Posted on 07/21/2008 5:16:47 AM PDT by rhema
In a ruling that surprised some observers, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of a pro-life group to display photos showing the bodies of babies dismembered during abortions. The conservative Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., had brought suit on behalf of the Center for Bioethical Reform (CBR), a California pro-life group. The case involved police detention for 75 minutes of two CBR pro-life activists who in March circled Rancho Palos Verdes Middle School in Los Angeles, driving a large truck displaying on three sides photos of aborted babies. School officials and the LA County Sheriff's Department claimed the photo displays were "disruptive," in violation of California law.
The 9th Circuit ruled on July 3 that in detaining the activists, sheriff's deputies violated the demonstrators' First and Fourth Amendment rights to free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. In its ruling, the court cited the "heckler's veto," which states that citizens' speech cannot be curtailed because of listeners' reactions to that speech's content. CBR activists' "speech was permitted until the students and drivers around the school reacted to it, at which point the speech was deemed disruptive and ordered stopped," wrote Judge Harry Pregerson. "This application of the statute raises serious First Amendment concerns."
At trial, school officials testified to some students' angry reactions to the graphic images; for example, a group of boys hurled rocks at the truck. In a deposition, CBR executive director Gregg Cunningham defended the use of the photos: "There are some realities which cannot be adequately communicated with words alone," he said. "Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion."
It’s about time we Republicans, who really care about the country, ditch all you backwoods single issue voters. Sarcasm off.
Glad to see it. I don’t necessarily think it’s the most effective form of discourse against having an abortion, but at least the rights of the Right To Lifers were held up for a change!
“Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion.”
And they shouldn’t be LIED to about the consequences years down the road...mental anguish over killing your child (when you come to that realization once you mature) and the elevated risk of breast cancer in women who’ve had abortions.
How we EVER got to this point in our civilization just saddens and sickens me.
I think the problem with this strategy is people will get used to seeing this and have the abortion knowing full well they’re killing a baby. Sort of like the doctors who murder the babies.
They’ve said for years they should have the right to show photos of war victims, well.....
That’s why I don’t think it’s an effective strategy for the Right to Lifers. As a whole, we’re already pretty desensitized to violence and blood and guts.
However, again, I’m glad to see that there rights weren’t stomped on, as they usually are in these “free speech” cases.
It’s pretty difficult for pro-aborts to view those billboards and not be confronted with what they’re supporting.
That’s what makes them so angry.
It makes the sanitized concept of “choice” seem a little empty.
Sounds like the police detained those driving the truck... but not those who threw rocks at it, damaging private property....
Why were "students" at an abortion clinic?
Concerning your second line of you good, solid post...
They should see it...especially while they are at lunch. I realize this borders on insanity/dementia, but manure like this (the aborted fetus) needs to be seen by the public. Therefore, they can get an “understanding” of the “process.”
By the way, good morning.
Good Morning! :)
It's a horrible thought, but if there are doctors that see righteousness or dollars instead of a human being, they are monsters.
I believe that some or all things that happen to us during our lives permanently shape us to be the adults we become.
Certainly the traumatic events have a permanent affect.
This,
"Students who are old enough to have an abortion are old enough to see an abortion."
..is about as powerful an argument as you can make.
Some years back, reading the mere description of a “late term abortion” brought me to my senses. These pictures are disturbing, even shocking, but they work. Some people need to be shocked to wake them up.
I couldn't disagree more.
The central problem with this country at this moment in history is that we haven't seen enough of the horror of 911. Sixty years later the Holocaust photos still shock; and there's always a new generation that needs to see them.
Respectfully speaking, your attitude is what's allowed us to be on the verge of putting the Al Queda candidate in the White House this November.
And in the future, the life of an unborn baby, and a mother's mental health, may be saved.
If we could see movies in public school of Nazis bulldozing piles of corpses at Aushwitz, then there's no reason why schoolchildren shouldn't see images from the American Holocaust.
My problem here is the fact it was a middle school. I’d be ore supportive of High school, college, but middle school seems to be a bit too young to be showing kids stuff like that.
My experience in the movement tells me that the images are very effective. In fact, they're unforgettable. Anecdotally, I've heard many stories of people who have "converted" from seeing the images (which are surprisingly hard to come by in our otherwise permissive society).
Another powerful example of the effectiveness of images is the fact that 85% of abortion-minded women (women entering crisis pregnancy centers for a free pregnancy test, but otherwise determined to have an abortion) decide to keep their babies after seeing ultrasound images of their babies. Prior to the advent of ultrasound, the statistics were reversed.
Interestingly, at Planned Parenthood, where women supposedly make informed choices, abortive mothers aren't allowed to see ultrasound images of their babies.
“In its ruling, the court cited the “heckler’s veto,” which states that citizens’ speech cannot be curtailed because of listeners’ reactions to that speech’s content.”
Freedom of Speech really doesn’t mean very much if you are not allowed to say something that someone else doesn’t like.
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.