Replies

Praise God!

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.

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.

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.

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 baby