Archive for free speech

Pro-life response to New York Times call to censor anti-abortion message

Posted in Media Bias, Media Matters with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 20, 2017 by saynsumthn

New York Times writer calls for Facebook to censor pro-life message

New York Times (NYT) writer Rossalyn Warren is calling for Facebook to censor pro-life news sites like Live Action News and Life News. In an opinion piece entitled, “Facebook Is Ignoring Anti-Abortion Fake News,” Warren failed to publish any credible research which would rebut a single story published by these two entities, but still thinks they need to be censored, based on her own personal bias.

The NYT describes Warren as a “journalist” but in this case, it is obvious that her pro-abortion bias has overruled everything else. Warren writes, “So far, Facebook and the public have focused almost solely on politics and Russian interference in the United States election. What they haven’t addressed is the vast amount of misinformation and evidenced stories about reproductive rights, science and health.”

To clarify, what Warren means by “reproductive rights” is abortion; what she means by “science and health” is not the truth about when life begins, when a preborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected, or any actual science about the development of the baby or the harm effects of abortion on women. No, that is conveniently ignored by pro-abortion apologists like Warren. Apparently, in an opinion piece, one doesn’t have to any present facts.

Rossalyn Warren wants to censor pro-life news (image: Twitter)

The only reasoning Warren offers for censoring pro-life outlets is the fact that Live Action recently ran a series of articles on the documentary film Hush, made by pro-choice filmmaker Punam Kumar Gill, who refused to blindly believe what she was told about the harmful effects of abortion; instead, the film documents her investigation of the claims about a link between abortion and breast cancer. Warren failed to dispute in any way the film’s research, which was heavily sourced.

To Warren, Gill’s research is “fake news” — yet Warren offers absolutely no proof whatsoever for her conclusion. Yet, ironically, in her piece, Warren criticizes a 2016 blog story on late-term abortions for “failing to cite any sources or studies.”

Warren believes pro-life news sites (already being censored by Twitter) should now be censored by Facebook because they are ideologically driven (as if her views are not):

However, the incentive for the people who write content for anti-abortion news sites and Facebook pages is ideological, not financial. Anti-abortion, anti-science content isn’t being written by spammers hoping to make money, but by ordinary people who are driven by religious or political beliefs. Their aim isn’t to profit from ads. It’s to convince readers of their viewpoint: that abortion is morally wrong….

Well, it’s hard not to view this as morally wrong, once you’ve seen it:

Warren’s use of the term “anti-abortion” is interesting, and reveals Warren’s own ideology herself — as does her Facebook page

Here is Warren “lov[ing]” Polish women who strike against their country’s abortion ban:

Rossalyn Warren loves women who support abortion (image: Facebook)

And here is Warren when Victoria (in Australia) voted to limit protests outside abortion clinics, calling it “amazing news”:

Rossalyn Warren favors limiting abortion protests

To Warren, it’s a “big deal for access to abortion”:

Rossalyn Warren favors abortion rights

Here is Warren sharing a post from ideologically driven Think Progress, a left-wing news site that is radically in support of abortion. Warren clearly takes the pro-abortion position. (No calls from Warren for Facebook to censor Think Progress, by the way.)

Rossalyn Warren shares ThinkProgress’ pro-abortion post

And finally, Warren seems to think “more people need to see” an image of a woman who supports the nation’s largest abortion corporation, Planned Parenthood.

Rossalyn Warren supporting Planned Parenthood (image: Facebook)

Warren, while failing to state her own pro-abortion bias, wants readers to think she is actually concerned about “fake news.” But she gives herself away when she explains why she thinks Facebook should censor pro-life speech. It’s because, as she says, pro-life sites “dominate the conversation about reproductive rights on Facebook” with what she calls “dodgy studies and scaremongering” which she believes is “drowning out people’s access to credible, researched reporting on abortion.”

