Bush Administration Helps NOW against Joe Scheidler

You'll find this hard to believe, I think you'll be shocked. Indeed, I can hardly believe it myself.

The abortionists' lawyers have apparently persuaded the Bush Administration to argue against us in the oral argument scheduled for December 4th in our Scheidler vs. NOW appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Yes, incredible as it sounds, the Bush Administration will take the abortionists' side on the key issue before our highest Court: whether a peaceful sit-in may be prosecuted as the federal felony crime of extortion or made the basis of a civil RICO suit for triple damages. It seems that lawyers for the Bush Administration have been taken in by the abortionists' lies and the relentless media smear campaign against Joe Scheidler and pro-life activism. They'll argue, alongside the abortion-lawyers, that Joe is an extortionist and a racketeer! This is beyond incredible. It's preposterous.

But that's not all. The Bush Administration hand-picked its biggest gun to argue against us: the US Solicitor General himself, Ted Olson. He's the lawyer who argued Bush's appeal to the US Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore - the case that decided the presidential election amidst the flap about "butterfly" ballots and dimpled and hanging "chads" in Florida. Ted Olson is the strongest lawyer the Bush Administration could put up against us.

President Bush has been a friend to the pro-life movement. So why on earth would the Bush Administration bring out their biggest gun to take the side of the abortionists in their wicked and unjust lawsuit against innocent pro-life activists?

One of our friends wrote a letter to the White House asking about the decision to take the abortionists' side in this lawsuit. President Bush's senior political advisor Karl Rove replied. He said that President Bush remains completely committed to the pro-life cause. But be added, "The Department of Justice's position reflects law enforcement's prior ties that extend beyond the facts of this case. The Department’s arguments, for example, are an important tool in its efforts to fight organized crime." The war against terrorism following the 9-11 attacks may also be a factor.

Yet an innocent pro-life leader, my husband Joe, is in danger of being ruined by the very law that was passed to stop Mafia kingpins like John Gotti.

The abortionists are suing Joe and two other peaceful activists - Andy Scholberg and Tim Murphy -- under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Even the author of the RICO, Professor Robert Blakey of Notre Dame University Law School, has argued forcefully that RICO wasn't meant to apply to peaceful pro-life activists such as Joe.

Why doesn't the Bush Administration see the injustice of this? Rove, speaking for the Bush Administration, reveals the reason when he explains that the government's arguments "apply only to individuals and groups who use or threaten violence, and so would not affect peaceful protesters."

This proves that even the Bush Administration has been influenced by the abortionists' lies and smears about Joe and other peaceful pro-life activists. The abortionists' lawsuit is monstrous and unjust. Their strategy is simple: throw as much mud against the wall as possible and hope that some of it sticks.

You see, during the grueling 8-week trial the abortionists' “proof” of all the alleged violence by pro-lifers was sparse. Concerning Joe and the other pro-life defendants, such “proof” was non-existent. And as World magazine just concluded upon its own independent investigation (Oct. 5, 2002 issue, "Perjury?"), the little “proof” of actual physical violence by protesters that was introduced at trial was contrived, embellished, or falsified!

Besides, even after hearing all these falsehoods the jurors found only four acts or threats of physical violence by unidentified protesters over some 16 years of nationwide abortion protests! All the other "crimes" for which the defendants were found guilty were peaceful sit-ins. These sit-ins were ruled "extortionate" by the lower courts, even though Congress defined the crime of “extortion” as “obtaining property” by wrongful use of “force, violence, or fear.”

But Joe and the other defendants never resorted to any "violence," The only "force" they invoked was the "force" of conscience. What "fear" they provoked was the "fear" of facing the truth -- the awful truth that abortion is murder.

As America's #1 pro-life activist, Joe has always been committed to peaceful, non-violent methods:

·In the 1960s Joe marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the struggle for civil rights. It was Dr. King's peaceful sit-ins at segregated lunch counters that inspired Joe to support and sometimes participate in peaceful sit-ins in front of abortion mills.

·Joe has led countless demonstrations, sidewalk counseling efforts, and prayer vigils at the abortion mills. All of them were peaceful.

·Joe's book Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion includes a chapter entitled "Violence: Why It Won't Work." Joe opposes violence, period.

You see, the injustice of this RICO lawsuit is that Joe and the other pro-life defendants are being held accountable for the alleged misdeeds of others. This is un-American. I say "alleged" because many of the incidents described at the trial by NOW’s witnesses never happened at all.

