If you’ve ever attended a debate on abortion, the back-and-forth usually goes something like this. The pro-lifer will talk about the medical and scientific facts of life beginning at fertilization, show beautiful imagery of life within the womb, and then describe or show images of abortion’s reality. He or she will also talk about the profound psychological or physical damage that’s often inflicted upon the mother.
The pro-abortion activist usually responds that it’s simply a matter of “choice” for the woman. He or she will often try to deflect the discussion onto other issues like capital punishment or contraception.
When the pro-lifer brings the debate back to the issue at hand, the pro-abortion activist may realize he or she has no sound arguments and goes on the attack—attempting to discredit the messenger. What the audience will often hear are bogus accusations of pro-life violence and right-wing radicalism espousing a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal view of women. Sound familiar?
But we’ve witnessed another tool pro-abortion activists have in their arsenal while trying to win the abortion debate. They’re simply attempting to silence the pro-life message they’re incapable of countering. Across America and beyond we’ve seen many examples of this
Abby Johnson was the director of a Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Texas. After 9 years on the job, she resigned upon seeing a suction abortion via ultrasound. The staff of the abortion mill were terrified their repulsive secrets of the abortion industry would be revealed, so they leveled charges that Abby would violate patient confidentiality. They secured a temporary injunction, censoring Abby’s right to talk about her job so she couldn’t expose what went on in that mill. Days later the injunction was lifted and her right to free speech restored.
A pro-life Latino group put up billboards in Los Angeles, CA that read, “The most dangerous place for a Latino is in the womb.” The billboards reflected US census data that shows abortion mills target minorities by placing them in predominately Latino and Black communities. Pro-abortion activists forced removal of the billboards, calling them racists and attacks against the Latino community—even though they were trying to protect Latino babies. A similar example of censorship in the Black community occurred with a billboard in New York City.
It’s not just adults and billboards that give pro-abortion activists the heebie-jeebies. They’re also afraid of 10-year-old fifth graders. Calise Jontz wrote a speech on abortion for a contest in her school. Since it contained no graphic information and was appropriate for the age group, the principal cleared it after a review. However, everything changed at the regional competition. Calise faced a nearly empty gymnasium that’s usually filled with students, fellow competitors and their parents. Her speech was singled out ahead of time and boycotted by other schools. Calise’s mother called it “intimidated censorship.”
You’re probably aware of Lila Rose’s undercover videos catching Planned Parenthood facilities red-handed as they aided and abetted would-be sex traffickers and pimps. The videos went viral with hundreds of thousands of viewers. Instead of trying to defend the content of the videos, Planned Parenthood pressured YouTube to remove them on phony privacy concerns. Planned Parenthood twice attempted to censor Live Action’s videos but was ultimately rebuffed both times.
A brief search of Google shows that universities and colleges—touted as environments of free speech and exchange of ideas—are often locations of censorship when it comes to abortion dialogue. In this case, stopping cemeteries of the innocents, poignant displays of thousands of small white crosses. The crosses, representing the many lives taken by abortion, are routinely vandalized. My brief search of the Internet revealed violent acts against these cemeteries in 10 states. In Kentucky, a long-time professor led the illegal destruction on campus. Her only repercussion was a few weeks of paid vacation (suspension) before an already planned-on retirement. Her lesson to the students was silence any message you can’t intelligently counter.
Many high schools have also jumped aboard the censorship bandwagon by refusing to allow students to wear t-shirts with pro-life messaging. Threats of lawsuits usually restore reasoning and constitutionally guaranteed rights.
A public library in Wausau, WI, funded by taxpayers, decided to refuse public meeting space to pro-life taxpayers who wanted to show a documentary. The library’s executive director cancelled the showing because the topic was abortion; in spite of their own policy that meeting rooms are to be allocated without regard to the beliefs of those using them.
The most recent action of silencing the pro-life messenger was committed by President Obama himself. His administration has charged a 79-year-old sidewalk counselor with violation of federal law. Dick Retta’s “crime” was to unobstructively provide pregnant women with life-affirming alternatives to abortion as they went into the mills.
Time and time again we’re seeing evidence of censorship and the silencing of a pro-life message. One could justifiably say it’s a pro-abortion, knuckle-dragging response to a solid pro-life viewpoint.