I guess that the ersatz "right to an abortion" along with the non-existant "right not to be offended" trump the Constitutional right to engage in speech on matters of public policy and concern.

Or at least that is the goal of San Francisco abortion advocates, who are seeking to limit supporters of the dignity of human life to nothing more than "the right to remain silent".

Bay Area abortion-rights activists say a Roman Catholic group's advertisements on hundreds of BART trains and in scores of stations -- attacking the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision and asking "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" -- have gone too far in a region known for its progressive politics.

Many of the ads have been torn down or defaced since the campaign began three weeks ago.

"I think every woman has noticed them,'' said Suzanne "Sam" Joi, a member of Code Pink, a social justice and anti-war group. "I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

Well, you ignorant baby-killing leftist, it could be because the First Amendment applies to words and viewpoints that don't meet with your approval. If you have a right to run ads advocating your pro-terrorist, anti-American agenda, then the Respect Life Ministry of the Diocese of Oakland can run its ads questioning whether the current state of the law on abortion is outside of the mainstream.

Linton Johnson, a spokesperson for BART, puts it very well.

"We're not in the business of censorship and don't believe a government agency should be in the business of censorship,'' Johnson said. "It shouldn't be up to a government official to determine whose opinion is right and whose is wrong.''

What is so offensive about the ads? Are they offensive at all? You decide.

The campaign features two ads, each slickly produced and featuring a blurry photograph of a woman against a turquoise background. One ad, headlined "9 months" in large letters, features nine months of a calendar and reads: "Because of Roe vs. Wade, this is the amount of time the Supreme Court says it's legal to have an abortion."

The other contains the message: "The Supreme Court says you can choose: after the heart starts beating, after its arms and legs appear, after all organs are present, after the sex is apparent, after it sucks its thumb, after it responds to sounds, after it could survive outside the womb.''

Both ads conclude with the tagline "Abortion: Have we gone too far?'' and the name and Web site address (www.secondlookproject.org) for the Second Look Project, an effort sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which created the campaign and unveiled it on Washington's Metro subway system a year ago.

In other words, we are not talking about pictures of dismembered fetuses here. We are talking about very mild political speech.

The rhgetoric of opponents is shrill, heated, and hysterical.

Abortion-rights activists are responding differently, calling the ads misleading, manipulative and part of an effort to undermine the pro-choice movement in the Bay Area.

"They're calling for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, which will lead to the slaughter of women,'' said Elizabeth Creely of the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights, referring to fears of unsafe, back-alley abortions if the procedure were illegal. "The Catholic Church is very strong here and is working hard to erode reproductive rights.''

Actually, it will lead to states and Congress to pass laws regulating or restricting abortion, but likely not outlawing it in most places. And as far as the "slaughter of women" you are bleating about, Ms. Creely, the number will be quite small compared to the number of babies slaughtered annually in the name of "choice".

But thank you for clarifying matters for us, ladies -- you want a right explicitly protected by the Constitution to be sacrificed in the name of one that was alien to that document before a group of rogue judges created it in 1973.

MORE AT: Blogs for Bush, Phoblographer, Intergalactic Jester, GeMatt's Place, Paul's Word, W.C. Varones Blog, Cvstos Fidei, Vern Beachy's Raves, Say Anything, Right Side Redux, Beachhouse, Beetle Beat.

Posted by: Greg at 09:51 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Stifle? Please! Is it not free speech to show objection to the ads?

you ignorant baby-killing leftist

Very strong words here. Thing is, it's not quite a baby. That is where the disagreement lays. As far as ignorant. I would take a look at the spelling of your comments on my site vs oh say, mine on yours.

Just saying.

Posted by: Angie at Sat Jan 14 23:02:50 2006 (G6nYu)

2 When you destroy, deface, and attempt to use government to prevent speech by your opponents, you have gone well-beyond legitimate free speech. You have intruded into censorship -- unless you wish to also classify bombs and bullets as free speech as well, in which case maybe we on the prolife side should begin to celebrate rather than condemn that misguided handful of souls who blow up abortion clinics and murder abortionists.

And as for you "not quite a baby" comment, that is about as accurate as the Klan and the Nazis telling you that blacks and Jews are not quite human beings. Human parents, 52 chromosomes, distict genetic identity -- what additional claim do YOU have on humanity, Angie?

As for my spelling. . . there is a reason I teach history and not keyboarding.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 15 01:57:07 2006 (aVsZG)

3 Rhymes With Right,

You're right on with this one. My colleague at The Inter-Galactic Jester brought this to our attention as well and the big question for those of us not in San Franciso, the big question was, "Is this the same sort of outrageous blood-spattered photographs that we've seen from Pro-Lifers before?" Having made clear that they weren't, their vandalism is disgraceful.

If it was those awful photos, they really wouldn't seem to be be appropriate for a public subway and BART would be irresponsible for posting them.

Posted by: Croaky at Sun Jan 15 10:55:08 2006 (uMmq8)

4 Croaky -- I don't know that I agree with you that there would have been anything wrong with using pictures that show the real face of "choice", or that BART would have been justified in censoring them if they were.

That said, the fact that we are talking a really low-key ad campaign makes the anti-freedom antics of the anti-life censors even more outrageous.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jan 15 11:47:07 2006 (bMupf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment