What's So Controversial About This?

Since the Los Angeles Times (among other papers) won't publish this ad by Heroic Media in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act because it's "too controversial," I'm posting the ad here, with this question: Since when is it controversial to publish images of babies? 

Obviously the "controversy" here is not the picture itself, which is not offensive, but what's implied by the picture: that babies at this stage of development can be legally aborted even though scientific evidence and advances in neo-natal medicine have conclusively determined that the unborn can feel pain, can even survive outside the womb, indeed, are as much human as you and I. 

The "controversy" is not the image itself but what's implied by the picture: that these tiny human beings are not protected by the very people entrusted to their care: the adults responsible for conceiving them and the government entrusted with guaranteeing them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. 

The "controversy" is not the image itself but what's at stake by the publishing of the image: the awakening of a seared, collective conscience that maybe the so-called constitutional "right" to abortion must be re-examined. The unborn are not property, not things, not political football. They are people. They're human. They're vulnerable. They need heroes, not cowards.

That's the controversy. By refusing to publish the ad, the Los Angeles Times and their ilk are exposed as the cowards that they are.