Wait! We Support Free Speech? Nuts!


by Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst
Focus on the Family Action

The ACLU does an "about face" and quietly pulls support from bill banning "abortion counseling" advertising by pregnancy- resource centers.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in a major goof, has reversed course and pulled its public support for a bill introduced two weeks ago by New York Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Mahoney. The proposed law would prohibit "deceptive advertising" by organizations touting "abortion counseling" when they don't actually provide abortions.

Designed to make sure that women seeking abortions never accidentally walk into an office where they might get counseled about other alternatives, the bill was rolled out at a news conference on March 31 by Mahoney, with the support of Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office.

According to a report this week by the New York Sun, however, the ACLU has without fanfare pulled all references to the bill from its Web site. Apparently, some of its board members, after learning of the bill and the press conference, have expressed concern that the bill might violate the First Amendment.

Major faux pas! It seems that one of the ACLU's core missions of preserving a woman's "right to privacy" ran smack into the First Amendment's free-speech protections, another of its professed core missions.

Rather than admit that its agenda for radical social change in America contradicts its own mission statement on the First Amendment, the ACLU now says that it is merely taking a step back and reviewing the legislation to see whether it's constitutional. I'm guessing that we're seeing the ACLU dive for cover on this one.

In a culture war where "family planning," "reproductive freedom," "right to privacy" and "choice" are all euphemisms for abortion on demand, it's ironic that pro-aborts object to pregnancy-resource centers advertising "abortion counseling." The foolishness of abortionists and their advocates in framing the issue with family-friendly words and refusing to call an abortion an abortion has now painted them into a corner. And now the only way for them to keep the abortion mills humming is to enact legislation prohibiting pro-life counselors from using the "a" word altogether? The ACLU is smart to duck and run on this one.

There's a larger issue here than just the ACLU's internal missteps. In their rush to create a morals-free, Christian-free society, the ACLU and organizations like it intentionally turn the First Amendment on its head in favor of an Orwellian re- definition that would make the Founders' heads spin. To the ACLU, free speech and freedom of religion mean "tolerance" -- tolerance for everyone but Christians and their point of view, that is. Remember, this is the gang that forces schools to initiate gay "tolerance" codes and "mandatory diversity training" programs that prohibit Christian students from speaking out in favor of biblical standards of sexuality. And heaven (excuse me, I mean any-location-of-any-deity-or-non- deity- you-wish-to-ascribe-to-as-your-primary-belief-system) forbid that a local town council might wish to celebrate the religious foundations of our country by erecting a Ten Commandments monument or a Christmas crèche or even providing space for a private citizen to do the same. Not with our friends at the ACLU watching.

There are signs, finally, that the ACLU's anti-American, anti- Christian ideology will no longer be tolerated. First, we're getting to know the real ACLU. The socialist/communist ideologies of its founders plus the true agenda of that organization have been thoroughly exposed in such books as Alan Sears' and Craig Osten's The ACLU vs. America. It's an eye-opener.

Next, there are signs that the courts are getting fed up as well. Recently, the federal court of appeals for the 6th Circuit derided the ACLU in a challenge it raised to yet another Ten Commandments monument in Kentucky. "And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that . . . the government (is kept) out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person," the opinion sneered. The court also rejected the typical ACLU argument concerning the "wall of separation between church and state," calling it "tiresome" and not required by the First Amendment. How refreshing!

And then there's Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., who has introduced a bill in Congress (H.R. 2679: the "Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005") to amend the country's civil-rights litigation laws to take "establishment of religion" cases out of the class of cases eligible for the recovery of attorneys fees. For years, the specter of the ACLU receiving million-dollar awards from local school districts or city councils (funded with taxpayer dollars, of course) has made a demand letter from them hard to ignore. It's much easier (and cheaper) to give in to their demands than to fight. But the country's "David vs. Goliath" civil rights laws were never meant to compensate well- funded organizations like the ACLU with their hand-picked plaintiffs who are "offended" by a Ten Commandments display - - they were meant to compensate the lone, non-funded litigant whose civil rights were truly violated by government action. Hostettler's bill is a good idea.

Let's face it -- the ACLU's reign of terror needs to come to an end. The lip service it pays to the First Amendment only rarely gets in the way of its greater agenda to remold America in its own image. The fact that it caught itself this week in its own internal contradictions is just further evidence of that greater agenda and the need for Americans to stand up and put a halt to further ACLU bullying.