Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

It’s under me column On the Hill about the shift in rhetoric after Roe v. Wade. From politicians to pundits, pro-life positions are treated as virtual hate speech. Demonizing those who hold pro-life views means shutting down any discussion of the basis or scope of abortion rights. It’s the latest attack on free speech as critics seek to silence those who hold opposing views.

Here is the column:

By overturning Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court is no longer pro-choice. In fact, the term has been “fan choice”. It has been declared harmful by a group now ironically named the “Pro-Choice Party.”Today, it seems you have to be anti-life to be truly pro-choice — and across the country, pro-life views are being declared virtual hate speech.

We have seen this pattern before.

As the racial justice movement emerged on campuses across the country in 2020, the slogan emerged that it’s no longer enough to not be racist, you have to be anti-racist. like the The media critic of National Radio explained: “You must continually strive for equality for all races and strive to neutralize racism in your mind, your personal environment, and the wider world.”

Likewise, after the court’s decision in Women’s Health Organization Dobbs v. JacksonIt seems, you must be against life and stop others from expressing their opinions.

on sunday Almost half of the entering class of the University of Michigan Medical School dropped out From the “White Coat Ceremony” in protest to keynote speaker Dr. Christian Collier. Collier did not intend to speak about abortion, but – because she has pro-life views – students launched an unsuccessful campaign to stop her from speaking.

The petition to cancel the campaign referred to freedom of speech before calling for its cancellation. According to Michigan Daily, The petition — signed by hundreds of incoming, current and former students — declared that “while we support the rights of free speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker representing the University of Michigan undermines the university’s position on abortion. slows down and supports it. The non-universal and deeply rooted theological platform for restricting access to abortion is a fundamental part of medical care.” In other words: we support a diversity of viewpoints as long as we don’t need to hear opposing viewpoints.

Ironically, until four years ago, CollierA pro-choice atheistHe admitted that he was “very hostile to those who held pro-life views or deeply religious commitments.” By the time he had these views, he was a renowned professor with a long line of publications in prestigious journals. He then had a change of heart after speaking with a senior faculty colleague, Dr. William Chavey, a pro-life professor of family medicine—and he quickly converted. Someone other than Greta

He is not alone in the university. A week ago, a campaign was launched to fire the head football coach Jim Harbaugh after him Announced“I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born.”

Harbaugh is used to being penalized for unnecessary roughness on the field, but nothing likely prepared him for what happened next. While he is widely regarded as a devout Catholic, his public statements about his values ​​were seen as outrageous by some, making it unacceptable for them to continue as a coach, even though he only Signed a five-year contract worth $36.7 million.

In addition to calling for his terminationHarbaugh was accused of being “full of intense misogyny” and “publicly expressing his distaste for women’s rights.” Palmer’s Liberal Report Posted (with thousands of “likes”) that “Nobody who actively tries to deny women the most basic rights should ever be allowed to hold a position of influence at a public university…he’s a public servant.” “Shoot his ass.”

In fact, being a public servant is one of the reasons Harbaugh was not fired. As a public university, Michigan is subject to the full weight of the First Amendment.

However, many others are not protected like Harbaugh. Some pro-life workers face uphill and protracted battles with companies eager to please pro-choice advocates. In 2017, Charlene Carter, Ex Southwest Airlines flight attendant He was fired for posting criticism of the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) and its president. Audrey Stone, for pro positions of your choice. Southwest apparently told Carter Stone and the union contacted the company, citing his comments as threatening or harassing. Then Southwest fired him. Five years later, this month, he devoted More than $5 million for his wrongful termination.

There is a clear attempt to portray pro-life views as an inherent threat that justifies most countermeasures. Recently, some of Pro-life centers and churches have been attacked. Even some crisis pregnancy centers that support pregnant women and provide an alternative to abortion have been condemned as a threat to women. Age Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has Announced that “crisis pregnancy centers … exist to deceive people who seek help to terminate their pregnancies.” … We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down across the country. “You shouldn’t be able to torture a pregnant woman like that.”

Age. Warren, Sen. Mazi Hirono (D-Hawaii) and other congressional Democrats have provided financial support A bill which would shut down such centers and punish charities with fines of $100,000 or “50 percent of the revenues earned by the parent entity” for violating the law’s abortion-related “misinformation prohibition.”

Similar crackdowns are being carried out by some Democratic governors. Governor of Michigan Gretchen Whitmer (d) vetoed the $20 million budget For groups and advertisements providing non-abortion resources and advice. Such counseling efforts as “deceptive” efforts tobaitOn women

While some activists have already argued that pro-life views or advertising like “Abortion hurts women” means “hate speech”.“, the Supreme Court has declared Did not allow Laws like the Ku Klux Klan should be used against abortion protesters because they are motivated by “a discriminatory class animosity.”

Demonizing pro-life views avoids the need to address the details of abortion. While a majority today supports Roe, an even greater number support abortion restrictions. A recent survey It was done by Harvard They found that 72 percent of Americans allow abortion only up to the 15th week of pregnancy or support a more restrictive law. This view goes beyond party affiliation. Even 60% of Democrats believe abortion should be banned after the 15th week or a shorter limit.

However, it is clear that some do not want to discuss this issue while insisting The almost absolute right to abortion. It is much easier to attack those who express pro-life views as monolithic extremists and “divine roots”. One of the benefits of being anti-life is that you can be anti-free speech – all in the name of being pro-choice.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.