Previous post
The ACLU is suing to protect the rights of women…. To kill their unborn babies. Recent state bills in Kentucky, and a handful of other states, have set the ACLU further on edge.
Science has evolved since the federal legalization of abortion in 1973. In the early 1970’s it was a known fact that babies in utero could not feel pain. Today this “fact” is deemed absurd and unbelievable. Yet pro-abortion groups demand that it’s allowable to kill a sentient human, just because it has the misfortune of temporarily living in a woman’s uterus.
Widely accepted in current medical science is that babies in utero feel pain. Fetal surgery standards of practice include pain management for the in utero baby. The Charlotte Lozier Institute fact sheet discussing fetal pain finds,
A recent review of the evidence concludes that from the 15th week of gestation onward, “the fetus is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli, and that this fact should be taken into account when performing invasive medical procedures on the fetus. It is necessary to apply adequate analgesia to prevent the suffering of the fetus.”
Despite the undeniable fact that in utero babies feel pain well before the cut-off for abortions, the Planned Parenthood abortion factory never addresses fetal pain during abortion. Their website covers the types of abortions provided and pain for the woman, but never mentions pain for the baby.
Medical facts aside, the ACLU is taking on Arkansas for restrictions with their bill,
BREAKING: Another state just passed an unconstitutional abortion ban today — this time it's Arkansas banning abortion at 18 weeks.
We'll be going to court AGAIN to defend abortion rights for Arkansans who are facing the personal decision about whether to continue a pregnancy.
— ACLU (@ACLU) March 13, 2019
Damn those Arkansas legislators! They care that an 18 weeks gestation baby will feel their limbs torn apart before it is sucked out of the uterus. In fact, I’m 100% certain that given a choice, the baby would side with the Arkansas legislature. The question is why the ACLU is so hell bent on ignoring facts and siding against them. Did they forget the Founder’s preamble to the Constitution…
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Without a doubt these rights include freedom from torture.
Today the ACLU is filing a lawsuit in response to a Kentucky state Bill preventing abortions based on, what is otherwise called, discrimination. The language in the Bill almost parallels anti-discrimination legislation lauded in progressive circles.
…to prohibit an abortion if the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, because of an unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin, or disability, except in the case of a medical emergency; require physicians to certify a lack of knowledge that the pregnant woman’s intent to seek an abortion was, in whole or in part, because of an unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin, or disability…”
In a simple context, a woman can’t have an abortion because the baby is Black, White, or Asian. She can’t abort because the baby is female, male, or disabled. But it remains allowable “… in the case of a medical emergency.”
The ACLU response to this Bill,
BREAKING: Kentucky just passed a ban on abortion based on the reason a person might need one.
The only person who decides whether you need an abortion should be you. We are suing immediately.
— ACLU (@ACLU) March 13, 2019
Only a bigot “needs” an abortion because their baby may be an undesirable race, sex, color, or disabled. Then again, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger held some very bigoted views,
apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”
A 2018 fundraising letter included this reminder, “… the ACLU is fighting for those can’t defend themselves alone …” It doesn’t get more defenseless than a baby subjected to the desires of it’s host. Yet, the ACLU is at odds in their stance of support for killing babies. The most isolated human, who is utterly defenseless.
On the surface it seems as though the ACLU is in favor of killing humans. But in actuality, it’s only those who are innocent and helpless in their crosshairs. Convicted criminals under a death sentence fare much better.
It makes little sense that at the highest level, the court can decide whether someone lives or dies in a matter of hours without any clear consensus. https://t.co/XX0wCb7BBJ
— ACLU (@ACLU) March 13, 2019
I’m not sure if this is irony or hypocrisy… “when it comes to life-or-death decisions, if four votes are good enough to hear the case, four votes are good enough to put an execution on hold until that case can be properly heard and litigated.”
If “votes” are the determining factor in suspending an execution, I lay odds that the baby about to be aborted holds the 1:1 vote against the woman who wants the abortion. Suspend the execution. If it’s good enough for Death Row convicts, it’s good enough for defenseless babies.
After 1992’s SCOTUS verdict for “Planned Parenthood v. Casey” many states are challenging unrestricted access to abortion on demand.
the state can regulate abortions at any point from fetal viability (when a fetus is able to live outside of the mother’s womb) and beyond. Before viability at 23-24 weeks or earlier, regulations are allowed as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on the woman.”
The “Fetal Heartbeat” legislation is a current battleground. Many states are enacting laws that restrict abortion to the time before a fetal heartbeat can be detected. The ACLU argument is that it’s unconstitutional to restrict a woman from access to abortion and places an undue burden on her access to services.
At present there are at least 20 cases with good odds of making it to SCOTUS for another challenge at Roe v. Wade. The ACLU in partnership with Planned Parenthood is hoping to expand a woman’s right to kill a human. The challenge to the Kentucky legislation is one more brick in the path to a SCOTUS showdown.
Featured Image Credit: Pixabay Image by 192635 Under license: Free Image cropped
GWB says: the federal legalization of abortion in 1973
It wasn’t a federal action. It was a unilateral act of judicial activism by a court that was NOT acting in a federalist manner, whatsoever. And it was judicial fiat, not “legalization”. Let’s not give that atrocious decision any more legitimacy than it deserves (and it deserves exactly none).
feel pain
a sentient human
Those two things are not the same. Plenty of non-sentient creatures feel pain. It’s certainly an argument for it being more than a “clump of cells”. And it might make a good cut-off for abortions in any sort of compromise. But sentience occurs because it is human, and that status is present from conception until bodily death.
an unconstitutional abortion ban
For someone fixated on “civil liberties” you would think they better understood what “unconstitutional” means.
You would also think they might be concerned with the rights of the future ACLU donor, rather than just the mother.
The only person who decides whether you need an abortion should be you.
Let’s try this…..
“The only person who decides whether you are going to bake a cake should be you.”
“The only person who decides whether you serve particular people at your soda fountain should be you.”
“The only person who decides whether you should employ certain people should be you.”
“The only person who decides whether you should allow that person into your group should be you.”
How do those sound, ACLU?
Margaret Sanger held some very bigoted views
Let’s make sure we understand, she wasn’t just a racist, though. She was more than willing to sterilize hillbillies and the ‘retarded’ and whomever else was “tainted” in such a way as to corrupt the New American Man or Übermenschen.
fighting for those can’t defend themselves
Yeah, that’s absolutely disgusting. It goes way beyond ‘hypocrisy’.
when it comes to life-or-death decisions
Ironically, the person you insist should be able to make that decision (it was *her* body after all) isn’t around to do so. It’s justice the state seeks, for her, and rightly so.
Pretty much, a certain subset of feminist has made it their mission to raise Moloch from the ashes of history, and – through control of our indoctrination mills public schools – has convinced an entire generation of women they can “have it all!” if they can just have willy-nilly sex with whomever they please without consequence. It’s an idiotic concept, but an entire couple of generations has bought into the fantasy.
Sadly, millions of little ones have paid for that fantasy with their lives.
1 Comment