“Credible, researched reporting” on abortion? Apparently only groups that agree with Warren are considered credible — groups that promote abortion and are absolutely ideologically driven (though they agree with her). If Warren is truly concerned about ideologically driven “fake news,” as she calls it, then surely she should urge Facebook to censor other ideologically driven sites like Media Matters (where her sources originate), Think Progress, Rewire, or Guttmacher — a former “special affiliate” to abortion corporation Planned Parenthood. If we’re going to censor ideologically driven outlets, we may be censoring almost everything.

Warren insists, “These [pro-life] sites produce vast amounts of misinformation,” she claims, while admitting she got her information from the pro-abortion site Media Matters. She complains (emphasis added), “… stories [from pro-life sources] often generate more engagement than the content produced by mainstream news organizations, said Sharon Kann, the program director for abortion rights and reproductive health at Media Matters, a watchdog group.”

While Warren railed against pro-life news sites for using (in her words) “thinly sourced stories,” she did exactly the same thing, using a claim from pro-abortion staff member Sharon Kann at Media Matters as “evidence” of her claims. According to Kann’s LinkedIn page, the Media Matters “researcher” volunteered for two abortion facilities: Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the Emma Goldman Clinic. So she’s hardly unbiased. But that doesn’t seem to matter to Warren.

Rossalyn Warren attacks pro-life news sites in NYT

As you can see, Warren omits the fact that the videos (and their claims) posted by Live Action were actually made by an independent filmmaker, not Live Action; she says none of this, deliberately misleading readers.

Sharon Kann volunterred at Planned Parenthood abortion clinic (image: LinkedIn)

According to Kann (the abortion facility volunteer), “People on Facebook engage with anti-abortion content more than abortion-rights content at a “disproportionate rate…” And there’s Warren’s real problem.

In the minds of people like Warren and those at Media Matters, which openly admits it is a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media,” you’re only credible if you hold a favorable view of abortion.

But Media Matters, founded by David Brock, described by Politico as “the self-described reformed right-wing hitman who became a key figure in Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign,” is not impartial. Brock openly supported Hillary Clinton for president and has been described as “a prominent strategist with a web of liberal groups.” His secret meetings have included representatives from several pro-abortion groups, such as “Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List, Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice.”

Rossalyn Warren (image: Twitter)

Brock’s strategy for defeating his foes includes pressuring Facebook and other social media outlets to “adjust its model to stem the flow of damaging fake news on its platform’s pages.” Brock’s document claims that “journalists” like Ms. Warren will “weaponize our research products to… take action against… the extremists seeking to manipulate it.”

Warren believes that you and I should not have a say in which news we choose to read. Instead, “credible articles about abortion” should only come from “reputable news outlets like the New York Times….” But the “credible” New York Times isn’t so credible. NYT, among other media outlets, reported (without question) Planned Parenthood’s deceptive claims that they would retrain staffers after they were caught offering assistance to an undercover actor posing as a sex trafficker.

It was Live Action News — not Ms. Warren or the NYT — which documented how a Planned Parenthood insider revealed that Planned Parenthood’s “retraining” never happened. And it was Live Action News which also documented how Planned Parenthood’s lied about contacting local authorities about suspected sex traffickers — while the NYT and other outlets never bothered to fact-check.

Warren’s claim that pro-life news receives a higher view rate is not sourced, but if it is true, the reason is simple: people are trending more pro-life, and Warren is bothered by that, so she and her allies resort to cries for censorship — not of their own, ideologically driven “fake news,” but of news they don’t agree with.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Free speech at stake in NAF lawsuit against CMP as judge is set to issue opinion

Posted in Aborted Babies for Electricity, Aborted Baby Body Parts, Censorship, Center for Medical Progress, free speech, National Abortion Federation with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 27, 2015 by saynsumthn

A federal judge has ruled that secret recordings from a pro-life group who infiltrated a National Abortion Federation meeting to expose a grisly baby parts harvesting operation does not show criminal activity, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Deb Van Derhei NAF Harvesting babies

In July, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) sued the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) accusing CMP of using fake names, infiltration, and hidden cameras to obtain the damning evidence. San Francisco Judge William Orrick granted NAF a temporary restraining order to prevent the release of the tapes. But, while the effort to suppress the videos were making their way through the courts,GotNews.com published them, claiming they were leaked to them by a hacker.

