The Legal Significance of Labeling Pro-Life Speech ‘Torture’

Kathryn Lopez has been covering the ongoing effort by radical pro-abortion NGOs to apply the U.N. Convention against Torture to the Catholic Church for — among other things — its international pro-life advocacy. The argument is so facially irrational that one would be tempted to dismiss it out of hand. Not even the U.N. could be so blindly malicious and ideological that it would attempt to destroy the church’s rights of free speech and religious liberty for the sake of protecting abortion-on-demand, could it?

Moreover, even if the U.N. Committee against Torture moved against the Vatican, such an action would be irrelevant to American courts and American constitutional law, wouldn’t it?

In fact, there is cause for concern. To be clear, the effort by the Center for Reproductive Rights clearly and explicitly targets the church’s rights to free speech and religious liberty. Here’s an excerpt from its recommendations to the Committee:

Note that the Holy See has negatively interfered with states’ attempts to develop legislation on abortion that would have served to better protect women from torture or ill-treatment. Note that the Holy See’s actions are a violation of Articles 1, 2, and 16 of the Convention against Torture and that the rights of freedom of speech and of religion extend only so far as they do not undermine women’s reproductive rights, including the right to be free from torture or ill-treatment. (Emphasis added.)

This is an astonishing statement, one that clearly targets the Catholic Church’s pro-life advocacy, equating it with state-sanctioned “torture or ill-treatment” of women and girls. By equating advocacy with torture, the Committee could begin an international legal process that would cause the U.N. to review statements or actions by pro-life public officials as “torture” within the meaning of the Convention. Radical pro-abortion groups would file amicus briefs citing new international legal standards equating pro-life advocacy with torture, thus claiming such advocacy is beyond the protection of the First Amendment. Indeed, the argument would be simple (and chilling): By permitting unfettered pro-life advocacy — by public officials and private citizens — the United States would be in violation of international law, specifically by torturing its own citizens.

Though the U.S. ratified the Convention against Torture only with significant reservations, international law has proven persuasive to the Supreme Court (and lower courts) on a number of occasions. Even without the aid of international law, the argument that pro-life speech is somehow inherently suspect is already present in the American constitutional debate, with viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech outside abortion clinics (for now) part of the legal landscape. Abortion activists would gain a significant new legal and rhetorical weapon if the U.N. Committee were to apply the Convention against Torture to the effort to preserve innocent life.

It’s difficult to overstate the perversity of the abortion lobby’s U.N. argument. There are few acts more barbaric than abortion, and the very idea that such barbarism can be insulated even from criticism insults the very notion of free speech and obliterates religious liberty. This is a dramatic escalation of the already-overwrought “war against women” rhetoric, and one that would lead to such absurd results as domestic “women’s groups” accusing conservative candidates of literally torturing voters with pro-life arguments.

At the ACLJ, we’ll be engaging with the Committee through our own affiliated NGO to block the abortion lobby’s efforts (and indeed we started a petition effort that’s already gained more than 15,000 signatures only hours after launch). It’s a sad reality, but the legal defense of our own Constitution often starts overseas, in the halls of a potentially hostile U.N.

One final note: The bright side of this dismal effort is the reality that the abortion lobby is losing the argument. They can’t defend their barbarism in a truly free marketplace of ideas, so their solution is to close the marketplace. They must not succeed.

Read more on the Patheos Faith and Family Channel and follow David on Twitter.

Stay in touch with the French Revolution on Facebook:

3 beautiful photos from the opening of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History
Trump is no respecter of women… unless you're a '10!'
Defending Religion: Volume 1
Catholics Urge Catholics To Vote... Some Issues "Not Negotiable"
  • http://www.rozyhomemaker.blogspot.com/ Rozy

    Just when I think it can’t get any worse, it does.

  • ahermit

    I don’t doubt that what Savita Halappanavar suffered was a kind of torture
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24463106

  • Sven2547

    As well as what happened to Tamesha Means.

  • spinetingler

    As soon as you label someone “pro-abortion” you have admitted that you have lost the argument.

  • DaveLopo

    I’ll bite: what should you call someone who supports abortion?

    Would you rather someone say “anti-life” or “pro-choice” or some other loaded drivel when it’s neither lives nor choices, but abortion, that is being discussed?

  • spinetingler

    Pro-choice is the term. That implies that choice is the preferred outcome. No one is “pro-abortion.” I’m quite happy with someone carrying a pregnancy to term if that is her choice. If I was “pro-abortion” I would insist that she abort.

    If you need more specificity you could say “pro-choice in regards to abortion”, or “abortion pro-choice.”

  • DaveLopo

    So the author has admitted to losing the argument because she doesn’t follow your semantics? I won’t even begin to entertain this.

    For what it’s worth, no, I don’t like the term “pro-life” being used in place of “Anti-abortion” either.

  • spinetingler

    We’ll have to agree to disagree, and then agree.

  • Guest

    So much for not entertaining it. I had originally written a three-paragraph essay about the problems with loaded adjectives before I realized what lengths I’m going to to rebut knee-jerk one-liner intentionally simplistic internet comments.

    …Yes, I can agree to disagree. It’s certainly best for everyone involved.

  • spinetingler

    and…scene.

  • UWIR

    Or pro-abortion rights. Just like people who oppose gun control aren’t pro-gun, they are pro-gun rights, people who oppose anti-gay discrimination are pro-gay rights, and people who oppose censorship are pro-speech rights, not pro-Nazi.

  • Eunice Hung

    I see no problem with forced-birthers having to stop enforcing their religious doctrines on the bodies of unwilling women. I notice they don’t do nearly as much for supporting the women or babies after birth as they do to force the birth to happen in the first place – even if the mother and child would have a difficult life ahead with no support.

    I find myself very disturbed by the rhetoric of birth as a ‘punishment’ in the forced-birther movement, a punishment that is almost always undergone by the woman alone.

  • myintx

    it doesn’t take religion to know that killing an unborn child is wrong. There are pro-life atheists out there (secularprolife.org). For many, it takes science and logic to know that killing an unborn child is wrong (unborn children are human beings and should have the same basic right to life as other innocent human beings have).

    There are groups that help women before and after birth. One example: http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/catholic-charities-uses-bus-to-offer-free-counseling-guidance-on-unplanned-pregnancy/25740872

    Banning abortion isn’t about punishing anyone, it’s about giving an unborn child a chance to be born and a chance to have a full and productive life.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X