Yes, pictures of aborted babies are gruesome in the extreme. They are terrible and of very poor taste. They can be upsetting, alarming, and profoundly unforgettable. But why oh why are we more upset at the evidence than we are at the unconscionable crimes they portray?
Here's a news story of a disabled grandma in England whose efforts against the abortifacient "morning after pill" included sending photos of aborted babies to pharmacists. She has been convicted under a 1988 law (the Malicious Communications Act) because judges have ruled "she had no right to cause distress to others who might see the pictures."
Of abortionists who cause much more severe "distress to others"(specifically, the barbaric and lethal violence which, in fact, is abortion), the judges have nothing to say.
The courts here, of course, have failed miserably to uphold one's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. They have also failed quite miserably to demonstrate even the most basic levels of morality and common sense.
If she wanted to educate and inform people about the effects of the morning after pill, why was she sending pictures of aborted fetuses? The morning after pill does not result in fully formed aborted fetuses. Pictures of zygotes or embryos would have been far more accurate and informative.