It's a fact that the abortionists are bent on stopping Joe. That's because he's so effective, and his effectiveness threatens their livelihood. Joe's 99 ways to stop abortion have closed scores of abortion mills and have converted dozens of abortionists to the pro-life cause.

This RICO lawsuit is an absolute nightmare. It's complex. And it requires an enormous effort to mount a strong defense.

Novelist lawyer Scott Turow opposes the death penalty--except for unborn babies.

In my last letter I only had the time and space to tell you about a few of the abortionists' allies who submitted Friend of the Court briefs. Virtually all of them repeated Fay Clayton's lie that the pro-life petitioners are violent:

·Eighteen organizations signed the brief filed by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), including sitcom mogul Norman Lear's People for the American Way, "Rev." Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and famous lawyer Morris Dees' Southern Poverty Law Center.

·The brief by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law echoed Fay's lie that the pro-life petitioners are violent. This hypocritical organization claims that its mission is "to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law." But apparently that doesn't include equal justice for unborn children.

·The so-called Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice filed a brief stating that each pregnant mother must be free to kill her own baby at any time for any reason. Nine different "religious" pro-abortion organizations signed this sickening brief, including at least one group that appears to be completely bogus: the "Lutheran Women's Caucus," which has no known address, no website, and no known leader or contact person.

·Nine states (CA, NY, CT, MD, MA, MT, NV, WA, WV) signed a brief supporting the abortion industry.

·Motorola submitted a brief supporting the abortionists' injunction against pro-life activists.

·Former Federal Prosecutors, including Chicago's novelist-lawyer Scott Turow, Dan Webb, the lawyer who bragged about "grilling" President Reagan about the Iran-Contra affair, and Women in Federal Law Enforcement filed a brief showing their support of the abortionists. It's not surprising that Turow would take the abortionists' side, since his father reportedly ran an abortion mill for years. Turow recently wrote a book against capital punishment. He opposes the execution of those who've been found guilty, but he favors the killing of unborn babies.

·Abortion nurse Emily Lyons, who had been injured in a Birmingham clinic bombing, weighed in with a brief siding with the abortionists, even though the lower courts threw out NOW’s pathetic early effort to tie Joe and the other defendants to any such violence as "strained" and wholly unsupported by any evidence.

·Planned Parenthood and 6 other organizations filed a brief in which they moaned and groaned about the decreasing number of abortion mills and abortionists.

The Planned Parenthood brief was the most revealing of all. They blame Joe Scheidler for the drop in abortion mills and abortionists. They complain that it's hard to get a physician to performing abortions.

According to Planned Parenthood's brief, abortionist Susan Wicklund had to fly all the way from Wisconsin to Fargo, North Dakota, because Fargo is "a very remote area. It's the only clinic in North Dakota, and they were having a real hard time finding physicians to keep it open."

Well, that's just too darned bad. Maybe the reason Planned Parenthood can't dig up a North Dakota physician to kill unborn children is because nobody wants to be known as the “town abortionist.”

Joe's 99 ways to stop abortion are working, and the abortionists know it. That's why they're bent on ruining him and making "an example" of him to scare other protesters into silence.

You can't deny the powerful forces are lined up against us in our defense of Joe and the other pro-life defendants. But you can also be sure that the abortionists are worried that we'll win our appeal.

The abortionists have heavy-hitting lawyers on their side, but our lead attorney Tom Brejcha has assembled a first-class team of attorneys who specialize in appeals to the US Supreme Court. Our team of dedicated attorneys is ready, willing, and able to win. The only obstacle is shortness of money. It takes a significant amount of money to mount a successful appeal to the US Supreme Court in such a complex case as this.

Earlier I told you about all of the briefs filed by pro-abortion "Friends of the Court" in support of NOW’s and the abortionists' lawsuit. Each brief cites many dozens of cases, and our attorneys need to research and master each case in depth prepared for the oral argument on December 4th. This kind of exhaustive legal research as well as rehearsals for oral argument is very, very expensive and time-consuming.

I’m afraid to open the envelope we'll soon get containing the bill for all of this research and preparation. This legal ball is going to be a whopper, even though our outside attorneys are working at reduced rates and are trying hard to keep our costs down. They understand that we can't afford a pro-abortion victory. We must do whatever is necessary to win this vital case.

If we lose, the abortionists would take the home in which Joe and I raised our 7 children. But far worse it would cost thousands of unborn babies their lives and saddle the pro-life movement with a crippling nationwide injunction. It would also cast the dark shadow of contempt citations, extortion prosecutions, and yet more triple damage RICO suits over all future abortion protests.

