ACLU: “Our Mission Is Undermined by Our Rigid Stance on Free Speech”

How are gun rights limiting free speech exactly?

"Reason" is a medium for ideological polemics. Sometimes they publish reasonable pieces, but not reliably.

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.

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.

I agree with jibal's reply - "cosmetic late term abortion" doesn't exist.

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.

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?