Court rejects suit against Arizona race, sex abortion ban


A small and surprising victory: the 9th circuit agrees: you don’t have standing to challenge a state law just because you find its implications potentially offensive. The state law in Arizona bans abortion which discriminates against the child on the basis of race or gender.

An appeals court panel on Tuesday refused to revive a lawsuit brought by two civil rights groups challenging Arizona’s law banning abortions based on the race or sex of the child.

The panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the NAACP’s Maricopa County branch and the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum lack standing to sue. The ruling upholds a judge’s 2013 decision dismissing the case filed by the groups.

The Arizona law makes it a felony to knowingly provide a sex- or race-based abortion.

An attorney with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office argued the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Scottsdale-based Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom has also been involved with the case, filing a brief supporting the law and representing bill sponsor Rep. Steve Montenegro.


Good news.


Good news, but I’m shocked that two groups that represent minorities would attempt to stop a law that bans abortions based on race (or gender).


I would say those groups no longer represent the interests of the groups they purport to protect, but are now beholden to a narrowly secular and “progressive” worldview.


Wouldn’t the race of the child always be the same as that of the parents?


How does that law even have any power? You just tell the doctor that you want an abortion for X, Y, or Z reason that doesn’t involve race or gender.


Because Planned Parenthood and the other abortion facilities would strictly screen patients and they would immediately be able to know when the clients are lying and would immediately take action to save the innocent child from an untimely death that did not accord with the law.



If the mother is white and the father is black the child will look predominantly.Black so the baby can have a different racial.classification than the mother, who may want to.abort because the baby’s race is different.


Well, I did go back and read the article. The example given was the high rate of abortion among blacks, in which case it would be truly bizarre how to enforce a law refusing to give abortion to blacks on account of their being black.

The Asian critic was insulted because certain Asian groups have a tendency to selectively abort girls, and since that is the case, the law against this has been deemed racist according to her.


I would.imagine is the high rate of abortion of.Black babies. Maybe the writing is just bad writing as the way I can see it being.enforced is a white.mother who is aborting a baby because of a different race.


From the article:

“The groups argued the law unconstitutionally targets Asian and black women based on stereotypes and sponsors’ beliefs that they may choose an abortion because of race or the baby’s sex”

The organizations believe the law will be disproportionately used against their groups based on stereotypes. Whether the intent of those sponsoring the law or not; I can see how these groups could be sensitive to such things based on history.


Good news


Yes, and it might also point out that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers target minorities for abortions in the way they locate their facilities. It is very much in keeping with PP founder Margaret Sanger’s view of preventing the birth of what she called human weeds.

The NAACP also submitted a brief against religious liberty in the Hosanna Tabor case. A local NAACP affiliate was actually the landlord for a PP facility in Wisconsin. I am not at all sure their membership would support those positions.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit