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.

[Happygal]

It wasn't 'sick and twisted'...at least, I read it and wasn't grossly offended or anything.

Don't misconstrue either.

[P-Marlowe]

It wasn't 'sick and twisted'...at least, I read it and wasn't grossly offended or anything. Don't misconstrue either.

You were not grossly offended or anything because it wasn't directed to you, it was directed to me.

Now pretend I'm saying this to you: " I wonder though - in your sick little world, will you smile and congratulate a woman who has been raped if she turns up pregnant?

Would that offend you? Or would you have no problem with a a statement like that?

I only wish that CP's statement had survived the thread. I would really have liked people to see what it was that he said and how twisted his little pissant brain is. It really shows how low some people are.

Its just too bad nobody will read it now that its been pulled.

Bummer.

[Notwithstanding]

They will need friends to help them because some day their "choice" will cathc up with them and it will hit them hard.

Why would you NEVER have an abortion?

Why would you EVER let a friend go make that choice with out fighting liek crazy to change their minds?

[Happygal]

Why would you EVER let a friend go make that choice with out fighting liek crazy to change their minds?

I wasn't told beforehand.
I went through a moral dilemma after being told. I decided I wouldn't turn my back on a friend who needed a friend afterwards.

Anyone who has a problem with that, I'll direct them to the Bible.

[Happygal]

If it was a mis-truth I would refute it, as opposed to be grossly offended by it.

[Lorianne]

[De Niro accent} You talkin' to me ?

[irish_links]

"....If you feel someone has committed 'violence' by restricting your access to an abortion clinic (just as the anti-war protestors restricted access to university buildings during the Vietnam War), then press charges using those laws....."

It doesn't matter what I think. The fact is that an impartial jury heard the case and concluded that the defendants had engaged in actionable behavior that resulted in economic harm to the plaintiff. Throughout this debate I have taken exception to the actionable behavior, which I think is wrong and political self defeating, but I have not defended the use of the RICO statute in this instance.

If you choose to follow Ghandi and King and employ non-violent civil disobedience, I will applaud and defend you. By all means, lay down on the side walk, symbolically blocking access to the clinic. Wait for the police to come to arrest you, plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge of trespassing or whatever and pay the fine.

But the OR folks apparently go beyond the standards of non-violent disobedience. They harass, verbally assault and make physical contact with customers and employees of the abortion mills. Their actions appear to be an overt attempt to harm the subject businesses financially.

Whether you want to accept it or not, a jury concluded that this was actionable behavior. The plaintiffs used RICO so that economic damages could be trebled.

RICO or no RICO the jury found that the protesters were inflicting economic damage on a lawfully operating business. That's actionable, IMHO, whether the business is in our opinion engaged in evil or good.

We live in a nation of laws. They must be respected by all. We are blessed with a nation that respects our civil liberty to express our God given talents for our commercial gain. One must abide by those laws. I'm sorry. If one doesn't, one must be prepared to accept the consequences.

The biggest consequence in this case is the loss of sympathy for our cause among our peers. You hurt our cause by using these boorish, inappropriate and civilly actionable tactics. Please stop.

[miltonim]

PRO-LIFE LEADERS ASK COURT: "IS PEACEFUL PROTEST EXTORTION?"

WASHINGTON, December 3, 2002 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The federal racketeering (RICO) case against pro-life activist Joe Scheidler, National Director of the Pro-Life Action League, will go before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, December 4, at 10:00am. The Court has agreed to review the RICO case on two points:

1. Is a private party (the abortion clinics who sued the pro-lifers) entitled to an injunction under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; and 2. Is political protest, including sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct access to a business and interfere with customers' freedom to obtain services there, properly defined as "extortion?"

"This is a fundamental question of the freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by our Constitution," said Scheidler. "Our country was founded on the right to protest injustice. There is no greater injustice than depriving unborn children of their right to life. The need to be free to protest injustice in this country has never been greater."

NOW v. Scheidler, brought by National Organization for Women against Scheidler in 1986, resulted in a seven-week trial in 1998 and a jury finding the defendants guilty of racketeering and extortion, based on the definition of extortion presented by NOW's attorneys.

"By NOW's definition, most political protests that have effected social change over the past two centuries would qualify as extortion," said Scheidler. "I marched with Dr. Martin Luther King in the now-famous march to Montgomery. I followed the civil rights movement closely, and, like the fight for racial equality, the fight against abortion is rooted in non-violent direct action," said Scheidler. "It is sometimes necessary to peacefully sit-in and risk arrest to make a public statement that some members of society are being excluded from legal protection, and that change is critical."

"I am counting on the Supreme Court to uphold our right to protest and to put an end to the use of RICO to silence protesters," said Scheidler.

