As a former president and current member of Georgetown Right to Life, also known as RTL or Vita Saxa, I’d like to weigh in on an opinion piece published in the Voice entitled, “Right To Life, With Conditions: The Hypocrisy of the ‘Pro-Life Generation.’” While I agree there are certain extreme pro-life groups that may use pro-life rhetoric too broadly, Georgetown Right to Life, the group at which the article was directed, is not one of those groups.
In the article, the author repeatedly explains that “pro-life” denotes a commitment to universal human dignity. She even quotes our mission statement, which asserts: “Through persistent effort we can, and will, create a society in which abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty have no place.” Despite the author’s accusatory tone, I can attest that Georgetown Right to Life remains committed as ever to protecting life at all stages. Below, I’ve attempted to list the claims laid against RTL in that article so that I can properly address them.
The article implied that because the Facebook event for RTL’s “Pro-Life Rally” said nothing about RTL’s stance on capital punishment, it proves that RTL cares more about abortion than the death penalty. As it is difficult to effectively promote every plank of the RTL platform at every event we hold, each event is tailored to a specific cause under the umbrella of human dignity. The event to which the author was referring was specifically focused on Planned Parenthood because it was held the day Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, testified before the House of Representatives in response to the undercover videos released over the summer, which present Planned Parenthood officials and employees in potential violation of several laws. Because Planned Parenthood performs abortions, the event RTL held focused on the issue of abortion.
“When it comes down to it, I don’t think any of us got into Georgetown by skipping school events or rolling our eyes at people pouring their hearts out.”
The author of that article has also accused RTL of leaving the death penalty “largely ignored.” I am grateful to the author of the article for bringing attention to the devastation caused by the death penalty. I agree with her that there ought to be more of a discussion about it on campus. However, to my knowledge, Georgetown Right to Life has either organized or publicized every anti-death penalty event that has been held on or near campus in the past four years, which have included talks from the Catholic Mobilizing Network and the Community of St. Egidio. Last semester, the death penalty was discussed at length at our student panel entitled, “Why Am I Pro Life? (xanax) ” Georgetown Right to Life does not ignore the gross miscarriage of justice brought about by capital punishment. In fact, RTL has been working with the university to bring Sr. Helen Prejean, author of bestselling novel Dead Man Walking, and a tireless advocate for the abolition of the death penalty, to speak on campus next semester.
Right to Life does not use, as the author claimed, “ingenuine rhetoric.” There’s nothing disingenuous about the language we use. I admit we have the rhetorical advantage being called “pro-life,” but that is because we are pro-life. The author of the article asserts that pro-life means all life, and that’s absolutely right. Given this mandate, more than half of our club’s efforts benefit the oppressed and underprivileged. We hold diaper drives once a month for the Northwest Pregnancy Resource Center, which was founded by Georgetown alumni. The center houses seven mothers and their babies at a time; it also provides free pregnancy tests and material support to women in need along with referrals to various social aid agencies, résumé writing workshops, etc. These services are available in English and Spanish.
RTL also raises money for the center through bake sales and t-shirt sales. In addition, we hold regular trips to a local nursing home to spend time with the residents there. Finally, we hold speaking events concerned with a host of pro-life issues. Granted, there are anti-abortion organizations that do not concern themselves with life issues like capital punishment, but Georgetown Right to Life is not one of those organizations.
RTL has not focused “all of its visible efforts” on trying to defund Planned Parenthood. I’m not sure if the author meant to say that literally all of our visible efforts revolve around Planned Parenthood, or if she’s hyperbolically referring to the “Pro-Life Rally.” Assuming the former, I’ll say that we table three days a week, each day writing an important fact about a pro-life issue on a whiteboard. These facts cover the breadth of issues for which we stand. Our other “visible efforts” include our emailing list and our Facebook page, both of which support the entirety of RTL’s mission statement.
In my time at Georgetown, we’ve only held three events specifically about Planned Parenthood, and they were each prompted by that establishment’s questionable ethics. Just to clarify, Right to Life is opposed to Planned Parenthood because it has potentially been profiting off the body parts of aborted fetuses for years, and that raises some serious bioethical concerns. Right to Life does not deny that, with the notable exception of mammograms, Planned Parenthood provides helpful services to women in need. However, there are many other women’s health clinics in the country that perform these services and are not currently under investigation. We’re not against helping women. As I’ve said, we actively work to support mothers in need so they don’t feel like abortion is their only option.
Finally, the Voice the cartoon that accompanied the article suggests that RTL concerns itself with tabling rather than with the plight of every oppressed group of people. It seems absurd for the Voice to accuse RTL of not doing enough to protect all of the oppressed people in the world because of a single rally we held for a specific pro-life cause. RTL is doing all it can to support those in need in our area. Personally, as a member of Right to Life, I’ve gone on countless diaper drives, babysat, visited nursing homes, and raised money for various pro-life social justice organizations.
I understand that it’s a busy time for all of us—balancing work, extracurricular activities, and midterms, but that’s not a satisfactory excuse for failing to perform due diligence when writing an article. Unfortunately, it seems like the author of the recent article formed her conclusion about Georgetown Right to Life before doing research. If you, the author of that article, or anyone else has any questions or concerns about the efforts of Georgetown Right to Life, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at gu.rightolife@gmail.com or stop by our table in Red Square. We’re a friendly group committed to living up to all that the term “pro-life” entails, and we’d love your help.
Teresa Donnellan is a senior in the College.
“pro-life social justice organizations,” I love the author’s use of oxymoron here!