|photo courtesy of lifenews.com|
Case in point, Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, an abortion provider who founded Women on Waves, a group that provides a floating abortion clinic to women in countries where abortion is illegal. Dr. Gomperts set up a Facebook account to promote her pro-abortion activity. But, she did more than that, she provided instructions for self-induced abortions that she claimed were safe up to 9 wks. gestation. (read the whole story at LifeSiteNews)
According to the story at LSN, Facebook removed the profile because it contained offensive material and violated their User Rights and Responsibilities clause. "Under their legal terms for protecting other people’s rights, Facebook demands that users will not 'post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.'” Gomperts and her group objected to this legal provision stating that it was a violation of "Article 19 of the Universal declaration of Human rights, the right to freedom of information as well as Article 10 of the European convention of human rights, the freedom of expression."
Gomperts' objective is to violate the laws of countries who deem abortion to be illegal. This goes well beyond the right to freedom of information stated in Article 19. Facebook was well within their rights to removed dangerous and potentially lethal medical procedures being shared on their site. Why they were intimidated to back down is baffling.
I might add, that pulling any one piece of any document out of context is also a dangerous thing. Gomperts decided that the removal of her picture which provided a link to information on self-induced abortion was against Article 19 -- but, in context, she violates several other Articles contained in the document by her dissemination of this dangerous information, (see Article 1, 2, 3, 25, 26, & 30, just to name a few), not to mention what in many circles would be considered a highly unethical practice of medicine.
Facebook has its reasons for acquiescing and allowing Dr. Gomperts' information to remain available -- they are not clear as to their exact reasons in their cookie cutter apology to Dr. Gomperts. Facebook had more than a leg to stand on in keeping her profile blocked based on the very same U.N. document cited by Gomperts in her complaint.
Who will Dr. Gomperts answer to when her over the internet abortion instructions cost some unsuspecting woman permanent damage or potentially the loss of her life? Will the U.N. step in to examine whether the rights of nations -- who believe abortion is homicide -- have been violated when Gomperts' ship sails in to collect women for illegal abortion procedures? Will Facebook feel differently about their decision to let Gomperts' questionable medical practices go unfettered on their site?
Freedom of information is one thing, allowing someone to use a site to provide dangerous medical "do it yourself" procedure information over the internet to kill babies in utero and potentially cause long-term harm to women is quite another. This just adds up to bad medicine -- Facebook: colossal, epic FAIL.