ACLU Fights for Teen Abortion
Posted on September 28, 2006
Crossposted from Revealing The ACLU: The following discussion is a bit of a moot point, as S.403 passed, and is now waiting the President to sign it into law. However, it is an important point to note the stance that the ACLU has taken so strongly against our families.
From the ACLU Press Release:
The American Civil Liberties Union today called upon the House of Representatives to reject S. 403, the “Teen Endangerment Act,” dubbed the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act” by its supporters. The bill would put the most vulnerable teens at risk and delay teens from getting the care and counseling they need, the ACLU warned.
“More than anything, we want our teens to be safe. By passing this legislation, Congress would succeed only in further endangering already at-risk teenagers,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The reality is that the parents of most teens seeking abortions are aware of their daughter’s decision. But no legislation in the world can create good family communication. Rather than helping already frightened teens, this legislation may delay their getting the prompt medical care and counseling they need.”
“The Teen Endangerment Act will harm teenagers and do nothing to reduce unintended pregnancies,” said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The best way to protect our teenagers is to encourage families to communicate and to provide teenagers with the information they need to lead healthy and safe lives.”
Perhaps the ACLU is not looking at the same legislation I am. Just to make sure, here is some pertinent text from the bill. You can find the entire bill here.
Summary of the Bill from The Library of Congress:
Child Custody Protection Act - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion (deems such transporting to be a de facto abridgment of the right of a parent under any law in the minor’s state of residence that requires parental involvement in the minor’s abortion decision). Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor.
The fact of the matter is this law upholds the parental consent laws already on the books in many states. Furthermore it stops teens from crossing state lines to bypass parental consent. Do parents not have a right to raise their children?
The ACLU is right on one point – this law will do little to stop unintended pregnancies. Call me a cynic, but the process of getting pregnant is not one shrouded in mystery – we know how babies are made. The decision to have or not have a baby should be made before pregnancy, not after.
I am glad this has passed, and I am certain the president will sign it into law. But I am infinitely concerned about the ACLUs agenda of killing off our next generation. If the ACLU had there way our children, those lucky enough to be born, would be subject to the most vile forms of pornography, indoctrinated by homosexual lifestyles in school, pursued by freeks like NAMBLA, stalked in our parks by known child molesters, and supported in a fictitious “right” to engage in any deviant behavior they come across.
Its there, right before your eyes. The ACLU’s agenda to destroy our society, and they are doing it one child at a time.
Trackback URL
Comments
21 Responses to “ACLU Fights for Teen Abortion”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Parental rights have been around for a very long time for a very simple reason and that is that children including teenagers do not have their full faculties of judgment and parents have a responsibility to watch out for their general welfare.
Studies gave repeatedly confirmed that a human being doesn’t reach a more mature level of judgment until their early twenties.
So the government wishes to allow minors who judgment is impaired to decide whether or not they will deliberately and arbitrarily have their own baby killed. These minors have to deal with pressure from peers and adults that may include their own boyfriend. These are pressures that adults who studies indicate have a more sound judgment have trouble resisting.
I guess the question is whether you are pro birth control at any cost or whether you support the natural human rights of a parent to authority over their child to protect and to love them. The ACLU has chosen the radical option as has the Birth Control League which not calls itself Planned Parenthood.
I am anti-abortion. But the anti-abortion stance of religious extremists would carry a lot more weight if they were not opposed to birth control which prevents abortions.
In any case if Davef could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Remind me to do a write up on “Religious Extremism” – that must be one of the most often misused phrases in recent history.
If Dave F could get pregnant, he would take extra steps to make sure he didn’t unless he wanted to. Abortion is not birth control.
This appears to be a reasonable bill. I’m not really a fan of parental consent laws, but if you’re going to have them, you might as well enforce them across state boundaries.
Statements such as these are ludicrous and only serve to undermine your credibility in the eyes of reasonably unbiased people.
Why is that statement ludicrous? Actions speak louder than words and I have seen the ACLU take all of those dangerous positions.
Why is that statement ludicrous?
Please cite one example of a case where the ACLU insisted that someone had the right to “subject [a child] to [any form] of pornography.”
They frequently defend the rights of those who produce and consume pornography, but no sane person would ever “subject” a child to it.
Same logic. The ACLU may support the right of consenting adults to engage in sexual activities, regardless of gender, but nowhere will you find an example of them insisting that this should be “indoctrinated” in anyone, let alone a child.
This is less cut & dried, but they have never advocated anyone’s “right” to stalk anyone, let alone a child.
At most, they have defended the rights of the convicted felons who have served their time to utilize public property. If the felon is indeed stalking someone, they can be convicted with laws that are already on the books.
