Two incredible developments last week in the courts’ twisted view of
the law, justice, rights and responsibilities when it comes to the issue
A federal judge Friday blocked anti-abortion activists from
publishing on their Website “wanted” posters of abortionists. This
follows a decision to fine them $107 million for simply speaking out
against those who profit from mass killing of the unborn.
Oh, I know, you’ve heard that the Website in question “threatened”
the lives of the abortionists. No way. There were no threats — real or
implied. Instead, the protesters employed a technique that has been
widely used successfully by activists of many stripes for years without
so much as a hint of legal trouble in the past.
I remember such wanted posters, for instance, during the Vietnam War.
I remember prominent people such as the secretary of defense, generals,
even presidents pictured on them. This, by the way, during a period of
protests in which far more people were victims of violence — bombings,
shootings, riots, etc. — than have been physically attacked during the
25 years of abortion protests.
Right now there are environmental radicals using the identical
technique to identify those they consider to be raping and pillaging the
planet. Nobody complains. Nobody files suit. Nobody awards damages. And
certainly no judge would consider ordering them to shut down their
Nor should they. Because when a society silences mere expressions of
discontent and protest, it invites more extreme actions.
But there is a different standard of justice for abortion protesters.
Their rights to peaceful expressions of protest have been systematically
stripped by the courts and legislative branches of government. Special
protections have been provided to abortuaries and those who work in them
that would never be considered even for churches and clergy.
And that brings us to the other scandalous court decision last week.
The California Supreme Court, packed with radically pro-abortion
justices during the last eight years by zealot Gov. Pete Wilson, last
Wednesday halted the murder prosecution of notorious abortionist Bruce
Steir, who, the Riverside County district attorney’s office concluded,
allowed a 27-year-old woman in his care to die after one of the thousand
or so abortions he conducts every year.
Prosecutors said Steir showed “conscious disregard” for the life of
Sharon Hamptlon. Though he knew he had perforated her uterus, they said,
he failed to call for emergency help. The Medi-Cal patient bled to death
on the way home from the clinic. Hamptlon, by the way, was just the most
recent of many women who have met similar fates at the hands of this
butcher with a license to kill.
But, taking a page out of the book written first by O.J. Simpson and
later by Bill Clinton, Steir claimed he was the victim of a vast
conspiracy — this time by anti-abortion protesters. Specifically, he
said he was singled out because he provides abortion and advocates it.
Of course, by that standard, no abortionist could ever be prosecuted for
That illogic didn’t bother the California Supreme Court, however.
Two decisions. Two different cases. But together they illustrate the
very different standards of justice emerging in our country over the
abortion debate. Here’s a man who has actually contributed to the deaths
of real people — adult women, not just their unnamed, preborn children.
He is given a pass and special protections from prosecution because he
provides the ignoble service of hired killer, exterminator of unwanted
little human “pests” in the womb, destroyer of the most innocent, most
dependent, most vulnerable of endangered species. Before his case is
even prepared for trial, Steir gets to make a political case before the
Court of Appeal in which he will contend he is the victim of a
Now the prosecutors, who simply looked at the facts and decided to
try Steir as they would any other negligent doctor, will be forced to
defend themselves, hire attorneys and prepare for their own trial in
which they will be portrayed as politically motivated anti-abortion
activists on a crusade against a proponent of “women’s rights.”
Meanwhile, the free speech rights of those who merely weigh in on the
other side of the debate are abrogated. They face exorbitant civil fines
for merely expressing their heartfelt and impassioned opinions.
It would all be laughable if it were not so real — if it were not so
threatening to the rule of law, equal justice and, yes, human lives.