answer that is best for the individual in question.

Alex Caan, a second-year theater arts major from Kresge who plays Alex Bellman, Evie’s boyfriend, said the actors were also affected by the heavy nature of the play.

“The first time we read it through, everyone had an emotional breakdown,” Caan said. “It’s a difficult thing to deal with, coming to work every day and playing someone who is going through so much.”

The play itself is complex in structure, a multi-layered story centered on Evie’s rights and her choices. The play opens in a flash-forward, and then rewinds to explain why Osmond is looking for his daughter at a clinic. On another level, the play depicts Evie’s growth through lectures that Osmond, a professor of art, gives to the audience. Tjioe notes that the play is “structured into trimesters, much like a pregnancy,” and, in this way — through the events of her pregnancy and decisions — Evie is reborn into the adult world.

Throughout the play, there is a line of continuity from the play’s beginning to its end. For example, Evie’s physical stance as she contemplates a painting at the close of the play echoes her stance at the beginning. As in the title, water and liquid are clear motifs in the play.

Although the play is simple at first glance — the stage is decorated with only a few pieces of furniture — it is aware of itself, the conversation it is putting forward, the reality of the situations of characters and its relevance to the current political and social atmosphere.

Director Bezdeka, who left information on the play in a family clinic, was drawn to the show because it “is not necessarily a show that can be put on in any particular place.”

“Sex is such a taboo in our society unless we’re talking quietly in our dorm rooms,” Bezdeka said. “We want to open it up…It’s just such a topic that not anyone talks about.”

At the close of the play, the audience is left not with a definitive or clear answer, but with a tone of neutrality. No character has fully come to terms with what has happened, but each is taking the steps to move towards a resolution. Osmond ends his final lecture and closes the play by explaining how the woman in the painting is just trying to “keep herself afloat,” much like Evie.

“It’s just a piece of people’s lives, for this amount of time, and this is how it happened — there doesn’t necessarily need to be an ending,” said fourth-year Kat Brown, who plays Molly Nadzia, a women’s rights advocate.

Cast member Caan said the lack of a resolution is “beautiful.”

He said: “It’s like life, isn’t it?”

Illustration by Kenny Srivijittakar.

Ah, the Super Bowl. A day when people across America come together to cheer on their favorite football teams, chomp on chips, swill beer… and watch anti-abortion ads?

This year CBS is set to air a pro-life advertisement during the Super Bowl. This signals the end of the network’s policy of barring advocacy ads from sporting events, and ensures that Game Day will create a divide among spectators that is about more than the Saints and the Colts.

The commercial, paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. The ad will address Pam’s decision not to have an abortion when she was pregnant with Tim in 1987, despite the fact that it was recommended by a doctor due to her illness. This choice led to the birth of Tim, who went on to win the Heisman Trophy in 2007 and the BCS Championship in 2006 and 2008 during his college football career at the University of Florida.

While you may or may not agree with the message this advertisement is sending, one thing that pro-choice activists and anti-abortionists should be able to agree on is that these politically charged commercials have no place at the Super Bowl.

This is especially true considering CBS is picking and choosing which causes to give airtime to, which is evident from their decision to nix two pro-homosexuality commercials that were submitted for consideration.

An ad from GoDaddy.com, which stars a fictional former football player who becomes a fashion designer and launches a lingerie line upon retirement, was deemed to “have the potential to offend viewers,” according to the network. In addition, CBS discarded a Super Bowl commercial from ManCrunch, a Toronto-based gay dating website, which featured a kiss between two male football fans after their hands touch in a bowl of potato chips. Their reasoning? It apparently did not meet the quality deemed necessary by their Standards and Practices Department.

In response, Jarrett Barriors, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), issued a statement saying, “CBS has a problem when they do something like this at the same time as they allow an anti-gay group like Focus on the Family to place ads during the Super Bowl. The network should come clean to the public about what’s going on, because this seems to be a homophobic double standard.”

The network has faced similar accusations in the past, such as in 2004 when they rejected an advertisement by the United Church of Christ that emphasized its open stance regarding homosexuality.

Some questions that arise from these decisions: What are CBS’s standards? What makes them decide to include a blatantly anti-abortion advertisement in their Super Bowl lineup, but not a commercial that includes a football player turned fashion designer or two men kissing? Why do they think these ads “have the potential to offend viewers,” but apparently don’t think the same of a pro-life commercial sponsored by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, a man who once said that gay marriage will “destroy the earth”?

While it is true that everyone has a right to free speech, the members of a single department at CBS should not be able to have the ultimate say in deciding what is and isn’t appropriate for the general public, especially when these choices show support for one political sect of the country over another. By limiting the free speech of certain groups by not allowing their advertisements to air during the Super Bowl, CBS is presenting itself as a discriminatory network, a portrayal that is not good to have during this tough economic time — or ever.

The Super Bowl is an event that is supposed to unify the country for a day. It is seen as a welcome break from a typical day in the news cycle, when talk of healthcare reform and war dominates the airwaves. But when blatant advocacy ads find their way into sporting events, it reignites the red state/blue state divide of the nation and brings politics into sports, where it does not belong.

So please, CBS. Keep your politics out of my Super Bowl.