Graphic pro-life images subject women to undue trauma
For the past few months, picketing wars between pro-choice and pro-life protestors have been a common sight in London, Ont.
The city has seen an increase in graphic anti-abortion pamphlets left in resident mailboxes over the past year. This is largely due to five interns employed by the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), a prominent pro-life organization, who are all working in London for the fall.
In response, the Viewer Discretion Legislation Coalition (VDLC), a London-based grassroots group of over 1,000 members, was brought together with the common goal of ending the display and distribution of graphic images by pro-life organizations.
I and other members of the VDLC argue that the images — supposedly pictures of aborted fetuses — are potentially triggering and harmful for many women. Samantha Barron, a local resident, suffered from anxiety attacks because she “couldn’t handle” seeing the graphic images after having a miscarriage.
CCBR members and other anti-abortion activists argue that limits placed on the distribution of these graphic images would constitute a restriction on their Charter right to freedom of expression.
In response to the concerns raised, the
CCBR’s eastern Canada outreach director Blaise Alleyne has said victim photography is used to advocate for human rights, drawing a comparison to George Floyd earlier this year and Alan Kurdi in 2015. “Showing the victims of an injustice is one way to change hearts and minds,” Alleyne told the CBC.
During my time at Western University as a women’s studies minor and a journalist for online magazine Her Campus, I have been able to develop a deeper understanding of the issues that surround the use of these images.
It is true that victim photography has been used for social reform in the past. But unlike Alleyne’s examples, the images used by anti-abortion protestors have not been circulated in the public as a product of mass outrage — they are being invoked to produce mass outrage.
Other organizations, like MADD, have used victim photography to get their message across. However, these organizations have not used images that are disturbing akin to those seen on the pamphlets in question. Nor have graphic images been shown without sufficient warning.
The CCBR continues to use these images despite knowing the adverse effects they can have on women. Alleyne argues that they have resources to help women who may have been negatively affected by the images. But research shows once trauma has been reactivated via a trigger, the harm has already been done.
Moreover, CCBR members who distribute pamphlets have started refusing to take them back, citing COVID-19 concerns. Any woman who received the flyer would be forced to look at it, possibly inflicting extreme emotional distress. Women also have the right to be protected from being subjected to undue trauma in the course of their daily lives. Why should the rights of the CCBR come before the rights of women like Samantha?
Collection of the images also plays a part in the harm they inflict. The Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR), the CCBR’s American counterpart, has established their collection of these images by paying doctors and clinics to allow photographers into operating rooms to document abortions.
However, selling access to operating rooms is not permitted in North America, and the CBR refuses to say whether it obtains patient consent before taking these photos. This means there is no guarantee that these photos are legitimate or ethically sound.
If the images are real, it would be an act that violates the bodily autonomy of female patients. To allow these pictures to continue to be distributed in the manner they are now without being sure they were taken consensually is equal to saying women’s rights to autonomy and privacy in medicine do not matter.
The VDLC does not want to stop prolife organizations from sharing their views. They want to reduce the harm inflicted on women by stopping the usage of the graphic imagery, or by introducing requirements that such images must include a warning. Wanting to restrict the use of these images and wanting to restrict freedom of expression are not the same thing. Saying they are is a gross oversight of the lived experiences of women who are being forced to relive their trauma every day.
Objecting to the use of these images is not about being pro-choice or pro-life. It is about upholding a commitment to protecting the interests of all women.