By Reproductive rights crimes will be added to the University Police Department crime log in 2023.
According to Greg Pascal, communication supervisor for the UPD, this new crime classification is in response to Senate Bill 24, which mandates that all California State University campuses provide medical abortions via pill for students. So far, no public universities have begun providing medical abortion services.
“In order to qualify as a reproductive rights crime, it has to be a crime that occurs against a facility or health care provider who is providing reproductive rights services,” Pascal said. “And because the university did not provide those services … once the health center starts providing those, then it’s a possibility.”
Crimes committed now, Pascal said, although inspired by anti-abortion sentiments, would not be classified as reproductive rights crimes until the abortion medication becomes available in 2023.
This means that although violence may be occurring now, it is not being documented as reproductive rights crime at all CSU campuses.
Campus Student Health Services director Angela Girard said when the bill was first passed, UPD was ready for the issue to “not go over quietly.”
Rachel Haering, secretary for the Catholic Newman Club, said she and her cohort strongly oppose the implementation of the bill but oppose violence even more.
“Myself or any members of the groups wouldn’t condone those actions,” Haering said. “That isn’t the way to have a productive dialogue.”
When the topic was first brought to discussion in 2018 during an Associated Students Inc. Senate meeting, it was met with conflicting responses.
[aesop_image img=”http://lbcurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/timeline.jpg” panorama=”off” align=”center” lightbox=”on” captionsrc=”custom” captionposition=”left” revealfx=”off” overlay_revealfx=”off”]
“Beyond the politics of the issue of abortion, there’s the issue of the people running this program don’t want it,” Haering said.
Sen. Raquelle Hafen of the College of Health and Human Services said she opposes the bill for several reasons.
“I am aware that many in ASI and the student body do not agree with my stance on this issue,” Hafen said. “This is a decision made regardless of my personal views on the controversial legality or morality of abortion rights as a whole.”
Haering mirrored her concerns, including those about funding for the bill.
“All the bill says is they’re not requiring student fees to be used, but nothing prohibits it down the line,” Haering said.
Hafen said that her understanding is that the ultimate burden of cost will fall on the students, despite the measure being designed to provide free access to abortion services.
“SB 24 would not provide enough financial support to CSULB as it transitions to offering these services on campus,” Hafen said. “Financial responsibility would likely fall onto the students, contributing to the ever-increasing price of higher education.”
It is unclear what the response will be at CSULB once the service is provided, but Girard said the SHS is still preparing for the possibility of controversy.
“We are in the early stages of planning, so more specifics are to come as we move closer to 2023,” Girard said.
“The bill would require the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls to administer the College Student Health Center Sexual and Reproductive Health Preparation Fund, which the bill would establish. The bill would continuously appropriate the moneys in that fund to the commission for allocations to each public university student health care services clinic for specified activities in preparation for providing abortion by medication techniques” so where is the financial responsibility falling on the student?
I really wish the journalist who decided to interview people had chosen to go to the Women’s Gender and Sexuality Department on campus or the Women’s and Gender Resource Center to speak to well-informed professors and people who have worked for advocating for students instead of Catholic leaders and anti-abortion supporters. How can misleading CSULB students be okay with you all? Do you not have to remain unbiased and at the very least take all parties into account? This is a poorly written article and I’m sorry that so many students who know nothing about this bill will be mislead and hold new biases against students who choose to seek these services in the upcoming years. Find people who teach about reproductive justice and not religious leaders, who really do not have any authority to tell others what to do with their lives. Such a disappointing article.