Selective Civil Rights
Posted on July 15, 2005
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”-Voltaire
The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas(NAMBLA) and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its history. Exception: in the case for pro-lifers.
The ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project has a lot to do with why the ACLU is so reluctant to defend the rights of anti-abortion protesters.
“With a $2 million dollar budget and a staff of 17 employees, Janet Benshoof was the Union’s most devoted activist for abortion rights…..she became so overextended in her approach that she advocated mob pressure on the judiciary; she pushed for “pro-choice” activists to march on court rooms where abortion cases were being heard.“Twilight of Liberty
To the ACLU, anti-abortion protesters are not seen in the same light as civil rights demonstrators in the 60’s, but as lunatic fascists out to destroy freedom.
“Hence, the reluctance of the ACLU to defend principle, that is, the exercise of First amendment rights by anti-abortion activists. Ironically, real fascists-like the American Nazis and Klansmen-have had their rights protected more often and with greater vigor by the ACLU than anti-abortion demonstrators.Twilight of Liberty
Of course there are loonies in the anti-abortion movement, but that was true of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement of the 60’s, and even today in the “pro-choice” demonstrators. Every movement has it’s fringe element. But while the ACLU was right on top in defending any violations of the law for all of these movements, when it comes to the opponents of abortion having their First Amendment rights violated by the authorities, the ACLU is completely absent.
Not even having the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act(RICO) thrown at anti-abortion protesters moved the ACLU into action.
The ACLU is nominally opposed to the RICO statute, and there are some senior members, like Washington official Antonio Califa, who are truly opposed to the invocation of RICO against any protesters, including opponents of abortion. However, due largely to the influence of Benshoof, the ACLU’s record is grievously stained in this area.Twilight of Liberty
It was actually her suggestion in a booklet titled, “Preserving the Right to Choose: How to Cope with Violence and Disruption at Abortion Clinics.” The ACLU would not tolerate the use of RICO against nuclear weapons dissidents, but in the case of anti-abortion protesters the matter is quite different. In fact, the ACLU has actually used the RICO against them. When pro-life demonstrators were sued under RICO in Philadelphia, the local chapter of the ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Northeast Women’s Center.
The ACLU missed another opportunity to defend civil liberties in 1989 in West Harford, Connecticut. It was on June 17 that 261 persons were arrested, and then physically abused by police, for staging a sit-in.
The police used “come-a-long” holds, or “pain compliance holds”, with a result that many claimed permanent nerve damage. Some were denied medical care, and others were not allowed phone calls for over two days. One woman had to have surgery after the police damaged her uterus. The ACLU did nothing.
When John Spear, a publisher of a small New York newspaper, wrote an editorial against police brutality, he too was slapped with a RICO suit. He was charged with extortion. The ACLU did nothing.
“Why do they still call it a civil liberties union?” commented ACLU member and nemesis Nat Hentoff. When pressed about cases like the West Hartford one, the ACLU typically responds that it can’t get involved with the defense of antiabortion protesters because it is already committed to the side of the abortion clinics. When John Leo asked Alan Dershowitz, “Can it be that the affiliates sometimes deliberately involve themselves early on one side so they will have an excuse not to help victims on the other?” the Harvard Law professor replied, “Absolutely. They go to the pro-choice people and say, “Get us in right away, “thereby giving them the excuse of conflict of interest in the event they are contacted by the anti-abortion side. And what does the ACLU say when asked specifically about its duplicity regarding RICO? Lynn Paltrow, who worked for Benshoof, explained the Union’s attitude: “Its ACLU policy to oppose application of RICO, but there are those on staff who feel that as long as RICO exists, this kind of behavior (Operation Rescue tactics) does fit.” In other words, as John Leo puts it, “RICO is totally bad, but sort of useful.”Twilight of Liberty,
It looks pretty clear to me. In the eyes of the ACLU you the First Amendment protects child molesters, perverts, and fascists, but not Pro-lifers! Quite hypocritical in my opinion.
Thank you Outside The Beltway and Mudville Gazette
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Abortion
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “Selective Civil Rights”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
ACLU will never protect the rights of any cause affiliated to or supported by the Christian right and the republican party. If you look at their track record it pretty much substantiates that fact.
It’s ridiculous because where the ACLU defends 1 right, they offend or break at least 6 others.
Yeah the ACLU is selective and so are some others—
An Employer, a Paycheck, and Free Speech. What do they have in common? < a href="http://a-tic-in-the-minds-eye.blogspot.com/2005/07/crazy-maybe-extortionist-definitely.html" target="extortion">Check what happened to me today.
Your comments are most welcome…
Sorry Jay I couldn’t trackback so I put my blurb here.
Isn’t it amazing the ACLU prtects a womans right to get an abortion but they don’t protect her right to have fire arms to protect her living children from thugs and thieves.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
What about all the babies you bomb in their beds in Iraq?
Hypocrites, morons
I have never bombed anyone, let alone babies in their beds. Moron.
yeah, what’s this guy talking about. I’m in the military and I’ve never bombed babies in Iraq. However, the Islamonazis did just the other day. Some fellow soldiers were actually handing out candy, when some Islamonut drove into them with a car bomb. Sick!
You don’t think fascists have the right to free speech?
The ACLU never said that you can’t be pro-life. It just said that they don’t want them within a certain distance of an abortion clinic, where it is bordering on harassment.
I’m pretty certain they would support a buffer area between synagogues and Nazi protesters as well.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
By the way – child molestation is legal in most of this country for heterosexuals. There are thousands of teenage women (under 18) who are MARRIED to men older than 18. Many of those men are in their 40’s and 50’s. Isn’t that child molestation? Why aren’t you complaining about that?
You’re a (edited by siteowner) idiot. There’s nothing wrong with pornography. It has existed for thousands of years. Why don’t you stupid (edited again) bigots go (and again) off? You’re lame. If you want women running around with coathangers hanging out of their vulva then outlaw abortion. You’ve had a hardon for this issue for decades and you still haven’t done anything. You obviously want to see more women bleeding to death out of their vaginas.
Siteowner: I approved this comment so all could see. Thanks for stopping by.
You are the best. Thank you http://www.bignews.com
I do oppose the ACLU for many reasons. First, I might cite a couple of thing I do agree with the ACLU. I do agree with them in the sense that they support some of our civil liberties like being against the Patriot Act, Bush’s policies toward our Bill of Rights, and their opposition to torture. It is important to preserve our civil liberties and be truly free, but liberty shouldn’t be a license for moral relativism, corruption, or sinfulness at all. I disagree with the ACLU’s attack on religious expression. Just because people communicate religious themes in the public square, doesn’t mean that expression is a violation of the establishment clause. I’m pro-Life and I abhor their anti-life policies. The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, an extremist and quoted socialists. Even today, the head of the ACLU is Anthony Romero, a homosexual and a CFR member. The CFR, Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and other organizations with their ilk advocate a global government that we must dissent with. As for abortion, the Pro-Choice side uses emotionalism and more emotionalism. Roe v. Wade is not even validated by any law, not to mention it’s a federal intrusion on the states to decide how abortion laws ought to exist. Plus, many states before 1973 had laws on the book dealing with abortion, so the state legislatures are apt to handle the situation. Roe v. Wade violates the Preamble of the Constitution saying life is not deprived without due process of law and the inherit right to life, which comes from our Creator. Science has proven the personhood of the unborn (not to mention that prominent scientists have outlined that life begins at conception) and more of young are being more Pro-Life than ever before. Bigotry of evil is holy. I’m a bigot against murder, corruption, racism, sin, evil, death, torture, etc. If I’m that kind of a bigot, then I’m guilty as charged. The ACLU is hypocritical by rightfully wanting certain civil liberties for Americans, but denying the civil liberties of the unborn, gun rights, and the rights of the disabled and terminally ill.
What you are saying about the ACLU is not defending anti-abortion protesters is completely false. The ACLU has defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters (See below link)
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19980310bclinic5.asp