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.
Ah, an "amoralist?
Klintons actions were (are) part of the spiritual illness that is infecting this country, as is your "I don't care" attitude.
People are killing thier babies? Hey, as long as they're not hurting ME.
The President is molesting young girls in the Oval Office? Hey, the economy's going good, what do I care?
When the trend in our Republic begins to move toward some or many states banning abortion and the intrusive SCOTUS leaving the laws as written by the states as their right to do so --ban from perhaps after the first two months even, the trend with our fellow Americans will have an opportunity to awaken to the truth that every individual human life begins at conception, that implantation of a unique life is the beginning of a woman's life support for that new, individual life, and that our founding principles embraced the odd notion that life IS endowed by our Creator.
If we will not protect the most vulnerable individual human beings among us, we will fail to thrive as a Republic. I, frankly, don't want to live in a federal state of America. Holding serial killing as a legal and institutionalized 'choice' is as glaring an abuse of central authority as one can imagine ... and it is the slope from which the multitude of aborted human rights flows, depending upon whom holds the power. Is the above too difficult for you to follow?
No society can long claim the term "civilized" if it has no desire to protect its mothers and their unborn. Abortion threatens all of us because it can destroy the very society in which we live.
Still listening...
Then there's always the funny side effects. I should have been able to start drinking and voting nine months earlier (but not at the same time: don't drink and vote, you may elect Republicrats), and my insurance company owes me nine months of higher pre-25 age premiums. You also have to let pregnant women out of jail.
You mean the President is engaging in consensual sex with an adult in the White House. Yes, I do think it's none of our damn business. That person should be held only to his performance as chief executive and nothing else because that's what we elected him for. Not that Clinton did well in this respect either.
Go to your priests for moral examples (must...resist...Catholic...joke...).
And some people aren't allowed to adopt because they don't meet stringent requirements that natural parents aren't subject to.
Oh, you also think that clergy molesting children is funny stuff? Amorality is a wonderful thing, huh.
Now your true side is coming out, figured it would, you can only disguise your left-lean for so long.
SS. I have read many of your posts and it seems you come up on the side of what a democRAT would support.
You could dispel this idea, of being a RAT, if you would reval your voting record.
Coincidence. The Taliban probably banned abortion too, but that doesn't make you one of them, does it? You could dispel this idea, of being a RAT, if you would reval your voting record.
That's quite a private thing. I will tell you I've never registered with the Republicratic party, and my votes usually go to Republicans, Libertarians and independents. I don't have many litmus tests, and they aren't along party lines.
If you can't joke about it, then all hope is lost.
you can only disguise your left-lean for so long.
Excuse me, is there a list somewhere that details exactly what I'm supposed to believe on every subject in order to be "conservative"? If there is, I'm bailing. I refuse to be a sheep.
We're getting off track. Let's just agree the process could use some streamlining and cost-cutting (you could use those several thousand in lawyers fees to take care of the kid), and could use some more babies that would have otherwise been aborted.
The unborn child will continue to be where the mother is regardless of circumastance or location until born.
But I also posted that I was not "condemning anyone, just in this particular case, two lives are involved. Who speaks for the unborn child?", which was ignored. Why does a women's choice to kill her unborn child outweigh that of the father? Why can two parents create a child, but only the mother (and not the father or child) have rights?
SS. Use of the word "Taliban" in an reply.
Another common "RAT" tactic.
As for your voting record, it was a question and if you choose not to reply thats your choice.
BTW Do you vote for candidates that hold your views?
Q: Use of reference to Democrats, liberals or left as a derogatory term.
BTW Do you vote for candidates that hold your views?
No, since they never hold all of my views. As I said, I don't have many litmus tests, so I have to take everything into consideration when voting, and make a balanced decision.
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.