Thursday, April 06, 2006

Stop The ACLU Blogburst

crossposted from Stop
The ACLU


Via BP News

A new congressional effort to police advertising by crisis
pregnancy centers is unnecessary, pro-life advocates said, and
unconstitutional, free-speech defenders charged.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has long promoted itself as
the leading defender of freedom of speech and civil rights, is right in
the middle of the controversy, promoting the new legislation to the
surprise of some.


However, this is not suprising to us at all. The ACLU have a long history of being selective in defending free
speech, especially when it comes to pro-lifers. Besides, defending the
first amendment is only third on the ACLU's list of priorities, abortion is their number one priority.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, introduced March
30 the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act (SDAWS),
which calls on the Federal Trade Commission to bar organizations from
advertising that they provide abortion services when they do not. Just 12
House of Representatives members have cosponsored Maloney’s bill, but
leading abortion rights organizations, including NARAL Pro-choice America
and the National Abortion Federation, are behind it.

The ACLU also endorsed it, and that stunned some who have defended the
organization’s work in the past.

“[W]hat about the First Amendment?” asked Nat Hentoff, a syndicated
columnist and a former ACLU board member, according to The New York Sun.
“When you have the state, with its power, deciding what is deceptive on
something as thoroughly controversial as this, it goes against the very
core, it seems to me, of the First Amendment.”

Hentoff called the ACLU endorsement “a really extraordinary mistake.”
The ACLU advocacy for abortion rights has eclipsed its support for free
speech, he told The Sun. “It’s the problem the ACLU has had for years,”
Hentoff said.


And its not likely to change anytime soon. After all, some of the
ACLU's most lucrative donations are from pro-abortion groups. Its a much
more profitable business than milking taxpayers over prayer and such.
It is a $90 billion dollar industry. No wonder the ACLU thinks teaching abstinence is harmful. Its harmful to
their pocketbook.

The proposal is unneeded, representatives of crisis
pregnancy centers said.

“This legislation is unnecessary, as it aims to cure an ill that
doesn’t exist,” Care Net President Kurt Entsminger said in a written release.
Care Net is a nationwide network of about 900 evangelical Christian,
pregnancy help centers. “This is nothing more than a routine attack on
pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition. We
find it particularly curious that in her announcement Rep. Maloney did
not cite one example of a pregnancy center that is engaging in
deceptive advertising.”

Tom Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family Life
Advocates (NIFLA), said in a written statement that crisis pregnancy centers
“are providing accurate, truthful and complete information to empower
women to choose life. The only fraudulent activity in this area comes
from those in the abortion industry who want to withhold truthful
information from abortion-vulnerable women.”


Amen to that! I've always thought abortion advocates were the ones
that were deceptively named. Planned Parenthood? How deceptive is that?
It has absolutely nothing to do with parenthood, or planning. Here is
the straight talk on the deceptive business of abortion.

So-called "counseling" in Planned Parenthood clinics is
really marketing, providing few facts and is heavily biased in favor of
abortion.25

• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was started by a
racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and
eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of
eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her
strategy for eliminating the black population. In the last week of July
2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against PFFA for their
failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also agreed
that PP is a racist organization that targets minority women.

• "If a girl decides to carry her baby to term, ... clinics don't make
any money. They make money only if she has an abortion. So, inevitably,
clinics put pressure on women to abort." -- Carol Everett, who once
owned and operated four lucrative abortion clinics.

• "Nita Whitten, who once worked in an abortion clinic, says she was
trained by a professional marketing firm in how to sell abortion over the
phone. The main tactic abortion clinics use is fear. The phone operator
asks the girl how late her period is and then tells her, 'You're
pregnant.' Not 'You might be pregnant,' but 'You are pregnant.' When a girl
calls, Nita says, the object is not to help her; it's to 'hook the
sale.'"

• After the abortion, the girl is given free birth-control pills since,
on the pill, she's more likely to be sexually active. But since young
people often do not remember to take pills consistently, there's a good
chance the girl will return to the clinic pregnant again. As Carol
Everett puts it, "birth control sells abortions. Abortion is a business. A
big business that uses slick marketing tools." read more


In announcing the introduction of her bill, Maloney said in
a written release that some crisis pregnancy centers “should be called
‘Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers.’ They have the right to exist, but they
shouldn’t have the right to deceive in order to advance their
particular beliefs.”

Maloney’s bill is H.R. 5052. There is not a companion bill in the
Senate.


Counterfeit Pregnancy Centers? This bill is garbage! Can you imagine
the reaction if we were to create legislation forcing abortion
providers to label their places "Baby Killing shops?" I'm sure we all could
come up with some creative ones.

This was a production of Stop The
ACLU
Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list
and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board

3 Comments:

Blogger Iran Watch said...

I cannot disagree. The ACLU has always been selective in which causes it decides to support or fight against. I find it strange that in almost every instance, I'm always on the other side of the issue.

April 07, 2006  
Blogger kevin said...

exactly.

April 07, 2006  
Blogger American Crusader said...

I guess it's 3 for 3. I can't remember the last time I agreed with a position taken by the ACLU.

April 07, 2006  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home