January 22, 1973 was a monumental day of controversy. This was the day of the case of Roe vs. Wade that ultimately brought forth the law permitting abortions with in the first trimester of pregnancy legal. And that is all that it is, simply a law. In response to Wednesday's letter to the editor in the Northern Star, "NIU Should Not be Taking a Stance on Abortion," the issue is not about what stance NIU holds. To briefly summarize Joseph Lotta’s point, he is concerned that the University is actively taking a stance on pro-choice. He goes on to say that through the resources provided to students on the University website, NIU is sending a biased opinion on abortion. He also mentions how NIU is tax payer supported institution and is out of line. The problem with this is NIU is not taking a stance at all. NIU supplies all sorts of resources and shouldn’t be held against it because it is responsible, neutral in nature, and is a benefit to students. I understand that the topic of abortion is touchy, and needs to be addressed carefully. Yet in the same way the university provides links to such as counseling and medical support, NIU plays it safe by covering as much ground as they can. Just because someone doesn’t hold the same opinion as Joseph Lotta, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have resource available to them if they decide to go that path. In fact, that would be quite irresponsible not to be able to aid someone looking into a perfectly legal practice. This in fact has nothing to do with a stance on abortion, as it simply just provides students with information they may otherwise not be able to find. Even though NIU provides information on this touchy subject, it truly is inherent in nature.
What Joseph Lotta fails to understand is that it would make the university less neutral if NIU decided not to provide this type of information. Providing information does not “actively support abortion”, all it does it reinforce the idea of choice. That if someone did want to look into an abortion, they can. And if they chose not to, that’s okay too. I can understand how shoving information in someone face may appear biased, but that is not the case at hand. To find information like this you would need to actually be searching for it, which is not the case with the school website. All NIU is doing is supplying resources for students under the law and should not be interpreted as an opinion. Furthermore, the resources provided benefit students more than they would harm them.
Let’s think logically for a minute. Let’s say you’re in a position where you needed to get any sort of surgery. I think anyone would appreciate knowing all the options they have before committing to one. Abortion, free of opinion, is a legal procedure. Depriving one from potential resources is taking two steps backwards from what was accomplished in 1973. Like it or not, NIU has an obligation to provide its student body with resources directed at everyone. Found on pro choice Women Issue’s website, “Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.” This is a great example that shows supplying students with information and resources are beneficial to those who seek it. All things considered, NIU is doing far more good than harm.
Surely everyone is entitled to an opinion and should be allowed to express that. After all, that is a law isn’t it? Joe Lotta’s letter to the editor expresses that NIU, a school funded by fellow tax payers, should not be supplying students with resources that suggest pro-choice. His argument however, completely misses the point. NIU is just giving all the resources they can to its students. In fact, NIU would actually be supporting pro-life if they didn’t supply these sorts of resources. NIU abiding to law and is neutral on its stance on abortion. It is providing information about a legal practice. It upholds to no opinion, simply just a law.
