Comments on: ADF: Detroit Police Harass Pro-Life Supporters, Shut Down Free Speech Outside Superbowl

By: kerwin_brown

kerwin_brown — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:20:32 +0000

The ACLU’s definition of the right to reproductive choice is flawed since a right is something human beings posses by nature and not something the government grants. Nature and Nature’s God gives a human being possesses the ability to consent to sex which is the sum of the right to reproductive choice. Human beings also have the right to liberty to use tools to prevent conception, or for any other purpose as long as they do not harm themselves, or any other living creature unless he/she has a noble cause for inflicting that harm. That is what the U.S. Declaration states and if you oppose it then you are a tyrant.

Roe v. Wade goes further and states that the government has the power to protect even potential human life.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:34:04 +0000

gentrfam,

Thank you for the link. It appears to be a great example of the ACLU attempting to balance two very important liberties.

I would like to pose three questions to this community:
1. Were you previously aware of this case?
2. Does it affect your opinion of the ACLU
3. If both answers are “no”, why not?

By: gentrfam

gentrfam — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:26:37 +0000

Did they ask the ACLU to represent them and the ACLU refused?

Now, that would be a story!

Are you sure the “ACLU ALWAYS remain[s] silent when [abortion protesters'] rights are violated?”

I wouldn’t be able to find the ACLU filing an amicus brief in a case to ban abortion protesters from protesting within a buffer zone around an abortion clinic, for example, right?

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1999/22399lgl19991112.html

By: L. Fafarman

L. Fafarman — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:22:34 +0000

The ACLU has defended neo-Nazis. Does that mean that the ACLU supports neo-Nazism?

Maybe the ACLU figured that providing legal assistance in this case was unnecessary because another group stepped forward to provide it.

By: kerwin_brown

kerwin_brown — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 07:03:21 +0000

In the cases I have seen the ACLU is generally backing an extreme liberal political agenda. They generally disagree with our Founding Fathers. I would not be surprised if they do not admit to backing the living constitution theory.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:22:05 +0000

- Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v. McMonagle
- Restricting the public dissent by boardmembers
- Destroying audio tapes of board meetings after the minutes have been recorded

Is there anything else?

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:06:22 +0000

There are other examples. The ACLU's stance on abortion protestors have caused much internal conflict within the organization. Check out Save The ACLU and google Natt Hentoff. Read some of his criticisms on this one. He was on the board of directors for a while.

By: Jeff Molby

Jeff Molby — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:37:12 +0000

you will see how they have actually fought against their 1st amendment rights.

Are you referring solely to Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v. McMonagle or are there other examples?

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:19:39 +0000

Draven has it. In this case Jeff, anti-abortionist, not only does the ACLU ALWAYS remain silent when their rights are being violated…if you follow the links provided you will see how they have actually fought against their 1st amendment rights.

By: Draven32

Draven32 — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:40:06 +0000

The ACLU only supports the civil rights that they think we should have, and only supports the first amendment rights of people whose opinions they think should be heard.