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.
BTW, do you vote right-wing sheeple? Or do you actually make decisions for yourself?
I meant that for Quila...
If you can joke about children being molested, then surely all hope IS lost,
"...is there a list somewhere that details exactly what I'm supposed to believe on every subject in order to be "conservative"?
No, but when you originaly engaged me in this discussion, you claimed to be "pro-life",
which is quite dishonest, and usually a tactic of the left, or of Jim Jeffords. (Jim, is that you?)
You define it one way, I define it another. Just like "conservative" has been hijacked to include a whole bunch of ideology not actually in the definition.
"First Trimester": Woman just pregnant, a couple pro-life protesters around here
"SecondTrimester": Getting bigger, more protesters
"Third Trimester": Absolutely huge, surrounded by protesters
"Fourth Trimester": Alone with an infant and a hand-out cup, discarded pro-life signs laying all around here. Not that every pro-life person acts this way, but I'm sure it's indicative of a good chunk of the population.
Boy, you really hit a nerve with me on this comment. This is the biggest bunch of BS pro-abort propanganda.
Essentially, you are saying that unless I plan on housing and feeding a woman and her newborn child, I don't have any right to expect that she take responsibility for her CHOICE of having sex and getting pregnant and not make an innocent human being pay with it's LIFE because she doesn't "feel like" having a baby.
And if your side is truly pro-"choice", then THEY would be the ones providing the alternatives that you think the pro-life side are obligated to provide. So tell me, just how many agencies, charitable organizations, etc. are sponsored by the abortion industry that assist new mothers who chose not to abort?
No need to bail. You're not a conservative so there's nothing to bail from.
In the applicable definition here, Webster's says a conservative is one who follows the philosophy of conservatism. Here's that definition:
You forced her to have that baby. Take responsibility for your actions. Back on the personal responsibility on her part though, you know I still agree with you.
So tell me, just how many agencies, charitable organizations, etc. are sponsored by the abortion industry that assist new mothers who chose not to abort?
Probably none. Definitely fewer than the pro-life side.
Either way, the child wouldn't have a choice in the matter. Which is why "pro-choice" is a poor choice for a label.
1) Number of people killed annually through abortion vs. the number killed by firearms.
2) The number of people killed (by abortion or firearms) by the populations of pro-abortion, pro-gun-control folks vs. the typical 2nd amendment supporter.
My guess is that it would be shocking to see that the high 'kill stats' are on the pro-abortion pro-gun-control side.
Perhaps someone has already done this. If so, please do point me to the url.
The phrasing will be more along the lines of "you may not kill this baby."
Indirect. You will be the ones getting the law changed. I will probably be in that category too one day, so I can't deride anyone for that.
What's different about pre-birth?
We don't force them to take care of their children pre-birth.
I really do hate planned parenthood.
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.