The announcement that the Food and Drug Administration wants to insist cigarette packs contain what the Washington Post calls “gruesome pictures” of what happens if one smokes cigarettes may raise an interesting — and for the pro-choice crowd — unwelcome question.
Cigarette smoking is, of course, a choice. It’s your body, if you choose to smoke, smoking is perfectly legal. You might even say that cigarette smokers (and I am not one) have a right to privacy.
But the Obama administration clearly doesn’t see it this way, and so, in the head lines this morning is the news the government wants to warn potential smokers away with the use of pictures. Pictures that are, in the words of the Post, “gruesome.” Images “that could include emaciated cancer patients, diseased organs and corpses.”
The other day I drove past a home along a main highway where the homeowner is locally famous for his opposition to abortion. What makes him so well known? Every day of the year — say again, every single day rain or shine — this man has a small billboard pitched on his front lawn warning against the evils of abortion. The signs change daily. Yesterday, the sign in question was a large color photograph of an aborted baby. Suffice to say, the photo was…to borrow from the Post…”gruesome.”
Which raises the question.
If the federal government is now going to be in the business of putting on cigarette packs graphic photos of what happens if one smokes, how long will it take before there is a move in the pro-life community to require abortion clinics to have photographs of aborted babies in their waiting rooms? “Gruesome” photos of the type seen yesterday on this pro-life activist’s front yard by all passing traffic?
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.