ACLU Sues Seven Small Texas Towns
Small Texas towns have stirred up trouble for themselves with the civil-rights giant, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). After more than twelve cities have voted to become what are known as “sanctuary cities for the unborn,” the ACLU has responded to seven of them with a lawsuit.
The suit brings charges against the cities claiming citizens would be mislead by these recent decisions and cites a violation of the First Amendment. The ACLU, which has historically defended important civil rights cases like Brown v. Board of Education, is now known to many for being a strong-arm for left-wing causes.
The plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit are two abortion-advocacy groups, the Texas Equal Access Fund (TEA) and The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity. Their names alone reveal the charged political nature of the groups’ missions: simply funding women seeking abortions.
TEA’s mission states that it targets low-income communities of North Texas and aims to open abortion access. The Lilith Fund states that its mission is to open avenues of support for those that “need abortions” in Texas. Both statements mention “reproductive justice.”
The first complaint is that the ordinance, claim the plaintiffs, confuses citizens as to the legality of abortion. Second, the suit states that the ordinance criminalizes pro-choice organizations like the Lilith Fund and Planned Parenthood, “without ever having been charged with a crime” (although suits against Planned Parenthood had been filed in the past). In total, seven complaints are listed in the suit. Included in these is the claim that the ordinances create an inability to educate nearby residents on their rights, as well as that claim that the ordinances pose a first-amendment violation against a certain viewpoint. Also, it lists that the ordinances are discriminatory and unconstitutional.
While the organizations haven’t been officially labeled “criminal,” the consistent view among pro-life individuals is that these organizations operate by promoting and committing murder. The pro-life perspective holds that the law under Roe v. Wade is unjust and has not caught up to clear and present, scientific truth in labeling abortion “murder.”
Furthermore, there is something to be said about how the plaintiffs view those seeking abortions. The conclusion can easily be drawn that the organizations can not trust small-town residents to be educated on their own laws, or responsible for their own actions. It assumes a level of ignorance or intelligence incapable of understanding average statements and basic laws that the citizens themselves lobbied to pass. It seems as though organizations like these operate by preying on those they perceive to be uneducated, victimized, intersectional, low-income, or altogether easily influenced—evident again by their mission statements.
It’s worth noting that the lawsuit targets seven of the smallest cities that have adopted the notorious abortion-outlawing ordinance. The city the ACLU has not attempted to oppose is the largest, Big Spring, whose population is around 30,000. The question must be asked as to what the strategy is in regard to the cities chosen for the suit. Is it the cities that the ACLU feels are most apt to abandon their decision because of their size and lack of financial resources? Do they surmise that these cities are the most vulnerable to attack and that they will be the first to roll over?
A strategy that might be examined in the ACLU’s selection of cities is their proximity to the closest abortion clinic that serves the residents of the tri-state region, Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, Louisiana. The clinic, many believe, is under attack due to Louisiana’s May 2019 legislation that bans abortions after a child’s heartbeat is detected.
All in all, it’s not difficult to conclude the lawsuits are borne out of a desire to promote abortion for its own sake and ensure its continuity. In a partisan way, these pro-choice organizations have launched an attack on small-town citizens that want to keep facilities they view as heinous out of their communities.
Let these organizations and the ACLU be reminded that what they oppose is the result of a legal, democratic process in rural, grassroots towns instead of divisive, controversial decrees handed down by unelected bureaucrats sitting in our highest courts.