From: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/dec/02120303.html





baby at 11 weeks

[Sir_Ed]

"Ultimately, it will be seen as a bunch of men (mostly members of a Catholic Church that has a monstrous sex problem) who get their rocks off intimidating teenaged girls."

The vast majority of people in OR were women, and the vast majority of people in RTL are women.

In fact, it's difficult to find many men at these events because abortion at its heart is ultimately tailor-made for selfish men.

Abortion means: no child support; no marriage responsibility; no commitments; no money in expended in raising a family; it in essence frees men from taking any responsibility for their irresponsible behaviors. It's sad that they've been able to fool so many women for so long into thinking that abortion is for the women.

Oh...and I never "got my rocks off" nor did I "intimidate teenaged girls." That almost borders on the insulting!

Ed

[Sir_Ed]

The Army of "God" had nothing to do with Operation Rescue. That's sorta like equating the Haganah with the Stern Gang.

Ed

[Sir_Ed]

"In any event, it would be valuable to hear more of your experiences as a abortion clinic protester. One hears reports of the picketers employing rude and unsavory tactics, bordering on assault. Perhaps these are just slanders. Can you shed any light on the truth?"

My...that's a big order. We went up and down the coast for almost a year. I never got arrested. I was willing to, but something was always worked out with the leaders of the protest and the policemen.

I saw some horrific things, the police almost always way overeacted, and the spookiest times were when they'd clear away everybody from several streets around, then come and march on us.

I don't know...I really thought that OR would change things, but the RICCO stuff was just too hard to deal with. Too many people were losing their houses for sitting down in front of a clinic for six or seven hours.

As to the pro-abort protester's being venomous--yeah, for the most part, they were screaming banshees! But interestingly enough, at some rallies/protests/rescues, there would be a few on "the other side" that we could talk with, that were reasonable and seemed open to considering what we were saying.

Sometimes, too...there were the right-wing wackos on the Pro-Life side. The kind who show up with huge Bible verses painted on their shirts, strapped to crosses, screaming and yelling imprecations at everybody. For the most part, the OR people shied away from them.

Eventually we stopped going up and down the coast, and just started concentrating on Portland and Eugene. I sometimes wondered what happened to all the activists up there: Paul Deparrie, Andrew Green, Dawn Sullivan.

Oh well, it was an interesting time. I don't know if it REALLY did any good. The only thing we have to show for it is a picture of my girlfriend in Newsweek magazine! They did a story on a Rescue, and they took a picture of her holding a sign saying Abortion is Murder while a pro-abort female counter-protester was screaming at her, holding a sign with a drawing of a bloody hanger.

My girlfriend had long, beautiful hair, a dress, and was patiently and graciously withstanding the college student screaming at her, while the student had a short, butch crew cut, was dressed in smelly, torn clothing, and it was amazing the incredible difference between a sweet Christian girl and a rabid, hate-filled "clinic escort."

Ah well...maybe some day sanity will rule again in America!

Ed

[irish_links]

Sir_Ed:

Thanks for the report. It was interesting and certainly put matters into better perspective.

I wish you luck and hope that the Supreme Court's decision is the first of many that helps turn back this evil tide. Please keep up the good work.

Regards,

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Here is the part that nobody repeated, and got zapped with the "smile" part.

So, to be clear (and while half the country is having net problems, they're missing this), you're avoiding stating what it really is at play, and what is put at stake by making you people happy. By your refusal to answer the questions, I take it to mean that you would eliminate access to contraceptives, you wouldn't allow women who were raped to take RU-486 or get a D&C to ensure that they weren't impregnated by rape, you would force 9 year olds who were impregnated by rape to go to term, and wouldn't allow a woman to get an abortion unless she could prove beyond every doubt that she would die. Not just that there is a severe likelihood of death, but an absolute certainty.

Just wanting to see how far down you folks want to drag this.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Just thought you'd find it interesting.

[Admin Moderator]

never mind. my mistake.

[Notwithstanding]

palpy (judging from your posts) you are no conservative - you are the great pretender

Are you Gloria Steinem posting here in drag - or maybe Bella Abzug?

[Notwithstanding]

1. I actually ENCOURAGED you to assist any post-abortive friends you may have: "They will need friends to help them because some day their 'choice' will catch up with them and it will hit them hard."


2. You state that you avoid the topic - which is terrible because you have a moral obligation to speak out about murder. If you had not been silent maybe your friends would not have aborted. Friends don't let friends stay ignorant about and comfortable with the most common form of murder there is (abortion).

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So in order to be a conservative in your book, I have to be against artificial birth control, and be against any rape or health exception to an abortion ban?

If forcing raped 9 year olds to have babies is a prideful hallmark of being a conservative, and seeing to it that a raped woman hasn't been impregnated by giving her RU-486 or a D&C immediately after the rape, then count me out and register me Democrat.

[MrLeRoy]

Support; no; no; no.