THE COURT’S 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that when protesters do not “obtain” property, they cannot be punished for civil disobedience with the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, an anti-racketeering law.
The court’s ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years.
Rehnquist said that their political activity did not qualify as extortion. That outcome had been sought by activists like actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.
The demonstrators had been sued in 1986 by abortion clinics in Delaware and Wisconsin and the National Organization for Women, which contended that racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from violent protests that drive away clients.
They accused the groups of blocking clinic entrances, menacing doctors, patients and clinic staff, and destroying equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit abortions. The demonstrators were ordered to pay about $258,000 in damages and barred from interfering nationwide with the clinics’ business for 10 years.
Rehnquist said there is no dispute that abortion protesters interfered with clinic operations and in some cases committed crimes.
“But even when their acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of ‘shutting down’ a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion,” Rehnquist wrote.
The punishments were meted out under provisions of the 32-year-old RICO Act and the Hobbs Act, a 1946 law aimed at crushing organized crime. The Hobbs Act makes it a crime to take property from another with force.
In his dissent, Stevens said the court was limiting the scope of the Hobbs Act and limiting protection of property owners in its “murky opinion.”
The Supreme Court has previously said that the Hobbs Act should be read broadly, he said.
“The principal beneficiaries of the court’s dramatic retreat from the position that federal prosecutors and federal courts have maintained throughout the history of this important statute will certainly be the class of professional criminals whose conduct persuaded Congress that the public needed federal protection from extortion,” Stevens wrote.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote separately to say that the court was “rightly reluctant” to extend the reach of the RICO law, which allows prosecutors and private groups to seek hefty penalties.
The issue dates back to the 1980s when large groups of anti-abortion demonstrators used aggressive tactics to disrupt clinics. In 1998, a jury in Illinois found demonstrators guilty of dozens of violations, including four acts involving physical violence or threats of violence.
The court did not address a related issue in the case over whether the racketeering law gives individuals the right to ask a federal judge to stop a disputed activity. The law is most often used by federal prosecutors to go after organized crime figures, alleged conspirators and other criminals.
The cases are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 01-1118, and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, 01-1119.
------------------------------------------------
Nicaraguan bishops compare abortions to bus bombs
Tue Feb 25, 1:40 PM ET
By FILADELFO ALEMAN, Associated Press Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&u=/ap/20030225/ap_wo_en_po/la_gen_nicaragua_abortion_3&printer=1
MANAGUA, Nicaragua - Amid a national debate over abortion prompted by the rape of a 9-year-old girl, Nicaragua's Roman Catholic church is comparing abortions to bus bombs.
"Is there any difference between a bus full of passengers that receives the impact of a car bomb and a metallic instrument that impacts the maternal womb to suck out a fetus?" the bishops asked in an open letter issued Monday night.
The document urged Nicaraguan congressman to reject proposals to liberalize abortion laws — and in fact, to tighten them.
In Costa Rica, meanwhile, a public defender asked a court to release the 20-year-old man suspected of raping a 9-year-old Nicaraguan girl — a case that set off a major debate on abortion in Nicaragua.
Attorney General Julio Centeno said Monday his office is investigating whether a crime was committed when doctors gave an abortion to the girl on Thursday.
The Network of Women Against Violence announced last week that the girl, identified as "Rosa," received an abortion at a clinic in Managua, some 16 weeks after she was raped in the neighboring country of Costa Rica.
On Friday, Health Minister Lucia Salvo called the abortion "a crime." On Sunday, Roman Catholic Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo said that those who promoted and carried out the abortion were excommunicated.
The Network of Women Against Violence insisted that the girl's parents has acted legally following a medical prescription.
Nicaragua's congress, the National Assembly, plans to discuss modifications to the law that currently bans abortions except where several doctors certify that the mother's life is in danger or that the fetus is malformed and the husband or closest relatives approve.
The Network of Women Against Violence had urged lawmakers to legalize abortion.
"For the love of Jesus Christ, for the salvation you hope for and for the good of the nation: do not approve abortion under any motive or pretext," the bishops wrote.
The bishops condemned the idea of "legalizing the abominable crime of abortion even disguised under supposed pseudo-humanitarian extenuating factors such as calling it therapeutic."
In the Costa Rican capital of San Jose, public defender Vanessa Nunez on Monday asked a judge to free 20-year-old farmworker Alex Barquero, arguing that there was evidence he did not have sex with the child.
Barquero has been ordered detained for three months while officials investigate the case against him.
Nunez said medical examination showed her client did not suffer from sexually transmitted diseases. A doctor who attended to the girl in a hospital here said she had apparently been infected with a venereal disease by her attacker.