In their lawsuit, NAF claimed that CMP infiltrators “snuck into” their allegedly secure and supposedly private meetings to obtain video evidence that their members were buying fetal tissue. In response to the lawsuit, CMP claimed that their investigators conducted their investigation legally, and that NAF welcomed lead investigator David Daleiden and the other investigators as dealers in fetal tissue believing that Daleiden’s test company, BioMax, would pay abortion providers for fetal specimens. “NAF even provided Daleiden unsolicited information about the meeting’s agenda and location,” attorney’s for CMP stated.

But, according to the AP report, Judge Orrick does not agree. From the story:

Recordings secretly made by an anti-abortion group at meetings of abortion providers do not show criminal activity and could put the providers at risk, a federal judge said Friday, citing the recent shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick made the comments during a hearing over the National Abortion Federation’s request for a preliminary injunction that would continue to block the release of the recordings. Orrick did not immediately issue a ruling. He previously issued a temporary restraining order blocking the recordings pending the outcome of the preliminary injunction hearing.

Pro-lifers who have viewed the leaked tapes say that the NAF lawsuit is equivalent to censorship because NAF does not want the public to know the truth about abortion. The videos show plenty of evidence that NAF members were not only involved in harvesting fetal tissue but were holding presentations about the process during their meetings. A sampling of a few of the recordings show that NAF members:

    Conference attendees applauding horrific late-term abortion procedure
    NAF held presentations on harvesting aborted baby parts
    NAF members and a majority of the women they service know they are killing a baby
    Abortion clinics dispose of preborn children in garbage disposals
    Burning aborted babies for energy fuel may really be happening
    A cold and callous disregard for the dead
    A Planned Parenthood abortionist and NAF attendee admitted being involved in fetal tissue research with, “independent / individual researchers”

Continuing with the AP report:

Orrick made a statement that doctors who appeared in CMP’s videos have received death threats. He also cited suspected arson at abortion clinics and the November shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic that left three people dead and nine wounded.

Catherine Short, an attorney for the Center for Medical Progress, said there was no evidence the Colorado shooter was motivated by the group’s videos or that doctors have been directly threatened. The release of the recordings is vital to furthering public discussion about topics such as whether the country’s abortion laws are too loosely written, she said. The center says in court documents its work is the equivalent of investigative journalism and protected by the First Amendment.

And, Short is correct, investigative journalism is not only protected by the First Amendment but the tactics used by CMP have been used by journalists in all sorts of investigations as Live Action News has detailed here. In fact, free speech issues in this case are so great that the U.S. Reporters’ Committee filed a ‘friend of the Court’ submission before the district court hearing NAF’s case, protesting that ‘any prior restraint on speech that is issued by a court has the potential to significantly affect the First Amendment rights of the news media and the public at large.’

we are compelled to write at this early juncture because any prior restraint on speech that is issued by a court has the potential to significantly affect the First Amendment rights of the news media and the public at large. The ramifications of having such a restraint in place go well beyond the unique facts of this dispute, they wrote.

Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society President and Chief Counsel which presented arguments against NAF in the case agreed accusing NAF of working with Planned Parenthood to suppress Daleiden’s First Amendment rights.

“Equally as any other investigative journalist working for ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, or your local print or electronic media outlet may regularly resort to undercover journalism tactics to ferret out hidden crime, so too David Daleiden should have the right to penetrate the criminal underworld of America’s abortion providers and report all the evidence he has uncovered of criminal wrongdoing to law enforcement and to members of the public.”

