I am a big fan of the right to free speech. Sure, speech can get especially ugly but I firmly believe that once start carving out exceptions to the First Amendment, it opens the door wide open to future exceptions and suddenly, we’re in Nazi Germany.
In the past, I backed up my belief with action. Many years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives started debating the proposed “Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act,” a bill I supported that provided abortion doctors and staff federal protection from violence. At one point when the pro-choice lobbyists were meeting with our congressional supporters, I suggested that we needed to put language in the bill that made it absolutely clear that anti-abortion protestors would still have the right to assemble in front of clinics, shout whatever they wanted and/or pray peacefully. I even suggested that we should make clear that they had a right to hold up those horrible, bloody signs. The language was inserted in the bill (much to the consternation of some of my colleagues) and it eventually became law. As far as I know, not one anti-abortion protestor was ever arrested for merely praying or holding up signs. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
But now I’m starting to wonder a little bit about my defense of free speech.
Everyone knows by now that some guy walked into the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs and held the building hostage for several hours. During the siege he killed several people and wounded many others. Ultimately, he surrendered to the police and the next day it was reported that while under arrest he mumbled something like “no more baby parts.” That was the first indication that this rampage may have had something to do with abortion.
The dead baby parts thing is of course reference to the videos that have popped up showing a Planned Parenthood doctor talking about fetal parts to someone who ostensibly was interested in receiving the parts for research. The video caused quite a stir, not just in the anti-abortion media circles but in the mainstream press. A viewing of the video by the average person is no doubt shocking. Personally, I know how abortion doctors – like so many other doctors – can get a little “casual” about how they talk about their work, and even though the film was taken without the doctor’s knowledge, it was shocking nonetheless.
But then GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina decided to double down on the national outrage. During the next presidential debate, referring to this issue, she actually said that she had seen a video that showed “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says ‘we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.’”
Those of you who read this column know that I worked in that field for many years. You also know I’m brutally honest about abortion. After Fiorina made this statement, I got a number of calls asking me if this kind of stuff actually happened in abortion clinics. I first told them that, yes, the doctors and staff work with fetal parts at some point if the pregnancy is advanced.
DUH.
I then said that I have not observed every abortion in the country and that there is always some nut ball out there (like Doctor Gosnell) who might have done something off the charts.
But the fact is that Fiorina lied to try to make political points. It’s that simple.
She just made up this story about a video. She could never verify the video exists. And when the media started questioning her claims, she stonewalled it. I mean, let’s be real about this – and let’s be cynical. Let’s say that some crazy doctor let this happen in his clinic. Do you think he would be stupid enough to film this event? Gimme a break.
There is no film. Yet Fiorina kept publicly talking about live fetuses squirming on tables. Then a man in Colorado decides to attack Planned Parenthood clinic because he wanted no more “baby parts.”
Fiorina should be ashamed of herself. And I wonder about that First Amendment. Have we actually gone too far?

December 1, 2015 at 10:46 am
I have no problem with people like Rush Limbaugh, Jeb Bush or Carly Fiorina spouting lies. My problem is with the lack of a Fairness Doctrine, a rule that obliged broadcasters using the public airwaves to give equal opportunity for parties to rebut falsehood.
It was so effective in the 1970’s that tobacco companies pulled their TV ads off the air rather than have anti-tobacco information countering their claims. Reagan yanked the Fairness Doctrine in his first term, and hate radio’s proliferation was the result.
It is to the broadcasters’ profit to have so-called “pro-life” messages on the air. If they were obliged to present the factual reality of the real pro-lifers– i.e., the “pro-choice” movement– they would drop the former from their schedule simply because they would not want to give away free air time.
The government used to have an obligation to see that the public has access to full information. I guess that doesn’t apply in a plutocracy.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 10:51 am
How did you post this, Chuck? I tried and my sentences disappeared.
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 2:35 pm
Let me try again. I said something like this.
Letting us say “abortion is murder” is going too far, Pat. Most of either don’t believe that or are afraid to act on our belief. But then someone courageous like Dear comes along and does act. You can stop most of us, but not all.
LikeLike
December 2, 2015 at 10:15 am
Most of you, Mr. Dunkle, value your time, money and standard of living far more than you do the misguided notion that fetuses are fully human beings.
If you really valued your misguided notion, you would not hesitate to go to jail or even the Death Row gurney and do exactly what Mr. Dear, a man who lives the wet dream you aspire to, has done.
The idealism of the so-called “pro-life” movement founders upon the rock of reality: for those people, human life is sacred only insofar as they can pretend to be heroes. Not for them the nurture of the child they don’t want; not for them the setting aside of their hopes and ambitions; not for them the sacrifice of their income and their personal hopes. No, for them it is all about wanting to feel better. If there’s one thing that they hate more than abortion, it is to know that abortion just might, somewhere, some time, be available. “Rescuing” imaginary children runs a far, far distant second.
LikeLike
December 2, 2015 at 7:25 pm
Eliminate misguided and the wet dream stuff, and you first two paragraphs, Chuck, are right on. Erase paragraph 3.
LikeLike
December 3, 2015 at 5:16 pm
What am I missing, John? You don’t believe abortion is murder?
LikeLike
December 3, 2015 at 5:46 pm
I believe it but I’m afraid to act according to what I believe. In other words I’m afraid to withhold a portion of the taxes I pay; I’m afraid to destroy a mill that I call a little auschwitz; I’m afraid to physically stop a killer who I know will kill hundreds or thousands more people; I’m afraid to do lots of other things that I know will weaken the killing industry..
LikeLike
December 6, 2015 at 4:17 pm
Well, John, just stay afraid. Don’t do anything stupid…
LikeLike
December 6, 2015 at 4:18 pm
Why is that from “Anonymous?”
LikeLike
December 7, 2015 at 1:22 pm
Change stupid to smart and that’s what will happen.
LikeLike
December 7, 2015 at 8:44 am
But, Anonymous, if he doesn’t do something stupid he won’t be remembered for very long after he’s dead– which is one of the two prime motivators for the so-called “pro-lifers.”
LikeLike
December 4, 2015 at 12:47 pm
Pat, like all so-called “pro-lifers,” he is not so much in favor of seeing children grow up to enjoy fully human lives, replete with rewarding experiences as he is in favor of having his feelings soothed.
Hide the knowledge from him that any abortion happens anywhere, and he will be a happy man. Try to get him to risk his freedom or his finances in the cause of helping real children, and suddenly it’s somebody else’s job.
We must remember, Mr. Dunkle is the best they have to offer.
Oh, Jeffrey Dahmer sends you his blessings, Mr. Dunkle….
LikeLike
December 5, 2015 at 10:43 am
blink
LikeLike
December 7, 2015 at 8:42 am
“blink” = “I’m pretending not to comprehend!”
LikeLike
December 8, 2015 at 5:02 am
I take that back, not blink. On first reading I missed paragraph 2, sentence 2. Now that makes sense.
LikeLike
December 13, 2015 at 8:41 am
It’s the cancer at the heart of the so-called “pro-life” movement, Mr. Dunkle.
LikeLike
December 13, 2015 at 10:39 am
absolutely right, Chuck
LikeLike