There’s nothing better than a win for the pro-life movement. The pregnant mother who chooses birth over abortion; the child who survives a botched abortion and goes on to make a life for himself; the pharmacy employee or doctor who takes a moral stand at the risk of losing their job; the closure of a local Planned Parenthood clinic — these are all things that excite and thrill us precisely because we believe in the sanctity and value of human life. We love these victories. We revel in them. We cheer them. We use them as fuel and motivation to stay the course.
Then there are the victories that aren’t so exciting. These victories don’t come with warm fuzzy feelings or chill bumps. There are victories that give us pause and make us wonder about the pending fate of our deranged society. Tuesday was one such pro-life “victory” — when the Supreme Court decided in a narrow 5-4 outcome that the government cannot force pro-life organizations to promote, publicize, market or endorse abortion. Specifically, the decision said that the state of California could not force pregnancy centers to tell patients about the availability of tax-payer subsidized abortion procedure options.
Now, it is indeed good that this utterly psychotic and obviously unconstitutional law was struck down. It is good that places which help and support pregnant women will not be required by the government to endorse abortion or mention it as an option. It is good that we dodged the bullet. But, it is bad that we only dodged the bullet by one Supreme Court Justice. The bullet practically nicked us on the shoulder blade, sliced through our jacket, tore off a bit of our flesh and left a gaping hole in our clothing as it exited out the other side.
Four Supreme Court Justices did not hesitate to express their approval for the notion that the government should be allowed to forcibly compel a certain type of speech. That is troublesome, to say the least. It’s not particularly surprising, however, considering that two of these justices were previously in favor of government-controlled speech in the case of the Masterpiece Cakeshop. So, we’ve seen bullets fly before. But, despite what you’re hearing from the progressive Left, these are two completely different situations and the comparisons being made between the two — primarily on social media and in the news — are nothing short of ridiculous and nonsensical.
A little context is in order: The state of Colorado demanded that a Christian baker bake a cake for a gay couple or suffer financial and legal repercussions, which is about as totalitarian as it gets. By contrast, California wants to require pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations to promote and sell and pitch something that is the literal antithesis of everything they do and stand for — i.e. abortion. That would be, quite simply, illogical and contradictory, not to mention unconstitutional. A pro-life organization is in the business of providing pro-life resources. It’s right there in the name. This isn’t difficult to understand. California’s end game was clear and apparent from the beginning: to ensure that all pro-life pregnancy centers in their state have to choose between promoting abortion or going out of business, knowing full well that many would choose the latter option if it ever came to such tyranny.
Fortunately, it did not. At least not today. Not this week. And for that, I am glad. I rejoice. But, let us not take lightly just how close this decision was. Free speech will continue to evaporate until it’s gone completely. Abortion has been a sacred cow for the Left for decades and they are willing to go to insane lengths to protect and defend it, including tossing the Constitution out the window, which is obviously the ultimate goal.
A word of advice: We should keep your eyes peeled, so that the next time a bullet flies in this particular direction — and it will — we will not be struck between the eyes.