So while there is a hint of truth to some of things he said, they have been twisted almost beyond recognition.
Mr. Molby:
I appreciate that statement may look ludicrous on the surface, but how about some facts to support it?
ACLU is Pro Abortion without any limits: Roe vs. Wade, Doe vs. Bolton, ACLU press releases on Jun1 2004, and August 26 2004.
ACLU is Pro Pornography: New York vs. Ferber, ACLU policy Guide, policy 4d, p. 7 and 4g p. 9
ACLU is Pro Homosexuality: ACLU press releases November 4 1998, February 11 2004, February 12 2004, and March 12 2004
ACLU wants Homosexuality taught in our schools: Morrison vs. Boyd, CWA Press release, ACLU Press releases March 13 2003
ACLU support NAMBLA: Curley vs NAMBLA, ACLU FAQ Page
Please e-mail if you need more clarity on any of these points.
Did you read it?
“the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.”
They believe (and I agree) that it is a 1st ammendment issue. Their position, in no way, constitutes “[wanting children] pursued by freeks (sic) like NAMBLA”
I’m not very familiar with their site, so I was unable to find the other documents you referenced. I would appreciate your assistance in locating them.
However, please take Comment #6 into account before you bother. Your statements aren’t ludicrous because they’re categorically false. They’re ludicrous because they are a gross misinterpretation of the ACLU’s actual positions.
Yes, advocating for NAMBLA to distribute information on how to rape little boys and get away with it as freedom of speech is very dangerous position to take, and very irresponsible and quite sickening.
How about their Policy in advocation for the legalization of distribution and possession of child pornography? Do you think this is a freedom of speech issue as well? Read this and tell me how it is a gross misinterpretation.
Absolutely true. The ACLU have fought for the removal of all ratings systems and age requirements in movies.
Absolutely true. The ACLU have fought for gay tolerance classes to be required in schools.
You’re twisting the issue again. No one in the ACLU is advocating for NAMBLA to distribute said materials. I’m quite sure that the entire ACLU would be very happy if NAMBLA changed their minds and ceased all activities.
It is “quite sickening” for NAMBLA to take the positions that they do (I don’t care to access any of NAMBLA’s materials, so I’ll assume your characterization is accurate.), but it is not sickening for the ACLU to defend their right to voice their beliefs.
It’s quite possible that their beliefs are harmful to society in the same way that inciting violence is harmful. If society determines that to be the case, then it is reasonable to pass laws specifically condemning this sort of speech. However, I would consider it very irresponsible to make exceptions to the 1st ammendment without taking a good, long look at the possible repercussions of the precedent.
1. The removal of ratings and/or requirements would not “subject” children to anything. It would only make those things more accessible to them. The ACLU’s position is that it should be up to the parents and children to determine what material is suitable for their eyes.
2. There is no reason to believe that the free market couldn’t come up with similar ratings and requirements if there is sufficient demand from individuals.
Upon further review, it appears that the current ratings system is has always been voluntary. I assumed it was an FCC thing. Please provide a citation for your claim, so I may educate myself on the ACLU’s position.
1. I find it unlikely that they advocate classes dedicated solely to gay tolerance. It seems more likely that they advocate gay tolerance as a portion of a larger sex-ed course. Please provide citations if you disagree.
2. Please read these definitions and explain to me how tolerance equals indoctrination
You linked to several editorials about a court case, with a select quote tossed in. That’s not exactly a policy statement. I’ll go with it though.
1. Their position in the New York v. Ferber was simply that the statue in question (which lacked an “obscenity” standard) was overly broad. This isn’t an unreasonable position, especially considering that the appeals court agreed. Even if SCOTUS had upheld the ruling, it would not have legalized child pornography. It would have simply compelled the NY legislature to add an obscenity standard to their legislation.
2. I do disagree with the John Roberts’ position that “possession shouldn’t be a crime”, but I understand what all the fuss is about.
The only way to believe that possession of child pornography is dangerous is to assume that the demand for possession reinforces and increases the supply. This is not an unreasonable belief, but it hasn’t exactly been proven either.
Also, I don’t believe the statute in question has provisions for intent or active acquisition. If you were to suddenly put illegal pornography on your website, my computer would automatically download it upon my next visit. Even if I’m aware of it and delete it immediately, I’m already guilty of a felony. Or if someone plants a virus on my computer that utilizes it as an FTP server, I may end up with thousands of illegal images without the foggiest idea that they are present.
The second scenario is many orders of magnitude more likely to occur than the first, but both scenarios are completely ignored by the current statute, so it doesn’t surprise me at all that some people and organizations want it changed or eliminated.
I should have also mentioned that SCOTUS basically added that standard by quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma.