The brief that Thomas More Society and co-counsel have filed on behalf of Daleiden in opposition to NAF’s preliminary injunction includes:

    Information about the precedent set by the recent Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Otter case, where the 9th Circuit ruled definitively that investigative journalism is not “fraud” and fully protected by the First Amendment.

    Admissions from NAF and Planned Parenthood abortion providers about their criminal participation in trafficking in aborted baby body parts documented at NAF meetings, redacted from the public filing and prevented from release by court order.

    The blatantly unconstitutional character of prior restraints on speech.

If NAF wins this case, criminals will rejoice and journalists will weep,” Brejcha said.

Both sides are watching for the decision to be released.

Abortion scheme on college campus: purchase public sidewalk to censor pro-life speech

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on November 23, 2015 by saynsumthn

An exhibit at an Ohio campus, which shows images of abortion victims, has sparked such a controversy that so-called “liberal” students unsuccessfully collaborated to censor the pro-life message by suggesting they purchase the sidewalk to shut down the protest completely. The pro-life group Created Equal which brings the truth of abortion to college campuses across the nation, said their exhibit of abortion victim images at the Campus Center location at Otterbein college was on public property owned by the city of Westerville.

Created Equal abortion protests Otterbein

Seth Drayer, spokesperson for Created Equal said that the student government of the liberal college is set to purchase the public sidewalk to curb their First Amendment rights. This would have been unheard of years ago when the so-called Free Speech Movement on college campuses was born. In 1964, 60’s activists gathered on Sproul Plaza at the University of California Berkley to protest the school’s shutting down their political views.

Jo Freeman at the University of Illinois at Chicago describes that time in history this way: “By the time Berkeley Chancellor Clark Kerr became University President in 1958, student groups could not operate on campus if they engaged in any kind of off-campus politics, whether electoral, protest or even oratorical. At the Berkeley campus students spoke, leafleted and tabled on the city sidewalk at the campus edge. When the campus border was moved a block away, this activity moved with it…”

Enter 2015, when politics are clearly permitted on campus, the only question is, whose politics and views will be allowed? In Ohio, the message is clear – no pro-life viewpoint will be tolerated on the campus of Otterbein University in Westerville. This was reinforced by the student newspaper, Otterbein360 which reported that the campus climate subcommittee discussed the purchase of the sidewalk at its Oct. 26 meeting after the Campus Center sidewalk was used twice this year by Created Equal to, “stage protests including images of aborted tissue on public property, where speech is currently regulated by a public instead of a private entity.”

Why the censorship of the pro-life group?

According to a member of the student government, Elise Woods, it makes students unhappy, telling the paper that “for the abortion protests, I just noticed that when those specific people, that group, is on campus, it makes the campus climate…people get very unhappy,”she said according to the newspaper,” she said.

But, Conner Dunn, vice president of student government, was slightly more reasonable – slightly being the operative word, telling the student body that, “Buying up the sidewalks is an alright idea. Unless we buy all of Otterbein’s sidewalks, it wouldn’t stop much, they would just go to a different part of campus.”

Mark Harrington, founder of Created Equal responded to the censorship plan by stating, “The insane “Safe Space” coddling cultures of Mizzou and Yale are not anomalies. Created Equal has observed an entire generation of young people who are willing to take increasingly drastic measures to punish anyone with ideas they dislike! Recently, Otterbein University’s student government (through their “Student Experience and Campus Climate Committee,” whose purpose is to “address campus climate”) applied for a grant to buy the very ground we stand on to conduct peaceful outreach! This purchase would transfer sidewalk ownership from public to private, giving Otterbein the rights to kick us off of the sidewalk, because “[our display] makes the campus climate… very unhappy.”

Created Equal Otterbein abortion prolife 2

Seth Drayer said this is not the first time students tried to censor their pro-life message on this campus. In 2013, a student attempted to knock over signs showing pictures of the victims of abortion, the preborn child in the womb.

