ACLU Targets Religious Charities Over Refusing Abortions, Contraception for Immigrant Children

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on Apr. 6 against the federal government to obtain “documents related to how groups that are awarded government funding contracts are restricting refugee and undocumented immigrant teenagers’ access to reproductive health services, including contraception and abortion.”

The lawsuit is seeking the release of documents from the Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families about contracts awarded to religious groups that are helping unaccompanied minors, many of whom have crossed into the United States from Mexico.

Brigitte Amiri, an ACLU senior staff attorney, said that religious organizations, particularly the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), are taking millions of dollars in federal funding and refusing “to provide teens with critical reproductive health care—such as emergency contraception and abortion—as required by U.S. law.” …

Please bear with the following analysis which attempts to address multiple constitutional problems with ACLU lawsuit.

What law schools did ACLU attorneys get indoctrinated at? (I don’t want to know.)

Not necessarily in order of importance, the first problem with the ACLU’s abortion rights project is this. The Supreme Court, along with two generations of constitutional lawmakers, have indicated that only US citizens have constitutional rights.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphases added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

The next problem with the ACLU’s misguided illegal alien / abortion project is this. Contrary to what activist judges argue concerning the Equal Protections Clause found in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A), the Supreme Court has clarified that the 14A did not create any new constitutional rights. This is evidenced by the following Supreme Court case excerpt.

“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities [emphasis added]. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.

In fact, John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had indicated in the congressional record that the 14th Amendmnent applies only those rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states to the states.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

So since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called abortion rights, the activist justices who decided Roe v. Wade not only wrongly ignored the unique, 10th Amendment-protected power of the states to regulate abortion, but also wrongly established the so-called “right” to have an abortion outside the framework of the Constitution.

And speaking of activist justices, for the remaining issues addressed by this post please bear the following in mind. There would probably be all different conservative faces on the Supreme Court at this time if state lawmakers hadn’t ratified the 17th Amendment, foolishly giving up their voices in Congress by doing so.

Regarding so-federal immigration laws, please consider this. It remains that regardless of PC interpretations of the Constitution’s “Uniform Rules of Naturalization” Clause (1.8.4), interpretations used to justify federal immigration laws, and also despite the slavery clause (1.9.1) that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.

In fact, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had referenced 10A to clarify that the feds don’t have the constitutional authority to regulate immigration.

As mentioned in related threads, here again is the relevant excerpt from Jefferson’s writing.

“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.

And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...
…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.

Also, regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, activist judges and indoctrinated ACLU attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration in this case, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Finally, the Supreme Court has clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limiited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

This means that Congress cannot tax and spend for either vote-winning abortion purposes or vote-winning immigration purposes.

Getting back to 17A, what’s going on is this. The Founding States had not only established the federal Senate, but have given the power to vote for federal Senators uniquely to state lawmakers. One of the reasons for giving cortrol of the Senate to state lawmakers was undoubtedly so that the Senate could kill House bills that not only steal state powers, like the power to regulate abortion and immigration, but also arguably steal state revenues associated with those powers.

But as a consequence of 17A, low-information voters go home after voting for their favorite federal senators and watch football, oblivious to problem that corrupt senators are working in cahoots with the corrupt House to make bills to regulate, tax and spend for vote-winning issues like abortion and illegal aliens as previously mentioned. They do so regardless that Congress no constitutional authority to make such laws.

The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.

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.