Owners of the billboard which made news headlines by declaring a heart beats at 4 weeks and triggered a petition to have it removed have quickly buckled in the face of criticism.
oOh! Media admitted that there was nothing wrong with the ad as far as common standards and guidelines, but arbitrarily decided some people might get offended. Apparently that is an unimaginable evil which must not be endured, and so down it came.
Thanks to a Pellowe Talk supporter for today’s photo of that same billboard, now showing the hearts of the abortion industry and of the censorious SJWs helping it continue unscrutinised.
NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance MP says a bus ad with a pregnant tummy and the plainly stated fact of when human hearts start beating is “appalling”. What’s appalling is public sympathy for an industry that oppresses women and kills their preborn children. What’s appalling are the misogynistic ad’s he doesn’t ban urgently. What’s appalling is the soft censorship of conversations about important public issues. What’s appalling is the amorality of a society which would kowtow to pro-slavery activists complaining about anti-slavery ads humanising Africans if slavery were still legal.
Maybe not everyone’s heart starts beating at four weeks.
I spoke with the CEO of Emily’s Voice this afternoon about his organisation and the recent fury of attacks against ad’s with facts pro-abortionists would rather women did not know. The interview video is above.
Refuse silence. Sign & share the counter petition:
“To the Founder and CEO of oOh! Media, Brendon Cook
Australia needs to be allowed have a civil conversation about human rights with all the science and options presented clearly, without censorship, so women can make an informed choice when facing the difficulty of an unplanned pregnancy. The Emily’s Voice billboard on private property on the Pacific Highway in Belmont North is scientifically factual, appropriately sensitive and beautifully positive. It does not contravene any advertising standards.
Your hasty capitulation to the demands of a noisy but tiny number of members of the public is disappointing in that it represents a failure to defend freedom of speech and liberal debate of important public issues. Your reputation is not served by appearing to enable censorship of the civil conversations which a mature society benefits from.“