So basically they agreed that the statute might cover protected items, but not by enough to make it unconstitutional. So any future courts can reject the statute if it is used to squelch something (like scientific literature) that actually has value to society.
“But the anti-abortion stance of religious extremists would carry a lot more weight if they were not opposed to birth control which prevents abortions.”
I’m not anti-birth control, but I’m against handing it out to kids in high school. I don’t believe in enabling.
“Abortion is not birth control.”
Exactly.
Jeff: ACLU isn’t just defending NAMBLA’s freedom of speech, they are defending child pornography: “The 1996 Act may be subject to a legal challenge by some of the civil liberties groups such as ACLU because according to their view, the Act would be unconstitutional because it outlaws images produced without any involvement by an actual child.”
So as long as its just pictures of children they are allowing men to masturbate to, its okay? Give me a break.
Apostle: I responded to that as well. Please read the last 1/3 of Comment 11.
Jeff: Those concerns may be valid, but we’re talking about CHILD porn. The supply/demand is just common sense.
Apostle: I personally agree, but I wouldn’t label someone a “kiddie-porn lover” if they weren’t so sure. Especially when you consider the dangerous technical flaws of the statute as it was written.
The thing we have overlooked on the porn issue, especially the child porn, is act of creation.
No. Child pornography is what amounts to crime scene photographs in that they cannot be created without a crime having been committed. To separate the product from the process is mentally lazy and legally questionable.
We are dancing around the handbags here – lets be clear, this is a moral issue. Child pornography is fundamentally wrong – if our statutes are able to properly reflect that or not, is moot. The fact that organizations like NAMBLA are using the likes of the ACLU (and the ACLU is allowing themselves to be used) to effectively avoid justice by hiding behind expensive lawyers is wrong on so many levels.
This is not a freedom of expression issue – it is delayed justice at most.
We haven’t discussed it, but I don’t think we’ve overlooked it. I think we all agree that the creation of child pornography is, and should remain, a crime. In fact, I would much rather see law enforcement dollars spent pursuing the creators.
Interesting analogy. Are crime scene photos illegal?
The child porn issue** isn’t, but the NAMBLA issue certainly is.
* SCOTUS has clearly ruled that child pornography has little, if any, value to society and is thus not covered by the 1st ammendment. I don’t believe any sane person disagrees with that assessment
** It’s quite possible that SCOTUS has ruled or will rule that NAMBLA’s views aren’t covered under the 1st ammendment either, but I am not aware of any such ruling, so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.
I disagree wholeheartedly. If the statutes don’t accurately reflect society’s goals, they must be revised until they do. A democratic society with countless vague laws is no freer than a dictatorship. Citizens of both are subject to the abuse of discretionary powers available to appointed bureaucrats.
Jeff Molby,
“Interesting analogy. Are crime scene photos illegal?”
Interesting.
First you deny the Law of Supply and demand and now the rule of cause and effect. You must live and interesting life fraught with many unseen dangers if you really live life like that.
Pornography is a huge industry and the average age of when a girl has sex is declining. I suppose you do not see the link.
By the way teachers having sex with minor boys is becoming a fad. It is so much of a fad the Paris Hilton put out a music video based on the idea.
Incorrect characterization. My exact words were:
I personally believe possession should be illegal, but I am not entirely convinced, given the scope of digital piracy these days, that the total demand necessarily increases the supply. There is no compelling reason for anyone to supply demand that only exists at a $0 price point. Also, I pointed out that the current statute has dangerous technical flaws.
I don’t understand what led you to say this. Please clarify.
1. I’m no expert on the industry, so this may simply be my ignorance, but I’m not aware of any evidence that the pornography industry is growing significantly faster than the total economy.
2. Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on you to demonstrate the cause/effect relationship.
I am aware of the current frequency, but I have not studied the history, so I can’t say whether or not the trend represents an increase in the occurrence or simply an increase in general awareness.
This is a 2005 article about pornography being a growth industry.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1050519,00.html
Your statement “Correlation does not imply causation” a denial of cause and effect. Pornography is a form of propaganda that says sex of various types is OK. They may actually be right some of the time but not a lot of the time. People then become bored with it and accept it as normal.
Pornography is probably one cause of girls having sex younger and younger at it pictures it as acceptable behavior. It is probably also a result of advertising for a girl to be sexy and the desire to copy what they perceive the older generation to be like.
Bad parenting and poor discipline at schools do help the situation any.
They did find out that children that see sexually explicit scenes are more likely to be sexually active.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/e280?gca=114%2F3%2Fe280&sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract(s)&
No, I wasn’t denying any possible cause/effect relationship. I was merely pointing out that you hadn’t established it. I appreciate the citations. I will read them and comment later.