Gag+Rule+Neg+-+Case+Turns

1. Free speech inherently constrains and rejects the beliefs of others

Stanley Fish, Professor of English and Law, Duke University, 1993, “ FRAUGHT WITH DEATH: SKEPTICISM, PROGRESSIVISM, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT,” 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1061, Fall, p. Lexis

A little more than two years ago I wrote a brief, non-scholarly essay entitled There's No Such Thing As Free Speech And It's a Good Thing Too. n1 By "there's no such thing as free speech," I meant three things. First, the act of speech, unless it is understood as the production of mere noise, is always at once constrained and constraining. Speech is constrained because one does not think to speak (or write) independently of some vision or agenda that, quite literally, compels assertion; speech therefore is not free because one is in the grip of compulsion-the softer word would be belief or conviction-at the moment of its production. Speech constrains because as an action impelled by belief and conviction it is always in the business (implicitly if not explicitly) of rejecting and stigmatizing the beliefs and convictions of others. You go to the trouble of asserting x because some other persons have been asserting y, and in yourview y is false and perhaps dangerous; or you go to the trouble of asserting x because you think x is a truth insufficiently recognized and, again in your view, a world deprived of it is a world that is impoverished and perhaps diseased. You do not, in short, speak in order to encourage others to speak freely, but in order to discourage others from disseminating or hearkening to error. You do not seek to enfranchise the community, but to bind it to the truths you take to be salutary.

2. Free speech isn't free – its political intentions corrupt solvency

Stanley Fish, Professor of English and Law, Duke University, 1993, “ FRAUGHT WITH DEATH: SKEPTICISM, PROGRESSIVISM, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT,” 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1061, Fall, p. Lexis

It will, however, be doing something (it's hard not to) and the conclusion that follows from the several senses in which there is no such thing as free speech is that what it will be doing is enacting a politics. It is that conclusion that accounts for the hostile reception of my piece by First Amendment watchdogs; for it is axiomatic in the free speech community that the purpose of the First Amendment is to insulate the discussion and dissemination of ideas from political interference, a purpose that is supposedly realized when politics, in the form of governmental regulation, is forbidden to enter the precincts where speech is produced and consumed. It is my argument, however, that politics is already inside those precincts; for since speech is unimaginable apart from consequences and since the consequences of any piece of speech will be friendly to some interests and inimical to some others (remember, speech always costs), the decision to draw a line between protected and regulated speech will always be a decision to advance some interests and discourage others, will always, that is, be a political decision. This does not mean that a First Amendment actor, once the line is drawn, will be performing with a conscious political intention; he or she will (or should) try to respect that line rather than manipulating it in order to serve a partisan purpose. It is just that the line being respected will itself be a contestable one and it is in this (inevitable and incorrigible) sense that any First Amendment decision will be political.

4. Exercising free speech causes foreign governments to crack down on abortion

Patty Skuster, JD at Michigan, and Peace Corps volunteer in Namibia teaching reproductive health, 2004, Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, “Advocacy in Whispers: The Impact of the USAID Global Gag Rule upon Free Speech and Free Association in the context of Abortion Law Reform in Three East African Countries,” p. Lexis

In some regions, persons aware of the need to increase access to safe abortion may be reluctant to speak as doing so can lead to crackdowns on access. Speech on unsafe abortion before the reinstatement of the GGR was hindered by organizations' self-censorship - a situation that is severely exacerbated with the restriction. Whether the laws are enforced or unenforced, some advocates of safe abortion fear that their efforts will be frustrated if attention is brought to their work. Government officials have the power to enforce the law, and churches have the power to counter law reform efforts. These risks may create a barrier to bringing information on unsafe abortion to the attention of lawmakers and their constituents.

Where abortion laws are unenforced, advocates of access to safe abortion fear that by generating public information on the need to liberalize, opponents would be encouraged to work to tighten what may be seen as loopholes in the laws. n69 This is particularly true in Kenya - where some reproductive health professionals believe that people working to improve access to safe abortion will find more success if they do not draw attention to their effort. n70 They feel that when professionals quietly provide safe abortion services, more short-term gains may be made in the prevention of abortion-related death and injury. n71 Such gains are evident in Kenya, where a quiet advocate has been successful in increasing access, unsanctioned by lawmakers. His NGO works by training medical professionals and educating communities. n72

Where abortion laws are enforced, providers who speak on the need to liberalize risk closure of their reproductive health facilities, as is the case in Uganda where reproductive health providers are unwilling to speak about the issue. n73 Though supportive of access to safe abortion, [*111] providers are reluctant to support liberalization as legal safe abortion is available in certain circumstances such as when the life of the mother is in danger or the fetus is malformed, but these procedures can only be utilized, if facilities are able to remain open. n74 Further, providers are reluctant to speak against government policy; n75 one interviewee stated that her organization "can't do campaigns [to liberalize the law] because abortion is illegal." n76

Reproductive health advocates are aware that churches can counter their efforts when information about their activities is made public. n77 In 2002, the Ugandan government immediately complied with a request by the Cardinal of Uganda to stop its efforts to promote emergency contraception and to deem emergency contraception an abortifacient. n78 Reproductive health professionals in multiple sectors were involved in the promotion, and upon becoming aware of their efforts, the Cardinal contacted the Ugandan government. n79 The Solicitor General in turn issued an interpretation in which it declared emergency contraception illegal under the laws restricting abortion. n80 One NGO subsequently curtailed its publicizing of a successful post-abortion care program, as it did not want to attract the attention of the religious community for fear of a reprisal similar to that of the promotion of emergency contraception. N81

2. Even if the plan solves, abortion practices are still gruesome and cruel

Chris Smith, US Senator from New Jersey, July 19, 2001, Committee on Foreign Relations, “MEXICO CITY POLICY: EFFECTS OF RESTRICTIONS ON INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING FUNDING,” http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:75604.wais

Madam Chairwoman, the overriding justification for the Mexico City Policy is the protection and the safeguarding of human life. Simply put, abortion is violence against children and in no way can abortion be construed as humane and compassionate. Abortion methods include dismembering innocent children with razor blade tip suction devices, some with the power of 20 or 30 times a household vacuum cleaner, or injections of chemical poisons designed to kill the child. Salt poisoning abortion entails injecting high concentrated salt water into the baby's amniotic sac. The baby breathes in the salty water and is burned alive, internally and externally. It takes about 2 hours to kill the child in this way. In recent years most Americans have been shocked to discover yet another hideous method to destroy an unborn child, partial birth abortion. Performed in the second and third trimester, the abortionist delivers the entire body except for the child's head. He then stabs the back of the child's head with a pair of scissors. The abortionist then sucks out the brains of that child and kills him or her. If that isn't violence against children, I don't know what is. Abortion treats pregnancy as a sexually transmitted disease, a tumor, a wart, a piece of junk to be destroyed. And, yet, if you ever watched an unborn child's image on an ultrasound screen, you can't help but be awed by the miracle of human life, by the preciousness of the child's being, and moved to pity by the helplessness and the vulnerability of that child. This is a human rights issue, Madam Chairwoman.