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.
Why is it illegal to have a doctor remove a funtioning limb?
Why cannot a person decide they don't like their arm or leg and then have it amputated?
Why are you directing this question to me?
Read the previous dozen posts and you will see that you aree preaching to the choir.
Where I normally don't have a problem prohibiting something where someone is harmed, to do what while at the same setting up a system of forced birth makes me want to back off a bit. I get very protective when someone wants to get invasive with my body, whether it's telling me what to eat and drink or ingest (or not), or making me piss in a cup. I can't imagine someone telling me "You will carry this baby to term."
That's on the theoretical side. On the reality side, outlawing it would just drive the industry underground. And if you think abortion doctors are unethical now, just wait. We won't put a dent in the number of abortions.
Then it goes underground and things get even nastier. Economics rules all. We have to make the market for abortion go away or the sellers will always be there.
But you do believe in the legality of murdering innocent people (ie babies) as long as you don't pull the trigger.
Not gonna happen as long as there are people like you who do not care what happens to either babies or thier mothers, as long as nobody bothers YOU. Not too selfish.
"I can't imagine someone telling me "You must not kill your baby."
What about after the baby is born? Would that be OK? If not, why not?
People have to get this thought outta their heads, we are not one nation . We are a union of states. Each state having its own constitution. Each state sending representatives to the United States (i.e., the District of criminals Columbia).
If Michigan declares abortion to be murder (which it is) than the United States (I.E., District of Columbia) has no say in the matter.
This also holds true in all matters concerning state law. The Federal government has only those powers granted to it by the Constitution. The power structure goes something like this; God, man, local government, state government, Federal government. <.p> Note the Federal government has the least power of all, but it would seem as everything's been turned upside down and the Federal government has all the power and the people are but subjects and God is being tossed out of schools, court houses, etc.
This is not the way its supposed to be people.
Congress has no power whatsoever over each individual state except those which are specifically enumerated to it by the Federal Constitution;
"The congress shall have power--
Where does it say the Federal government (The United States) can tell a state what to do, unless the people consider an abortion mill to be a "needful building" ?
If the people believe an abortion mill is a "needful building" , then God help us all.
After the baby's born, it has nothing to do with her body anymore. Therefore my one point of contention disappears.
What everyone thinks matters exactly zero, and will do exactly zero to affect the market. The only people's thinking that matters are the pregnant mothers; they're the market. Distance yourself from the moral arguments and put on that cold, hard thinking cap and look at the law of supply and demand.
Really, what if she breast feeds the baby?
As with the death penalty, the issue is so complex (I don't like reductio ad absurdum) I haven't completely made up my mind one way or another. Feel free to post info, but I'm not up to debating this right now because I can't truly support either side.
Well, it has to do with someones body. Someone must work to provide for the baby, the baby cannot exist in a vacuum.
Perhaps the town could vote on whether they want to support the baby or not. If the people vote NO, then the baby dies.
But then what about the disposal fee, darn.
In the real world, Quila, our actions DO have an effect on someone else. That is why what BeezleBubba did on his own time with that intern was OUR business, too.
And the rights of babies don't just depend on whether they are in the womb, or a foot outside of it.
Then just flush our Constitution down the toilet, for without moral arguments it is meaningless.
(Liberaltarians, apply "FLAME" here).
It was none of our business. It may have been a good excuse to get a rotten person thrown out of office, but the action itself was none of our business. Saying something can be banned because of a very indirect, fuzzy harm is a dangerous slope to start on.
Otherwise, just reading all the abortion content with an open mind...
Especially with a 2 year waiting list for adopting said babies.
That waiting list is not necessarily because of lack of babies, but because of the extreme blocks the government has put up to make adoption difficult.
This is far beyond the Constitution, it's the laws of economics. You can change the Constitution with a set process, but you'd have to change human nature to change the laws of economics.
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.