---------------------------------------------
"Are "Choose Life" license plates free speech or state-sponsored infomercials?"
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 3:57 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078247/
This week, Virginia's House of Representatives approved the creation of specialty "Choose Life" license plates. The Iowa state Senate introduced a bill this week that would do the same. The ACLU has threatened to sue if the Virginia measure is signed into law, which will produce the ninth lawsuit over this issue in three years. Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Carolina already have "Choose Life" license plate programs, and 13 other states are considering enacting similar legislation. So, it's probably safe to say that a "Choose Life" tidal wave—and its litigation backlash—is poised to hit the nation.
The legal issue isn't complicated, and it helps to separate it from your feelings about abortion. It's a free speech question: Can state governments endorse speech representing only one side of an issue as controversial as abortion? Has the state, by opening up license plates as a forum for private speech, incurred a constitutional obligation to allow speakers of every viewpoint equal access to that forum?
Most of the courts that have considered the issue have wussed out on the First Amendment question altogether, finding the plaintiffs in those cases lacked legal "standing" to file suit, since they had never endeavored to sponsor "Choose Abortion" or "Choose Choice" license plates themselves. Another court decided last month that the "Choose Life" plates in South Carolina were unconstitutional, in that the state was promoting only one side in the debate. Immediately, a South Carolina legislator introduced a "Choose Death" license plate, which he insists fairly expresses the other side in the debate. Newspapers recently noted that the "Choose Death" plate may still prove popular with death-penalty enthusiasts (and perhaps with hunters, werewolves, and NRA members as well). Less clear is whether it will satisfy the plaintiffs from Planned Parenthood.
License plates became a constitutional issue in 1977 when the Supreme Court decided Wooley v. Maynard, a case involving a family of Jehovah's Witnesses who had taped over the "Live Free or Die" part of their New Hampshire license plate. The Maynards claimed that New Hampshire violated their free speech rights by forcing them to broadcast a political sentiment with which they disagreed. The high court ruled that states could not force individuals to be "mobile billboards" for messages they loathed. The "Choose Life" cases don't involve this sort of compelled speech, however, since no one in any state is forced to purchase the specialty plates—people buy them voluntarily.
Specialty plates were virtually unheard-of in most states until 1987, when Florida issued a plate commemorating the space shuttle Challenger. That plate alone raised more than $30 million for space-related programs, and today Florida issues more than 50 specialty plates. Forty other states have specialty-plate programs, and for the most part they celebrate non-controversial organizations: sports teams, schools, veterans, NASCAR, or saving the whales, with the additional fees benefiting that cause. The "Choose Life" plates in Florida feature the words "Choose Life" in childlike crayon, along with a beaming boy and girl—presumably of the happily adopted variety—also rendered in the key of crayon. Most of states with "Choose Life" programs provide, as does Florida, that the proceeds of these sales go exclusively to organizations that counsel women with unwanted pregnancies to choose adoption. In fact, the legislation in most states expressly provides that any program offering referrals or even discussing the option of abortion is barred from funding.
When the first "Choose Life" legislation passed in Florida in 1998, then-Gov. Lawton Chiles vetoed it, stating that license plates were not necessarily the best forum for exploring the complex nuances of the abortion debate. But Gov. Jeb Bush signed the bill when he was elected in 1999, and the Louisiana legislature adopted similar legislation shortly thereafter. South Carolina followed in 2001. All have resulted in lawsuits, with the first two states' suits going to the Choose Lifers and the third going to the plaintiffs. So far.
In Florida, the courts have usually dismissed the suits, insisting that the plaintiffs (usually women's or pro choice organizations) didn't have "standing" to sue because they had never themselves attempted to get the opposite viewpoint onto any license plates. The Louisiana lawsuit went to the plaintiffs initially, because the district court felt that the plates discriminated in favor of just one viewpoint. This resulted in an injunction that was dissolved last March by the 5th Circuit court of appeals, who found that, as was the case in Florida, the plaintiffs had no standing to sue in the first place. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear that case this year.
One court that's really wrestled with the free speech issue was a federal district court in South Carolina, which last month found the "Choose Life" plates to be unconstitutional since they endorse only one side in the abortion debate. The state has appealed this ruling, and another Florida suit was revived last week, this time on the grounds that the plates impermissibly entangle church and state.
