Tl/Dr: The ACLU will be asked to defend people that they disagree with. Heres what to do in that situation
1. Make sure the case has merit and is worth the time (no violence-with a pretty low bar no direct threats and no carrying weapons, is it winnable,is there an ally that can do a better job etc.)
2. Set up a meeting with the relevant internal group to make a battle plan (eg defend a Klan member, talk with civil rights department)
3. Give resources to conflicted department (eg use restitution from above to fund a civil rights campaign)
4. Inform everyone we disagree with what the client says, but we defend his right to say it.
This piece is terrible in its wanton pooicy metaphor mis-steps. It’s claiming that gun limits are equivalent to the government clamping down on free speech. The ACLU is taking the position that gun rights are actually limiting free speech, and I think they’re absolutely right.
Perhaps that white nationalists with guns are intimidating civil rights protestors?
It might be more accurate to specify “unbounded” gun rights, since your having a handgun in your home doesn’t affect anyone’s speech, but wearing a rifle to a political event may.
ACLU went so far left as to stop Iowa's medical board sanctions on doctors who perform cosmetic late term abortions. That disenfranchised several Libertarians who believed the law struck a balance between not criminalizing abortion and not allowing gratuitous late term abortions unless the mother had a health need for it.
There are no "cosmetic" abortions, and the ACLU is not in the position to "stop" anything; all they can do is file a brief with the court ... and I'm not aware of a case where they did that in re "gratuitous" late term abortions. Roe v. Wade explicitly gives the State permission to regulate or proscribe such abortions.
> Today women’s rights advocates filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court, requesting that the court block Iowa’s newest abortion law. That law would ban most abortions at around six weeks—before many women even know they’re pregnant. It would be the most restrictive abortion ban in the country.
> ... Unless blocked, the law would go into effect July 1. It would ban abortions as soon as any embryonic cardiac activity is detected, which usually happens at around six weeks.
> “This abortion ban is beyond extreme," said Rita Bettis, ACLU of Iowa Legal Director. " With it, Iowa politicians have tried to ban virtually all abortions for women in our state. In the 45 years since Roe, no federal or state court has upheld such a dangerous law.”
> This virtual ban is made even more harmful for women by the minimum 72-hour waiting period law that the Iowa Legislature passed last year. (That waiting period is currently blocked and awaiting decision from the Iowa Supreme Court.) If that 72-hour wait took effect and the six-week ban also took effect, even if a woman learned of a pregnancy very early, she would then be delayed by the mandatory wait period law—and then could no longer access abortion services.
If this is what you are talking about, then your definition of "late term" is "after around 6 weeks" and your definition of "had a health need for it", quoting from the ACLU:
> ...includes only “physical” conditions that are life-threatening or pose “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
> ... The law expressly does not allow a woman to access an abortion she needs because of “psychological conditions, emotional conditions, familial conditions, or the woman’s age” even though the health—and even the life—of some women is at risk for those very reasons.
> As just one example: some psychiatric medication is harmful during pregnancy, putting those women in the position of choosing to continue medically necessary mental health care and risking harm to a pregnancy, or go without the care they need.
The metrology/logistics of ultrasound is at issue. What is not at issue is using a conservative stethoscope standard while they figure out the ultrasound in court.
The law puts the health of the mother first and that includes mental health. The left is freaking because Libertarians worked with the Right to pass a bill that doesn't violate Roe.
> Compliance with the prerequisites of this section shall not apply to any of the following: a. An abortion performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. .. c. The performance of a medical procedure by a physician that in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment is designed to or intended to prevent the death or to preserve the life of the pregnant woman
as well as specific rejection of mental health issues as a basis for an abortion in the new text:
> Medical emergency” means a situation in which an abortion is performed to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy, but not including psychological conditions, emotional conditions, familial conditions, or the woman’s age.
This reduces the importance of the health of the mother, and specifically excludes mental heath - just like the ACLU link I gave says it does.
"The left is freaking out" because of the decades of successful efforts to chip away at abortion rights in the US, staring with Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
You would think a libertarian would support the mothers right to do whatever the fuck she wanted with her body and her health. When did libertarians begin to support restricting individual rights?
14 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 42.1 ms ] threadhttp://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACL...
It might be more accurate to specify “unbounded” gun rights, since your having a handgun in your home doesn’t affect anyone’s speech, but wearing a rifle to a political event may.
Care to share where this happened recently?
I'll add to it what the ACLU is doing in Iowa in support of abortion rights, from https://www.aclu-ia.org/en/news/aclu-planned-parenthood-emma... :
> Today women’s rights advocates filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court, requesting that the court block Iowa’s newest abortion law. That law would ban most abortions at around six weeks—before many women even know they’re pregnant. It would be the most restrictive abortion ban in the country.
> ... Unless blocked, the law would go into effect July 1. It would ban abortions as soon as any embryonic cardiac activity is detected, which usually happens at around six weeks.
> “This abortion ban is beyond extreme," said Rita Bettis, ACLU of Iowa Legal Director. " With it, Iowa politicians have tried to ban virtually all abortions for women in our state. In the 45 years since Roe, no federal or state court has upheld such a dangerous law.”
> This virtual ban is made even more harmful for women by the minimum 72-hour waiting period law that the Iowa Legislature passed last year. (That waiting period is currently blocked and awaiting decision from the Iowa Supreme Court.) If that 72-hour wait took effect and the six-week ban also took effect, even if a woman learned of a pregnancy very early, she would then be delayed by the mandatory wait period law—and then could no longer access abortion services.
If this is what you are talking about, then your definition of "late term" is "after around 6 weeks" and your definition of "had a health need for it", quoting from the ACLU:
> ...includes only “physical” conditions that are life-threatening or pose “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
> ... The law expressly does not allow a woman to access an abortion she needs because of “psychological conditions, emotional conditions, familial conditions, or the woman’s age” even though the health—and even the life—of some women is at risk for those very reasons.
> As just one example: some psychiatric medication is harmful during pregnancy, putting those women in the position of choosing to continue medically necessary mental health care and risking harm to a pregnancy, or go without the care they need.
The law puts the health of the mother first and that includes mental health. The left is freaking because Libertarians worked with the Right to pass a bill that doesn't violate Roe.
Regarding "the law put the health of the mother first" - prove it. Because my reading of the law says that you are 180° in the wrong.
Here's the change to the law: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=H-8...
Notice how the text removes these clauses:
> Compliance with the prerequisites of this section shall not apply to any of the following: a. An abortion performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. .. c. The performance of a medical procedure by a physician that in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment is designed to or intended to prevent the death or to preserve the life of the pregnant woman
as well as specific rejection of mental health issues as a basis for an abortion in the new text:
> Medical emergency” means a situation in which an abortion is performed to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy, but not including psychological conditions, emotional conditions, familial conditions, or the woman’s age.
This reduces the importance of the health of the mother, and specifically excludes mental heath - just like the ACLU link I gave says it does.
"The left is freaking out" because of the decades of successful efforts to chip away at abortion rights in the US, staring with Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.