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

Associated Press / SFGate ^

[SpookBrat]

So you're around?

You know me well enough by now to know I was sincere. For real? You don't believe me?

[SpookBrat]

Yes you are King of the World!

[Sir_Ed]

"If she did not want me and was forced to carry me to birth then that would probably have been worse than being aborted."

Hey, why don't you go ask your Mother if she wanted to carry you to full-term.

If she says "No, I didn't want you to be born," then I assume you will then kill yourself?

Ed

[Victoria Delsoul]

Excellent news. Praise the Lord, indeed.

[Sir_Ed]

" 'So I guess you think I have the right to pull out a gun and shoot them?'

"Yep. Especially that "wave the sign" schtick. I know people who got whacked upside the head by an oak sign stick and got severely injured"

You truly believe that you have the right to kill someone because they're screaming at you and waving a picket sign around?

How many protesters have you killed? None? So I guess you've never encountered any protesters that have yelled at you? Or you did, and instead of killing them you just broke their legs or something?

Ed

[Z in Oregon]

I have absolute, unreserved faith in you on every level.

And you're entertaining.

[skr]

Praise God!

[185JHP]

Severe inflammation of their connips, culminating in widespread conniptions.

[Z in Oregon]

Thank you. There was another good Supreme Court decision lately, upholding the most stringent "informed consent" laws.

It will still take a couple more new Supreme Court Justices to overturn Roe/Doe/Danforth/Webster/Casey/Carhardt.

Drop me a FReepmail, let me know what's up in the real world.

[SpookBrat]

I'm happy to see you here. I meant to ping you to this news. Ooops....glad you have better friends than me to remember to ping you. :) LOL

[Poohbah]

You truly believe that you have the right to kill someone because they're screaming at you and waving a picket sign around?

Yes. Threatening to strike me with a picket sign is threatening the application of deadly force. Once someone does that...well, they're the ones who opted to double down, not me.

How many protesters have you killed? None?

Exactly so.

So I guess you've never encountered any protesters that have yelled at you?

Yeah, I haven't. I've heard of these legendary violent psycho-case pro-abort protestors, but I haven't personally encountered them. I have witnessed an abortion protest that was obviously a pro-abort angry mob and a pro-life angry mob looking for an excuse to start a fight. My solution in that case was to not bother joining the protest. Wise decision on my part: the total number of arrests for THAT wigout was over 100, and the police had to mace one and all.

[SpookBrat]

No, you're entertaining. Read my new cartoon in my bio at the bottom. It's so cute. I love my kids and it reminded me of them.

Gotta go to bed now. Good night loyal, true friend o'mine on the west coast. Always good to see you.

[Enlightiator]

An honest, beautifully written response!

[CavScoutNC]

Now that Pro-Life has won, don't expect NOW to fold up their tent and go home. They are considering filing lawsuits under the Patriot Act! Another sign that liberals will do ANYTHING to force their beliefs on someone else.

[Frank_2001]

Open up the champagne! Humanity and decency 8, baby-killing lesbian freaks 0! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!:)

[homeschool mama]

**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.) **

FOFL! I must introduce Ovary to your dear organs, ohio. :o)

[Victoria Delsoul]

There you are.

Cheers!

[Valin]

I must share the pain. This is a three bagger from weds. Mpls Red Star.
'Super gag rule' / A counterproductive antiabortion ploy


Published Feb. 26, 2003

What's the surest way to stop abortions? Abstinence, maybe -- or contraception? For abortion foes, the answer seems to be a strategy called the gag rule. That oft-proposed trick is meant to keep state-funded clinics from offering or even mentioning this constitutionally guaranteed procedure. This year, abortion opponents are pushing the gag rule again. Their latest plan seeks to stuff so many socks into so many mouths that abortions will be harder than ever to get.

Proposed and put off every legislative session, the old-fangled gag rule sought to keep groups that perform abortions or make abortion referrals from receiving state family-planning money. The plan introduced last week goes further. Sponsored by Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, and Sen. Tom Neuville, R-Northfield, the "super gag" bill defines terms so broadly that money could conceivably be withheld from a wide variety of groups. State support could be yanked not just from the traditional family-planning targets, but also from almost any organization that favors abortion rights.

The measure would deny an array of state grants to any group that engages in "public advocacy" or files a legal challenge regarding abortion -- as well as to any organization that considers abortion "part of a continuum of family-planning services, reproductive health services, or both."

Never mind the irksome curtailment of free speech that this bill represents -- or the intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship it permits. What's truly worrisome about this measure is the damage it could inflict on a vast spectrum of social-service agencies.

As written, the plan could be interpreted to pertain to state-funded organizations that do a world of good for Minnesotans. Battered women's shelters could suffer, as could counseling centers, neighborhood health clinics and legal-aid projects. And there's no question that the restrictions would cause mayhem for Minnesota's family-planning network. Faced with the super gag rule, some family-planning clinics would likely close; others would simply forgo state grants and cut back on contraceptive services.

And then what will happen? It's not hard to guess. At present, subsidized family-planning services in Minnesota are thought to avert more than 20,000 unintended pregnancies each year. If the super gag rule passes, the sure upshot will be a rise in unwanted pregnancies -- and thus of abortions.

That's the last thing abortion foes -- indeed, all Minnesotans -- should be after. Lawmakers should shun this counterproductive plan.

[Clemenza]

Good news for a change!

[Clink]

I apologize if this has already been pointed out, but did anyone else see Dan Rather report this story?

He stated, and I paraphrase, "The Supreme Court today ruled in favor of those who oppose abortion AND A WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE, when they struck down the use of the RICO act for abortion protestors".

Unbelievable. Nah, he's not biased.