Posted on 05/20/2014 6:22:33 PM PDT by kathsua
A pro-life legal group is having to go to court to help the state of Arizona protect its law it passed to ban race-based abortions. Here’s the ironic rub: the NAACP filed a lawsuit against the bill, which stops abortions done specifically if the baby is African-American (or any other specific race or gender).
It makes one wonder if the NAACP, which, for years has held a pro-abortion position and which recently won a court order to silence a black pro-life who was writing at LifeNews to expose it’s abortion advocacy, should be called the National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit urging it to reject the NAACP’s lawsuit against an Arizona bill that prohibits sex- and race-based abortions.
ADF attorneys along with ADF-allied attorney and University of St. Thomas Law Professor Teresa Collett represent bill sponsor Rep. Steve Montenegro, U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Dr. Alveda King, and multiple African-American and women’s groups who oppose such abortions. Montgomery is also serving as co-counsel.
“Every innocent life deserves to be protected, and that’s especially true of any babies targeted for death simply because of their sex or race,” said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. “Nothing about an abortion committed on the basis of sex or race is medically necessary or constitutionally protected. The fact that groups who supposedly exist to protect the interests of minorities and women are attacking this law is scandalous.”
A district court dismissed the lawsuit in October of last year, but American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing the Maricopa County branch of the NAACP and the National Asian-Pacific American Women’s Forum appealed that decision.
The Frederick Douglass Foundation, Susan B. Anthony List, Radiance Foundation, National Black Pro-Life Union, and University Faculty for Life also joined the brief in support of the Arizona bill.
The brief filed in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Horne reviews the actual debates of the Arizona legislature and argues that “the legislative record reveals troubling statistical disparities in the abortion rates of various racial and ethnic groups, as well as disturbing differences in the sex-ratio of births to women from various communities.”
“Review of the public record establishes that legislators were working proactively to combat emerging, yet well-documented and serious, public health concerns when passing the Act,” the brief continues. “There simply is no ‘stigmatic’ injury here” as the lawsuit against the Arizona law claims.
“Preserving the life of all babies, regardless of their sex or race, should be everyone’s priority,” added ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “We hope the 9th Circuit will not allow this needless attack on Arizona’s law to succeed.”
Sterlings “racism” if it was racist and not just smart talk..didnt HARM anyone and cost not one LIFE!!
I wonder how many well known “liberals” have a shrine to Margaret Sanger hidden away somewhere in an attic or unused bedroom..
The leaders at the NAACP sold out the black race for personal gain decades ago.
=================================
Yes, they did.
‘It makes one wonder if the NAACP, which, for years has held a pro-abortion position and which recently won a court order to silence a black pro-life who was writing at LifeNews to expose it’s abortion advocacy, should be called the National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.’
Had to look this one up.
Judge Sides With NAACP’s Attempt to Silence Black Pro-Lifer
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/28/judge-sides-with-naacps-attempt-to-silence-black-pro-lifer/
28APR2014
A judge has issued a ruling in the NAACP lawsuit against a black pro-life leader who exposed its pro-abortion views in an article appearing at LifeNews.com.
In February, the NAACP threatened to sue LifeNews.com and Ryan Bomberger, a LifeNews blogger , for a column that took the civil rights organization to task over its abortion position. The NAACP is upset about a column Bomberger wrote at LifeNews titled, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” which notes the organization’s 44th Annual Image Awards.
Following the piece, the NAACP sent Bomberger, the director of the Radiance Foundation, and LifeNews a threatening letter claiming infringement on its name and logo for including it in the opinion column. The letter accuses Bomberger (left) and his group, the Radiance Foundation, of “trademark infringement” over an ad campaign that exposes the NAACP’s pro-abortion position.
Stating that while “you are certainly entitled to express your viewpoint, you cannot do so in connection with a name that infringes on the NAACP’s rights,” the letter demands a response within a self-imposed time period.
In response to the letter, Bomberger asked a federal court to declare that the First Amendment protects his and the Radiance Foundation’s exercise of free speech and that his speech does not infringe on any of the NAACP’s trademarks or other rights. The lawsuit does not seek any damages.
In its countersuit, the NAACP’s counterclaim denies that the NAACP is pro--abortion or has even taken a position on the issue.
Bomberger, who is represented by pro-life attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group, has now received the ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Jackson has issued a ruling.
Judge Jackson has ruled in favor of the NAACP, denying Bomberger’s right to comment upon, satirize, or criticize the NAACP’s documented pro-abortion actions by (in part) parodying their name. This ruling is a frightening attack on his First Amendment rights or others who want to comment on the NAACP’s pro-abortion position.
In Judge Jackson’s 52-page ruling, despite voluminous evidence to the contrary (including the NAACP’s own unambiguous 2004 Resolution supporting the “right to choose” abortion), asserts that: ‘The NAACP has no formal or official position or policy regarding abortion because such a position may create problems within its diverse membership and constituency, who embrace a wide range of views on the controversial issue of abortion.” Judge Jackson uses this as the basis to strengthen the NAACP’s trademark infringement and dilution claims.
Margaret Sanger and her ilk, especially Hitler, would be so proud....
How can white women abort black babies?
This is a very confusing article. I guess I am missing the point.
The black kapo.
It's in the same room they have the busts of Count Gobineau and Adolf Hitler on display. All workers for the purification of the race and the disposal of inferiors.
Liberals, you gotta love 'em!
I too found it confusing. I think it has to be referring to a white woman carrying a black man’s baby. I don’t get how you can ban certain abortions like sex selection abortions if the woman doesn’t have to give a reason or the real reason.
If the father is black the baby will likely be black,although even black couples can produce children who are light enough to pass for white.
So? What is your point? What's wrong with mulatto children?
You gotta’ hand it to the NAACP. It didn’t take them long at all to figure out that abortion is racial genocide for blacks, being replaced by Mexican invaders (I don’t think they got the second part figured out yet)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.