[Cicero]

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.

On the other hand, if they are converted to righteousness, they will live: "But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby" (19:19).

Any lawyer could surely use this as evidence that Mrs. Palmquist's intention was to save the abortionist, not to threaten him. In fact, of course, the abortion-rights people bring these lawsuits simply to harrass picketers and protestors and frighten them away. Planned parenthood has millions of taxpayer dollars to work with, whereas most pro-lifers are ordinary folks without much spare money.

If they lose, NARAL loses very little, whereas if they win they can use RICO to rake in huge fines and confiscate homes and salaries.

[Jack Black]

I Karen Escobar a Clinton apointee? Bush needs to do a lot more house cleaning. Clinton fired all the US Attorneys and replaced them with rabid commies, didn't he.

[Servant of the Nine]

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.

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?

[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.

[Teacher317]

Any lawyer could surely use this as evidence that Mrs. Palmquist's intention was to save the abortionist, not to threaten him.

The intent of the perptrator is not nearly as important as the understanding of the "victim". If I say that I'm dunking you under water to wash away your sins, and you think that I'm trying to drown you, the courts will not care what my intent was. Even as a civil tort action for assault, the court only cares if you intend to say the words/perform the act, not if you intend to create an apprehension of imminent threat of harm with those words/actions.

(can you tell I just finished my first semester finals?)