The abortion exception to the Flynt amendment

Posted: Apr 19, 2001 12:00 AM
People say there are a lot of kooks on the Internet, but I don't know. The anti-abortion Web site 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 Web site 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 sodomic 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 Web site. "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 vs. 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.