The student voice of American River College since 1955

The American River Current

The student voice of American River College since 1955

The American River Current

The student voice of American River College since 1955

The American River Current

Letter to the editor: Anti-abortion propaganda


I am appalled by your recent article “Abortion foes come to ARC” (3/30). Supposedly it was about a group that came here to “discuss its feelings” by “engaging in conversation.” But there’s no conversation here. If “Project Truth” wants to come to a campus where they have no business besides spreading their view, whatever. I suppose that’s their right even if what they say is far from the actual truth.

However, your article has some severe flaws if it is meant to capture a “conversation.”

First, we hear almost only from men regarding a topic about which women might perhaps have some thoughts or insights. A woman’s voice only shows up at the very end, after most sensible readers have already stopped reading. I almost missed her! That is especially problematic with a male writer (with two male contributors!) and a male-dominated editorial staff. Did none of you dudes wonder if maybe there might be a bit more that women might have to say on this subject?

Second, we have to listen to four of these agitators (only one of whom is even a student) before the other side of the supposed conversation is revealed. This monologue continues until the piece jumps to page 2, where we finally get a half-hearted rebuttal from another man, who only is quoted as addressing what he sees as the distasteful nature of this group – without actually confronting any of its claims. He reportedly said that he didn’t “engage in any discussion with the group.” Still no conversation.

Only after the chief instigator of this group gets another round to talk about how effective his gruesome pictures are (pictured! with another outsider man from their group who also gets to speak to our student paper!) do we finally get to hear from a woman and student.

Are you kidding me? Were there no women at all outside the library besides the one shoehorned into the last column? That seems unlikely. Were women just not comfortable approaching what seems to have been an entirely male conversation about their affairs, captured by other men? I wouldn’t be surprised and would have loved to see reporting on what actual conversations might have been happening among students in our public square, in response a bunch of outsiders coming to talk at us.

Or was the Current staff just not interested in women’s contributions to the “conversation” on reproductive rights? If so, that might be the real story.

Andrew McLeod

GIS certification program student

View Comments (1)
More to Discover

Comments (1)

All The American River Current Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • B

    Brad C.Apr 16, 2016 at 4:59 pm

    The characterizations of these radicals as “foes” is also disingenuous. If a propagandist on the corner held up signs, saying one’s right to a fair trial must be suspended because their god says so, we wouldn’t call them “constitutional foes,” we would call them radical.