Created Equal COllege abortion

In 2015, another Otterbein student recruited a “bed sheet brigade” to try to censor the images. Another stood in the street in front of Created Equal’s Truth Truck and JumboTV trailer to temporarily stop it from circling the campus.

“Students themselves, who throughout time have railed against “The Man” to fight for free speech, are trading in this American treasure for thirty pieces of silver—or, in the case of Otterbein, thirty feet of concrete.” Drayer said. “They do this under the guise of creating “safe spaces” free from reminders of emotional pain (i.e., “triggers”).”

Harrington told 10TV that even if Created Equal didn’t have the option of sidewalks, the group would still get its message out, “The more they try to censor us–bed sheets, knocking over signs, trying to purchase a public sidewalk–it’s not going to deter us,” he said.

Created Equal Otterbein abortion prolife

But, despite the desire to purchase the sidewalk and shut down Created Equal’s display, the city of Westerville told abortion supporters that the sidewalks were not for sale.

“Public sidewalks are public infrastructure and generally they don’t go up for sale the same way private property would or a house might go up for sale,” said Christa Dickey, community affairs administrator for the city of Westerville.

Created Equal said they will continue speaking the truth of abortion on college campuses. Meanwhile, Otterbein students in favor of censoring the pro-life message should reflect on the 1960’s Free Speech protests at Berkley and understand that speech should be protected not silenced.

The words of Lynn Hollander Savio, a senior at Berkeley in October of 1964, contradicts censorship attempts from Otterbein abortion supporters. Years after the Free-Speech Movement on campus was birthed, Hollander Savio reinforced the need to protect political speech on campus when she told told NPR, “ We gave youth in America a sense that political and social action is something that you can and should be involved in…” she said.

(Image credits: Screen grabs from 10TV news story, Otterbein360 Twitter page, and Created Equal video and Twitter page.)

Pro-life group says High School violated student’s free speech rights in censorship case

Posted in free speech, Students for Life with tags , , , , , , , , on October 15, 2015 by saynsumthn

Parody or free speech? Court to hear NAACP suit against Black pro-life group

Posted in NAACP with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 25, 2015 by saynsumthn

The irony never ends—the nation’s second oldest civil rights group suing a black man for exercising his second most basic civil right—the freedom of speech, ” Ryan Bomberger, founder of the Radiance Foundation.

WE-WILL-NOT-BE-SILENCED

In 1985, The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., won a court case against the National Association for Colored People (NAACP) for trademark infringement, according to a Federal Court of Appeals. The case overruled the decision of a federal judge in 1983.

The court found that the NAACP began the Legal Defense Fund using the initials NAACP since 1939 but the organization had become too dependent over the years. That was where they went wrong.

NAACP trademark NAACP legal

Apparently, the NAACP created a monster and when tensions emerged in the 1960’s they went to court, charging their own created wing of trademark infringement.

As they always say, follow the money and what the NAACP said the Defense Fund did was infringe on their fund-raising.

So, it is no shock that if the NAACP would sue it’s own branch it would go after an outside Black organization which used it’s initials in a parody.

RadianceFoundation

Enter the Radiance Foundation.

In January 2013, Radiance, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about social issues from a Christian perspective, posted an article on two of its websites critical of the NAACP’s position on abortion and its support of Planned Parenthood.

After the article, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” was posted by Radiance, and then picked up by the news site Life News, the NAACP received complaints about its position on abortion.

Life News Ryan NAACP story

Anyone see a pattern here?

Allow me to paint the picture as it is unfolding, if complaints arise then donations may go down i.e. follow the money!

In response, the NAACP sent a cease-and-desist letter to Radiance, threatening trademark infringement litigation if Radiance refused to comply with the NAACP’s demands.

The NAACP also threatened Life News for reporting on the story.

In April, a court ruled that The Radiance Foundation engaged in trademark infringement after doing nothing more than posting an article online that parodied the NAACP’s name.

