PRO-LIFE WOMAN FACES INDICTMENT FOR READING BIBLE [to abortionist]

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12.18.02

[victim soul]

The U.S. Attorney's office will convene a grand jury in order to seek an indictment against a local pro-life activist, Terri Palmquist. Mrs. Palmquist's alleged offense is threatening abortionist Kenneth Wright by reading passages of the Bible to him.

On July 9, 2002, Mrs. Palmquist, who regularly leaflets and counsels at the Family Planning Alternatives abortuary, saw Wright entering the clinic and read to him passages from Ezekiel 33 concerning admonishing the evildoer to turn from his sins lest he die. Although Wright has seen Mrs. Palmquist at the clinic for years and did not appear concerned at the time, he reported the incident to police and the FBI as a death threat despite Mrs. Palmquist's explanation to him that she meant no threat.

Wright also sought a restraining order against Mrs. Palmquist, trying to prevent her from coming within 150 yards of him or the clinic. After a three-hour hearing at which Wright testified about Mrs. Palmquist's alleged threatening activities, Judge Wallace of the Kern County Superior Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to warrant issuing any order against Mrs. Palmquist and dismissed Wright's case.

In spite of this vindication of Mrs. Palmquist, the FBI has continued to hound her and anyone associated with her, seeking evidence that she is violent and a threat to Wright. On Dec. 19 Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Escobar, acting under U.S. Attorney John Vincent, will present this "evidence" to a grand jury in hopes of having Mrs. Palmquist indicted on felony charges. At this time the specific charges are a matter of speculation. "They will either seek an indictment for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act or some alleged terrorist threat," stated Brian Chavez-Ochoa, who has taken Mrs. Palmquist's case on behalf of Life Legal Defense Foundation.

[jjm2111]

"...the FBI has continued to hound her..."

Why is the FBI even involved?

[Cicero]

I don't know who appointed Karen Escobar, but I would guess that it was clinton. As you say, he fired all of the US attorneys and replaced them with his own flunkies. That was completely unprecedented, because the office of US Attorney is not normally considered a political appointment. Bush has done the customary thing and let them remain. So presumably 90% of them are still clintonoids, and will be for some time.

Ashcroft, however, or someone in Washington, should be keeping an eye on what they are doing, and step in if they are behaving in unacceptably political ways, which seems to be the case here.

[jjm2111]

I know this is a stupid question, but call me stupid: Why oh why do the leftists hate Christians so much?

[Cicero]

Why is the FBI even involved?

Here again I would guess that clinton is responsible. He tasked Reno and Freeh with the job of proving that pro-lifers were dangerous murderers involved in a terrorist conspiracy, so the RICO laws could be used against them more effectively. Under these directives the FBI set a number of cases in motion, and regretably Ashcroft has proved unwilling to call off the hounds, once they are on the trail. He seems to be terrified that the media will accuse him of being a pro-lifer.

[crystalk]

There have been attempts to make Christianity go away, many times in history.

Each time, there has been such an outpouring of remarkable events ("miracles", spiritual gifts) that a whole new lease on life for the religion of Jesus Christ has resulted.

The death of this religion has been predicted many times, but it is the names of those doing the predicting that have been forgotten, while the name of Jesus still means something.

[Servant of the Nine]

If you tell a bank robber, "If you continue to rob banks, you are likely to get shot by the police," is that a threat?

No, it is not, because bank robbery is against the law. As long as abortion is not against the law, threats are a crime.

This is a nation of laws, not necessarily morality.

So9

[FreeTally]

The issue here is not free speech, but property rights.

As pro-life as I am, I always take this stand as well. I think overall, abortion clinics have been very tolerant of protests. Yeh, we hear all sorts of "horror stories" like the suposed one posted, but as always, both sideas are not presented.

There was another article posted within the last month or so about a man who actually recovered "damages" because he claimed he was assaulted while passing out pamphlets inside the lobby of a clinic. Sure, the case is a clear tresspass, but that didn't mean anything to those who championed it as a "victory for our side". I asked the person who posted the story to link me to additional information that detailed what the injuries were, but no information was provided. The man wouldn't lave when asked and was tackled by some employees. No injuries other than a bump or a bruise was reported in the story.

