Posted on 07/18/2014 12:47:18 PM PDT by wagglebee
The ACLU has asked a federal appeals court to throw out an Arizona law banning sex-selective and race-based abortions, claiming the law is itself racist.
Lawyers asked the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most overturned appeals courts in the nation, to reconsider the lawsuit filed on behalf of the NAACP and the National Asian-Pacific American Women's Forum.
Gov. Jan Brewer signed the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011,” making Arizona the first state to ban abortion based on racist or sexist discrimination. Abortionists violating its terms face a maximum 3.5 years in prison and the loss of their medical license. Any medical professional in the abortion industry who conceals such a violation faces a $10,000 fine.
But its opponents claim the law is based on racial stereotypes, and thus, a law to prevent racial discrimination is a form of discrimination.
Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU said the state's black and Asian residents now “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.”
A federal judge dismissed the case last October, saying the groups lacked the legal standing to sue. Now the ethnically based organizations are floating a new legal argument: The rhetoric of the bill's sponsors may have hurt the feelings of legally privileged minority groups.
During his fight to pass the measure, Arizona Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, said that those who wish to see babies aborted due to their race are “the people behind genocides.” He also noted a higher minority abortion rate and the practice of gendercide around the world.
The ACLU and its litigants consider these statements intolerable.
“The state in no way questions or challenges that any of this sort of rhetoric was used in the legislative history or that it is offensive and stigmatizing and stereotyping of the plaintiffs,” Kolbi-Molinas said. “And that’s what plaintiffs need to show at this point in order to show standing.”
But Rep. Montenegro told LifeSiteNews that their argument is logically and legally “twisted.”
“The purpose of this bill is to prevent discrimination,” he said. “We are trying to stop the heinous discrimination that ends with the murder of a baby inside the womb because she is going to be born the wrong gender or the wrong race.”
He added that the bill in no way singles out black or Asian mothers. “It doesn't matter what race, what part of the world, or what persons want to do something like this; it's wrong,” he said. “Here in Arizona, we want to make a statement that we don't want to allow that here.”
Montenegro is hardly the first person to note the practice of sex-selective abortion due to certain cultural preferences for male children. Former President Jimmy Carter called gender-selective abortion “the worst human rights abuse on earth.” He noted that at least 160 million girls are “missing” around the world as a result of the practice Montenegro is trying to end.
Abortion advocates – and many mainstream media outlets – have responded that there is no evidence that anyone in Arizona is seeking an abortion based on the unborn child's racial or sexual identity.
But an undercover Live Action investigation in June 2012 caught two state abortion facilities – Camelback Family Planning in Phoenix and the Tucson Women’s Center in Tucson – willing to cover up a sex-selective abortion. “I’ll just forget about it,” a surgical assistant at Tuscon said after the woman said she wanted to abort her baby because she was a girl. “But just be sure not to mention it” to the abortionist, he added. Both facilities are members of the National Abortion Federation.
“If we remove all statistics from this, and if we remove those two videos of people willing to do it, just based on its merits it's worthwhile stating that we are not going to allow that type of discrimination,” the state representative said.
Montenegro told LifeSiteNews that it is the ACLU and the plaintiffs whose lawsuit is enabling “discrimination and murder at the same time.”
“Why would anybody say that it is OK to discriminate?” he asked.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Idiots. These people are demonic.
Preventing race based abortions is racist. That must be some higher level logic.
Margaret Sanger is smiling in hell. Mission accomplished.
The NAACP is now on record in support of the black holocaust.
It's not like a white couple is going to learn their baby is black and decide to abort it, or black parents keep aborting their black babies while they try to make a white one? If a white couple decides to abort their black baby, most likely this has more to do with adultery than racism. Can doctors even tell the race of the baby in utero?
So if a black woman goes to get an abortion, will she be turned away because blacks aren't allowed to abort because this would be race-selective?
I don't see this law surviving the courts. JMHO.
Common Core thinking...
By contrast, blood testing for paternity requires only blood samples from the pregnant woman and the potential father. And doctors generally do not have to be involved.
So if one or both of the guys can be persuaded to undergo blood testing, there's the answer.
And if the woman would abort a baby of Race A but spare the baby with Race B, she's a racist, which these days I suppose is considered even worse than the other thing she is, a child-killer.
Preventing discrimination against unborn babies is apparently more important than preventing their death.
Equal-opportunities in dying.
The situation that comes to my mind is the case of a woman who has been raped by a male of a race that is different from the race of her husband and finds herself pregnant. It’s possible that she would not want to carry a product of the rapist but would want to carry a pregnancy from her husband to term.
A woman isn't going to have a baby of race A or race B. A woman is going to have a baby that's going to be exactly 1/2 of whatever race she is.
This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a woman choosing to abort the baby of her rapist while choosing to keep the baby of her husband.
Do I really need the sarcasm tag?
Executing the innocent baby does not sound like a very good idea to me.
Better to protect the child and give him or her up for adoption, or just
keep the child because he or she is the mother’s descendant.
The rapist father be damned.
No, really. Damned.
Well, yeah. But a lot of people who talk about race mean skin color, and past a certain shade of tan, they label everybody “black.” Like people call Obama black. Which is dumb, but hey...
I met a woman who was in exactly that situation. She and her husband decided that no matter what the baby’s race, it was their baby, and they had no right or desire to kill the child. So they had a mixed-race baby. Sweetest kid in he world. It’s all about respect for life.
In either case it would be unjust discrimination resulting in murder. The child has not committed a capital crime.
That's basically the entire premise of the leftists and their "disparate impact" lawsuits.
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.