Posted on 05/17/2002 3:52:54 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
More than a few astute WorldNetDaily readers e-mailed me last week to point out a visible irony in a story I filed regarding a Michigan statute, the act of abortion, and murder.
WND reported that the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center was able to convince a federal judge that a sign erected outside a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Kalamazoo by pro-life demonstrator Ann Norton was not a violation of the law, but rather a legal extension of her First Amendment rights.
The center was pleased that U.S. District Judge David W. McKeague awarded Mrs. Norton, a client, $650 as part of a settlement with the city of Kalamazoo after she filed suit against city officials and police for threatening to arrest her.
Police had responded to a call from Mrs. Norton and a friend on Oct. 11, 2001, as they were picketing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. When officers arrived, the women said one of their picket signs had been destroyed by an "offended" passerby.
The officer didn't do anything about the destruction of Mrs. Norton's property except file a report. However, some weeks later, police threatened to arrest Mrs. Norton and her friend because they allegedly violated a Michigan statute that prohibits – now get this – public depictions of murder.
Police say they considered the arrest because Mrs. Norton's sign contained "a color photo of a bloody, aborted female child's head being held by surgical equipment."
"Can this be true?" readers asked by the hundreds. If so, then isn't the state of Michigan essentially declaring abortion to be murder? And if that's right, then why is abortion even legal – at least in Michigan?
As I said, our readers are astute. But all is not as it seemed.
Robert J. Muise, an attorney for the Thomas More center, told me earlier this week that regardless of the state's statute, Mrs. Norton's case was not going to set legal precedent, had it even gone to court.
"From a legal perspective, this ruling wasn't going to change the nation's abortion laws," he said.
That's because no Michigan court would have ruled that Mrs. Norton's signs contained "images of murder." Rather, legal experts opine that at best the state courts would have ruled only that her signs contained images of the results of a legal medical procedure.
Nevertheless, as Mr. Muise pointed out, the case is interesting because it is fraught with hypocrisy and irony.
"What the case does demonstrate is the measure certain individuals will take in order to suppress speech" they don't agree with, he said, referring to the police department's initial decision to charge Mrs. Norton.
Mr. Muise went on to point out that when it comes to abortion, it is typical for many supporters to be "bothered or offended" by the kind of graphic pictures that were being displayed by Mrs. Norton. Seems they are all for "choice" as long as they aren't reminded of what "choice" looks like.
I don't blame them. I agree that seeing a picture of a bloodied, dying or dead baby is unnerving, unsettling and altogether distressing. Most images of murder are, but it's worse when the victim is an innocent child.
The only real solution to the abortion "debate," Mr. Muise argues, is for people like Mrs. Norton to be brave enough to display the reality of what abortion actually looks like.
Only then will more people who say they support this dubious "right" to kill babies see that perhaps the state of Michigan was onto something after all.
How about just public indecency? They could have arrested her as indecent if she were nude, isn't that picture she was holding more indecent than her body? (I haven't seen her, so this could be debatable, but that's not the point)
Ah, one of the many quandaries of the pro-infanticide position!
I was thinking that too. The people who pulled out this law to silence the pro-life point of view were true morons by any definition.
Also, notice I called your side pro-life instead of anti-choice, anti-freedom or anti-woman. At least you could use "pro-choice" when referring to the other side. It shows honest intent at discourse rather than name calling.
Oh, did I hurt your feelings? The term "pro-choice" is a deceptive term - what exactly is being chosen, and who is it that is choosing?
Infanticide is the killing of babies, and according to any honest biologist or geneticist a human "fetus" can only BE a human being.
You can use any feel-good term you want, it doesn't change the fact of what an abotion does: it kills a baby human being.
To believe other-wise is strictly denial.
Ah, but the pro-choice position is truly the anti-women position.
The terrible toll that it takes on a womens' spiritual and emotional condition,
not even considering that about half of all abortions end the life of a female.
People who run abortion clinics are not "pro-choice". They make buckets of money off putting dead babies in buckets, and they are no more "pro-choice" about a woman deciding whether or not to abort than GM is "pro-choice" about your decision whether or not to buy a Chevy, or Microsoft is "pro-choice" about your decision to upgrade Office. In all cases, they are "pro" a particular "choice," and only that choice.
That is why, as posted here a few days ago, barely 1% of Planned Parenthood's clients choose adoption.
I thought you were talking about people's views in general, not those actually performing the abortions. I'll admit that any time money gets into the mix and something becomes a for-profit industry, people get greedy and things go bad.
I can't really argue with you on that since I'm personally against abortion too. I'm just talking about using the label each side gives itself in debates. To do otherwise instantly degenerates the debate into name calling.
And "pro-life" is deceptive according to some quite logical arguments too. Look, I'm not for abortion. I have two daughters, one on the way, and hoping that one won't end in miscarriage like three others did. Do you think I could possibly consider an abortion? (okay, maybe that was way too much info, but I think you get the point)
One of my favorite political comics has four scenes:
Boy, for someone that claims to be pro-life, you seem to toss out a lot of pro-abort talking points.
How much actual contact have you had with active pro-lifers? Or do you just know what you read in the NY Times?
Most of the pro-lifers I know are both pretty realistic and compassionate.
Of course, one wouldn't read those kinds of things in the Wash. Post or NYT's
That's because I'm not pro-life by your definition. I'm against abortion, but I know my authority stops with me and doesn't extend to control over a woman's body.
That's like saying although you wouldn't own a slave, you don't care if I own one or not. That's some spine you have there.
You are the one who hasn't been honest during this exchange.
You claim to be pro-life, but you are NOT pro-life by ANY definition of pro-life.
Have you ever taken an honest look at the true pro-life position? Or do you just know what the New York Times tells you?
You are still spouting the pro-abort talking points without considering anything I have said in any light other than a pro-abort light.
Do you believe in a moral absolute, or do you think each of us creats our own individual moral code.
Is that why you think it is OK for a woman to kill her baby before it sees the light of day? What about the rights of that baby?
Surely you have a working knowledge of biology - YOU know that that baby inside of a woman can sense love, hear sounds, and feel pain.
YOU are betraying the sister-hood that you claim to care so much about - YOU don't care about the women not really being given a true choice - YOU are self-decieved.
And you are in need of serious prayer, and I will pray for you, because my care for this topic goes way beyond politics.
So you are not against murder unless you are the victim?
I will have nothing to do with it and will not condone it, and I wouldn't be the victim if it were me doing one. I simply don't believe I have the authority to enforce this view onto a pregnant woman's body by force or by law.
Hmm. Good point. Let's think of someting upbeat to call your side . . . something with that positive prefix "pro" in front of it.
Something like "pro-death," "pro-slaughter," "pro-vivesection." Choose whichever factual and upbeat term suits your fancy.
You're welcome. Glad to oblige.
Well, then, let's start by enforcing the pro-life view (the basis of all moral law) onto the assisting physician's or attendant's hands. Let's begin by putting the death angel's little helpers in prison for life.
Surely you have no objection to that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.