Is abortion murder?

More than a few astute WorldNetDaily readers e-mailed me last week to point out a visible irony in a story I filed regarding a Michigan statute, the act of abortion, and murder.

WND reported that the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center was able to convince a federal judge that a sign erected outside a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Kalamazoo by pro-life demonstrator Ann Norton was not a violation of the law, but rather a legal extension of her First Amendment rights.

The center was pleased that U.S. District Judge David W. McKeague awarded Mrs. Norton, a client, $650 as part of a settlement with the city of Kalamazoo after she filed suit against city officials and police for threatening to arrest her.

Police had responded to a call from Mrs. Norton and a friend on Oct. 11, 2001, as they were picketing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic. When officers arrived, the women said one of their picket signs had been destroyed by an “offended” passerby.

The officer didn’t do anything about the destruction of Mrs. Norton’s property except file a report. However, some weeks later, police threatened to arrest Mrs. Norton and her friend because they allegedly violated a Michigan statute that prohibits – now get this – public depictions of murder.

Police say they considered the arrest because Mrs. Norton’s sign contained “a color photo of a bloody, aborted female child’s head being held by surgical equipment.”

“Can this be true?” readers asked by the hundreds. If so, then isn’t the state of Michigan essentially declaring abortion to be murder? And if that’s right, then why is abortion even legal – at least in Michigan?

As I said, our readers are astute. But all is not as it seemed.

Robert J. Muise, an attorney for the Thomas More center, told me earlier this week that regardless of the state’s statute, Mrs. Norton’s case was not going to set legal precedent, had it even gone to court.

“From a legal perspective, this ruling wasn’t going to change the nation’s abortion laws,” he said.

That’s because no Michigan court would have ruled that Mrs. Norton’s signs contained “images of murder.” Rather, legal experts opine that at best the state courts would have ruled only that her signs contained images of the results of a legal medical procedure.

Nevertheless, as Mr. Muise pointed out, the case is interesting because it is fraught with hypocrisy and irony.

“What the case does demonstrate is the measure certain individuals will take in order to suppress speech” they don’t agree with, he said, referring to the police department’s initial decision to charge Mrs. Norton.

Mr. Muise went on to point out that when it comes to abortion, it is typical for many supporters to be “bothered or offended” by the kind of graphic pictures that were being displayed by Mrs. Norton. Seems they are all for “choice” as long as they aren’t reminded of what “choice” looks like.

I don’t blame them. I agree that seeing a picture of a bloodied, dying or dead baby is unnerving, unsettling and altogether distressing. Most images of murder are, but it’s worse when the victim is an innocent child.

The only real solution to the abortion “debate,” Mr. Muise argues, is for people like Mrs. Norton to be brave enough to display the reality of what abortion actually looks like.

Only then will more people who say they support this dubious “right” to kill babies see that perhaps the state of Michigan was onto something after all.