That's why the abortionists are so committed to winning this case. Their lawyers can spend as much money as they want. They enjoy the support of pro-abortion millionaires and cash-rich foundations. Their budget is literally without limits.

Here at the Thomas More Society, Pro-Life Law Center, we're as just as committed to winning this case as the abortionists. But we don't have unlimited millions of dollars to draw upon. We must depend on the generosity and prayers of people like you. We're mounting a strong appeal for a fraction of what the abortion lawyers are spending.

Remember, oral argument before the US Supreme Court will take place on December 4th. Please pray for our team of attorneys as they prepare for this all-important confrontation. Pray for justice.

And please consider sending a sacrificial gift if you possibly can. The expenses are mounting, and we've fallen behind in paying our attorneys. They're working at a reduced rate, and they've done lots of work "off the clock." They need and deserve to be paid for their sterling legal research, which is so necessary for victory. We can't afford to have them cut back because of non-payment -- especially at this crucial time.

I don't know how much. to ask you for, but our needs are great. Please send whatever is a sacrifice to you. Make your check payable to the Thomas More Society. Please pray for victory. Your gift will help our attorneys whip the abortion lawyers in the Scheidler v. NOW lawsuit. Your gift will also enable us to continue helping other innocent pro-lifers in our their cases.

Ann Scheidler
Director and Treasurer
Thomas More Society, Pro-Life Law Center
http://www.thomasmore.org/index.cfm?location=9

The surest way for Bush to alienate moderate voters is to jump into the anti abortionist fray.
It would play right into the hands of the left, and would certainly cause Bush to lose in 04. Until more conservatives are placed onto the supreme court, any talk of overturning Roe v Wade prematurely, will seal the fate of pro lifers before the battle has even begun. That's what the left hopes for, and should be avoided at all costs. Our destiny has yet to gather the strength it will one day wield, patience and understanding is now our biggest ally. The day will come for this debate, but not until after the next presidential election.

I think this may be true. Ashcroft has tended to follow Reno's line on life issues, even though as a senator he was pro-life. The confirmation struggle seems to have had a very bad effect on him.

I also think that Karl Rove is insufficiently aware of how important the pro-life vote is, and how easy it would be to throw it away. It goes in cycles, but if pro-lifers, who played a huge part in the last election, are disappointed again, it will be very damaging to Bush in 2004.

I don't think Bush has played any part in this. He has been a better friend to pro-lifers than most presidents, arguably better than his father, although in fact Bush senior stuck by the antiabortion plank pretty firmly despite his apparent inability to explain why he was doing so.

It seems to me that Rove is the key. I hope he takes a closer look at the mess he made in New Jersey and California and reconsiders the advisability of betraying the pro-life cause. I don't fault him for supporting Pataki, for instance, because there was no plausible alternative. But he most certainly shouldn't have cut the ground out from under Simon the way he did.

Nor does this line of argument make any sense. If the pro-aborts and the clintonoid judges continue to abuse the RICO laws, sooner or later this useful prosecutorial tool is going to collapse under the weight of injustice and pressure will grow for repeal.

Scotus has refused to hear the appeal that this activity is protected by the first amendment.

Thet will hear the appeal on two items:

Are the clinics and their clients entitled to injunctive relief? Can they stop the protest before it happens? Or must they wait until after and seek damages.

Even though the defendents activity is considered religious, if they cause an financial loss to the clinic, do they have to pay. I don't think this includes a financial loss caused by turning public opinion, but if their activity prevents clients from entering, the clinic will soon go out of business. And it is a class action suit so any award will be enormous.

The surest way for Bush to alienate moderate voters is to jump into the anti abortionist fray.

Bush didn't need to take any action much less committing Justice to support the abortionists. He should have just walked away. Hillary must have told him to do this.

I don't think this includes a financial loss caused by turning public opinion, but if their activity prevents clients from entering, the clinic will soon go out of business.

Oho, don't put it past them..look at how the politicals are going after talk radio, now!

In any case, the FACE (Free Access to Clinic Entrance) Act took care of that. Pro-life demonstrators have to be, by law, x amount of yards away from a clinic (I forgot the exact number), so as it is, we physically cannot prevent clients from entering without breaking the law. A peaceful sit-in down the street from a clinic is not blocking entrance.

This is a hassle/harassment suit, plain and simple.

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.