To understand the free speech issue, it's important to clarify whether specialty license plates represent government speech or private citizens' speech. Why? Because there is no question that the government may speak in a partisan manner without violating the Constitution. The First Amendment applies only to government efforts to restrict private speech; it doesn't apply back to the state itself. This is why the state is perfectly free to tell you to stay in school, or drive sober, without having to broadcast the opposing viewpoint. States may have preferences for all sorts of messages. But if, on the other hand, the government opens a forum for private speakers—if it creates a park or builds a street where you and I are free to talk—it cannot be in the business of censoring some viewpoints while permitting others. This is the core of the First Amendment. So, the legal test for the courts is simply this: When the state gives license plates to certain private organizations to broadcast their messages, is it more like the state is talking (akin to a public service announcement) or more like it's allowing private citizen to talk (like they would in a public square)? The former is constitutional, but the latter may well be censorship.
Different states have tended to take different positions on this issue, depending on the lawsuit. In the Louisiana suit, for instance, the state admitted candidly that the message of the plate is explicitly anti-abortion, but that this was valid government speech as it reflected the state's own preferences. Louisiana lawmakers had no problem admitting that the state legislature abhors abortion and likes adoption. This is hardly news if you look at Louisiana's "Choose Life" plate, which features the brown pelican—the state bird—holding a baby wrapped in a blanket in its beak. Other states have gone to the other extreme, arguing that the government is in no way endorsing or even involved in the message on the plates—it's a private commercial decision between a driver and an organization she supports—like a bumper sticker, according to one lawmaker. The truth is somewhere between the extremes. Of course the state is abetting this speech—its name is prominently displayed on the tag—but individuals also choose and display the tags freely. So, the truth is that the state is opening up some kind of forum, which means the state can't discriminate based on viewpoint.
Here's where the other strange state response comes in: Some argue that yes, they have opened up something like a public forum but that the messages they promote are not controversial, or have no opposing side. There can be no viewpoint discrimination, they contend, because who, they argue, is against the space shuttle? Who wants to take a stand against the Everglades? And who could possibly be against adoption? And throughout these cases, the states have insisted that the plates, while backed by pro-life groups and trumpeting the famous pro-life slogan, actually have nothing to do with abortion: They are simply "pro-adoption." In fact, when Jeb Bush signed the Florida plates into law he insisted: "It's a pretty tag and it says 'Choose Life' and it's for adoption. If people want to politicize that, they'll politicize anything." This would be a more credible argument if the same legislators weren't withholding money from organizations that discuss abortion.
Ironically, the states simultaneously advance precisely the opposite argument as well: insisting that all specialty plates are by definition "political"; advocating environmentalism and the saving of endangered animals as they do. The "Choose Life" message, they argue, is no more "political" than these others. Richard H. Black, the Virginia delegate who introduced the bill there, says if the law is now that we must always sponsor opposing messages, the state needs to produce a "Virginia Is for Haters" plate to counter its "Virginia Is for Lovers" tags.
Here's the fundamental problem with all these arguments: Whether or not the tags are "controversial" or even "political" or "opposable" is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes, when the legislature is breezily permitting some to be created and others to be denied. The relevant question is whether state legislatures are taking it upon themselves to decide what "political" or "controversial" mean in the first place, and what standards they use to do so, because in doing so, they are by definition discriminating based on viewpoint. While different states have different mechanisms for approving the programs, most involve some advocacy group proving to the legislature that there is sufficient demand for the plates to generate income. That means that if an organization can get enough signatures pledging to buy the plates, the legislature will consider it. Which in turn means that only popular viewpoints can pass the initial threshold. And if Maynard taught us anything, it was that "the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority." Permission to speak shouldn't be doled out by the state based on the popularity of the idea.
But that isn't the end of the unbridled discretion. Because once a bill is in the hands of the legislature, it seems to be a sort of political free-for-all as to whether they wish to approve or disapprove of any group's message. Arkansas refused to give the Knights of Columbus a specialty plate, for fear that the KKK would want one, too. The California legislature went berserk over whether the Boy Scouts should get plates, because some felt the group was discriminatory. So, state discretion doesn't stop with the promotion of only popular ideas. It becomes even more blatant as lawmakers decide whether they approve of the ideas, and apparently, they make these decisions without standards or rules either.
It's not at all clear how the "Choose Life" lawsuits will shake out. But it seems obvious that if a "Choose Life" tag is constitutional in Virginia, a "Honk If You Love al-Qaida" plate should be constitutional in New Hampshire, as well. Which would probably give a whole new meaning to "Live Free or Die."
-----------------------------------------------
Pro-Life Group Launches Undercover Sting
Friday, May 31, 2002
http://www.foxnews.com
A pro-life group in Texas has enlisted a woman to pose as a pregnant teen in a campaign designed to catch abortion clinics that might break the law.
