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.

 


 

NAACP’s Pursuit of More Race-Based Abortions

Image

Last month in Arizona, the Maricopa chapter of the NAACP- in tandem with the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) and represented by the ACLU- filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona to rescind a state law that criminalizes race and sex-based abortions.

The Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 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.

Further, the law stipulates that those who engage in or perform an abortion must sign an affidavit stating that the abortion being performed isn’t the result of the race or the sex of the preborn child.

We’re actually witnessing a black, so-called civil rights organization suing to allow more black babies to be aborted and a so-called women’s group suing to increase the numbers of preborn baby girls aborted.

Ah, the virtue of “choice.”

Daniel Pochoda, the legal director of the ACLU in Arizona claims that the law is “motivated by racist and discriminatory beliefs.”  He adds that the law encourages discrimination against Asian American women because of the cultural ideal that prefers boys to girls. In Pochoda’s opinion, he also believes that doctors would racially profile women of color who sought abortions simply because of their ethnic makeup.

Miriam Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, in defending the lawsuit adds that the law potentially “perpetuates ugly stereotypes about the Asian American community and contributes to anti-immigrant perceptions,” adding “we care about gender inequity and we care about women… The thing is, if these politicians really wanted to truly address the issue—and sex-selection is really a symptom of gender inequity—there are more effective ways of doing that. This bill is not that.”

What?

Only on planet Democrat does a black organization sue to increase the deaths of preborn black babies.  Only on planet Democrat does an Asian American “women’s” group sue to increase the deaths of preborn Asian girls, claiming it’s a “symptom of gender inequity.”

And on planet Democrat, logic need not apply.

In the morally-absurd, upside-down world of progressive leftism do so-called civil rights groups sue to effectively preserve a “right” to kill babies based on race and sex.

The NAACP, the NAPAWF and the ACLU, claim that a state law in Arizona which criminalizes abortions based on race and sex is “discriminatory.”  They further claim the law violates “women’s rights” under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by “stigmatizing their decision” to kill their babies.

First, the claim that the law singles out black and Asian women in regards to abortion, thereby making the law “unconstitutional” has no merit.  The law as it is written criminalizes anyone who seeks to have a race/sex-based abortion.  Had the law specified ethnicities or racial makeup of the mother seeking an abortion, or prohibited specific ethnicities from having abortions, the claim of unconstitutionality would have some merit.

But as it exists, the law is applicable to everyone.  In other words, it treats everybody equally under the law.  No one, regardless of race or ethnic makeup, can have an abortion if that abortion is predicated on race or gender.

This lawsuit — if successful — will ensure that more Asian baby girls in particular and black babies in general are easier to kill by the parents who don’t want them.  But it’s much more than that.  This law wasn’t written to single out Asians or blacks — but to save all babies that may be at risk because a couple wants a girl instead of a boy or when family pressures are exerted upon an expectant mother to abort her mixed-race baby for vanity or racism’s sake.

So quickly after the gruesome trial of late-term abortion doctor and infanticide practitioner Kermit Gosnell — who preyed on poor black and Asian women and of whom the NAACP appeared all too silent — the NAACP is now actively suing a state for seeking to prevent race and sex-based abortions.  The NAACP is effectively encouraging more abortions among blacks— a genocide that represents close to forty percent of all abortions performed and which claims more than 1,450 babies per day. Margret Sanger’s dream of exterminating the Negro population seems ever-closer to reality.

What other euphemism has been responsible for so many deaths, regardless of race?

Just as the Arizona law is clearly meant to save lives, the NAACP and the NAPAWF are essentially trying to end them by seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional.  These groups are the ones guilty of injecting the stigma of alleged discrimination into the debate.

More to the point, if a white person or a (predominately) white organization (especially if that organization had the word “Tea” or “party” in its designation) endeavored to sue a state in an attempt to rescind a law that prohibits race and sex-based abortions because they indeed wanted more black babies aborted, it would rightly be called racist and you can believe that the NAACP would waste no time in letting America know what was happening.

That the NAACP is itself engaged in the very same practice demonstrates their reprehensible hypocrisy because it is actively supporting a position through word and deed that will increase the genocidal numbers of abortion in the black community.  Doing so effectively undermines the association’s credibility when it comes to being an advocate against racism.  Who will take seriously any organization that protests and demonstrates against racism while at the same time advocating a form of racism itself?

Nathan Bedford Forest would be proud of what the NAACP has managed to accomplish.

It’s obvious that the NAACP no longer represents the best interests of black Americans and hasn’t for some time.

The significance of the NAACP taking part in this lawsuit against Arizona’s attempt to prevent race and sex-based abortions is the further tarnishing of the legacy of a once-respectable institution that fought for the rights and protections of those whose rights had been legally denied.

And by advocating the position that abortions should be allowed on the basis of race, the NAACP is publicly indicating their comfortability with black women killing more black children. It’s also, as I said earlier, engaging in a position that would be condemned if held by a “white” organization.  This association is dishonorably contributing to the plague of self-destruction that has afflicted black Americans since the sixties.

I urge the NAACP to courageously drop the pretense that it’s a civil rights organization.  Because of its position in favor of race-based abortions, in addition to many others, it should effectively reclassify their organization to reflect their progressive political disposition in their attempt to maintain relevancy.

And blacks should wake to the realization that the racism they seek to thwart isn’t an external but an internal reality.