[1john2 3and4]

Are pro-lifers too dense to get it, or do they just self rightiously think they deserve to be treated better than any one else?

only 2 choices, huh? both negative.....a slip is showin', that's fo' sho'

[chimera]

If you lived in a theocracy, a kind of Christian version of Iran, that would be fine, but in this free country, a threat is a threat, however you care to phrase it.

Even lowlife gangbangers understand that "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". Are pro-lifers too dense to get it, or do they just self rightiously think they deserve to be treated better than any one else?

So if a preacher used these passages to expound upon the theme of "the wages of sin is death" in his Sunday morning sermon, should the government send in its goons and haul him away in shackles? I'm trying to see where and upon what basis we draw the line, here. Chances are, anyone could find anything said anywhere anytime as threatening, if they look hard and stretch and twist meanings and intentions enough.

[syriacus]

I guess Mrs Palmquist would not be allowed to organize a "sit-in," though tactics like that were successful in helping to end segregation.

[Poohbah]

If the preacher intruded on my property and read Ezekiel 33 to me, as opposed to preaching to people in his church...yeah, I might interpret that as a threat. Of course, I'd merely honor the threat and call the police afterwards.

[Marysecretary]

EVEN SO, COME LORD JESUS!

[chit*chat]

According to Ezekiel 19, the righteous have a duty to preach to the wicked to mend their ways, warning them that if they persist in their wickedness they will die.

Anymore I am inclined to let them have their death-wish for eternal damnation.

[Marysecretary]

I agree. I think Christians are in for big time persecution. But God is still on the side of the righteous. We need to press into Him more and more. We're in for a rough ride, my friend.

[Marysecretary]

I wouldn't worry about that. I think the Lord's return will come before the end of this century, perhaps the end of this decade. We're definitely in end times.

[agrace]

My opinion is that it is because Christianity suggests that people are actually going to be held accountable for their actions one day.

[Marysecretary]

Because Christians speak out against the things the left holds dear, abortion, homosexuality and all the other little things they enjoy so much. The light is blinding them, as is the truth about these sins. They don't like to be confronted with truth. (That's MHO)

[The Grammarian]

Why oh why do the leftists hate Christians so much?

Because they hated Him first, and the student isn't above the teacher.

[chimera]

If the preacher intruded on my property and read Ezekiel 33 to me, as opposed to preaching to people in his church...yeah, I might interpret that as a threat. Of course, I'd merely honor the threat and call the police afterwards.

Appealing to location? That's weak. S of 9 said a threat is a threat no matter how you phrased it. A similar argument could be made as to physical location. Just as an example, if someone says "I'm going to kill you" spoken to you either on your property or in a public place, how is the meaning different?

[FreeTally]

So if a preacher used these passages to expound upon the theme of "the wages of sin is death" in his Sunday morning sermon, should the government send in its goons and haul him away in shackles? I'm trying to see where and upon what basis we draw the line, here.

The difference is major. People attend a church voluntarily, and for the purpose to hear what the pastor or priest has to say. If a person does not like the message, they can choose another church, denomination or religion. When you go to a Christian church, one would expect to have the Bible read to them.

Contrast that with an uninvited "sermon" from somebody on the street, or trespassing on your private property. While walking down the street, or to my legal business, I would not expect to have someone walk up and tell me "I am going to die for what I am doing" or whatnot.

In the context of a church, one would expect, and has given an open invitation, to hear the Bible. The same can not be said for any other situation. Thus, I think its reasonable that an uninvited sermon could be deemed a threat depending on the way it is presented. And given that these "sidewalk evangelists protester" types generally harass more than they infrom or enlighten, I think these types of actions can be correctly deemed a threat.

Personally, I think the restraining order should have been allowed and only if it was violated would I then lean toward pressing charges for intimidation or a threat.