The Radiance Foundation then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court, and in return, the NAACP has filed counter-claims of “trademark infringement, dilution and confusion” for parodying the organization’s name in what the group describes as, “the NAACP’s documented pro-abortion position and actions.”

Ryan_Scott_Bomberger_2

This lawsuit should be shocking to any American who values truth and the First Amendment,” explains Bomberger who is a citizen journalist and Emmy Award-winning creative professional. “The irony is painful. The NAACP is suing me—a black man—for exercising my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech.

In other words, the full multimillion dollar NAACP organization is going after one Black man because he dared to call them out on abortion.

Unfortunately, in the initial hearing, Judge Raymond Jackson found Radiance guilty, concluding in a 52-page opinion, that “The NAACP has no formal or official position or policy regarding abortion.

Bomberger claims that Judge Jackson simply ignored trial evidence such as the NAACP’s own 2004 Convention Resolution and online Press Release announcing: “NAACP Board Takes Historical Prochoice Position“.

NAACP Prochoice resolution

This announcement was followed by the NAACP’s participation in a Planned Parenthood DC abortion rally protesting the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Since then, the NAACP’s actions have been inarguably pro-abortion,” Radiance Foundation writes in their press release.

According to Bomberger, “There is no question about the NAACP’s position on abortion. They passed a resolution at their annual convention in 2004 erroneously entitled: “The March For Life”.

NAACP-MARCH-FOR-LIFE-2004-RESOLUTION

The document Bomberger published is interesting considering that the annual pro-life march is also called a “March for Life.”

But…I digress.

Bomberger cites other areas where he believes the Judge ignored evidence in the case:

    The judge wrongly claimed on page 41 of the Order: “The NAACP has intentionally refrained from taking a stance on abortion, and certainly has not been alleged to advocate for the abortion of people of color.”

    Never mind the NAACP not only promoted the pro-abortion “March for Women’s Lives”, it led from the stage.

    Former NAACP President Julian Bond was a featured speaker at event as well as the keynote speaker at a fund-raising dinner for NARAL, the same year, where he praised the fact that “black women exercise this precious [abortion] at rates far exceeding their percentage of the population.”

    Never mind Planned Parenthood is a corporate sponsor of the NAACP’s annual conventions.

    Never mind the NAACP filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act, which banned sex-selection and race-based abortions.

    Never mind the recent president of the NAACP, Benjamin Jealous, was the keynote speaker at a Planned Parenthood of Southeast Georgia fundraiser where one could purchase a $1000-a-Margaret-Sanger-Founders-Circle package to help raise money for the political arm of the abortion chain.

Bomberger and his Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are not the only ones who believe parody is free speech and not trademark infringement.

In fact the ACLU, which is generally pro-abortion has filed a brief on The Radiance Foundation’s behalf.

Their brief was summarized by Harvard Journal’s, Jolt Digest, which wrote, “the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (“ACLU”) filed a joint amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit for the Radiance Foundation, Inc. In its brief, the EFF and the ACLU urge that “trademark laws should not be used to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators”.

Citing the review in part:

    Building on three prior Circuit Court cases holdings that “artistic or political use of a trademark” and “literary titles” do not violate the Lanham Act “so long as the level of relevance to the underlying work is merely . . . above zero,” the EFF and the ACLU argue that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not infringing on a confusion theory.

    The brief reasons that “Radiance’s use of NAACP’s trademark in the title of an article was directly relevant to the article’s political goal and did not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the article .”

    The EFF and the ACLU then argues that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not trademark dilution because it was a “noncommercial use” defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3) and thus exempted from Lanham Act action. Citing previous court decisions, the brief explained that the trademark dilution cause of action is limited to commercial advertising and excludes fully protected speech in newspapers, magazines, films, songs and similar media. Thus Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s trademark to criticize the practices of the organization and to comment on how abortion affects the African-American community is exempted under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii).

