Stop Donation Shaming

As I'm sure you all know, on Monday, April 15th, there was a fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France. This building is significant to a lot of people for a variety of reasons. It's a historical landmark, it holds religious significance, it's a beautiful structure, and, of course, there are probably a handful of people who mostly care about it because of Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Whatever the reason, a lot of people care a great deal for this cathedral and want to help with the repairs by donating money. That should be a good thing right? Well, to some, donating to Notre Dame repairs isn't a worthy cause.
Over the last few days, I have seen the following screenshot of a tweet from user @Kristan_Higgins shared across social media numerous times.

There are a couple of things wrong with this statement. First of all, a quick Google search will tell you that Notre Dame is not owned by the Catholic Church, it is government owned, the Catholic Church just uses the building. A lot of people seem to be missing that little detail.
The most important point I want to make here is stop shaming people for how they use their own money. It's their money and they are free to spend/donate it however they please. You are also free to spend/donate your own money however you please, so if you want to donate to one of the cause Ms. Higgins mentioned, by all means, do it. Just don't shame other people for giving to something different. Giving money to anything that doesn't benefit you, but could benefit someone/something else, is a worthy cause.

Pro Choice = Pro Hypocrisy

I have seen and heard some things that have been really frustrating to me in regards to abortion, and I feel like this needs to be discussed.
First of all, one thing I have noticed a lot over the years is that whenever legislation is introduced that would hold abortion clinics to higher standards in regards to safety and sanitation, pro-choice advocates fight it. Many of their arguments against these bills are about how abortion is already safe and bills like this are just the republican party's way of trying to restrict abortion access and get clinics shut down. These arguments raise a few questions, at least for me.
1. If abortion is already so safe, why are you fighting against these higher standards? I mean, it's already such a safe procedure, and clinics are so clean and safe, so they should have nothing to hide right? If they're going to pass their inspections anyway, why does this matter to you?
2. Along those same lines, if abortion is so safe, how would these standards get clinics shut down and restrict access?
Speaking of bills pro-choice advocates fight against, a bill was introduced here in North Carolina called the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would essentially ensure that, if a baby survives an abortion attempt and is born alive, he/she is given proper care so they have a chance at life. This bill passed the state senate and house of representatives, but was vetoed by Governor Roy Cooper. Cooper defended his veto by stating, “Laws already protect newborn babies and this bill is an unnecessary interference between doctors and their patients. This needless legislation would criminalize doctors and other healthcare providers for a practice that simply does not exist (source)." 
My question to Gov. Cooper is, how exactly is this bill an interference between doctors and patients? It's not about the woman choosing to have the procedure or the doctor performing it, it's simply about saving the life of the child when the abortion methods fail.
On a related note, Students for Life of America recently shared a video on the Facebook page of Kristan Hawkins, the organization's president, speaking with a student at Boston College during a recent visit to the college's campus. Hawkins asks the student if she thinks children/babies apprehended at the border who are in poor health should be given care, and the student says yes. When asked if babies born alive after a failed abortion should be given care, the student answers no. The student is asked to explain why she feels that way and she states that it's not a baby, despite Hawkins having already explained that science says it's a baby. Hawkins said in an interview with Fox News regarding that interaction, that she could tell from the facial expressions of students who came to protest her event, that even they were shocked at the hypocrisy the student had just displayed.
A little advice to any pro-choice advocates out there, if you want to be taken seriously, make sure your arguments actually make sense.