« FTC halts debt collection operations for threatening and deceiving consumers via texts | Main | Lauren Willis Article on the CFPB and Consumer Comprehension »

Friday, May 22, 2015


Paul Levy

Bomberger is of course entitled to his views about the NAACP and his claims about its positions on abortion, but what the trial court found (25 F. Supp.3d at 873-874) was the following:

The NAACP has no formal or official position or policy regarding abortion because such a position may create problems within its diverse membership and constituency, who embrace a wide range of views on the controversial issue of abortion.

Nothing in the Fourth Circuit's opinion appears to overturn that finding which was, of course, irrelevant under trademark law.


Dear Mr. Levy,

We typically don't comment on news articles about our organization, but wanted to just briefly respond to what is, otherwise, a decent examination of this free speech lawsuit. It's a shame that the same diligence with which you read through the documentation of the ruling wasn't applied to some of your comments. It's apparent we don't share the same political ideology as you but calling us "extremists" and "wing nuts" only shows your unjustified animus and deliberate unwillingness to simply look at the evidence. The NAACP, contrary to your false assertion (repeated numerous times by the rebuked lower court judge), did pass an official position on abortion. It's their 2004 Resolution erroneously entitled, "March for Life" (they couldn't even get that right as they were referring to what was billed as the pro-abortion "March Against Fear" then later rebranded as the "March for Women's Lives".) The NAACP already passed a pro-family planning Resolution (Res #47) back in 1967. Their 2004 Resolution clearly articulated their support for a "women's right to choose" abortion, hence their 2004 Press release declaring "NAACP Board Takes Historical Pro-Choice Position". What would be "historical" about passing a redundant resolution if it were only about contraception? It was why the Macon NAACP chapter tried desperately, several times, to pass a pro-life resolution but were rebuffed by the national NAACP. Following the passage of their pro-abortion 2004 resolution, the NAACP chairman was a featured speaker at the 2004 "March for Women's Lives"--the largest pro-abortion rally in DC--spearheaded by NOW, NARAL and Planned Parenthood in response to the passage of the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. So the NAACP's foray into abortion advocacy was over the most violent form of abortion. This is what compelled them to join other abortion groups to fight for the "right to choose" which Julian Bond called "as basic as sitting at a lunch counter" and boasted at a NARAL gala that same year "black women exercise that 'precious right' at rates that far exceed their percentage of the population." Praising an abortion rate that is 5 times higher than the majority population isn't reflective of an organization that HASN'T taken an official position on abortion.

The NAACP filed suit against the state of Arizona, during this lawsuit, because of its PRENDA (Pre-Natal Non-Discrimination Act) bill that outlaws gender-based and race-based abortions. Oh, but they've not taken any official position on abortion. They officially supported the radical expansion of abortion through NY Governor Cuomo's "Women's Equality Act" which would decriminalize abortion throughout the entire pregnancy, require no standards for abortion centers, and make it nearly impossible to sue abortionists for malpractice. NAACP national Board member, William Barber III (President of NC NAACP) won the Planned Parenthood "Care. No Matter What." award during this lawsuit. He was praised for his inclusion and advocacy of Planned Parenthood on behalf of the NAACP. But, of course, the NAACP has no official policy on abortion.

Planned Parenthood has been an annual sponsor of the NAACP's annual conventions, as evidenced by the NAACP's own website (until they removed it during the lawsuit) and Planned Parenthood's IRS Tax Returns showing payments to the NAACP. The former president of the NAACP was the keynote speaker at a GA Planned Parenthood fundraiser ($1000-a-Margaret-Sanger-Circle-Ticket) while we were being sued. Planned Parenthood executives have appeared and spoken at numerous NAACP-sponsored events. The NAACP has defended and fought against any effort to defund the Medicaid-defrauding Planned Parenthood. We didn't criticize them "because it does not sufficiently distance itself from Planned Parenthood’s provision of abortion services." We criticize them because they actively PARTNER with the nation's leading abortion chain.

It's why the moniker, National Association for the Abortion of Colored People, is so tragically accurate.

It is a wonder, though, that the NAACP has never pursued Rush Limbaugh who has parodied the organization's name since Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination, calling them the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People. So much for that quick-trigger finger reaction.

The only thing extreme here, Mr. Levy, is your willingness to ignore the clear evidence in order to assuage your point of view. The NAACP's actions were extreme, as they apparently forgot that free speech is a civil right. We're grateful that the 4th Circuit overturned the lower court's egregious attack on our First Amendment rights. And in this case, as with everything that we do, thorough research and irrefutable evidence was used to criticize those who don't believe that every human life is equal.

You're welcome to look at our documented evidence yourself instead of resorting to lazy pejoratives like "extremist" and "wing nuts":


Sincerely illuminating the truth,

Ryan Bomberger
Chief Creative Officer
The Radiance Foundation

The comments to this entry are closed.