This is an excerpt from my latest email from the NYCLU:
In April, the Supreme Court showed a frightening disregard for a woman's right to make private reproductive health care decisions when it upheld a federal ban on abortion methods. This decision was a profound setback - not just for women, but for all Americans who believe medical decisions should be made by patients and their doctors, not by politicians. This defeat endangers women and undermines one of the core principles of Roe v. Wade - that women's health is always paramount.
Is there no consideration for the life that the man and woman create? The Supreme Court seems to think there is some. The question is how much can women and men restrict the procreation of humans. It's an age-old question, but it still lingers as a theme in the public/political debate.
The "women's health" argument is a canard. If a woman could abort a pregnancy for "health risks," EVERY child could justifiably be terminated. Having a baby causes a health risk, period. So what's the real reason behind this charade?
The NYCLU sees this as an issue of women's rights; of "privacy" of a woman's "decision." They don't consider the rights of the father, or the child whose life is taken. They propound a feminist ideology that I find repugnant, and worthy of the term that Rush coined, "feminazis."
Did anyone notice that the NYCLU's press release said the Supreme Court "upheld a federal ban on abortion methods?" Why were no specifics given in their statement, regarding the proscribed "methods?" Because the methods we're talking about are clearly inhumane, both in theory and practice.
The NYCLU doesn't care about the rights of the least among us. They prefer to cater to the political struggle of women's rights, over all others. They are sorely misguided in this endeavor.
There are many other factors in this debate, and I am pro-choice, to a certain degree (less than 3 months, with other factors mitigating that time frame). Morally, I may be a hypocrite, but as a person, this is how I feel about this issue. If I was a woman, I don't think it would be my right to kill a child growing inside of me. As a man, I know I would go to jail if I tried to kill a child of mine, inside a woman's belly.
Finally, does Roe V. Wade say that the woman's health is paramount? Or is the NYCLU up to their old "spin" on this one? If so, then I say "nice try, but no cigar." They got a response from my heart, and it finds them lacking on the "civil rights" issue. But they profess to protect "civil liberties," not "civil rights," so maybe I'm wrong about their goals, anyway. Perhaps a woman's liberty overrides a child's rights, in their view.