Pro-Lifers Waving the Free Speech Card Again
Anti-abortion activists, as we know all too well by now, will stop at nothing to get their way and make sure they have the opportunity to brainwash and force their religion-driven opinions on as many people as they can. This is yet another demonstration of pure absurdity!
A South Dakota anti-abortion group, Citizens for Life led by Allen Carlson, filed a law suit against Rapid City School District because they refused to let Citizens for Life use their auditorium to host an anti-abortion event with guest speaker Joe Scheidler, director of the Pro-Life Action League. Carlson and Citizens for Life are claiming that they have been repeatedly refused the space because of their “message” and is suing under discrimination and violation of free speech.
Suing for violation of free speech is laughable since that is the first card all anti-abortion protesters, groups and activists pull out and wave in the faces of those who may disagree with their harsh tactics of protesting and shoving pictures of aborted fetuses in the faces of people walking anywhere near them. Whenever someone says something to them about what they are doing, they reach into their coat pockets and start waving the first amendment around while screaming “No, I’m practicing free speech, I can say whatever I want and there’s no law that says I can’t hold my five foot poster of aborted fetuses and the words ‘Abortion is Murder’ strewn all over it while your young child is walking with you.” To claim that they are being discriminated against when most of South Dakota, as we had seen with the abortion ban and flocks of pro-life protesters, is surely not the state in which you can easily get away with pulling the discrimination card.
The real reason why Citizens for Life were repeatedly denied the middle school auditorium space for their events and speakers is because the school district does not allow their facilities to be used for any sort of event with a political message. That, in my opinion, is admirable of the school district, since the two hottest topics and what we kill each other the most over are indeed politics and religion.
Another thing that bothers me each and every single time I read a news story like this one are the names of the people who run these groups; in this case, Allen Carlson and Joe Scheidler. I wonder how many times the two of them have been pregnant.
Related Posts:
6 Comments Leave a Comment
Leave a Reply
Sex-Positivity
I'm passionate about sex-positivity and believe every sexual being should have the freedom to explore their sexuality safely and without condemnation. I even lost my ad network after my refusal to censor myself after reviewing feminist porn.So if you're in the market for sex toys, porn, books, etc. take a look at the retailers below, all of which are feminist-friendly.
Out Campaign
The OUT Campaign allows individuals to let others know they are not alone. It can also be a nice way of opening a conversation and help to demolish the negative stereotypes of atheists. Let the world know that we are not about to go away and that we are not going to allow those that would condemn us to push us into the shadows.
i liked reading this blog entry. its assertive. =)
I couldn’t agree with you more!
You say “politics” is something we kill each other over – but what is that? I would support (in fact I know we *need*) sex education beyond abstinence-only preaching in our public schools. Allen Carlson would probably call teaching that “politics,” because so many have made it a political issue.
“Politics” is about as vague and undefinable a word as there is in the English language. For example, you imply that politics and religion are exclusive terms above: I have a very hard time drawing a line between the two.
Does politics mean endorsing a candidate for office? Does it mean drawing membership to a political party? Or does it mean trying to persuade someone?
I would support this group’s right to have the same access to said auditorium as any other group. If not, I’d like a description beyond “it’s politics” to say specifically what it is that disqualifies this group from having a voice – other than being wrong.
EDIT: Of course, I *can* see an argument that these people bring obscene images to the table, things that may not be appropriate for a public campus. I don’t know how I feel about that. All I’m saying is, the word “politics” can be ironically political.
Abortion is very sensitive issue. It goes beyond religion. I believe life starts before a baby is born. Whether a person should abort really depends on their personal circumstances.
I am pro-life, and I believe there is certainly a Free-Speech issue within the abortion debate. Is this specific case an example of it? I don’t think so. The school can’t be used to persuade people’s opinions in any way, therefore a pro-choice group wouldn’t be able to use the school for the same reason (if they WERE allowed, I would cry foul).
And I also agree that the pro-life side isn’t always the most intelligent in our protesting. Waving a sign that says “Baby Killers” wont tend to convince people that what you have to say makes sense. Similarly, images of aborted fetuses should not be on the street, but there is certainly a place for them in debate and discussion by willing participants on both sides.
Where the real Free-Speech issue lies is when a pro-life group cannot be given the same assistance as other groups simply because we are protesting the status-quo (something pro-choicers should understand quite well). At both Carleton and York Universities (Ottawa and Toronto, respectively) pro-life groups have been denied funding and/or space for debates simply because they are pro-life and for no other reason. This is a free-speech violation because these groups have not done anything that could be considered a hate-crime, they simply wished to debate a touchy subject (give it a google for more information).
Thank you, very nice article!