Nedd Kareiva
April 23, 2006
Defining moments in ACLU history
By Nedd Kareiva

Words mean things, a former boss of mine used to tell me. Or do they?

If you're Bill Clinton, it's conditional. It could depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

And if you're the ACLU, words could mean anything. Read their press releases, listen to their lawyers and staff at the microphone and you would come away thinking that only they know the Constitution and good public policy for America. But you would also see how they make the evil, disgusting and gruesome to be palatable and innocuous.

When it comes to abortion, those of us who have been fighting to see it banned in America know the terms the pro-abortion crowd and their ACLU allies concocted decades ago to take the sting and stigma out of it. "Baby" was reduced to "fetus" to "product of conception." Killing an unborn child was reduced to "a woman's right to choose" or "a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor" or "a woman's right to privacy."

In March of 2004, lawsuits generated by the abortion industry and the ACLU in response to Congressional passage and President Bush's signature of a ban on partial birth abortion triggered what perhaps has been to date the most brutally fought cultural battle in America's courts. Incredibly graphic testimony erupted in New York, California and Nebraska where the cases were heard. Though this information needs to be read and digested to understand what abortion truly is, for the sake of readers perusing this piece, I will avoid the most of the gruesome details except for the one word indelibly was placed in the minds of pro-life activists forever.

That one word is "disarticulate."

Most educated people know the word "articulate" to mean speaking distinctly and intelligibly. However, some may not know that an alternate definition identifies it, per Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "to unite by means of a joint."

"Disarticulate" thus means "to disjoint." The word was used in all three court cases. The ACLU was counsel in the Nebraska case. To read more, click this link;=en≷=us&ct;=clnk&cd;=12 (warning: barbaric in description and of course, the act).

The term forever altered our cultural landscape. It is one seldom heard outside of this battle except perhaps in other medical circles. Whether the ACLU was responsible for introducing this term in the partial birth debate is open to conjecture but the fact the word was used in the testimony of Nebraska abortionists clearly ties the ACLU to it.

Thus the word "disarticulate" was a defining moment for the ACLU.

In debates over assisted suicide, the ACLU has innoculated the term by disguising it as "personal autonomy" and "bodily integrity" A more recent term has been "personal end of life decisions"

The fact the ACLU "hailed" this decision which was called "sweet" by the ACLU of Oregon's executive director is also noteworthy of its love affair with death which I wrote in an earlier piece

The ACLU's terminology is similar to that of groups like the Hemlock Society which was later named Compassion in Dying and then to Compassion and Choices.

You see, words mean things except to groups like the ACLU.

Perhaps this is a good time to order your book The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, managing editor at World Net Daily. He points out how groups like the ACLU have camouflaged evil as something to be desired and not shunned.

OK, wait til you finish reading this piece before going ordering your copy.

Another area where the ACLU paints smiley faces over evil is in its defense and promotion of homosexual issues, including same sex marriage and adoption. You'll never hear the ACLU point out the dangerous practices of homosexuals of which you can read the truth on web sites like

But like abortion and euthanasia, the ACLU pushes the envelope by coding terms such as "fairness" and "equality" into its promotion of homosexual rights.

You would think the ACLU hadn't read the Declaration of Independence in which it says "All men (and women) are created equal." Our Founding Fathers didn't single out homosexuals but the ACLU apparently reads into it that they did.

The ACLU is airing their 10 part series, the Freedom Files, on satellite TV. In an episode earlier this month, according to their web page, the ACLU highlighted several couples supposedly harmed by government discrimination against them in relationship to wills and adoption.

The facts are not in doubt here. The ACLU has chosen to go this route because it hasn't been successful in persuading the American public to adopt same sex marriage. Though the ACLU has won a few scant cases in liberal enclaves on the East & West Coasts, they have been decisively defeated at the ballot box when the people have spoken. Therefore, the ACLU wants to paint a pretty picture of same sex couples to recreate a new moral infrastructure.

Like the dangers of abortion and the barbaric means of effecting one, the ACLU glosses over the issue of homosexuality. They never acknowledged that those entering those relationships have chosen to do so and will never remind you that it's all about sex. They will never tell you that those couples in the Freedom Files may have had their physical (and perhaps emotional) pains because of their unnatural relationship. They will never tell you it's all about sex.

But the term homosexuality is all about one's sexual propensity for someone of the same sex.

Executive director, Anthony Romero, a practicing homosexual himself, cloaks these families as "concerned parents and loving partners." The abhorrent sexual practices historically classified as unnatural and which the likes of Romero perform are absent in the ACLU's platform.

So when the likes of the ACLU say it's not about sex but about loving relationsihps being denied, the reality is that it's all about sex.

You see, words mean something.

And there are other cases of the ACLU cloaking evil into good (or at least legit) such as making pornography, even child porn, all about the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech and free from censure. But there is one area the ACLU boldly yet absurdly believes is true and does not obfuscate. And that is in the area of sex education in schools.

Ah, another defining moment in ACLU history.

A recent decision by the Rhode Island Dept. of Education to halt a program from a group known as the Heritage of Rhode Island was as a result of the ACLU opposition to abstinence education in the public schools

The word "harmful" to describe sexual abstinence outside of marriage, as noted in the title at the top of the web page, plus the word "unsafe" near the bottom of the page has to leave one's head scratching.

The ACLU has also termed abstinence as dangerous as noted in the title of this web page The director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project (again, the cloaking of abortion as reproductive freedom), Louise Melling, says the teaching of abstinence puts the health and safety of students at risk. She also states when government abstinence programs do not teach on contraceptives, condoms and abortion, they are "censoring life saving information."

How come the ACLU can't camouflage the abstinence issue the way they do abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and pornography? At least they tell us the truth of what they believe but is there anything more absurd than saying that abstinence is dangerous and teaching on condoms and contraceptives is life saving?

Someone needs to give Ms. Melling the smelling salts. Or could they be the Melling Salts?

To any ACLU backers reading this article, I ask you this question: is this organization worthy of your support? Even if you support abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and euthanasia, I'm sure you would agree that, as Rush Limbaugh terms it, "abstinence works every time it's tried." Does an organization calling abstinence harmful deserve your money? An adolescent going thru puberty can figure this one out better than the ACLU.

The ACLU claims religion is part of abstinence teaching in public schools and must be banned. Well heck, atheist parents could send their children to a public school and urge abstinence be taught to their daughters to keep them from getting pregnant. You don't need to teach about God and the Bible to know the facts about the birds and the bees unless you believe the ACLU is wiser and the rest of us are lamebrains.

"Disarticulate" and "harmful and dangerous" abstinence programs, two of the more defining moments in ACLU history. And now it's time consign the ACLU to history.

Readers, you are dismissed. Now go order the aforementioned book, undoubtedly harmful and dangerous to your health.

© Nedd Kareiva


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Nedd Kareiva

Nedd Kareiva is the founder and director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition. He is a 45 year old man from Chicago... (more)

Latest articles


Joseph Pecar
Our Constitution and our country -- in the gravest danger ever?

Chuck Baldwin
Dates that destroyed America

Michael Bresciani
Are those who want a mosque at Ground Zero, Ameriphobes?

Judie Brown
Planned Parenthood: the biggest pig at the trough

Warner Todd Huston
Now Democrats want another $34 billion to bailout Teamsters pension

Matt C. Abbott
Wannabe a state executioner?

Ken Connor
Right v. rectitude

Dan Popp
Confused about Obama's faith? So is he
  More columns


Michael Ramirez


Draking Point

Pauley the Patriot

RSS feeds



Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Chuck Baldwin
J. Matt Barber
Michael M. Bates
Michael Boldin
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites