"...However, the University of Michigan does not revoke an invitation to a speaker based on their personal beliefs."

This kind of thing just doesn't make sense to me. Seems to be a very "science thing" to separate the "facts" of someone's career from the "beliefs." The idea of being partial to someone's personal beliefs (as if personal beliefs aren't the interface, if you will, of how science is applied to the real world) is total crap and a poor excuse.

"Liberation that costs innocent lives is just oppression that is redistributed," she concluded.

Damn she's a spicy one

holding on to a view of feminism where one fights for the rights of all women and girls, especially those who are most vulnerable. I can’t not lament the violence directed at my prenatal sisters in the act of abortion, done in the name of autonomy.

Spin it however you want to, prioritizing the imagined needs of people who aren't even born over the actual needs of the people that currently exist is folly.

"Liberation that costs innocent lives is just oppression that is redistributed," she concluded.

This implies that the people getting (or trying to get) abortions aren't "innocent" (whatever the fuck that means to a religion that assigns the concept of "sin" as an innate human trait that starts when life starts, i.e; "Jesus died for your sins even though you weren't even around yet" and such) themselves, that their lives are worth sacrificing to some bizarre adulation of life for the sake of life, and that forcing people to have children is some necessary evil rather than another iteration of mankind's greatest self-own: martyrdom and the incessant need to make a fucking collective in service to it.