Many years ago, I had heard Catholics & other religious groups refer to the A C L U as the Anti Christ League Union. I have to admit that I didn’t know much about them, but after watching the news last night, I understand why I have heard people echo that sentiment, and I don’t want to know anything about them, or ever have anything to do with them for that matter. I live in Illinois, and Fox News Chicago was reporting about this bill that was just passed that states, if a girl is found in school by her teachers to be pregnant, the teachers & school have a right to take this girl to go get an abortion, without the parents consent and without the parents actually even knowing about it. A lawyer has temporarily stopped this bill and is challenging it, and He stated as much on the news last night. He calmly stated that He was “challenging this bill, because parents should have a right to know if their children are having abortions.” They then had a camera shot of a woman who was a representative for the A C L U, and she was going off & practically foaming at the mouth about how, " This is a bill, this is legal, we can’t be challenging the Constitution, blah blah blah.", I think that you get the point." What the hell is wrong with these people? any comments? I’m guessing that these people are big Obama backers. would I be wrong in thinking that?
The American Civil Liberties Union. Supposedly they protect our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. I’m just across the lake, go SOX! But hey, why are you watching that “report the hype” station FOX News Chicago?
I just asked another forums member to help me find this thing that I saw last night. I’m not real good at cutting & posting other things. (need my wifes help for that.) I’m only good at looking at a website and writing it down here as I see it. I believe that I saw it on Fox News Chicago last night. It was a 9:00 pm newscast and we only have two of them in Illinois, either Fox, or WGN News at nine. It was on in the background, and I was actually on my way to bed when I saw it. If anyone else can help me find this, I would greatly appreciate the help.
This may be what you are looking for…
If so, ask the Moderators if they can change the title of your thread so it matches the title of the news article.
I found it!!! If anyone has the computer smarts to cut & paste it, I would be in debt to you. If you do a google search with these words - fox news at 9 chicago
You will then find a video which is headlined - Judge Lifts Abortion Notification Order
I think that its fair to say that the ACLU is an organization determined to eradicate any moral
standards that might be left in this country.
Thank you, that is exactly what I was looking for. Why would the ACLU have a problem with this becoming law? shouldn’t a parent be notified if their child is being taken for an abortion? this is kind of apocalyptic don’t you think?
If that was your thought process before, this will just confirm you in your thinking when you watch this. I couldn’t believe that I was actually hearing someone arguing for the right of teachers to not have to notify parents, if their child is being taken for an abortion, UNBELIEVABLE!!! Are these people huge Obama supporters? Please tell me that there are no Catholics involved with this operation. ACLU ANTI CHRIST LAWYERS UNION
The ACLU is a socialist organization that is dedicated to using the laws of the US to turn it into a Marxist nation. Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU in 1920 along with three other organizations dedicated to the most leftist of causes.
Baldwin wrote this on why he founded the ACLU:
I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
Eastman had many leftist friends and associates; she also held the highest regard for Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. According to Eastman, “We [feminists] must all be followers of Margaret Sanger.”
Baldwin also was a great admirer of the Planned Parenthood founder. He heaped praise on Sanger: “She was a frail, beautiful, unassuming woman … She always had a quiet insistence on the rightness of what she was doing.”
The ACLU founder’s adoration of Sanger continues to this day concerning the issue of abortion. The ACLU fights for the most extreme of pro-abortion positions, including support for partial-birth abortion and opposition to parental consent for minors.
This dovetails into the communist goal of breaking up the traditional family unit with the state taking over most of the parental roles, of which the public school system would be the primary caregiver.
I’m not really sure, but the Chicago Tribune does provide a small amount of insight:
On Monday, Riley acknowledged that ACLU lawyers presented “compelling evidence that parental notification of abortions for minors will often expose minors seeking an abortion to increased risks and anxieties.”
Colleen Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois, said Riley “clearly left open the opportunity for a more refined challenge.” Connell said the ACLU would explore legal options, including filing an appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court.
“This law is highly intrusive and very dangerous,” Connell said. “Most young women tell their parents. Those who don’t have good reason.”
And here is a part of ACLU of Illinois statement, posted on their website:
…We filed this lawsuit on behalf of medical providers and their teen patients because we believe that the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act violates state constitutional guarantees of privacy, equal protection, and due process of law.
We went back to court today to receive the Judge’s ruling on the state’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, which would dispose of our lawsuit without an evidentiary trial. Lamenting that the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act was an unfortunate law that would harm teens at risk of abuse, Judge Riley nonetheless granted State’s motion. Judge Riley recognized that the Illinois Constitution, like its federal counterpart, protects the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy but that the Illinois right of reproductive autonomy was not broader than the federal right. The judge went on to conclude that under Illinois decisional law, plaintiffs mounting a pre-enforcement facial challenge to a state law must show that the law would be unconstitutional in every application. Given the fact that some teens would not be harmed by the Parental Notice law, plaintiffs’ facial challenge could not go forward and he would grant defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Lame excuse by the Anti Christ Lawyers union, and bunker mentality at best.
Thank you for sharing this info, I didn’t have any idea. I’m guessing that these people are big Obama supporters. Would I be correct in assuming that? I think that I already know the answer.
If the ACLU, in this case, could not demonstrate that all teens would be harmed by the Parental Notice law, although they apparently did demonstrate that some teens would be caused increased anxiety and possible physical abuse, were the defendants required to show that the Parental Notice law includes adequate protections for teens that could be harmed?
Obviously this case is about abortion and people are naturally upset about this, but what about the next time when the case isn’t about abortion and the teen is required to notify their parents about a medical issue they’d rather not inform their parents on – such as something like mental health treatment or substance abuse. Then it might not seem so clear cut or black and white.
I don’t think they’ve even demonstrated that “some” teens might be harmed by this law.
Given the fact that physical abuse is illegal and the parents are legally responsible for the health, care and well being of their children not informing them of a dangerous medical procedure seems idiotic. A child can’t even take gym class without parental approval. A minor isn’t even considered “mature” enough have an unrestricted driving license until age 18 (in Illinois), yet a major medical and social decision is being designed to specifically exclude their parents?
The ACLU has taken some nutty stands and did convince the Catholic judge in Chicago yesterday to stay his order so a challenge to the law could be filed.
As to being against moral standards the ACLU:
*Defended the Bridgeport diocese against the state’s attempt to make it register as a lobbyist. The bishop praised it.
*Defended a Catholic parolee who refused to go to ordered counseling because the counselors tried to covert him to Protestantism.
*Won the landmark case of Loving v. Virgina which struck down laws against interracial marriages.
That’s the hard part with civil liberties – they’re for everyone.
Doesn’t a girl have to have parental permission to get her ears pierced if she is a minor? But no parental permission is needed to kill a baby? Where is the logical argument in this? Does anyone know if these people are huge Obama supporters? Like I stated before, I think I’m asking a question that I already know the answer to.
I know the Bridgeport diocese did not employ the ACLU - they hired their own lawyers.
Laws which allow teens to obtain abortion without a parent’s knowledge or consent are just crazy. Not only are they dangerous to school kids, they entirely undermine parent’s ability and responsibility for raising their children. If a child dies in a botched abortion, can the parent sue the school, the principal, the school-based clinic, the counselor? All of the above, I would hope. [Of course, in any abortion, at least one child dies.]
I think the premise underlying such laws must be the desire to entirely prevent parents form knowing about, monitoring, or controlling, any aspect of their child’s sexual activity. That goal in itself is a grave abandonment of parental responsibility.
Amen and well said!!!