NAACP Appeals Lawsuit to Stop Ban on Race-Based Abortions

 

The NAACP is at it again- they continue to try and make it easier for people to kill more black babies.

 

Last month, the Maricopa County chapter of the NAACP, represented by the ACLU, had their lawsuit- which challenged an Arizona law that bans race and sex-based abortions- dismissed because the judge claimed the NAACP and the organization who co-filed the claim, the National Asian Pacific Women’s Forum, lacked legal standing.

 

Now, the NAACP is appealing the case to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which means they just might win this time around.

 

As a reminder, The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act of 2011 criminalizes those individuals who perform or receive an abortion based on the race or sex of the preborn child (or the race of the parent).  It also criminalizes those who would coerce a person into performing or receiving a race or sex-based abortion.  Lastly, it requires that the woman seeking an abortion and the person performing the abortion sign an affidavit stating that the abortion isn’t race or sex based.

 

The basis of the NAACP’s lawsuit/ appeal is an unfounded notion of discrimination; they also claim the law is “unconstitutional.” The NAACP feels that the law unfairly singles out, stigmatizes and thus “discriminates” against black and Asian women who seek abortions.

 

The NAACP claim that the law is unconstitutional is simply an attempt to have the ban struck down quickly.  If one reads the law– it’s under two pages in length- one will see that this law doesn’t violate the constitution.

 

Last month, Justice David Campbell rightly said that the arguments presented to the court lacked the (legal) ability to prove the argument that specific minority groups- black and Asian women- would be denied equal treatment under the law.  Both groups of women will still have access to abortions, maintain their “right”.

 

The ACLU also claims that law perpetuates racial stereotypes to shame and discriminate against women who attempt to get abortions.

 

Bullocks.

 

The Arizona law doesn’t perpetuate racial stereotypes; nor does it discriminate.  Again, when one reads the law it clearly states that the ban is applicable to everyone who seeks to have a race or sex-based abortion.  If the law specifically singled out people based on their race, color or ethnicity in prohibiting abortions, then the claim of unconstitutionality would hold some weight.

 

But, I will say this.  Any woman- I don’t care what her color, racial or ethnic makeup is- who attempts to have a sex-based abortion (primarily done when the preborn baby is a girl rather than a boy) or a race-based abortion, should be publicly shamed.

 

One can argue the political merits of abortion; I prefer to argue the morality of it.  There is absolutely no moral reason a woman or a couple should have an abortion simply because the baby is a girl rather than a boy.

 

There is no moral reason why a woman or a couple should have an abortion because of the race of the baby.  Period.

 

As reported by a Guttmacher Institute-led study, the black teenage abortion rates are more than twice as high as the national average.  Among black 15-19 year olds, of every 1000 pregnancies, 41 are aborted; the national average is 18 per every 1000.

 

Another Guttmacher study shows that black women account for more than thirty percent of all abortions. Blacks are only 13 percent of the population.

 

Since abortion was legalized in 1973, over 16 million black babies have been aborted.  According to lifenews.com, for every 100 live births in the black community, 77 are aborted.

 

Considering these statistics, that the Maricopa County chapter of the NAACP is actually trying to get Arizona’s state ban rescinded, again– which would have the effect of increasing these numbers- proves them to be immoral and actively engaged in and facilitating fratricide.  It also demonstrates how unconcerned the NAACP is with the decimating effects abortion has on the community it purports to represent.

 

The precise words escape my ability to fully articulate the extent to which I loathe the NAACP.[1]  As I’ve remarked in an earlier post, the NAACP continues to defecate on its legacy by bringing this lawsuit- not once, but twice.  The work and conduct of the modern NAACP completely nullifies the virtuous and reputable heritage regarding civil rights and should no longer, in good faith, be referred to as a civil rights organization.

 

And how can they be when they refuse to fight for the rights and protections of the most vulnerable among us?  The NAACP is actively trying to minimize the protections of the most vulnerable.

 

It’s shameful, immoral and it’s sinful.   Led by a so-called reverend, Rev. Oscar Tillman, President Member, NAACP National Board Vice President, NAACP Arizona State Conference.

 

Awful.

 

Once again, it needs to be said- with so-called shepherds like these who claim to represent or take seriously black interests, it’s no wonder why the black sheep are so wayward.

 


[1] I’m including the national NAACP in here because they have yet, through either filings of this lawsuit, issued a statement that distances themselves from the Maricopa chapter.  Further, the Maricopa chapter couldn’t proceed without the approval of the national chapter, further indicting them. 

Advertisements

Federal Judge Tosses NAACP Lawsuit Against State Ban on Race-Based Abortions

NAACP-NO

Several months ago, two so-called civil rights groups- the Maricopa County chapter of the NAACP and the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, represented by the ACLU- sued the state of Arizona in an attempt to overturn a law that criminalized race and sex-based abortions.

 

The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act of 2011, sought to criminalize any person who knowingly performed an abortion that was based on the race or sex of the preborn child or the parent.  The law also criminalized any person who coerces or pressures a woman into having an abortion as a result of the race or sex of the preborn child.  Lastly, the Arizona law required any woman who sought an abortion to sign an affidavit confirming that the abortion isn’t a result of the race/sex of the preborn child.

 

The lawsuit on behalf of the NAACP claimed that the law was discriminatory because it singled out and stigmatized black and Asian women, claiming the law violated women’s rights protected under the equal protection clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Far from being discriminatory, the law sought to extend protections not only to preborn children, but also to those women whose families might emotionally or physically attempt to manipulate pregnant women into having abortions due to racial or sexual animus.

 

Well, thank God, U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell has ruled that the two parties who brought the suit didn’t have legal standing to do so and has tossed the suit out.

 

 

Unfortunately, to my knowledge, he didn’t call the plaintiffs foolish.

 

 

In any case, this means the law will continue to be enforced, protecting the lives of preborn children and the mothers who carry them from potential racial and sexual hostility.

 

I still maintain- which is obvious- that the law as it is written doesn’t discriminate against any person or group precisely because it’s applicable to everyone, equally.  No one can perform or receive a race or sex-based abortion; it criminalizes all who seek to do so. If the law had specifically singled out black or Asian women, it would be discriminatory and thus, unconstitutional.

 

That the NAACP would involve itself in a lawsuit against a statute that sought to minimize racial violence in the form of race-based abortions is stunning.  By participating in this lawsuit, it shows- among other things- that the NAACP believes more race and sex-based abortions qualify as ending discrimination.

 

Further, that they would sue a state to rescind a law that would have the obvious result of increasing the abortions blacks have, particularly in light of the disproportionately high numbers of abortions by blacks relative to their population, is a clear demonstration- again- of the moral confusion or immorality plaguing the NAACP.

 

The president of the Maricopa County NAACP is Rev. Oscar Tillman.  Tillman is also NAACP National Board Vice President.  A so-called reverend, so-called man of God, representing a “civil rights group” that advocates for (more) abortion.

 

Please.

 

With these kinds of “reverends” who purport to be called to be ministers of the gospel as “leaders” in the black community, it’s absolutely no wonder blacks are in such need of spiritual reformation and renewal.

 

Jesus says in Luke 17 that things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe unto that person through whom they come.

 

To the NAACP and the “Reverend” Oscar Tillman… woe indeed.

 


 

Ben Jealous’ Transgendering Defense Against Voter ID

As if on comedic cue, Ben Jealous of the continually-irrelevant NAACP proves once again why the NAACP is on life support.

I noted that last month the NAACP- with the help of the ACLU, sued Arizona in federal court to have the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 thrown out.  This law prohibits and criminalizes all race and sex-based abortions. Apparently, the NAACP sees nothing wrong with the disproportionate numbers of abortions happening among blacks and wants more babies aborted.

Now, they’re arguing against voter-id laws because it would “disadvantage” transgendered Americans.

Seriously.

This past Friday while speaking on a panel at the Netroots gathering in San Jose, Jealous insisted that voter ID laws shouldn’t be implemented because such laws are discriminatory to…the transgendered.

Using his (adopted) brother as an example, Jealous claimed that requiring identification to vote would put his brother at a disadvantage because his brother dresses differently when he’s on the prowl man-hunting in the streets of San Francisco than he does when he goes to work.  The result would be a visual discrepancy depending on when or where his brother – or any transgendered person- showed his/her id card. Therefore in Jealous’ mind- voter id requirements should be discarded.

But a study out of UCLA concluded that there are roughly 700,000 people- only .23 percent of the American population- that self-identify as transgendered.

Voter-id laws that prevent corruption and deception are like kryptonite to Democrats.

Only in the progressive mind can someone suggest- with a straight face- that voter id laws that intend to limit and discourage voter fraud should be avoided because it represents a fabricated notion of “discrimination” to such a statistically irrelevant demographic.

Had Jealous been speaking to a room full of people whose IQ was above room temperature, he would have been promptly ridiculed and laughed off of this “panel.” But he wasn’t; he was speaking to progressives.

Next we’ll hear the Ben Jealous and the NAACP arguing against voter-id laws because these laws would “discriminate” against people who suffer from multiple personality disorder, claiming the impossibility of predicting what personality would actually show up at the polling place attempting to vote.

The pulse of this organization is fading and the NAACP is close to flat line.

Finally.