Life Dynamics said one of its activists has called more than 800 abortion clinics nationwide in recent months, pretending to be a 13-year-old girl impregnated by her 22-year-old boyfriend. What she learned is that more than 90 percent of the clinic employees handling the calls said they would conceal the information provided by the caller, according to Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher.
Such an action would be a violation of the law in states that require the reporting of sexual abuse of a minor. A 22-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old is considered statutory rape in all 50 states.
Most of the clinics receiving the telephone calls are affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Crutcher, who has released tape recordings of the calls, said some clinic employees told the caller how to avoid detection and circumvent parental notification laws.
In several cases, according to Crutcher, the caller was encouraged to conceal her age or her boyfriend's age or give false names to lessen the chance that the boyfriend could be charged with statutory rape.
Planned Parenthood officials sharply criticized the Life Dynamics campaign.
Planned Parenthood called Life Dynamics' campaign an attack. "Their attacks are trying to damage Planned Parenthood, and also eliminate reproductive health services in this country," said president Gloria Feldt. "They'll use any tactics they can."
Feldt said Planned Parenthood expects its employees to comply with state laws, but also encourages them to "provide callers with what I'd call a comfort level."
"Here's someone who's calling me who's worried, scared," said Feldt, putting herself in the role of a clinic staffer. "How can I help her feel comfortable, get her to the professionals who can help?"
Life Dynamics also targeted clinics operated by the National Abortion Federation.
"As far as we're aware, our clinics are in full compliance with state laws," said its spokeswoman, Stephanie Mueller.
Mueller said laws on reporting statutory rape vary from state to state, often affording some discretion to health care professionals.
"In most instances, the law recognizes that the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work on such a sensitive issue," she said.
Clinic operators "have made a conscious decision to conceal the sexual exploitation of children and protect the men who commit these crimes," Crutcher said. He challenged law enforcement authorities to investigate.
"Their response depends on how seriously they take sexual abuse of children," he said. "If they don't follow up, there's only one conclusion to reach."
Crutcher said he hopes the Life Dynamics campaign will prompt a cutoff of state funding of abortion clinics and unleash a barrage of lawsuits by parents.
The poseur routine is not the only campaign by Life Dynamics aimed at drawing attention to the hazards of abortion, not only through the medical procedure, but by the irresponsible and dangerous behavior of abortion providers.
Life Dynamics also runs Clinic Worker, a campaign that encourages abortion clinic employees to become spies or whistleblowers, reporting possible legal or ethical violations.
Anti-abortion organizations have also expanded their use of the Internet. In addition to identifying doctors who perform abortions, several sites carry photographs of clinic employees and of women entering clinics to get abortions.
"In this way, mothers who go to kill their babies will be exposed to the world," anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley wrote on an Internet site seeking volunteers to take photographs outside clinics.
Horsley contends, and some legal experts agree, such use of photographs is protected by the First Amendment.
That argument is being tested in court in Illinois, where a woman is suing three activists who allegedly obtained her medical records detailing complications from an abortion. The woman, whose name is being withheld, claims the three violated her privacy after the records and her photo appeared on an anti-abortion Web site last year.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-----------------------------------------------
Unlawful harm to fetus now officially a crime
brThe Idaho Statesman
7/1/02
Beginning today in Idaho, it will be considered a crime of murder, manslaughter or aggravated battery to unlawfully kill or injure a human fetus. The law, one of 276 passed by the Idaho Legislature this past winter that take effect today, is expected to have little practical effect.
But advocates of abortion rights say affording a fetus or embryo the same status as a human being could have far-reaching legal implications.
“The fetal homicide law not only recognizes a fetus, but also an embryo and a zygote as a living human being. That causes us huge concerns,” said American Civil Liberties Union-Idaho Legislative Counsel Marty Durand. “Once you recognize a fetus or an embryo as having rights equal to a pregnant woman, down the road, those rights will be in conflict, and what do you do then?”
David Ripley, executive director of Idaho Chooses Life, said his organization backed the legislation because it protects fetuses from harm.
But he readily acknowledged that the law bolsters the anti-abortion movement´s argument against the Supreme Court´s bedrock Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortions in the United States.
“Fetal homicide statutes, while not directly related to abortion, create legal tension within the court structure,” Ripley said. “We hope to press the envelope on that issue in favor of the baby.”
The legislation was sponsored by Meridian Republican Sen. Hal Bunderson.
The new Idaho statute is named “Noah´s Law” for a pregnant 16-year-old who suffered a savage beating, causing her baby to be stillborn. Lisa Smith of Nampa, who had named her baby Noah before he was born, appeared before legislative committees to support the bill.
