Share This Article with a Friend!

You Can’t Talk About Abortion, Lest It Reveal The Truth To Children

In a startling twist of logic (if that’s not an oxymoron when dealing with secular liberal thinking and legislating), the Colorado state courts have effectively outlawed discussing what happens when a human being is aborted because, wait for it… it might upset children.

Pro Life DemonstratorsDavid Harsanyi of Human Events had a great piece about this (that you can read here) and we like Harsanyi’s take on the tortured interpretation of the First Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court’s abhorrence of content-based restrictions on speech (or constructive speech) of almost any kind. We have a slightly different analysis of the political agenda behind the lawsuit that led to this outrageous decision, however.

Briefly, the facts of the Colorado case, according to the Thomas More Society (that is leading the effort to move an appeal of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court), are this:

“Denver’s St. John’s Church in the Wilderness, was picketed several years ago by Ken Scott, Clifton Powell, and others during an outdoor Palm Sunday procession for having “go[ne] astray from the original teachings of the Bible” and for ‘supporting abortion’.”

The “gruesome images” ban was entered as part of lawsuit for private nuisance and civil conspiracy filed by the church after Scott and Powell held graphic signs featuring photos of aborted human beings on a public sidewalk across the street from the outdoor procession.  This upset parishioners – including children – as they processed on the opposite sidewalk.

“Scott and Powell had given prior notice of their protest, and they did not enter the church, go onto church property, or disturb the services inside the church where their protest couldn’t be heard.  No violence, trespass, physical obstruction, or criminal conduct occurred.  Police were present, and neither Scott, nor Powell, nor any other protester was cited for any noise or other law violation.”

“Despite recognizing that the ‘gruesome images’ ban was a content-based restriction on speech, the Colorado’s Appellate Court upheld it as ‘narrowly tailored’ to serve a ‘compelling government interest,’ namely, ‘protecting children from exposure to certain images of aborted fetuses and dead bodies.’ Colorado’s Supreme Court denied review, but Chief Justice Michael Bender and Associate Justice Allison Eid dissented.”

The hypocrisy of the Colorado court’s majority is truly mindboggling, since it is a given that a “narrowly tailored” restriction on free speech to say, protect children from the “gruesome images” presented in a Quintin Tarantino film or the “gruesome images” in an exhibition of Robert Maplethorpe’s photographs would not only never be granted, it would never be brought by liberals, such as the opponents of Scott and Clifton’s right to free speech about the effects of abortion.

However, as wrong as they are on the science and ethics of abortion, proponents of abortion “rights” are still very smart about the politics of the issue.

They recognize that in the end, the future of abortion in this country is going to be determined in the political realm and that in order to keep this judge-invented “right,” they must keep a critical mass of Americans subscribing to their position on the issue.

This means “educating” children to believe that abortion is a health care “choice,” not an ethical and moral decision with a victim, whose life is ended in what is now presented to children as a routine “health care” procedure.

If children are educated about the horrors of abortion, an education they will certainly never get in a public school setting, then they might begin to develop an aversion to killing other children, which would, of course, lead them to oppose abortion.

In his analysis of the Colorado lawsuit, Harsanyi said, “I don’t know if these types of signs are effective, but I do know legitimate political expression when I see it.” And he’s right, there’s no real way of knowing if these types of signs are effective.

However, our suspicion is that viewing the images of aborted fetuses provoked more than one child who was attending Denver’s St. John’s Church in the Wilderness that Palm Sunday to ask, “What’s an abortion,” or “Why is that baby dead,” and that’s a conversation liberals can never risk having with their children if they want them to grow-up to subscribe to the secular liberal creed that they are attempting to impose on our society.

Share this