|
 eople
say there are a lot of kooks on the Internet, but I don't know.
The anti-abortion website Nuremberg
Files is an
excellent concept. It provides a list of abortionists in anticipation
of "the day when these people will be charged in PERFECTLY LEGAL
COURTS once the tide of this nation's opinion turns against the
wanton slaughter of God's children (as it surely will)."
This is such a great idea, I've been lost in a reverie drafting
my own Nuremberg list, and abortion is just the beginning. This
week I'm concentrating on the Nuremberg Files for big tax-and-spenders.
That the website envisions trials clearly excludes the possibility
of summary execution. Still, its creators were sued and ordered
to pay $109 million in damages to Planned Parenthood and four abortionists
who claimed they felt threatened by the pro-lifers' free speech.
The $109 million fine on free speech was eventually overturned on
appeal. In a groundbreaking ruling, the appeals court found that
— not just go-go dancers — but "words are protected by
the First Amendment."
The court was apparently unaware of the abortion exception to the
Flynt Amendment. As Justice Antonin Scalia has explained it, abortion
operates as an "ad hoc nullification machine" in which "no legal
rule or doctrine is safe" when faced with an abortion regulation.
But the appeals court was driving blind. It cited only the Constitution
— flagrantly ignoring the pocket parts to the First Amendment
added by the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the New York Times.
Needless to say, the Times was indignant. It's one thing
to publish classified Pentagon documents or graphic photos of sodomite
acts involving bullwhips. It's something else entirely when a pro-life
Christian opens his trap.
The Times editorialized that the decision in the free-speech
case should motivate the Bush administration to "crack down" on
the anti-abortion movement. In their darkest fantasies, this is
what liberals claim McCarthyism was. Pro-lifers can't have their
speech squelched, so the Times at least wants them investigated.
In addition to its heavy-breathing editorial, the Times ran
an earnest column by one of the abortionists who had sued the pro-life
website. "It's too dangerous for me to be in front of a window,"
the abortionist woefully claimed.
Oh please. More cab drivers are killed every year in New York City
than abortionists have been killed in 30 years. It's more dangerous
to be a friend of Bill Clinton's than it is to be an abortionist.
It's evidently more dangerous to be a witness before the Warren
Commission than to be an abortionist.
And an abortionist is certainly safer in front of his window than
over a million babies a year are in their mothers' wombs. In the
three decades since the Supreme Court invented a constitutional
right to abortion, the casualty figures are seven murdered abortionists
to 30 million murdered babies.
In court, the abortionist said, his lawyer "eloquently showed the
pattern to the jury: poster, murder; poster, murder; poster, murder
— all since 1993." So in the worst period of abortionists being
slaughtered, the babies narrowed the gap to a ratio of 7-to-10,000,000.
That 1993 figure is interesting, though. Abortion has been a pretend
constitutional right since 1973. But all seven abortionists have
been killed only since 1993.
Let's see: What happened around 1993 that might have persuaded some
pro-lifers that they couldn't work within the system anymore? For
20 years they had waited, peacefully protesting outside abortion
clinics, enacting incremental restrictions on abortion, and voting
for Republican presidents.
In the summer of 1992 — after four new Republican appointments
to the Supreme Court — Roe v. Wade was reaffirmed.
A few years later, the Supreme Court stripped pro-lifers of their
right to protest outside abortion clinics.
So what system are pro-lifers supposed to be working within exactly?
They are completely disenfranchised. They can't vote, they can't
protest, they can't engage in speech without risking a $100 million
fine.
Liberals are filled with boundless compassion for drooling, lumpen
predators rioting in Cincinnati. They empathize with the Red Chinese.
They feel the pain of every murderous dictator and serial killer
to come down the pike. They do it for sport. But people who love
babies — oh no! No sir.
At the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington,
D.C., last month, President George Bush praised the pope for speaking
for the unborn, unleashing a wild standing ovation. According to
published reports: "(a)bout the only people who did not rise or
even applaud were Sen. Teddy Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy
Schlossberg."
You won't see a scene like that again until Judgment Day. The Nuremberg
Files will come in handy.
|
