Court Rules for Abortion Protesters

[ShiningIce]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that federal racketeering and extortion laws were improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, lifting a nationwide injunction that barred people from interfering with clinic business.







The court's 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at abortion clinics.


Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that when protesters do not "obtain" property, they cannot be punished under federal extortion laws.


The court's ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and were barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years. The ruling ends that injunction.


Rehnquist said their protest activity did not qualify as extortion.


That outcome had been sought by activists like actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.


"This opinion is a green light to the people who have been orchestrating this violence behind the scenes to proceed full speed ahead," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women (news - web sites).


Scheidler said the ruling will probably draw new adherents to his cause, but is not likely to mean a new round of violent activism outside clinics.


"That's in the past," Scheidler said.


"Now we can go on protesting and counseling at the clinics, doing the things that we do. We'll have much more freedom," he said.


The ruling ends a case begun in 1986, when NOW and two abortion clinics in Wisconsin and Delaware went to court claiming racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from violent protests that drive away clients.


They accused the groups of blocking clinic entrances, menacing doctors, patients and clinic staff, and destroying equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit abortions. The demonstrators were ordered to pay about $258,000 in damages.


Rehnquist said there is no dispute that abortion protesters interfered with clinic operations and in some cases committed crimes.


"But even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of 'shutting down' a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion," he wrote.


The punishments were meted out under provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, and the Hobbs Act, a 1946 law aimed at crushing organized crime. The Hobbs Act makes it a crime to take property from another with force.


Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) filed the only dissent. He said the court was limiting the scope of the Hobbs Act and limiting protection of property owners in its "murky opinion."


The Supreme Court has previously said that the Hobbs Act should be read broadly, he said.





"The principal beneficiaries of the court's dramatic retreat from the position that federal prosecutors and federal courts have maintained throughout the history of this important statute will certainly be the class of professional criminals whose conduct persuaded Congress that the public needed federal protection from extortion," Stevens wrote.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) wrote separately to say that the court was "rightly reluctant" to extend the reach of the RICO law, which allows prosecutors and private groups to seek hefty penalties.

The issue dates back to the 1980s when large groups of anti-abortion demonstrators used aggressive tactics to disrupt clinics. In 1998, a jury in Illinois found demonstrators guilty of dozens of violations, including four acts involving physical violence or threats of violence.

The court did not address a related issue in the case over whether the racketeering law gives individuals the right to ask a federal judge to stop a disputed activity. The law is most often used by federal prosecutors to go after organized crime figures, alleged conspirators and other criminals.

The cases are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 01-1118, and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, 01-1119.

 

[TicklingDuo]

some thoughts from a pro-lifer

As a pro-lifer and as an American, I rejoice in this ruling.

The law WAS being used improperly. These groups are primarily individuals coming together to PEACEFULLY protest the killing of unborn children. We are not racketeers by any stretch of the immagination. The only place where laws are broken (by the group as a whole) are during rescues when we step onto the property itself. But, even this is done in a peaceful manner.

Lambs for Life, Operation Rescue, and other TRUE pro-life organizations do nothing to restrain women entering clinics (other than sitting in front of a door during a rescue). They also don't burn the clinics down or shoot anyone. I've been involved in several prayer vigils (90% of all pro-life activity) in front of clinics. We stayed out of the way of patients. We didn't shout obscenities. We didn't throw blood. We didn't do any of the crap that people throw as a blanket accusation at us. We simply prayed for those inside as we walked back and forth on the public sidewalk in front of the clinic.

It is a few bad apples (as there are in any group) who have done some of the things the media blows all over the place. We're just as horrified and infuriated as anyone else when we see those things happen. 99.9% of us are peaceful and want only to assist those who are open to our help.

I've taken part in pro-life prayer marches where we simply circled the block and prayed in silence. We did NOTHING else. Yet, we had people all the way shouting obscenities and throwing garbage and rocks at us...none of which we responded to in any way other than to sometimes use our signs as shields to protect ourselves. When the police stepped in to make arrests of those throwing things at us, we refused to press charges. None of that ever made any news.

I've taken part as prayer support in rescues where some of those in the group went up and sat at the entrance to the building with their arms locked together. They did nothing but sit there and pray. If a woman wanted to go in and was willing to climb over them, they were able to do so without any effort to restrain them. The only valid charge was trespassing on private property. Yet they were often charged with several other things as well.

It's the over-publicizing of the few horror stories out there that leads to a great increase in the anxiety of these women as they come past us. I'm sickened when I see a woman looking at us in terror expecting to be attacked. There's no reason for that fear.

I even had one woman hit me with her car as I hurried to clear the driveway of a clinic so she could pull in. There happened to be a police officer on duty that day (perhaps because a rescue was planned in the near future?). The officer saw that it was deliberate and asked me if I wanted to press charges for vehicular assault. I declined because I didn't want her distracted from what she was there for and thinking about what she was about to do. Besides, I thought, why arrest her for assault when you can't arrest her for murder?

