Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion Protesters Use Cameras, Raise New Legal Issues, Lawsuits
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Tuesday, May 28, 2002 | YOCHI J. DREAZEN

Posted on 05/28/2002 7:10:25 AM PDT by TroutStalker

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

DENVER -- As soon as he saw the blue minivan turning into the parking lot of Planned Parenthood's small abortion clinic here, Kenneth Scott grabbed his digital camera, clambered up his rickety metal ladder and started snapping pictures.

"You'll have nightmares about this day the rest of your life," he bellowed, photographing the blond woman gingerly leaving the minivan. Then he turned his camera to her escort. "Your sin won't be hidden or forgotten," he screamed.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-184 next last

1 posted on 05/28/2002 7:10:25 AM PDT by TroutStalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
The site, Abortioncams.com, which Mr. Horsley claims gets almost two million hits a month, marks a tactical shift by the antiabortion movement.

This doesn't mark a tactical shift by the movement, it marks a new, and in my opinion rather questionable, technique by two people and a few imitators. Like any revolutionary "movement," pro-lifers represent a spectrum of opinions and methods, from the prayerful to the half-dozen unfortunate people who have resorted to violence. I think this lead-in is calculated to appeal to the pro-aborts among WSJ's readers and stir them up.

Unfortunately the Wall Street Journal is pro-abortion, in its conservative editorial pages as well as its left-wing news staff. They are thoughtful on other issues, but not on this one. Hopefully they will think better of it some day.

2 posted on 05/28/2002 7:22:49 AM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
One thinks the precedent for a number of these issues has already been set by Megan's Law.
3 posted on 05/28/2002 7:33:43 AM PDT by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Self-righteous haters.
4 posted on 05/28/2002 7:40:24 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
If an abortion is just normal everday treatment why be all upset if someone wants your photo ? Don't we have cams recording everything everywhere ?
5 posted on 05/28/2002 7:46:36 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Interesting article. Apparently, those in favor of killing inconvenient unborn children don't want anyone to know about it, when they do it. They don't seem too proud, they don't seem to be "celebrating their freedom," do they? Wonder if they don't believe their own propaganda....?
6 posted on 05/28/2002 7:46:37 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Self-righteous haters.

On both sides. Those wanting babies to die and those trying to stop them.

7 posted on 05/28/2002 7:51:09 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Who? The baby killers?

My dad's office was above the abortion clinic. The protesters were there on Tuesdays and Thursdays. One time, I went to see him with my girlfriend. When we came to the clinic door, she grabbed the handle, the protesters yelled and we kept walking past. It was pretty funny at the time.

8 posted on 05/28/2002 7:54:34 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Self-righteous haters.

On both sides.

That's wrong and you know it. The women having their picture taken are not haters in any imaginable sense of the word. The simply do not agree with you about the definition of when a human becomes a human. That is a reasonable thing to disagree about.

No, it is these sort of self-righteous haters who can tolerate no disagreement -- who only seek to bring harm to those they disagree with.

I feel sorry for the women who have to face these hate mongers. It is very sad that hate mongers like this exist.

9 posted on 05/28/2002 8:06:18 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Wonder if they don't believe their own propaganda....?

Of course they don't. They never did. Those who have most fervently pushed abortion have always treated it as a shameful act.

10 posted on 05/28/2002 8:16:25 AM PDT by exDemMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Wonder if they don't believe their own propaganda....?

Of course they don't.

No, of course not, only the self-rightous can believe their own rhetoric, everyone else is just a tool of Satan, yada yada yada

11 posted on 05/28/2002 8:20:24 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
The women having their picture taken are not haters in any imaginable sense of the word. The simply do not agree with you about the definition of when a human becomes a human

If they disagreed with me about the definition of when life begins they would not be embarrased in the least.

But you are right, hate is too strong. They dislike the life they are carrying so strongly they wish to terminate its existance and are self-righteous when anyone might possibly disagree with them.

12 posted on 05/28/2002 8:29:20 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I expect statements like this from the same people who protest surveillance cameras for security purposes. People either have a right to privacy or they don't. You can't have it both ways.

