Supreme Court Rules For Abortion Protesters In Civil Disobedience Case (RICO)

Associated Press / SFGate ^

[RCW2001]

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for people who regularly block clinic doors.

The court's 8-0 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics.

[MrLeRoy]

every husband might be killed by their spouse prior to orgasm in order to prevent grave bodily harm from occuring.

False; in that case she has other options.

Every pregnant woman is walking around in fear that she will suffer grave bodily harm at any moment from her pregnancy.

Every doctor should counsel every woman that she should abort her baby in order to avoid grave bodily harm.

Pregnant women should be aware of the rigors of pregnancy, and their doctors should make sure they know.

[ohioWfan]

My son, Spleen, is now 21 years old and doing very well. :o)

(My other kids, Colon, Duodenum, and our baby, Appendix are thriving as well......and I love them all, even though those blasted organs kicked me before they became alive at birth.)

[ohioWfan]

I dunno.....I understood exactly what you were saying. I'd say you articulated it just fine!

[valleygal]

Can't restrict your rights to control your reproductive organs. No one can force you to have an abortion. this isn't China. But once your with baby there's someone else involved.

Same argument Robert Blake tried to use on his girlfriend..."You got pregnant on purpose!", blaming her for the whole thing, like he had no part in it.

If you want to contol your organs take precautions before or don't have sex. Being FREE doesn't mean FREE to KILL.

[VRWC_minion]

False; in that case she has other options

Using your criteria, any family member could justify protecting her from grave bodily injury by killing the husband before he impregnants her. It could make the wedding night kind of interesting.

Look, when you criteria is applied to real life it fails as being abusrd. Pregnancy is not an illness or an injury. No female would argue that ever.

[MrLeRoy]

Using your criteria, any family member could justify protecting her from grave bodily injury by killing the husband before he impregnants her.

False; they have other options.

[VRWC_minion]

Pregnant women should be aware of the rigors of pregnancy, and their doctors should make sure they know.

But that isn't enough if someone is in danger of grave bodily injury. In fact in many states, the Dr's insurance and state law would require the DR. to report these expected incidents of grave bodily injury to the police in order to protect the victim.

[VRWC_minion]

False; they have other options.

How can we be sure these "other" options are effective ? If I'm wearing a bullet proof vest I wouldn't be able to answer a threat of someone trying to shoot me ? If pregnancy is such a imminent danger of bodily injury surely I would be justified in killing a husband before he consumates his marriage.

[SpookBrat]

OMGosh!!!!!!!! You had me going there. ROFLMBO!!!!! I was thinking, "I didn't know your son's name was Spleen. Wow! What a weird name. Where have I been"?

You got me! Doh!

[Campion]

However, you may not impose your beliefs on others, especially when the majority does not share them.

All laws impose one group's beliefs -- those of the people writing the law -- on "others," specifically, potential lawbreakers. This argument of yours is nothing more than a case of special pleading, suggesting that it's somehow magically "wrong" to "impose" anti-abortion convictions through force of law, while it's okay to impose anti-theft, anti-rape, anti-treason, and anti-jaywalking convictions through force of law.

"When the majority does not share them" ... nobody has ever demonstrated that the majority of Americans favor abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy. In any case, Roe v. Wade pulled abortion law out of the purview of "what the majority" wants, and made it a function of "what the courts want".

Finally, even a law that reflects the will of the majority -- and there's no evidence that American abortion law does that -- is not necessarily just. If 51% of the population supported enslaving the other 49%, that would allow slavery, but it would not justify it.

[Campion]

My son, Spleen, is now 21 years old and doing very well.

We just named all our kids "Kidney" ... Left Kidney, Right Kidney, Extra Kidney, and Kidney IV. ;-)

[ohioWfan]

I certainly hope your last name isn't BEAN.

[ohioWfan]

hehe....

[valleygal]

unrestricted, unrestricted, unrestricted.....do some research. As of just a few years ago, according to polling data at least 66% of Americans believed abortion through 9 months of pregnacy was wrong. Most believe it should only be allowed in cases of rape and incest or endangerment to the mothers' life. We're talking middle America here, not the rabid NOW gang. Don't know how being against killing the innocent is a form of tyranny (but I'm sure you'll tell me).

I understand you more than you think. I was once pro-abortion (many moons ago). Even argued the position. I was really young and it was before I had my own kids.
Changed my mind when some friends gave me some information and I found out what abortion really is and what it does to women, including a dear family member who regrets her abortion to this day.

[Campion]

Certainly not! If it had been, we'd have named our kids Kidney, Pinto, Wax and Franken. ;-)

[SpookBrat]

This nation and many others around the world allow tyranny of the innocent, small and defenseless. Most of the time, it’s not a woman’s choice. She is pressured by a parent or the man in her life. She isn’t strong enough to say no. She only has a few weeks to make the decision. She is scared to death.

Actually, a person who believes in the right to life for all, can say Pro-Abortion supporters impose their beliefs on us. Have you any idea how hard abortion has and will continue to be on the economy? 40,000,000 deaths are 40,000,000 fewer tax payers to pay for the aging population. The social security system etc, will be put under a huge strain, even more so than it is. Not to mention, if our country doesn't have a change of heart and start having more respect for human life, OUR PARENTS will be in grave danger visiting the hospital in 20 years. It will be easier to kill them all off than to pay for their care.

There are some countries in Europe who are at 0% population growth. Imagine the economical strain in an area where Euthanasia is no big deal? Yikes!

AND....if you'll go read the Planned Parenthood Abortion feedback boards, you'll see MOST abortions are received by high school and college age girls who thank Planned Parenthood for "saving their life" (I give her about 5 years. Then it will really hit her, what she has done). Abortion doesn't solve anything. If abortion is supposed to solve a problem, why do we still need it? Easy access to abortion has caused more unwanted pregnancies.....and 40,000,000 tyrannical deaths.

You can make your argument that a woman has a right to decide if her child should live or die till you’re blue in the face. The fact is, it’s not about rights. It’s about terrified pregnant young girls who can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. I guarandarnteeya MOST of them regret their decision. If they didn’t have the choice to abort, they would have never gone through with it, life would have gone on and everything would have turned out just fine.

On and on I could go.......

[jwalsh07]

My daughters friend got pregnant in high school. Her parents, as enlightened as you are, insisted she abort the baby. The girl refused and they threw her out.

She moved in with us until she had her baby and eventually reconciled with her parents, graduated from high school and took her of her child. That was almost 16 years ago now and when I see that kid, I am ever more convinced that folks like you are wrong.