“No trademark law overrides the First Amendment freedom to comment upon the positions, policies and activities of groups like the NAACP. This type of speech has a very long history of protection,” said Charles M. Allen with the law firm Goodman, Allen, & Filetti and one of nearly 2,500 private attorneys allied with ADF. “The Radiance Foundation merely expressed its opinion of the NAACP’s activities in an article. The NAACP cannot use trademark law to shield itself from criticism by denying others the right to use its name when they are expressing their opinions.”

I believe this trial in life will have a happy ending. Our hope is that truth and justice prevail and that our guaranteed, precious right to free speech is protected. Even more importantly, we hope that so-called “leaders” in the civil rights movement have their consciences awakened to realize no right is more valuable and in need of defense than the foundational Right to Life,” Bomberger said.

Will free speech prevail?

We will soon see as the case is now before three justices at the Fourth Circuit. Oral arguments will be heard Wednesday, March 25th.

Son of PP Director: Pro-choice activists would rather destroy pro-life property than abide by constitution

Posted in free speech, pro-choice violence with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 13, 2015 by saynsumthn

A video recorded by University of Oregon Young Americans for Liberty President Thomas Tullis and Vice President Brandon Clements shows pro-choice advocates verbally and physically assaulting pro-life protesters.

Thomas Tullis 9_2458613631776024782_n

Tullis explains on his Facebook page, “On Tuesday, I got this video of our campus reaction to free speech. I dont agree with this campus protester/preacher and I don’t think it is cool to hold a sign with a baby fetus on it in a protest effort, but I am even more upset that the student body is incapable of engaging in rational dialogue- instead, students thought it was necessary to call the police and to steal the mans property and try to destroy his sign. Brandon and I are trying to get an opinion piece in the Emerald published that outlines our concerns with the campus community’s childish reaction.”

Most of the news reports so far are centered around the campuses free speech policy and the way campus police attempted to censor the pro-life protesters.

See here , here , here.

Police corrected the officer and rightfully allowed protesters to stay.

Sadly, arguments made by abortion advocates show a real lack of education.

Examples:

Pro-choicer #1

prochoice dick lady

“You’re a man – you have no say what happens in my body…you have nothing to say about it because you have a dick.”

______________________________________

Pro-choicer #2:

Capture

This is obscene, this is not part of your first amendment rights.”

Really? Don’t they teach the Constitution at this University?

____________________________________________

Pro-choicer #3:

prochoice vagina

“Can you get an abortion- do you have a vagina?”

______________________________________________________

Pro-choicer #4

“Do you have a vagina?”

Prochoice vagina 2

_____________________________________________________

These arguments are really dumb. It would be like saying you have no right to speak out on slavery unless you are black, on Rape or Human Trafficking unless you are a woman, and animals rights unless you are an animal.

Not to mention that they each fail to chastise the pro-choice “vagina-less” men that support their position including the one that destroys the pro-life signs (below).

They also seem rather ignorant to the fact that it was male justices on the Supreme Court which legalized abortion to begin with.

Of course, because of their ignorance, instead of intelligently arguing the issue- they resorted to violence.

First- by stepping on the sign:

Prochoice prolife oregon

Prochoice prolife oregon 2

Prochoice prolife oregon 3

___________________________________

Then- by attacking it:

prochioce destroys prolife sign oregon

prochioce destroys prolife sign oregon 2

prochioce destroys prolife sign oregon 3

prochioce destroys prolife sign oregon 4

______________________________________________

But, I was not the only one that caught this, even pro-choice advocates agreed that the conduct of these pro-choice students was appalling.

