Court affirms key weapon in war against abortion

(Image courtesy Pixabay)

The images used by those who war on abortion across the United States sometimes are "grisly."

They're meant to be. They're meant to reveal to people exactly what happens behind closed doors of an abortion business. How unborn babies are torn limb from limb, with smaller pieces being sucked up by a vacuum.

No part of it is pretty.

TRENDING: The Capitol attack: Another deceitful, leftist narrative

Now a California court has ruled that those images, which it described as "grisly and gruesome," cannot be banned by public forums such as shopping malls.

A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals ruled in the case brought by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform that the speech restriction demanded by several shopping mall owners "is a content-based restriction that does not survive strict scrutiny review."

"So, we reverse the portion of the judgment finding the restriction on grisly or gruesome displays constitutional, and we remand to the trial court with directions to enter an amended judgment declaring it unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement."

Robert Muise, co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center, argued the case brought against The Irvine Company, which owns the Irvine Spectrum Center and Fashion Island, two large shopping centers in Southern California.

"At issue was whether the Irvine Company's speech restriction prohibiting 'grisly and gruesome' imagery as applied to restrict our clients' abortion-related imagery violates the free speech provision of the California Constitution," the legal team said.

The First Amendment does not apply in the case, because it pertains only to government actions.

But under the California Constitution, "large shopping malls are considered public forums for free speech, and private entities, such as The Irvine Company, may be liable for violating California’s liberty of speech clause," the lawyers explained.

The trial court affirmed the speech limits imposed by the malls' owners. But the appeals court reversed the decision.

Explained AFLC: "This is a huge and important victory for the right to free speech. Indeed, there is hope for the free speech rights of conservatives when a California appellate court upholds the right of a pro-life organization to display abortion imagery in private shopping centers under the California Constitution."

CBR is a nonprofit, social reform organization that uses "abortion imagery" to promote its pro-life policy initiatives.

In 2014, CBR Executive Director Gregg Cunningham wrote to mall officials notifying them of CBR's intent to conduct peaceful boycott picketing close to retail stores to inform the public that they permit donations to abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood.

A key part of the display was panels that showed "Living 7 week human embryo moments before abortion" and "Dead 8 week human embryo moments after abortion."

The corporation refused to allow the signs.

The CBR then proposed displaying a QR code that would call up an image when scanned by a smartphone.

Those who declined would be asked, "If abortion is too terrible to watch, should you give your money to businesses which support it?"

The mall owner refused that idea, too, prompting the lawsuit.