Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

St Anne’s contraception chaos

A religiously motivated motion has been tabled in St Anne’s JCR, amid concerns over a welfare levy, soon to become compulsory, which will set up a board to discuss the matter at greater length in Michaelmas term.

The motion, which centred on the issue of payment for contraceptives through the welfare budget, passed, with 66 votes for, 16 against and 12 abstentions.

According to the minutes of the meeting, the debate became heated after Joe Collin suggested, in reference to the views of the proposers of the motion, “We should not be tolerant to intolerant minorities. We should not try and accommodate these views.” Another JCR member retorted, “This is totalitarianism.”

Nathan Pinkoski, President of the Catholic Newman Society, explains his opposition to the levy.

However, Collin immediately responded, “This is not totalitarianism! The JCR have and will vote on this.”

The potential difficulties of a new welfare system were also raised, with one second year pointing out, “We can’t have an overly impractical situation where people can’t come to welfare tea because they haven’t paid the levy… Would we have to have some sort of tick list? Welfare is available for all, it is very hard to discriminate against a few who have opted-out.”

The motion, which was debated in the Anne’s JCR meeting on Sunday 2nd June, noted that “there is diversity of belief in the JCR regarding the morality of contraceptives”, that “current welfare funding does not distinguish between general welfare and welfare concerning sexual health items”, and that in the future – due to the recent withdrawal of Chlamydia testing and the subsequent loss of funding for welfare provisions – new ways of funding sexual health items may have to be found by the JCR.

The motion went on to posit that no individual should be forced to donate to contraceptives against their conscience, and that as such “there should be a compromise found to safeguard various interests at stake here, i.e. freedom of conscience and sufficient funds for welfare”.
It concluded with the conjecture that a panel consisting of the JCR President, treasurer, welfare officers and other members of the JCR should be set up in Michaelmas to allow for further discussion about payment for contraceptives and to “seek a compromise that would balance the interests involved in this issue”.

The motion was tabled following concern amongst some students regarding where payment for contraceptives will now come from. Kat Zielinska, who proposed the motion, explained, “I proposed the motion for two reasons, firstly, because of my religious views, which were the driving force of this action, but also because as a lawyer I feel strongly about protection of various freedoms, including freedom of conscience and thought that this issue should receive some attention from St Anne’s JCR, especially given that some people felt seriously upset about it.”

She and her seconder, Xavier Wilders, seemed pleased with the outcome of the JCR debate and the passing of their motion, with Wilders adding, “Our motion speaks on behalf of these students who, if no compromise is found, are in the situation where they can only be part of the JCR if they agree to make a massive compromise with their moral code.

“And let us remember the issue at stake: these students believe abortion is murder, so to them funding abortion is the equivalent of supporting acts of manslaughter. No student should be forced to agree to this just to be part of the JCR.”

The motion was subject to some change, however. An amendment was made to alter the wording of the resolution from “representatives of members of the JCR with conscientious objections regarding contraceptives” to “members of the JCR with an interest in the issues discussed”, with regards to those who would be able to attend the further discussion in Michaelmas. Stefan Harvey, who suggested the amendment, explained, “I thought [the amendment] was vital given that, ultimately, the motion would be put before the entire JCR. It would then only be fair to have a committee remotely representative of such a diverse group, so as to avoid the motion being highly one-sided.”

He added that he was proud of his amendment, stating, “I would also like to take pride in doing so because several members of the JCR took the discussion as an opportunity to criticise the objectors for their religious views. I am openly agnostic and in no way side with anyone that follows a religion especially.

“I nevertheless found it highly upsetting that other members of the JCR attempted to ‘beat down’ a minority group when they were merely proposing a productive way to develop a motion that reflected their views. It was not their place ostracise members of the college, so once the amendment was passed, I voted in favour of it.”

Zielinska has demonstrated her support for the amendment, saying, “I had no objections to that, quite to the contrary actually. The amendment to the motion had my support – the purpose of the panel is to gather different opinions and create an environment for a constructive discussion about funding contraceptives.”

St Anne’s JCR President Oscar Boyd seemed pleased with the outcome of the discussion.

He told Cherwell, “It is clearly important that issues regarding personal freedoms are brought to the JCR and discussed as they were, and hopefully the meeting motioned for will provide a forum in which the issue can be resolved.

Katie Colliver, OUSU Vice President for Welfare and Equal Opportunities, commented on the situation, “I am pleased to see that St. Anne’s JCR is taking a thoughtful approach.”

Check out our other content

Most Popular Articles