By the way, a hemoroidectomy is a legal medical procedure. Do you want pictures on the web of you going in for that procedure?

13 posted on 05/28/2002 8:30:38 AM PDT by History is truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: History is truth
Do you want pictures on the web of you going in for that procedure?

Hey, yeah, let's take pictures of people going into a weightloss clinic and post their pictures on the web -- we could call the site "God hates fatties too."

14 posted on 05/28/2002 8:33:38 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
No hate here.

The mothers are victims and will have to live with what they have done.

You cannot have a 'difference of opinion' where killing is concerned. We have shaded so many wrongs in this society, soon nothing will be wrong. It will just be your opinion as to what is right or wrong.

Violence and maybe even the actions of these people are wrong. However, think about it. If you absolutely and with no doubt whatsoever, believed that they were murdering babies in that building, what would you do? And that is what they are doing - it is not just a difference of opinion, that is a beating heart and a life.

How do any of us sleep at night - both the ones who are pro-abortion and those of us who are against it and are doing nothing but posting on sites where we know we will be supported by the majority of posters. (The later was aimed at myself.)

15 posted on 05/28/2002 8:37:25 AM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: History is truth
I expect statements like this from the same people who protest surveillance cameras for security purposes. People either have a right to privacy or they don't. You can't have it both ways.

I don't protest surveillance cameras. I know how often I am being filmed. If you search for cams on the internet you might be surprised how much we do is being "televised" as we go about our daily tasks.

By the way, a hemoroidectomy is a legal medical procedure. Do you want pictures on the web of you going in for that procedure?

I really could care less.

16 posted on 05/28/2002 8:38:45 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan

That was pretty disingenuous of you. How do you know? Maybe they just don't like the thought of inconvenient babies' skulls being crushed for money.

17 posted on 05/28/2002 8:39:21 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nanny
We have shaded so many wrongs in this society, soon nothing will be wrong. It will just be your opinion as to what is right or wrong.

Well stated, bravo! So killing of the uborn or the barely born is now "difference of opinion when life begins"? With euthanasia there is also "difference of opinion when life ends." Nutting but differences of opinion among educated people. It's all so relative, isn't it, and we're supposed to "celebrate our differences" and be "non-judgemental", aren't we? There is another name for these phenomena: decadence.

18 posted on 05/28/2002 8:47:12 AM PDT by Revolting cat!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Abortioncams.com is down. "Document contains no data"
19 posted on 05/28/2002 8:47:22 AM PDT by LarryLied
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nanny
However, think about it. If you absolutely and with no doubt whatsoever, believed that they were murdering babies in that building, what would you do? And that is what they are doing - it is not just a difference of opinion, that is a beating heart and a life.

You bring about an interesting point. Hypothetically, suppose it was't unborn children, but, as an example, jewish people. Suppose that it wasn't illegal to kill jewish people and you knew that they were doing that inside the "clinic". If you truly believed in your heart that this was wrong, wouldn't you try everything in your power to stop it? Or what if it was black people, or red-headed people, or whatever? Hopefully you would try to save these peoples' lives.

I know this is a wild example, but I think it illustrates the point. Those of us that believe that there are truly babies being murdered in there, we should be doing more to stop it.

20 posted on 05/28/2002 8:52:54 AM PDT by Frank Grimes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
As a new father, I'm very disturbed by abortion, and I certainly am opposed to government support and public funding of it. But, having visited abortioncams.com, I don't think this tactic is right. It may be legal, but seeing the pictures of these poor women made me sad and a little ashamed of intruding on them.
21 posted on 05/28/2002 8:53:43 AM PDT by mondonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
My verdict:

The women entering the clinic are in a public place and therefore have no reasonable expectation to privacy. However, posting their personal medical records goes beyond the pale and is a gross invasion of their privacy. That practice should stop immediately.

22 posted on 05/28/2002 8:55:22 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank Grimes
Those of us that believe that there are truly babies being murdered in there, we should be doing more to stop it.

