Abortion Rally Brings Together Both Sides Of The Debate
By Kera Mogue
Have you ever seen a plastic miniature mold of a dead baby fetus?
Because I have. The abortion rally on June 26, 2013 in Oak Park, IL drew a crowd of about 30 people outside of Dr. Cheryl Chastine’s office. Dr. Chastine’s work as a physician spans from family practice to abortion procedures. She also travels to perform abortions at a Women’s Center in Wichita, Kansas throughout the year — the very same building in which Scott Roeder murdered the 67-year old physician George Tiller in 2009 for providing 3rd trimester abortions. It is primarily Chastine’s work in the gynecological milieu that has caused such an uprising amongst the pro-lifers of America.
The rally was scheduled to begin at 11:30 A.M., but people posted their picket signs outside as early as 10:15. With no clear demarcation between sides, I was forced to judge books by their covers (or, in some cases, their neon yellow t-shirts) in order to discover their ideological leanings.
Nora, a student from the University of Chicago, became involved with the cause a year and a half ago when she signed up for the Planned Parenthood action program. It made her angry to know that some people want to ban Planned Parenthood’s plethora of services for women. She gradually started working with the Illinois Choice Action Team to support Dr. Chastine’s work and make a stand.
“We’re grateful for her,” Nora said. “She’s a hero, not a monster. These protests are actually a disruption to her life.”
Dr. Chastine has had issues renewing the lease on her Oak Park building due to the negative publicity it has attracted in recent months. Some say that she may not be based out of Oak Park much longer.
Brian, Nora’s classmate, works at the Lumen Cristi Institute in Chicago.
“I’d call the ACLU if they fired me for being here,” he said.
A student of the Divinity School at U of C, Brian brought together two of his passions: theology and activism. But were others able to do the same?
Directly beside Nora and Brian stood Eric Schneidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. Eric’s father and founder of the league, Joe Schneidler, hoisted a picket sign of a mangled fetus in silence while Eric spoke animatedly about what brought him to Oak Park despite the scattered showers.
Before working at the PLAL shop in Aurora, his hometown, Eric channeled his energy toward the efforts of the Gift Foundation, a Christian-affiliated non-profit focused on fundamental marriage issues. In 2002, he realized that his past had brought him to a turning point, and he became the communications director for the PLAL.
Eric’s parents got involved in Roe v. Wade because they were shocked that unborn babies were not getting “the legal protection they deserve as human beings.” ”
“They are fully unique, developing, individuals,” Eric said. “Pro-choice people will come to me with evidence from an embryologist. For every embryologist, I’ll find you a guy that flunked out of embryology school.”
Among the societal ills listed by Eric Schneidler is a flawed culture of sexuality that is no longer life-giving. A change in ethics and morals, he said, is the only way to move forward as a society. He drew an analogy between the abolitionists of the 19th century and the pro-lifers of today, who he claims are fighting for human rights and social justice for all.
Concerning the recent filibuster in Texas, Schneidler said, “America’s a republic, so I feel a kinship with the people [in Texas].” Schneidler also commented on Rep. Wendy Davis. He told me, “That lady will have her own conscience and consequences to deal with.” Schneidler may or may not have been alluding to the biblical judgment day.
Is it possible to reconcile religion and science, rational thought and passionate sentiment? Pro-choicers and pro-lifers are people who whole-heartedly believe in making the world a better place. Their views are informed by cultural narratives and personal experiences that nobody can pinpoint perfectly. Change, it seems, lies in the delicate balance between dialogue and action. As long as constituents continue to question their policy makers, steps will surely be taken. Whether these are forward steps or backward steps are for each individual to decide.