Feelings over freedom: The latest hypocrisy over the ‘psychological stress’ caused by pro-life ads

by Nate Madden

The free speech of pro-lifers in Canada just took a huge blow after a judge censored one of their advertisements because its content might hurt someone’s feelings. No, really.

According to a story last week at The Washington Times, the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) lost a December court case in which an Alberta judge ruled that the group couldn’t run pro-life ads on public busses because of the potential “psychological harm to women who have had an abortion.”

The Times’ Douglas Ernst writes:

The court ruled that existing ads with a developing child at 7 weeks’ and 16 weeks’ gestation were unacceptable for public consumption, given the city’s laws, but that other versions would be considered by officials.

“If government can tell its citizens what’s upsetting and what isn’t upsetting in their speech, then democracy is threatened and, indeed, progress is threatened,” Carol Crosson, legal counsel for the CCBR, told LifeSiteNews on Thursday.

The news comes just weeks after it was reported that the French parliament, having already banned a pro-life commercial featuring kids with Down syndrome — were already setting their sights on pro-life outlets for similar reasons.

And while the pro-aborts in the U.S. be looking at the ruling as jurisprudential grounds for future cases, they might want to pump the brakes first. Isn’t one of the most common arguments they make against pro-life pregnancy resource centers is that abortion doesn’t cause any psychological harm? And abortion advocates spent the past few weeks touting a major study that supposedly backs up their claim?

I thought abortions were supposed to be no more serious than getting a taco? And what about those huge stadium celebrations that the abortion lobby was throwing last fall? Couldn’t treating a grave decision so flippantly also cause “psychological” distress?” The ad in question (which can be viewed here) makes no mention of the character of women who have had abortions.

Make no mistake: Post-abortive women psychologically damaged by the aftermath of their decisions need mercy, love, and counseling to cope in a healthy and productive way. What nobody needs, however, is to be shielded from opinions because of their content. That’s not helping, it’s infantilizing.

What the Canadian court and the pro-abortion lawyers on the case have done is work to shield women from the most vile and despicable kind of hatred known to 21stcentury man: being disagreed with. Yes, it seems “psychological distress” just became the new official legalese for being confronted with the medically accurate, logically sound information that might make one rethink his/her life choices or worldview. The horror!

Well, if protecting people from “psychological distress” (hurt feelings) is a compelling enough state interest to curb free speech, why stop with abortion ads?

Thanks to such things as our modern university system and a host of other factors, our society is now filled with fragile, neurotic basket cases that can’t hear a differing opinion on any viewpoint that contrasts with prevailing leftist orthodoxy without needing a trauma counselor, declaring some form of “social injustice,” or trying to ban it as some form of “hate speech.”

There’s literally no area of political and social discourse where the same logic could not be applied the minute somebody claims that their feelings have been hurt.

Such are the legal foundations of thought-crime, and it’s right on our doorstep. This isn’t some far-fetched warning from the political wilderness, if history is any indicator. Almost like a low-budget, black-and-white horror flick from the 1950s, political legal monstrosities like the ruling in Alberta always seem to hatch in the European Union, cross the Atlantic, and make landfall in Canada before turn up wreaking havoc in U.S. courtrooms and legislative chambers.

Just a quick scan of court cases and laws passed in lefty strongholds throughout the United States last year will show that a similar American assault on pro-life speech is already in the earliest stages.

After all, fundamental liberties like speech and expression stop being fundamental when they get in the way of “progress” … or people’s feelings.

Nate Madden is a Staff Writer for Conservative Review, focusing on religious freedom, jihadism, and the judiciary. He previously served as the Director of Policy Relations for the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative. A Publius Fellow, John Jay Fellow, Citadel Parliamentary Fellow and National Journalism Center alumnus, Nate’s writing has previously appeared in several religious and news publications. Follow him @NateMaddenCR and on Facebook.

Originally published at www.conservativereview.com.