NRL News

ACLU challenges Two Pro-Life Alabama Laws

by | Jun 3, 2016

By Dave Andrusko

Alabama5dismembermentabortionsre“Civil liberties group challenges Alabama abortion restrictions” is the headline in the Reuters story written by Karen Brooks.

The “civil liberties group” is the ACLU, whose selective outrage and inconsistent mission to defend the powerless means it has no time for the most powerless of all, unborn babies.

The “abortion restrictions” are a series of laws passed this year by the Alabama legislature and signed into law by Gov. Robert Bentley.

Specifically, according to Brooks’ story

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged in federal court in Alabama on Thursday new state abortion restrictions that limit the proximity of clinics to public schools and ban a procedure used to terminate pregnancies in the second trimester.

We’ve addressed both laws, the latter in particular, on numerous times. Translated into English the ban on a “procedure used to terminate pregnancies in the second trimester” is a ban on dismemberment abortions.

Yes, dismemberment. A live, growing human being is torn apart and pulverized. Using steel tools, dismemberment abortions rip heads and legs off of tiny torsos as the defenseless child bleeds to death.

This is the bloody face of dismemberment abortion. Guess what? Not a word that even hints at the barbarism can be found in Brooks’ story.

What is this the proximity requirement Brooks alludes to?  SB 205, prohibits the issuing or renewals of a health center license to facilities where abortions are performed within 2,000 feet of K-8 public schools.

Pro-abortionists are annoyed because an abortion clinic in Huntsville and an abortion clinic in Tuscaloosa are both located within 2,000 feet of schools.

But it goes way beyond that. They are steaming mad because this sends an unmistakable message counter to their narrative: places that slaughter unborn children shouldn’t be anywhere near children.

Pro-abortionist instantly derided the law as placing on abortion clinics the same 2,000 foot restriction placed on registered sex offenders. Would they be less unhappy if the restriction were 1,000 feet from school zones–the distance unauthorized individuals are prohibited from knowingly possessing firearms?

Their 2,000 foot comparison is just a talking point which they think will divert people from pondering whether they want abortion clinics nearby their elementary-age children.

As I wrote last month, “We live less than 2,000 feet from the elementary school all of our four children attended. We would not have been the only one incensed if Planned Parenthood moved one of its killing factories a stone’s throw from where our children were schooled.”

Categories: Legislation