"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader

Uh-Oh. Might Graphic Abortion Pics Become Illegal?

With the Supreme Court punting yesterday on hearing a case where a pro-lifer had been banned from showing graphic abortion pictures where children might be, it could become illegal to show such pictures if there's a likelihood of children viewing them.

The case arose from a protest waaaaay back in 2005 when some pro-life dudes protested with graphic abortion signs an outdoor Palm Sunday service at an Episcopal Church in Denver. They weren't too happy about the Church's stance on abortion.

Now, is that the greatest time to be doing such a thing? Probably not. The Episcopalians were re-enacting Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and there you have these guys on the sidewalk waving pics of dead babies and yelling at them. The thing is, there were a heap of kids at the procession too.

I'm not one of those guys who is always against the use of the graphic abortion sign. But time and place guys. Time and place. A Palm Sunday procession? Really?

So anyway, a lot of the kids got upset. I'm sure a lot of parents did too. But the church sued mainly putting forth the children being upset because people don't really care when adults get upset but they do care when adults freak out children. So a Colorado court issued an order barring Mr. Scott from “displaying large posters or similar displays depicting gruesome images of mutilated fetuses or dead bodies in a manner reasonably likely to be viewed by children under 12.”

Just a quick question. Why do pictures of the unborn so disturb people if it's just a "fetus" that has no moral value? The law of the land gives no legal standing to the unborn but then protects people from seeing the actual effects of the law of the land. If the unborn are not "fully human" and deserving of legal protection, then why are pictures of their remains offensive? We know why. It's because they're human being. But they can't even admit that. They argue at one time that the unborn have absolutely no value and then argue that the sight of an abortion is so offensive and horrible that free speech rights must be curbed.

As The New York Times points out, "The Colorado Court of Appeals acknowledged last year that its order was meant to suppress Mr. Scott’s speech based on its content, something the government can do only if it has an exceptionally good reason."

That exceptionally good reason was, according to the court, a “compelling government interest in protecting children from disturbing images.”

And now the Supreme Court has let that ruling stand by not accepting the case. That could be a problem in the future. This case will surely be cited in the future and it will surely limit free speech, especially for pro-lifers. I'm not a fan on waving graphic abortion signs in front of children. I cringe when my kids walk past that part of the March for Life every year. But this precedent will likely be abused. One must only look at how the IRS bullied and abused pro-life, religious, and conservative groups to understand how this could be abused.

And the ones who will use it will be the pro-abortion types saying they must protect children. Yeah, that's right, pro-abortion types will be casting themselves as protectors of children. Irony, huh?

I have to wonder if one day it might be seen as offensive and disturbing to some to see a crucifix so it will be banned, you know, for the children.


Your Ad Here


ProudHillbilly said...

That's been a question I've asked people - if you agree that this should be done, how can you be offended by a picture of the result?

I'm sure the Germans watching the trains going to the death camps would have gotten their panties in a twist when shown pics of dead Jews, too.

Michael said...

Like the "disturbing images" at a "gay pride" march? Do kids get protected from those images?

Fr Bill Peckman said...

Exactly Michael...do we also ban pictures of graphic violence in war protest? If we are so worried about what kids are exposed to then shall we eliminate all violence shown them through entertainment? How about he graphic violence in video games they play? Can the nightly news no longer show graphic images?

That said, I have never been a fan of graphic pics at pro life events. I know from personal experience that keeping it positive and prayerful work far far better than employing shock tactics.

Michael said...

This reminds me of an exchange the floor of the U.S. Senate between Rick Santorum and Barbara Boxer - I believe. Santorum merely used a DRAWING of what occurs during a partial-birth abortion and Boxer flipped out, saying how DARE he show such picture.

Well, Barb, if you can't even bare to LOOK at it, how can you allow it to actually happen?

I *get* the timing thing. But I would ask people this - if pro-lifers are correct that abortion kills a human being (which they are according to SCIENCE, not faith) - then how could it ever be illegal to keep putting this atrocity in front of people's eyes?

Can you imagine arguing that it was proper for the government to outlaw pictures of the murder of Jews during the time of the Holocaust because such pictures would upset children? I think most people would have a hard time with that. Why? Because we understand what a heinous atrocity the Holocaust was.

We need to understand how heinous the abortion holocaust is. Over 50 million murdered and counting.

Proteios1 said...

On a personal level, I could do without graphic abortion pictures, murder scenes, lynchings and anything else that is graphic and disturbing being displayed in public.
On a first amendment level, I realize that we are evolving into a country where this only applies to a subset of values. Those values advocated by media, politicians, and the mainstream religion of pro corporate mindless consumers (atheism). I say that last part not only because their religion is making great strides, but because they have a hysterical hiss fit if they see a crucifix or Christian symbol or reference in public, but have no problem with being inundated, harassed and constantly pestered by commercials, ads, corporate logos, etc. the perfect secular religion.

Donna M said...

Pro aborts must be living in fantasy land to claim they have nothing to do with those ghastly pictures! These are the primatives and backward throwbacks that still believe abortion doesn't kill anything either! Yessurreee, movin' back to go forward!

Post a Comment