Posted on 02/28/2006 7:27:13 AM PST by conservatrice
Edited on 02/28/2006 8:38:19 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
And then to require the mother to provide for a decent and honorable burial of her child.
Thank you for your measured response..I mostly agree with you, but would just add this: those of us who repent this act wear our scarlet letters in our hearts, always. Blessings on you and all the little babies.
The AFL-CIO aren't stupid. If an abortion protest can fall under RICO, then a picket line surly will.
"...Actually, thius case had nothing to do with the 1994 FACE law and nothing to do with freedom of speech. This was a case that began before 1994, so NOW couldn't use the FACE Act, so they sued under RICO. RICO requires proof of certain "predicate acts" -- violations of certain federal criminal statutes. NOW claimed that the protestors were committing 'extortion.'"
RICO was invoked as yet another means to an end -- namely to have abortion clinics be granted protected status around which free speech cannot be exercised.
The fact that the unions and social activist groups became involved shows that they also were concerned that the legal precedent could possibly extrapolated to quash their non-violent means of demonstrating/putting pressure.
Threats, violence and property destruction -- covered under FACE and RICO -- were already illegal before either Acts were enacted. NOW and Planned Parenthood were attempting to devise an officially protected point of view on a certain issue of which dissent will not be tolerated.
I still maintain therefore that this is not so much an anti-abortion 'victory' but one of free speech and peaceable assembly.
Very good point. I have advocated, in the past, laws that prohibit protesting at funerals such as Fred Phelps does, but you're right - the precedent could be taken out of context to apply to other things. Darn.
At last!
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Now maybe some people I know can fight the fact that they lost everything.I hope they do because we were the first case.Congrats Joe.
Ping for later.
Yahoo news | "The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics..."They are not clinics.
Cordially,
That was not at issue before the Supreme Court, because the issue there was whether extortion took place. Harassment and even assault aren't "extortion" according to the law; extortion must be violence or a threat of violence in order to obtain property. The SCOTUS ruled that the "in order to obtain property" part had never been proven WRT any of the "predicate acts", hence RICO and the Hobbs Act could not apply.
However, NOW presented evidence of various kinds claiming that Joe Scheidler had committed violent acts. Some of it appeared to be blatantly perjured; in fact, one witness apparently bragged about how she had been paid off.
There was also the issue that one of the parties to the suit had already sued, and lost, in state court in Wisconsin. There's a principle of law called res judicata which states that a party can't retry a suit in federal court if they've already lost in state court. (IANAL, just a Joe Scheidler contributor, so I may not have all of this right.)
Actually they used the passage of FACE in 1994 as evidence that Congress did not consider RICO and the Hobbs Act to already prohibit the activities that FACE outlawed. IOW, they told NOW, "If RICO and Hobbs had done what you claim they did in 1986, there would have been nothing to be gained in passing FACE in 1994."
What I find interesting about this story is how quickly it was buried by the MSM. This was a unanimous decision and will be almost impossible for future courts to overrule.
Thanks. Much appreciate the informative and thoughtful reply.
FReepRegards,
BJN
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.