Like what?

23 posted on 05/28/2002 8:57:59 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Hey, yeah, let's take pictures of people going into a weightloss clinic and post their pictures on the web -- we could call the site "God hates fatties too.

Let's also put cameras in front of all the strip clubs and gay joints in every town in America, than show the pictures of the customers on the internet.

24 posted on 05/28/2002 8:58:21 AM PDT by catonsville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
whatever you think would help. I'm not recommending anything illegal, but if people feel strong enough that they would go to jail in support for their cause, then they have to decide if it is worth it to them.
25 posted on 05/28/2002 9:08:11 AM PDT by Frank Grimes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nanny
You cannot have a 'difference of opinion' where killing is concerned.

Not only is it a reasonable belief that a small clump of cells is NOT a human in any meaningful sense -- any other claim is a matter of religious faith ONLY. So yes, there is a very REASONABLE basis to disagree on the morality or immorality of abortion. Only the self-righteous holier-than-thou's preclude any possible disgreement from their revealed truth.

26 posted on 05/28/2002 9:14:19 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan

What if someone thinks that murder liberates the bound soul, and is a good thing? Are you, a holier-than-thou libertarian, going to try to force your morality onto the murderer based upon your disagreement of their 'revealed truth'?

27 posted on 05/28/2002 9:19:30 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Only the self-righteous holier-than-thou's preclude any possible disgreement from their revealed truth.

FWIW, I was vehemently against abortion before accepting Christ. Based on a personal experience of driving a woman to an abortion clinic, who decided not to abort. Upon seeing the precious child later at four years old I could no longer look at abortion the same.

It was many years later that I accepted Christ and found that scripture is actually silent on the issue.

28 posted on 05/28/2002 9:20:35 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
You are a rather insignificant clump of cells yourself in a universe that does not care about you. Any other claim is either an act of incredible hubris, or a matter of religious faith. The morality of the decision to terminate your existence depends totally on the morality of the person who accomplishes this act since there appears to be no universal standard on this issue. Of course there are some self-righteous holier-than-thou's who would call that act wrong, but they are operating from a religious perspective which has no legitimacy in a logical universe.
29 posted on 05/28/2002 9:52:06 AM PDT by moneyrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
The simply do not agree with you about the definition of when a human becomes a human. That is a reasonable thing to disagree about.

When what becomes a human?

There is no rational, ontological or scientific basis for re-defining who is a human being, and your self-contradictory use of the word "human" proves it.

Cordially,

30 posted on 05/28/2002 10:08:22 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
There is no rational, ontological or scientific basis for re-defining

You jumped to quickly to square number two. Forget "re-defining." Start with "defining." You are smuggling an assumption that YOU own the original definition. Prove it.

31 posted on 05/28/2002 10:13:29 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
too
32 posted on 05/28/2002 10:15:37 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
There is nothing self-righteous about having mercy on the innocent and defenseless.

And quit trying to redefine when life begins--it happens at conception there is no other honest answer. If it isn't a human life at conception, then a woman isn't pregnant. Period.

Intrinsic human dignity begin at that moment--quit trying to snuff this beautful truth out by championing a lie used to promote selfish free sex, which is never free. It has deadly consequences for many.

33 posted on 05/28/2002 10:16:26 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Uhm....self-righteous hating whom? The woman? No...she is decieved and in store for a life of guilt and emotional, not to mention physical pain (most abortions are slapdash procedures). Not to mention the cancer and infection risks. Hating the child? That would be whom we're trying to save. The doctor? The Bible clearly teaches, "Love the sinner; hate the sin." Whom exactly would the pro-life people be hating again?
34 posted on 05/28/2002 10:17:23 AM PDT by =Intervention=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Let's get this straight -- taking a picture is hate speech? Taking a picture (i.e. JOURNALISM) is hate? Better be careful then. You shouldn't read or sanction any kind of expose`s on companies or groups in your local newspaper. After all, they have photos and have definite opinions, some of which might inspire violence or protests...
35 posted on 05/28/2002 10:19:58 AM PDT by =Intervention=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: catonsville
Why not? I'll bet that the newspapers of frontier towns did much the same in their day...
36 posted on 05/28/2002 10:22:07 AM PDT by =Intervention=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=
Not to mention the cancer and infection risks.

