Abortion is legal in the UK but showing pictures of the procedure is a crime?
What is going on?
I’ll tell you what’s going on; it called the guilty conscience.

Here’s the background. Last year, the U.K. was rocked by a high-profile abortion case. This was because the demise of “Baby A,” as she became known, was photographed and videotaped. This evidence of her brutal end was widely distributed in the U.K.
The abortion took place at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Kings Lynn, Norfolk, not far from where Mr. Atkinson lives. This veteran pro-life campaigner decided to educate the Hospital’s chief executive, Ruth May, in the horrors of such events. He sent copies of the photographs and other literature to Ms. May.
Upon receiving the pictures, Ruth May complained to the authorities. The Director of Public Prosecutions, as district attorneys are known in the U.K., promptly ordered his arrest on the charge of “sending offensive materials through the mails.” The policy then dragged the 75-year-old Catholic, who is nearly crippled with arthritis, from his home and held him in prison until his court date.

The hospital director was “offended” because she was reminded of what her conscience is trying to suppress; that abortion ends the life of a human being. Plain and simple.
It also reminded me of Dr.Bernard Nathanson, a founding member of the pro-choice organization NARAL, who was irrevocably changed when he witnessed an abortion being performed through the then newly invented ultra-sound machine. The over whelming evidence that human life begins at conception was irrefutable to him and he stopped performing abortions and in fact became a staunch pro-life supporter.
People get really defensive when their deeds of darkness are exposed by light, as seen in the reaction by the administration of the UK hospital.

In court, the hospital staff recounted how the photographs had upset their delicate sensibilities. Ruth May’s secretary, Christine Rogers, said she was “upset” when she opened the letter from Atkinson containing a picture of Baby A. The hospital’s “Complaints and litigation manager,” Karl Perryman, said that “as a father of two daughters he had been quite disturbed” by the images he had been shown. Ms. May herself opined that “It is upsetting for everyone.” She went on to say that “I believe people who work for the National Health Service, and particularly at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, are passionate about providing excellent care for their patients.”
All except for those they abort, of course. In that case their “passion” is reserved for those who have the courage to remind them of what they are doing to tiny babies. Such pricks to their (perhaps guilty) consciences make them “upset” and “disturbed.”

Go read the rest of the article here
**Update** …and furthermore, it is my hope that Ms. May would have the same change of heart that Dr. Nathanson had.