Will the ACLU ever manage to be honest?
Posted on January 25, 2007
ACLU Applauds Arizona Court Decision Allowing Women in Prison to Obtain Abortion Care:
PHOENIX - The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded a decision by an Arizona court of appeals allowing women prisoners to obtain timely, safe (no such thing), and legal abortions.
“We applaud the court for recognizing what other courts have said all along: A woman does not give up her right to have an abortion any more than she gives up her right to have a child just because she is incarcerated,†said Brigitte Amiri, a Staff Attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Prison officials can no longer stand in the way of the medical needs of women in prison.â€
At issue was an unwritten Maricopa County Jail policy denying women in prison access to abortion care. The policy prohibited jail officials from transporting a prisoner to obtain an abortion unless she gets a court order first. The jail transports prisoners without a court order for all other necessary medical care (butchering an unborn child is never necessary), including prenatal care and childbirth. The jail also regularly transports prisoners for various non-medical reasons, including to visit terminally ill family members or attend relatives’ funerals.
After weeks of being denied access to abortion services, a pregnant prisoner filed the case in May 2004 on behalf of herself and future prisoners seeking abortions. In August 2005, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, struck down the jail’s policy, holding that it violates women’s reproductive rights and serves “no legitimate penological purpose.†Today’s ruling upheld that decision.
“The court of appeals has confirmed our position that Arizona prison officials cannot ignore the medical needs of prisoners simply because they do not agree with the decision to end a pregnancy,†(yeah, just like ending a game of Scrabble) said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “A woman in jail has a right to make her own decision about whether to have a child.â€
According to the ACLU’s brief, Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in charge of Maricopa County Jail, has “maintained the Policy throughout his tenure, consistent with his well-publicized stance against abortion and his ‘America’s toughest sheriff’ persona.†Arpaio himself has admitted that under this policy, “The gal may have the baby by the time it gets through the court system.â€
Today’s case is Doe v. Arpaio, 1 CA-CV 05-0835. Lawyers on the case include Amiri, Talcott Camp, Jennifer McAllister-Nevins, and Charu Chandrasekhar with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.
(All emphasis mine)
If they can’t even call it what it is, how can they fight so vigorously for it? The ACLU’s position is that no matter at what point in pregnancy a woman is, including having gone into natural labor to deliver a child at full term, the “right” abortion is inviolable. For an organization to pound its chest so lustily about “human rights” but giddily celebrate the grisly dismemberment of those in the most need of protection demonstrates a Culture of Death mentality that is abhorrent to nearly 80% of Americans. It should be abhorrent to 100%.
In this case, the ACLU equates prenatal care and delivery with chopping the child to pieces (”The jail transports prisoners without a court order for all other “necessary” medical care, including prenatal care and childbirth.”), which is like saying that an apendectomy is the same thing as disembowelment. The taxpayer should never be forced to pay for any part of a woman’s “choice” to end life. On the other hand, I think it is reasonable to accomodate the other non-comparable things that the ACLU attempts to lump child murder with like necessary medical care and bereavement. The ACLU continues its outrageous doubletalk and litigation that, despite the ACLU’s rhetoric, chips away at who we are as Americans. I’m sure the Founders had in the back of their minds that all the toil in establishing this Republic was in order to force citizens, without their consent, pay for inmate abortions.
» Filed Under ACLU, Abortion, News
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “Will the ACLU ever manage to be honest?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“grisly dismemberment…chopping the child to pieces…end life”
How does one “dismember” a mass of cells with no limbs? You do know that 90% of abortions are in the first trimester, right? You do know that fetuses don’t feel pain during this time, right?
Also, you do know that a fetus isn’t a “child” just because you like to conflate the two for dramatic effect, right?
And you do know that if a prisoner gives birth, the baby won’t have a mother, right? You do know a mother has more rights than a parasitic tumor in her abdomen for a good reason, right?
You also know that a majority of Americans DON’T want Roe v. Wade overturned, right? Even though this country is filthy with unthinking Bible-spankers?
I’m kidding. You plainly don’t know anything but to rant yourself hoarse with the rest of the goobers here. At least learn some biology before you spout off next, please.
Funny stuff Obie.
“Clump of cells” huh? “First trimester”
Pretty obvious that some slicing and dicing would be required.
“Learn some biology”
Take your own advice.
Anyway, it’s about more than “biology,” it’s about competing philosophies — I cherish life, you obviously do not. “Parasitic tumor.” Talk about ignorance of biology…where has an unborn child, at whatever stage been called by the medical community, a “tumor?” Talk about ranting yourself hoarse without knowing anything.
Quiz for you: What is the origin of the word “fetus?”
“You do know that fetuses don’t feel pain during this time, right?”
OK, we’ll get you some good anesthesia and then chop your head off. No pain right?
Do you support late-term abortion?
I’m not going to go anywhere near the heart of this debate, but this statement is just plain ridiculous.
Everyone assigns different value to different forms of life. You’ve probably owned a flyswatter and/or a mousetrap. You certainly consider any dead civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan to be an unfortunate byproduct of us exercising our right to security. You may also consider those sentenced to capital punishment to be a byproduct of us exercising our right to security.
It’s a very effective persuasive technique to demonize your opponents by saying they “don’t cherish life”, but it’s just not accurate. The difference is that they assign moral value to different forms of life.
Obie G. Wyann,
If you want to continue to debate here, do it without the personal attacks!
Lobo
“it’s about competing philosophies — I cherish life, you obviously do not.”
I’m not going to go anywhere near the heart of this debate, but this statement is just plain ridiculous.
Everyone assigns different value to different forms of life.
The article is clearly referring to a stage of human life.
The donor is human, the recipient is human and the product is human.
You’ve probably owned a flyswatter and/or a mousetrap.
The women are taken to abortionists Jeff, not a pest control service.
It’s a very effective persuasive technique to demonize your opponents by saying they “don’t cherish lifeâ€, but it’s just not accurate. The difference is that they assign moral value to different forms of life.
Again, the discussion does not involve different forms of life.
As a point of fact, Glib said “life”, not “human life.” However, even if he had referred exclusively to humans, I addressed that too.
Second half of the second paragraph of Comment #3:
People are more valuable to me than animals. Acquaintances are more valuable to me than strangers. People I love are more valuable to me than acquaintances. There simply isn’t a universal value for life. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
People are more valuable to me than animals.
Why?
There simply isn’t a universal value for life.
A true statement for those who do not believe in a Universal Giver of life.
To the rest, the value is without question or change.
Other than to justify abortion, can you give me one logical reason to deny humanity to the unborn?
Jeff–
“It’s a very effective persuasive technique to demonize your opponents by saying they “don’t cherish lifeâ€, but it’s just not accurate. The difference is that they assign moral value to different forms of life.”
Did you happen to read the comment by OBGYN? If so, why did you choose to scold ME for a very reasonable conclusion based on what the comments I was reacting to? (”Clump of cells,” “parasitic tumor,” etc. — this idiot was referring to unborn children)
What I meant by “life” was INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE. That is so obvious from the context of the post and my response in the comments. Not sure how you missed it. No innocent human life can be considered a byproduct — including civials killed because their “leaders” have chosen to menace the world.
Death penalty. Different story, different argument. Not relevant at all to this discussion.
“People are more valuable to me than animals. Acquaintances are more valuable to me than strangers. People I love are more valuable to me than acquaintances. There simply isn’t a universal value for life. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.”
Again Jeff, we are talking about innocent human life. For you to say that there is no “universal value for life” is absolutely meaningless. Just because a friend means more to you than a stranger doesn’t mean that your friend’s life is more valuable. Each is as valuable and that doesn’t change because of YOUR feelings Jeff. Our country founded on the very idea that there is in fact a “universal value on life” and that because of that all are equal under the law. Jeff that’s the problem with Lefties like you, you can’t understand many concepts outside of your own emotional attachment to them.
No, I can’t offer you anything you would accept as a “logical reason to deny humanity to the unborn.” because I reject the premise that an embryo ever had humanity.
Because I get hungry from time to time and salad has a very limited ability to change that. I’m also not going to swerve to avoid running over a squirrel if it would endanger a human.
1. I knew you guys would scold him enough.
2. It wasn’t a reasonable conclusion. He clearly has no respect for an embryo or fetus, but you exaggerated that to be a disrespect for all life.
I try not to presume to know what someone means. I don’t know you well enough to finish your sentences, so I assume you said what you meant. I don’t have a problem with you clarifying your statement as you have just done.
Are you saying that an individual is morally responsible for the actions of his leader?
How so? We meticulously take the life of an human. How is that not relevant to a discussion on the value of human life?
I’ll concede that there is a “universal value for life.” I’ll further concede that most people believe this value defined by a creator. I chose my words poorly on that point.
I said “more valuable to me.” If I’m in a position where I choose whether something bad happens to Person A and Person B, how do I decide? All life has equal intrinsic value, so I need a different metric to break the tie. In the end, it’s going to come down to my feelings about them and/or my belief about society’s feelings for them.
“I reject the premise that an embryo ever had humanity.”
“All life has equal intrinsic value”
1. Are you saying that embryos do not have life?
2. Are you a racist and anti-semitic?