There is no link between abortion and breast cancer -- as shown by a massive Denmark study. Live birth is 8 times more risky to the mother than abortion.

37 posted on 05/28/2002 10:33:00 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=
You are asking whether there is hate? Or whether there should be laws against hat?

I'm saying these self-righteous holier-than-thous are filled with hate. Deal with it as you will.

38 posted on 05/28/2002 10:35:05 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
hate, not hat
39 posted on 05/28/2002 10:35:33 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
quit trying to redefine when life begins

You self-rigtheous holier-than-thou types think you own the only possible definition. Well, you don't.

40 posted on 05/28/2002 10:36:58 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
What happens at conception if life doesn't begin? You want to change the definition because you think it is okay to discard human life if it happens to get in the way of free sex. There isn't anything self-righteous in my wanting you to stop that. It is asking for you to please consider having mercy. What is wrong with mercy?
41 posted on 05/28/2002 10:42:21 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Why isn't the media consistent? If one side is the "pro-life" or anti-abortion side, why can't we call the other side "pro-death" or pro-abortion side? On either side there is a "choice" that has to be made.
42 posted on 05/28/2002 10:44:45 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
The most interesting thing about this article is how the lefties hung themselves with the courts.
The court ruling that the NAACP could use thug tactics to enforce a boycott will be used to thwart legal action against the anti-abortion activists.

Though I wouldn't doubt that the courts would rule one way with the NAACP and another way with the activists.

43 posted on 05/28/2002 10:45:20 AM PDT by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
How can the desire to preserve a life be defined as "hate"?
44 posted on 05/28/2002 10:46:18 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
I'll bite. You profess to have the answer. When exactly does a human become a human (and ps...as others have pointed out, please define "human" in both instances here). Thanks...:)
45 posted on 05/28/2002 10:48:30 AM PDT by =Intervention=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
I fail to see how this advances the pro-life cause, or how anyone will be persuaded to be pro-life as a result of these out-of-control tactics. It will only serve to harden hearts.

There is a BIG difference between this what Nuremberg is doing, which I support to an extent (I can do without crossing out the names when one dies or is murdered by a wacko). Nuremberg is publicizing the butchers, not the victims, and I hope their appeal wins with The Supremes.

Abortioncams will be out of business when someone goes into an abortion clinic, has their picture posted (and their address, phone number, driver's license, and their medical records, etc.), and sues because she changed her mind at the last moment. Now we're talking slander. When this happens, they will be toast.

46 posted on 05/28/2002 10:51:41 AM PDT by litany_of_lies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Jlog...you have consistently denigrated anyone who opposes you as being "holier than thou," and "self-righteous" but those are just ad hominem attacks. You don't have any evidence of a single person here actually BEING self-righteous, yet you continue to act as though somehow, mystically, you know that we are. Now, taking the term "self-righteous" at its face value, meaning a righteousness, or a correctness derived wholly from oneself and therefore, untenable and fake...then the only person here that has given evidence of being self-righteous is you.
47 posted on 05/28/2002 10:52:07 AM PDT by =Intervention=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=
Whom exactly would the pro-life people be hating again?

The doctors, the law, the politicians.

48 posted on 05/28/2002 10:52:24 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
She suffered a cervical tear while a patient at the Hope Clinic in Granite City, Ill., and needed to be rushed to a hospital. As clinic staffers wheeled her toward a waiting minivan,

And they put her into a minivan instead of calling an ambulance because.....?

49 posted on 05/28/2002 10:53:11 AM PDT by geaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: litany_of_lies
You missed the point of the website -- shame. Medical records, date of birth, etc, all that is irrelevant. The point is publishing the names and faces of those who do things that society disapproves of.
50 posted on 05/28/2002 10:57:29 AM PDT by =Intervention=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-184 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson