Letter to the editor
Accepting biased ads as truth a mistake
November 12, 2009
Pro-Life Wisconsin (PLW) expressed outrage at Marquette University for rejecting the April 17’s “Advertising Supplements” it (behind the guise of Minnesota’s Human Life Alliance) submitted to The Marquette Tribune. I am writing today to express my outrage at the Student Voice for not doing the same. Apparently, Marquette has higher standards for sifting and winnowing false advertising and money laundering.
The purported “Advertising Supplement” featured medically inaccurate descriptions of abortion care and the same ideologically driven conflation of birth control and abortion that has jeopardized access to birth control for college students and rape victims throughout Wisconsin.
According to Human Life Alliance (HLA) distribution coordinator Jillian Roemer and Virginia Zignego, communications director for PLW, Pro-Life Wisconsin reimbursed HLA the $570 fee for the insert, as well as additional overhead costs to cover the printing and shipping of the inserts. These inserts, which were characterized by Pro-Life Wisconsin as “educational inserts” of “solid pro-life content,” are intentionally designated as “Advertising Supplements” on each page so student newspapers will distribute PLW propaganda, according to Roemer.
Shame on HLA and PLW for using such calculated maneuvers to spread their rag on UW-River Falls. And editor, shame on you too for not taking the time to think about what exactly is being “advertised” by the so-called “Advertising Supplements” you choose to accept.
Nothing was being advertised here; instead, you contributed to the dissemination of 12-page tasteless booklets of disinformation designed to denigrate and shame women who receive abortion care.
Nikki Shonoiki
Comments
Chaia on 06 Feb 2010: The main difference to me is: Pro Life - Limits freedom by placing restrictions on people. It's intrusive whereas Pro Choice grants freedoms and allows grown ups to make their own decisions about family planning. No one should be restricted, especially by ideology.
Ann Olson on 14 Dec 2009: In the November 12, 2009 issue of the Student Voice, a published a letter to the editor by Nikki Shonoiki entitled, “Accepting biased as truth a mistake” was filled with inaccuracies and fabrications. The accusations in regards to Pro-Life Wisconsin and Human Life Alliance are inaccurate. Pro-Life Wisconsin did in fact place the same insert in the Marquette Tribune on September 24, 2009, as was run in The Voice on October 30, 2009 Ms. Shonoiki claims to have received information from Virginia Zignego, Pro-Life Wisconsin and from Jillian Roemer, Human Life Alliance distribution coordinator. No one at Human Life Alliance or Pro-Life Wisconsin discussed the cost of inserting icare… with Ms. Shonoiki or anyone else for that matter. It is true that Pro-Life Wisconsin paid to place these inserts in the Student Voice, but Ms. Shonoiki’s facts and figures are inaccurate. Jillian Roemer hasn’t worked for Human Life Alliance for a long time. Ms. Shonoiki, every bit of scientific information in icare... is well documented and cited. I invite you to read the scientific evidence and then tell me specifically where the inaccuracies are instead of making wild claims about the information presented in icare…. Yes, Human Life Alliance and Pro-Life Wisconsin do operate from an ideology: that all human persons, born or preborn, regardless of their size or circumstance have great dignity and worth and deserve protection from the moment of fertilization until a natural death.
+ Revenant + on 26 Nov 2009: Good points by Matt. I see plenty of advertisements every day that bother me, and make claims I would consider false. But every organization has the right (plus the obligation) to promote itself, and PLW is no different. The students here can decide for themselves whether to read the booklets.
Matt on 24 Nov 2009: Though I can understand and empathize with your anger, saying "shame on the editor" takes it a little far. That's why it's called an "Advertisment." I doubt if there was a pro-choice insert that you would be having the same "problem" with it. They would most likely use the same bias and half-truth tactics that any side to a political argument will stoop to just to make a point. Just because it's in the Student Voice doesn't mean it's accepted as truth, that's in the eye of the beholder. You can make the argument that the public is stupid, and will believe whatever you tell them. That's about it.
Jineane on 13 Nov 2009: Nikki hits the nail on the head when she cites medically inaccurate abortion info. Why would you believe anything anyone says to you about abortion if their entire point to existing is to talk people out of abortions? You might as well ask a vegan to recommend a cut of steak.