Now, before I get any heated and hateful responses...

While I personally see abortion as murder, I truly believe that the vast majority of women going in for abortions don't see the fetus as a life. If they did, the vast majority wouldn't go. With "doctors" telling them that an abortion is like removing a tumor and likening it to something that's a danger to their well-being, what are they to think? With the news telling them that we're out there to hurt them, what are they to do? Believing that, I'm not surprised that woman hit me rather than first slowing down to let me clear the driveway. I'd might be likely to do that as well if I felt I was in danger.

I haven't taken part in a march since moving to CT...only because I have yet to see one down here. I was out there as often as possible back home. I went out there for a couple of reasons. I believe that life begins at conception and is sacred until natural death. I have friends who have gotten abortions and were miserable later when they realized what they'd done. I care about the women going in just as much as I care about their babies. Would I like to talk to them and convince them of the truth and ask them to let us help them find another option? You betcha! Am I going to force them to do so or get violent? Absolutely not! And neither are the vast majority of those out there with me.

Do I acknowledge that some of the criticism is deserved? Yes, I do. There are some (very few, thankfully) who go out there and start yelling and screaming and getting all crazy. Actually most of those I've personaally seen go overboard are women who have had abortions in the past. When that happens (at least in those things I've taken part in), we try to get them to setle down...and sometimes even ask that they leave. There are also the very sad cases of crazies infiltrating the ranks of the pro-life movement and then killing someone (proving them to not truly be pro-life) or doing property damage. That's not what we're about and we in no way support that kind of insanity.

Before I close, I want to make one thing clear. I believe, from a purely legal standpoint, that a woman has a right to do as she likes with her body. Get a piercing, get a tattoo, have sex...whatever. However, that right assumes that it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others...and hopefully that it be an informed decision. I believe that one day the law will recognize that an unborn child IS a life and is entitled to the right to life. That makes all the difference. Until then, pro-lifers will do what we do...because being legal doesn't make it right.

OK, I've said enough. I just wanted to share those thoughts.

Ann

 

[JoBelle]

Ann,
I applaud your post!

As a younger woman without a child, I was VERY Pro-Choice. Anything to the contrary was offensive to me and I felt infringed on my rights. A change in application of law like this most recent one would have had me screaming from the rooftops. How DARE anyone else think they have a right to make decisions about my body.

Then something happened. I had a baby. How simple was that? Motgher nature herself changed my mind. But the kicker wasn't that I just became a mother. The big part was that I became a mother to a child born more than 2 months premature. My child was born into a healthy & viable life state that according to some would not have been entitled to protecction under law had he died at the hands of someone else through my body. Abortions aren't performed on such late terms, but the fact remains that unborn children at ANY stage have no rights. How sad is that?

I think what I came to realize is that the argument so often posed toward dead beat dads should be applied toward women seeking abortion. You HAD a choice to not get pregnant. It's called "don't have sex." Once you make the choice to create a life, you lose the right to say your body is only your own. You've made an active choice via your behavior to host another life within it. It's then your responsibilty. Try defending the pilot of an airplane that intentionally maneuvered his plane such that everyone falls out to their death. He's just flying the plane. It's not his fault someone got on board.🙄 It's the born/unborn issue that makes the difference....and there are just far to many preemies (like mine)who have lived for me to accept the date of delivery as the beginning of life. Done now. Thanks for letting me rant a bit.

I think this law application change will make as huge of an impact as some think it will. I think it will do something far better. It will slow down the rush to abort. It will give people time to think. Frnakly, I think every abortion clinic ough to be next door to an adoption service. That would make ALOT of people feel better in the end.

Jo

 

[TicklingDuo]

Ann,
I applaud your post!

I think what I came to realize is that the argument so often posed toward dead beat dads should be applied toward women seeking abortion. You HAD a choice to not get pregnant. It's called "don't have sex." Once you make the choice to create a life, you lose the right to say your body is only your own. You've made an active choice via your behavior to host another life within it. It's then your responsibilty. Jo

Thanks Joby! I nearly didn't respond since I know that this is such a heated and emotional issue for people. I honestly believe that far fewer people would have a problem with us if they simply realized what it is taht we stand for and do as opposed to the garbage the media tends to exploit. Is the movement without sin? Nope. But, we're trying.

As for the argument you state, while I do agree, it's kinda difficult to tell someone else that. We've done a terrible disservice (in my view) to our youth. We tell them that they can and should say no to booze and drugs...or at least to drink responsibly. But, when it comes to sex, everyone has this idea that they'll suffocate without it....that they need it to survive. I think we should add a required course to all 9th grade students. That course would be on how to discern a want from a need...in the issue of sexuality and many others. We give them false information, when we give them any at all. And then, we wonder why they're so messed up. It's largely OUR fault!

Ann