CO Supreme Court upholds ban against use of graphic abortion photos at a church
UPDATE 7p: I’ve added a poll, at the bottom of the post.
5:35p: I read with alarm a story at CNS News today that the Colorado Supreme Court is allowing an injunction to stand that prohibits pro-lifers from publicly displaying graphic images of aborted babies at a Denver church.
The Court’s reasoning demonstrated the height of judicial hypocrisy. It ruled signs such as Exhibits 43 and 9, right, “cause ‘psychological harm’ to children under 12,” according to CBN.
This from the same legal system that authorized the murders of the photographed children.
This obvious free speech violation is serious in and of itself, but the injunction also carries ramifications for other pro-life activists around the country.
(That said, a prolonged public debate on just what it is about abortion images that makes them “gruesome,” as the Court called them, would certainly be worthwhile.)
There was no more detail in the story, but pro-life attorney Rebecca Messall was cited as “vow[ing] to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court,” and with the help of friend Leslie at The Passionate Pro-Lifer, I was able to speak with Rebecca.
Rebecca provided the backstory: For several years a group of pro-life activists had picketed “abortion neutral” St. John’s Episcopal Cathedral in Denver every Palm Sunday, when its pastor led an outdoor procession. The group sometimes conducted a follow-up picket on Easter.
Here are photos of the procession inside the church courtyard, and then as the procession continued on public property, where pro-lifers stood…
In between Palm Sunday and Easter 2005 the church filed for an emergency injunction to stop the protesters from showing images. These included a bloody doll nailed to a cross.
Pro-life activists Ken Scott and Clifton Powell were named in the injunction. It was they who sued and have been fighting a legal battle ever since.
Last week the state Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Court of Appeals to stop the protesters from displaying images at the church. No specific images were cited, just “large posters or similar displays depicting gruesome images of mutilated fetuses or dead bodies in a manner reasonably likely to be viewed by children under 12 years of age attending worship service and/or worship-related events at plaintiff church,” according to Court documents.
“We argued that our clients had a right to be on public property speaking on matter of public concern,” Rebecca, pictured left, told me.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a similar case, Snyder v. Phelps – the Westboro Baptist protesters.
Rebecca said in theory the injunction is just against graphic protests at this church.
“But the Court is agreeing with the concept that a private party can see protesters on public property and say they don’t want to see them,” said Rebecca. “Since when can private parties enjoin you because they find your message offensive, while claiming vague psychological harm to children but submitting no evidence?”
Rebecca reiterated her clients will file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. “The idea behind the First Amendment is to motivate change by protecting speech people don’t like,” explained Rebecca. “The world is obviously trying to suppress graphic photos of abortion, because it would motivate people to change.”
[Photos via Ken and Jo Scott]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
God bless the laborers!
So much for freedom of speech. But it is OK to have the worst kind of everything else on the internet, tv, magazines and the movies? Perhaps the images should be for puberty and on up but who can deny a church from teaching the truth about this horrific holocaust for which we are forced to pay taxes.
All I want to do is cry. Sometimes this is just to big to cope.
It’s ok with so called ‘pro-choicers’ that 11 and 12 year old girls GET abortions, we just can’t let them SEE what it is. Do I have that right?
Did the pro-life protesters target this church because some of it’s members or leaders are particularly pro-choice? Just curious. If they are vocally pro-choice, then maybe activists should simply MAIL them some pictures of what choice is. Myself, I’m still waiting for commenter Joan to show us the ‘real’ pictures since she has commented before that pro-lifers use ‘fake’ or ‘shopped’ photos.
This church has a pro abortion stance. Some congregants may not realize the stand of their church on the issue. some churches have moved to a pro abortion stance without informing their members. Recently a pastor of the Methodist church in town denied to my husband that they supported abortion. She looked it up on her smart phone while they were driving and was shocked to find out she was wrong.
So the Westboro church can picket during funeral services at a church and their speech is protected but pro lifers cannot! Amazing.
What if the protest showed fetal development pictures of babies in the womb with information about fetal development at that stage. The signs could say do you know your denomination supports the killing of innocent defenseless human being babies? Do you agree with that. Do you know the procedure used??? Can you justify this? Do you want to support this with your tithes?
It’s ok with so called ‘pro-choicers’ that 11 and 12 year old girls GET abortions, we just can’t let them SEE what it is. Do I have that right?
Yes you do ninek. Thay are unable to commit abortion in peace if the victims are educated what an abortion actually is.
What strikes me as most interesting about this is Westbourough Baptist Church is allowed to say and do the most hateful of actions under protection but these people cannot show heinous images of actions supported by this church.
Imagine for a moment that this was a case of a civil rights protest at a church that didn’t believe in affirmative action, and there were placards displaying photos of lynched black people.
Even though such crimes have thankfully dwindled to almost zero in the last 90 years, would the Colorado Supreme Court rule against that because it would “cause psychological harm to children under 12?”
I think not. No, I know not. And yet those placards of aborted babies truthfully display the crimes against humanity – if not yet the laws of the land – that occur almost 4,000 time a day. To this very day.
And we wonder why the church has a bad name these days…
Titus 1:16
They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
This and another post today are great reminders to me. Who we think God is manifests itself in what we believe His will to be and how we seek to do it. I want no part of a god who would condone abortion. This is a false god. These churches are in big trouble, and I applaud those who are trying to help them. I will pray for them.
I have participated on a security team, protecting our bishop, worshippers and the Blessed Sacrament during a Corpus Christi procession.
We were prepared for disruption by same-sex “marriage” supporters, Madison’s ubiquitous anti-religion activists, and feminist supporters of the HHS Mandate and abortion-on-demand. Madison, WI, has no shortage of self-righteous protesters.
Having stood on the worshipping side of such shocking protests, I cannot encourage pro-lifers to behave this way. It hardens hearts against us.
I do recommend a soft-and-loving protest, one that encourages the worshippers to respect life and to help women with real love.
Del, you may not want to encourage it or have the fortitude to participate but do you at least acknowledge the hypocrisy in the court’s decision. And how does your security analogy apply to these peaceful protesters?
LifeJoy,
I would go so far far as to say they are being lead by the anti-christ. They espouse to follow scripture as their authority and sanction the choice to kill the unborn so they need to hide it away. They cannot stand in the light and espouse such evil in the name of Christ.
If everyone who is totally cool with this type of protest ever complains about being protested by marriage equality activists, etc, I would consider that a fine form of hypocrisy.
I do think this is a free speech violation, I can’t imagine that it will be held up in appeal. If WBC can get away with their crap, I don’t see why pro-lifers would be held to a different standard.
“If everyone who is totally cool with this type of protest ever complains about being protested by marriage equality activists, etc, I would consider that a fine form of hypocrisy.”
The hypocrisy would be in any church that follows scripture as their guide accepting homosexuality as ok….. even more so if they try to defile marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman.
“If everyone who is totally cool with this type of protest ever complains about being protested by marriage equality activists, etc, I would consider that a fine form of hypocrisy.”
I don’t think “complaining” is a relevant criteria for assessing much, other than the being or not being of a complainer. And we shouldn’t be complainers. I do know what your point is though. But people can protest whatever they want, and we don’t have to like it. My church was protested by WBC and we don’t even know why. Our church is pro traditional marriage, pro- life, etc. But we saw it as an opportunity to tell the community that Jesus loves everyone, all sinners – “EVEN WBC!”.The only hypocrisy is claiming to follow Christ and then condoning killing life that God has created.
truthseeker – Ugh. No wonder pro-choice churches make me physically ill. Did they miss the part where Jesus died for being “controversial”?
“If everyone who is totally cool with this type of protest ever complains about being protested by marriage equality activists, etc, I would consider that a fine form of hypocrisy.”
Except that gay “marriage” is clearly in opposition to the Bible. And gay “marriage” “protests” typically take place inside the church and the goal is to disrupt the religious service, desecrate the Blessed Sacrament, or otherwise behave like a jerk.
That said, I can’t see how protesting a church during a Palm Sunday procession is going to do anything but make people upset, even if the protest is legitimate.
John – it doesn’t matter.
Free speech doesn’t say that speech is accurate, good, truthful, anything. It doesn’t matter your views or anybody’s on abortion, gay marriage or anything else. If protests are okay at church, and the protest isn’t doing anything like breaking vulgarity laws or slandering somebody, then the message doesn’t matter. Jack is completely right – if we say as a Christian community that protesting other churches is a good thing (and I know you aren’t saying that) – then it opens the door to any organization protesting any issue they want.
John, that’s the point, and that’s also the point of the First Amendment. It’s not there to protect speech everyone approves of, it’s there to protect speech people don’t like, with the undergirding principle of wanting to bring about change.
My God, what happened to that poor baby in the picture?
Maybe I dont want to know . . .
phillymiss, that baby was subjected to a development reduction initiative sponsored by the Democrat party.
Maybe they could change the messages on the photos? “This is a blob”. Maybe include some photos of mutilated jellyfish…
Gee–where is the ACLU? Or the JDL? I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.
Was it a Catholic judge? Probably the homocath clergy bought him off.
Can’t show pictures of aborted babies? How about displaying graphic pictures of unsanitary abortion mills while the case is on appeal to SCOTUS?
“Was it a Catholic judge? Probably the homocath clergy bought him off.”
Um, what?
Orientation:
Homocath clergy? Almost sounds like our resident Catholic basher, the troll “cc”, who never misses an opportunity.
[...] This year a March for Life VIP has for months been attempting to talk CE out of bringing the jumbotron back, expressing concern for children and finally asking CE to have “specially trained psychiatrists on hand to deal with the emotional stress of the marchers” (the same position taken against pro-life activists by a pro-abortion church). [...]