A comment on Tullis’ FB page suggests the campus police officer should have addressed the yelling pro-choicers first:

Jim Beard to Tullis

Son of Planned Parenthood Director:

Another comment left by Sam Dotters-Katz reads, “This is shameful by the students. My mother was the medical director at planned parenthood and I am as pro choice as they come, but that has nothing to do with this mans free speech rights. Or generation can be so weak, they would rather steal and destroy this guys property than abide by the constitution and afford him his obvious free speech rights, because they don’t like what he is saying or those images. I think what he is advocating for is abhorrent, and holding up pictures of fetuses is disgusting and distorts the issue, but it is his right. Where the hell are student leaders and why aren’t they educating people, so sad.

Planned Parenthood son

Thomas Tullis praised the conduct of the anti-abortion demonstrator, “it’s truly a sad day when the campus preacher can remain composed and try to discuss things intelligently and the university educated students are only interested in a shouting match. I stood by and watched as this man calmly tried to encourage rational discussion and debate like asking students when they think life starts, etc. Instead the students thought it would be a better idea to harass him with profanity and insults. I wish I got more of it on video. One girl literally went up and yelled “Fuck you, fuck your god, fuck your sign” and that wasnt even the worst of it.

Another girl told him that she just came out of a first amendment law class and that his sign is obscene and not protected by the constitution.”

It is good to know that in the face of violence and censorship there are still some who will speak out in favor of free speech.

( H/T to the Stanek Report for catching the original story)

Pro-life group says police are protecting last abortion clinic in Mississippi

Posted in Abortion clinic, Abortion Clinic Inspections, abortion clinic safety, Police Abuse, Police Bias, Pro-Life with tags , , , , , , , on July 31, 2014 by saynsumthn

Days after the police in Jackson Mississippi watched as business owners took the signs from the pro-life group Created Equal, the organization has uploaded a video showing what they claim is mistreatment by the police again.

Stealing Signs olice Theif

According to Created Equal, on Thursday July 17, 2014, Created Equal visited Jackson, MS, site of the state’s last remaining abortion facility as part of Day 4 of their Summer Justice Ride.

Jackson CLinic July 2014

Sixteen days before the event, they say that they contacted the police to work out any details resulting in a conference call the day before with police and city officials.

According to Mark Harrington, founder of Created Equal, “It wasn’t until after our arrival that police informed us of a sign ordinance that they intended to enforce against our first amendment protected display.”

Created Equal is law-abiding,” says Harrington, However, no one needs a permit to be on the public sidewalk, and when law enforcement attempts to unequally enforce laws, we must defend our first amendment rights.

“The City of Jackson is required to guarantee everyone the right to free speech. Selective enforcement of commercial sign ordinances amounts to nothing more than harassment. The only reason the police were trying to require us to follow this obscure sign law is because we were opposing abortion outside the last remaining abortion mill in the state. I feel like I was transported back 50 years when Freedom Riders were harassed by Jackson police and business owners as white racists interfered with their right to use interstate commerce, ” Harrington said in a written statement.

According to the group, Operation Rescue, the Fifth Court of Appeals has just ruled that the State of Mississippi must allow the abortion clinic to remain open despite their dangerous medical practices.

According to Operation Rescue president, Troy Newman, “What is being missed here is that the one facility left in the state is engaged in substandard practices that endanger women. Would the Court think that if Kermit Gosnell operated the last abortion clinic in Mississippi, that the state would be forced to keep him in business? Diane Derzis’ shoddy abortion practices that have been documented to endanger women are little better. The Court was concerned that irreparable harm would come to Derzis’ abortion business if it was forced to close, but it seems it failed to consider the irreparable harm done to women who are exposed to shoddy abortions done by her primary abortionist Bruce Norman, who has a long history of hurting women. Shouldn’t protecting women from back-alley practices by abortionist who cannot qualify for hospital privileges trump protecting Derzis’ profit margin?”

JacksonGurney98072013

Derzis was ordered by an Alabama court to shut down their abortion business in Birmingham after it was found to pose a danger to the public, and later, to be operating illegally. The group claims that the same practices that forced Derzis’ out of Alabama, are present at her Mississippi facility.