Senator Skinner States She Might Have Chosen Continuing College over her Daughter’s Life

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

While testifying in favor of a bill to hand out abortion pills on college campuses a few weeks ago, Senator Nancy Skinner made a shocking statement about aborting her own daughter. During her very discombobulated testimony, Skinner said she might have ended the life of her own daughter, if she would have gotten pregnant early in her college career. Does her daughter, Sirona Skinner Nixon, know this?

SB 320 is a bill that would require California universities to provide abortion inducing drugs to their students on campus. If the bill becomes law, California will be the first state to force universities to provide medication abortion pills. The bill was introduced by Senator Connie Leyva and was voted out of the Senate on January 29 with 25 votes in favor, 13 no votes, and two members abstaining from voting.

Senator Skinner began her testimony by thanking Senator Connie Leyva for bringing the bill to a vote. Senator Skinner then explains that as she was nearing the completion of her graduate degree, she became pregnant with her daughter Sirona. Since she was nearly finished with her degree and had met most of her requirements, Senator Skinner said that becoming pregnant was not an issue. Then Skinner said if she had gotten pregnant during her undergrad or at the beginning of her undergraduate studies, the circumstances would’ve been different and she would have “been having to make a very difficult decision.”

Senator Skinner essentially stated that if she had become pregnant at an earlier time in her studies, she would have chosen to have an abortion, choosing to continue her education, instead of carrying Sirona to term. She then tries to rationalize her statement by saying that young women in colleges cannot afford to pay for the expenses of caring for a child. Senator Skinner also claimed that it would not make sense to take a two to three year break from classes to care for one’s child during the early stages and then return to college.

Senator Skinner thinks that California should be the first state to force universities to provide dangerous medication abortion pills to make it easier for young women to choose an abortion over carrying their child.

Her testimony in favor of the bill is extremely anti-woman.

Senator Skinner underestimates the capabilities of women, assuming that they absolutely cannot raise a child and continue their education simultaneously. How’s that for empowering?

This bill specifically targets women who might be feeling vulnerable at the news of an unexpected pregnancy and Senator Skinner wants to make it easier for women who are in situations similar to the one she found herself in to choose to continue their schooling at the expense of the life of their son or daughter. Senator Skinner’s daughter deserved the same right to life as anyone else, and no preborn child’s life should be jeopardized in such a manner.

Several years ago, Sirona Skinner Nixon was quoted in an article highlighting her work as personal chef, praising her mother’s ambition.

Sirona credits her “superhuman” mother, Nancy Skinner, for her drive and determination. “It still blows my mind that she ran for Berkeley City Council at age 26 while pregnant with me and still a student at Cal,” Sirona said. “She has always pushed me hard to do better and achieve more.”

I wonder if Sirona realizes her mother’s ambition could have killed her, if timing had been different. I wonder how Senator Skinner’s testimony in favor of SB 320 made Sirona feel about her own value as a woman?

[Editor’s Note]: SB 320 is pending referral and MUST be stopped. Please contact your local assembly member, and urge him/her to vote against SB 320.

(2) Comments

  1. I don’t think that we should force our colleges to promote abortion. We should promote giving children for adoption to all the childless couples longing for children instead of killing them in utero. I would rather have my tax payer dollars go to paying for these babies to go to term and being put up for adoption, than killing millions of babies just because a woman is selfish and didn’t prevent conception in the first place. Why don’t we just pay for all young women who want to prevent conception to have an arm implant such as Implanon and Nexplanon. They last for years and we wouldn’t be killing babies because of careless, unprotected sex; which is their choice to participate in. Why should we pay for their life style choices?

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *