NAACP, ACLU Sue Again to Legalize Race, Sex-Based Abortions

Once again, it’s as if the NAACP sees itself as not having done enough to dishonor its legacy and completely ruin its reputation as a civil rights organization. In its fledgling grasps at political relevancy, the so-called civil rights organization- with the help of the ACLU- is suing the state of Arizona again in an attempt to achieve greater access to race and sex-based abortion.

Last year, the NAACP unsuccessfully sued the state of Arizona in an attempt to have the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 declared unconstitutional. In their lawsuit, the NAACP and ACLU claimed that the law was “discriminatory” because it unfairly singled out black and Asian women in regards to abortion. As a result, the groups claimed that the law violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it “stigmatized” black and Asian women’s “decision” to kill their babies.

U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell dismissed the lawsuit saying the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Not content with having their original lawsuit thrown out, the NAACP- again with the help of the ACLU- is now begging the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their lawsuit. Their argument this time- according to Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU- is that presumably, black and Asian women in Arizona “must endure the humiliation of living under a government that views them as a threat to American values simply by virtue of alleged character flaws possessed by persons of their race.”

In other words, black and Asian women shouldn’t have to be associated with the stigma of intentionally having an abortion based on race or gender because it makes them feel bad. These women should be free to kill their black, and female preborn babies free from moral condemnation.

Fools, the whole lot.

The law doesn’t single out any ethnic or racial group; the law, as written, it applies to everyone, equally. As a result, the law isn’t discriminatory because the essence of the bill is to prevent discrimination in regards to abortion based on race and gender. If anything, it discriminates against those who would seek to discriminate against race and gender through the process of abortion.

But that hasn’t stopped the Maricopa County Branch of the NAACP, led by so-called Reverend Oscar Tillman – and by extension, the national NAACP organization since they haven’t spoken out against the actions of the local branch throughout this entire shameful process.

Again, The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act makes illegal any and all abortions that are based on the race or sex of the mother or preborn child.  It also criminalizes anyone who knowingly performs an abortion that is the result of race or gender.  Lastly it criminalizes anyone who engages in physical or verbal coercion that leads to a race or sex-based abortion.

But the NAACP still isn’t content with the disproportionately high numbers of abortion in the black community; it wants more of them and will sue repeatedly to make it happen. Now, if a predominately white, conservative organization endeavored to sue a state in an attempt to rescind a law that prohibits race and sex-based abortions because they sought to increase the numbers of black babies aborted, it would rightly be called racist and one knows that the NAACP would waste no time letting America know the racist intentions of this racist organization, which they would also argue is a direct reflection of a racist America as a whole.

Yet the NAACP, again, is engaged in this very same practice, which clearly indicates their hypocrisy and broken moral compass. The NAACP is actively supporting a position- through word and deed- that will in theory increase abortion in the black community.  Doing so effectively undermines the association’s credibility (with many questioning if it has any left?) when it comes to being an advocate against racism.  Who should take seriously any organization that protests and demonstrates against racism while at the same time advocating a form of racism itself?

Since racism as a comprehensive obstacle to black advancement has been overcome, the NAACP no longer has any moral or cultural relevancy. It should therefore drop the pretense of being a civil rights organization (because in this case, civil rights don’t extend to those in the womb) and admit what it has become -and what many Americans already know- that it’s a political advocacy group that seeks to advance progressive political causes to the highest bidder.

For example, the NAACP is at odds with many black Americans on a number of issues. Blacks overwhelmingly support school choice; the NAACP doesn’t and has sided with teacher’s unions- responsible for delivering piss-poor, substandard education to poor black children- against school choice advocates, many of them being poor black parents.

The NAACP also supports same sex marriage; many blacks oppose it. The NAACP should be creating and implementing strategic initiatives that would encourage and increase marriage rates in the black community- which would increase the numbers of children born into two-parent homes. But it would rather march with “pride,” supporting the redefinition of marriage.

The NAACP is against stop-and-frisk, proactive policing techniques; many blacks, particularly those who live in neighborhoods plagued with violent crime, support these techniques. The NAACP and other black “intelligentsia” argue against stop-and-frisk, calling the practice racist. They also actively prevent these measures from being implemented or maintained. But that only increases the numbers of poor, law-abiding blacks who become victims of violent criminals, many of them being black themselves since crime is largely an intra-racial phenomenon.

The NAACP supports increasing the minimum wage as an effective economic policy to decrease income and wealth inequality. Yet many blacks realize that increasing the minimum wage prices many in their communities out of the workforce because the wage is higher than the skillset many blacks, particularly black men, have. Unfortunately, on top of receiving poor quality education, many blacks have low job skills. This combination has lead to disproportionately high and sustained levels of unemployment among blacks. To have an opportunity to develop work skills and increase their economic value, many blacks prefer expanded economic opportunities that allow for participation in the workforce. Increasing minimum wage only benefits those fortunate enough to be employed, not those who aren’t.

None of these issues, as they relate to blacks, matters to the NAACP. They are chiefly concerned with maintaining cultural and political relevancy, literally at the expense of those they claim to represent. For this very reason, the NAACP should cease self-identifying as a civil rights organization, change their status from a 501(c)(3) to a 501(c)(4) and be done with it already.

Then they can whore w/o lying.

7 thoughts on “NAACP, ACLU Sue Again to Legalize Race, Sex-Based Abortions

  1. eyeontheuniverse July 22, 2014 / 12:43 pm

    LOL…a law that requires telepathic powers to enforce. That won’t stand long.


    • derryckg July 22, 2014 / 3:48 pm

      If it’s difficult to enforce, why sue?


      • eyeontheuniverse July 22, 2014 / 6:58 pm

        Because it is one of the many backhanded efforts to make things difficult. Each only marginally effective effort erodes the choice.


        • derryckg July 23, 2014 / 9:20 am

          More difficult for what? “Choice” is a euphemism and a bad one at that.

          Are you in favor of race and sex-based abortions predicated on the ‘choice?’


          • eyeontheuniverse July 23, 2014 / 9:32 am

            “Are you in favor of race and sex-based abortions predicated on the ‘choice?’”

            Of course not, and your wording is a blatant attempt to manipulate the conversation by presenting a false binary choice. In your presentation either I am for race and sex-based abortions or I must support this policy. As explained above, that is not the case. This policy has nothing to do with race and sex selection. You can’t know why someone is actually making a choice. It is simply an effort to make things more difficult so people will get hung up jumping hoops until it is too late for them to choose abortion.

            When countries want to limit sex selection they ban the tests for sex. But in the US we have no issues of gender disparity so this isn’t an issue, unless you are explicitly trying to block abortion for the sake of blocking it.

            As for race, we have no evidence of demographic manipulation. Black and white females, for instance, both aspire to have 1-2 children and both have around the same number, with black women having slightly (only just) more. The disparity is in the rate of unexpected pregnancy. If you want to work on a problem that will reduce abortions there is a good place to start.

            We both know we are talking about abortion here, so choice is just a shorthand – do you want me to type out “choice to have an abortion” every time even though be both know what we are discussing? I am pro abortion rights and have no problem at all saying that. I think pro-choice and pro-life are silly terms (how many pro-lifers are vegans? Other than Catholics, how many oppose the death penalty?), but those are the terms the big names on both sides have picked so it makes little sense to ignore the terminology widely used no matter how silly.


            • derryckg July 23, 2014 / 9:57 am

              “Of course not, and your wording is a blatant attempt to manipulate the conversation by presenting a false binary choice. In your presentation either I am for race and sex-based abortions or I must support this policy.”

              No. One can be for abortion and at the same time, not be in favor of abortions that are race and gender based. It’s not a false choice, it’s an obvious, easy one.

              And actually, one can know why the so-called choice is being made. Many times, that ‘choice’ is because the pregnancy is an inconvenience to the mother (or the father, if and when he’s asked and considered). That’s obvious and happens too many times to argue against- particularly among blacks. That said, if the US doesn’t have an issue with sex/race selective abortions, then by definition, it undermines your argument that this bill makes it more difficult to have an abortion/causes a woman to jump through hoops/blocks her from abortion. And if you’ve taken the time to read the bill, the prohibition and criminalization of race/sex selective abortions applies to doctors, nurses, nurses practitioners, coercive family members, etc of the woman having the abortion; not the woman herself- which again, undermines your position that this bill is an attempt to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

              So it makes it easy to say one can be in favor of abortion and yet can support this bill because of what the actual text of the bill says, who it penalizes and who it doesn’t.

              ” … unless you are explicitly trying to block abortion for the sake of blocking it.” –> This isn’t true- of me or the bill’s authors or the bill’s intent. Again, read the actual bill. I’ve linked it.

              ” Black and white females, for instance, both aspire to have 1-2 children and both have around the same number, with black women having slightly (only just) more.” –> Says who? Where? How does one measure aspirations, exactly to make this statement true? You can measure the numbers of children black and white women have, respectively. But aspirations? Not so much.

              The disparity is in the rate of unexpected pregnancy.” –> No, the disparity is in the rate of abortions with black women who have more abortions than white women, which is disproportionate to their representative population. Black women, who make up roughly thirteen percent of the female population (and of the 13% of the US population, black women account for roughly 7%), have 30% of all abortions. It’s not simply unexpected pregnancies that lead women, black or otherwise to have an abortion; to argue as much is to be intellectually dishonest.

              Lastly, I know choice is a shorthand; I didn’t argue otherwise. I simply said that it’s a euphemism, which it is.


              • eyeontheuniverse July 23, 2014 / 10:35 am

                “One can be for abortion and at the same time, not be in favor of abortions that are race and gender based. It’s not a false choice, it’s an obvious, easy one.”

                I never said you couldn’t. What I said was you could be against the selection AND against the policy. Either you are trying to manipulate my statements or are unaware of the logical difference. I’m sorry, but I really can’t tell which it is.

                “And actually, one can know why the so-called choice is being made.”

                No, you can’t. You have no idea what is going on inside the woman’s head. Rather than saying “I was raped by my father” or “My boyfriend will murder me if I am pregnant” a woman may say almost anything to avoid the risks of saying what actually is going on. You just have no idea at all.

                It make no difference who is punished. The bill reads that the punishment occurs if the provider:

                1. Performs an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex or race of the child or the race of the parent of the child…”

                So contrary to your claim, we are looking at punishment based on the parents intent. This is simply a way to put fear into the provider in case there might even be a claim.

                I’m afraid you really haven’t looked at the numbers. First you are comparing a percentage from the general population to a percentage of abortions. The former is based on a group that contains men, the latter is not. So we are looking really at roughly 13% with 30% of the abortions. What we would expect based on twice as many unwanted pregnancies, if they were evenly distributed over birth order and in-group women, is 26%, where we see 30%. However, the pregnancies are not evenly distributed, but are clustered, in each case, among women who are more likely to already have more children, a situation that leads to a higher likelihood of aborting.

                None of this is even relevant, because these black women are not choosing to abort because they don’t want black babies. As previously stated, women have a lot of reasons for seeking abortions. Unfortunately, for example, black women are more likely to be victims of rape ( or to be unmarried when they experience an unintended pregnancy ( and therefore more likely to seek an abortion for these and other reasons. None of this is black women choosing abortions because they don’t like black babies.


Comments are closed.