Yale Daily News reported yesterday:

[A] Yale official said that a scientific test found no traces of human blood in the Davenport College senior’s art studio, although there was no way to determine whether the project in its entirety had been examined.

Yale was looking for evidence that student Aliza Shvarts had or had not inseminated then aborted herself numerous times over 9 months for an art project.
yale bloodspot.jpgWhat will Yale do if it eventually finds red stuff in Shvarts’ proximity? Test it, apparently. Will it require a sample of Shvarts’ blood for a DNA match? Will it check for another human’s DNA, her dead offspring?
This should alarm abortion proponents, whose primary defense of said act is “the right to privacy!” these days. But so far they haven’t risen against Yale for this invasion, as they have risen against OH parents for wanting the same information from an abortion mill re: their minor daughter’s illegal abortion, as they have risen against KS prosecutor Phill Kline for wanting the same information from abortion mills to confirm or deny illegal abortions. So far they’ve remained silent here. Why?…


It also should alarm them on their “a human is not a person” argument. Yale’s goal is to find whether Shvarts is lying. If it finds Shvarts’ blood with the DNA of 2 humans, or even simply tiny body parts of another human in it, what does that mean? Will Shvarts be allowed to show her “art” only if it is found only to contain menstrual blood? Why?
As Steve at the Stand to Reason blog wrote:

If abortion doesn’t kill a human being, what could possibly be wrong with Shvart’s project?… [W]ith all of the other things that pass as art these days, it seems odd to exclude abortion from the mix. If someone were displaying… tissue… removed during their liposuction surgery, people would recoil, but I doubt the university would censor it.
And if Yale is censoring this project because abortion kills a human being… then is Yale willing to follow that logic and discourage all Yale students from getting abortions? Why is Yale so concerned about such a small-scale abortion operation as Shvarts’s when the Yale Medical Center Family Planning Department teaches doctors to perform abortions and appears to offer abortions as a service?
So, the question remains: Why is Yale censoring the Shvarts art?

And why are abortion proponents silent?
A pro-abort guest columnist wrote in YDN yesterday:

Art, or not art, hoax, or no hoax, Shvarts’ project is a huge tragedy for the pro-choice movement…. Although I’m sure that she did not mean for her “art” to fuel the anti-abortion movement, she gave its supporters just the example they needed. Her project, surely, will become the poster child for irresponsible and disrespectful abuse of the right to abortion and a counter-example to the notion that a woman knows what is best for her own body.

shvarts studio 2.jpg

I am fervently pro-choice, morally-relative, non-religious, politically liberal – and I will defend free speech with my life – but Shvarts’ project makes me want to cringe…. Anti-choicers paint mental propaganda portraits of irresponsible young women who are overly sexually active (without protection), impulsive and willing to have multiple abortions without “learning their lesson” or considering alternative routes. This image is largely untrue, but perception is everything in mainstream politics….
It is “art,” she claims. Fine. Sure. I might even agree. But Shvarts cannot be so naive as to ignore the fact that millions of people do not agree and see this only as an abuse of choice. Just because she does not (as I do not) endow abortion with moral ideology, she must recognize that more than half of voters in America do. They will judge her piece. They will moralize it. And they will use it as impetus to ban abortion.

“More than half”? Interesting acknowledgement.
This writer is correct. Yale’s response to Aliza Shvarts’ art project has been to attach morality, irresponsibility, and physical harm to abortion. The only reason why? Fear of alumni financial abandonment.
Hypocrites and double-standard bearers, the lot of them.
[HT for STR quote: JivinJ; illustration courtesy of ABC News; photo of Shvarts coutesy of YDN]