As the bill made its way through the Legislature, backers repeatedly pointed out that it specifically exempts legal abortions from criminal statutes. But Ripley conceded that it would be a huge victory if anti-abortion groups were able to use fetal homicide laws to overturn Roe v. Wade.
The bill has already found its way into the state´s legal arguments on issues related to abortion.
On June 10, 4th District Judge Michael McLaughlin heard oral arguments in a case involving the state´s attempt to block Medicaid payments for poor women who are seeking an abortion for health reasons.
Part of the state´s argument was that the state had recently passed laws extending rights to unborn children.
“I think that the state has recognized that the existence of the fetus has significance in and of itself,” said Deputy Attorney General Clinton Miner, who has represented the state in many previous abortion issue cases. “The fetus has its own set of rights. Where those are defined I don´t think is as clear in the statutes as the Legislature might go on to do.”
That is precisely what worries Rebecca Poedy, Planned Parenthood of Idaho president.
“While we don´t disagree that the loss of a wanted pregnancy is a tragedy, by establishing personhood to the date of conception, this law is a clear approach to erode women´s right to choose,” Poedy said. “When you look at this bill, it was with the clear intent to elevate status of fetus. There are going to be problems with this bill as time goes by.”
Durand is also concerned that the portion of Noah´s Law addressing aggravated assault may be used against pregnant women themselves. “If there is no fetal death but there is fetal harm, what then? Can the woman be charged with en-utero battery? If pregnant women are using drugs, they should be getting treatment, not getting prosecuted,” Durand said.
--------------------------------------------
Birmingham News
Informed abortion, teacher bills pass
04/18/02
DAVID WHITE, News staff writer
MONTGOMERY State lawmakers ended this year's regular session of the Legislature on Wednesday by passing bills to conduct criminal background checks on teachers, raise unemployment benefits and require women seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours.
Lawmakers killed high-profile bills dealing with the Ten Commandments, smoking, voter ID and felons' voting rights.
Gov. Don Siegelman said he would sign into law the bills on abortion, background checks and jobless benefits.
The criminal background checks will be conducted on all teachers, janitors and other employees of public and private schools who have unsupervised access to children. The fingerprinting and checks will start in August.
"While 99 percent of our teachers are doing a great job and take exceptional care of Alabama school children, this new law protects our children from that one bad apple that might have otherwise slipped through the system," Siegelman said.
Members of the House of Representatives voted 100-0 Wednesday for the bill, which passed the Senate last month.
Background checks and fingerprinting have been conducted on new teachers since 1999. The bill passed Wednesday extends that requirement to the 75,000 or so school employees hired before then.
State school Superintendent Ed Richardson said the bill would improve schools' credibility.
"It should give parents a confidence level in us that we're just not going to permit that potential violent educator to be around our children," he said.
He said finishing the job statewide should take two years and cost $5 million.
The abortion bill passed Wednesday makes clinics give women seeking an abortion a booklet on risks and alternatives at least 24 hours before receiving the procedure. It takes effect in mid-October.
The booklet, to be written by state health officials, will have to include color photos showing what an embryo, fetus and child look like every two weeks through a pregnancy.
House members voted 79-17 for the bill, which passed the Senate earlier this month.
"This is probably the single greatest accomplishment for the pro-family movement in Alabama in 10 years," said John Giles, president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama. "It protects women. It assures them that they have full knowledge of a procedure they're getting into. Just as important, it will save the lives of unborn children. When women are informed about the abortion procedure, a large percentage of them ... will not have an abortion."
Critics called the proposal a backdoor attempt to restrict abortions. They warned that delays in scheduling trips to a clinic, or delays in getting proof of delivery if the information booklet was sent by certified mail, would cause more late-term abortions.
"Some women will die from this bill as a result of later-term abortions, illegal abortions or suicide, all of which occurred prior to the legalization of abortion," said Larry Rodick, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Alabama.
-----------------------------------------------
Top French Court Rules Fetus Not Living Person
Tue Jun 25, 3:35 PM ET
Yahoo news
PARIS (Reuters) - France's highest court ruled Tuesday an unborn fetus does not have the legal status of a living person, overturning a bid by a woman to sue doctors for the death of her child during labor.
The decision by the Cour de Cassation means it is impossible to be found guilty of homicide for killing an unborn fetus. Lawyers of the woman, Sophie Potonet, said their only hope was for parliament to change French law.
It supports a similar ruling last year in which the court ruled that a drunken driver who caused the death of a six-month fetus in a car crash could not be tried for murder.
The latest judgement overturns a verdict by a court in 2000 which found a doctor and midwife guilty of manslaughter for the death of a child during labor in a clinic in the Paris suburb of Chesnay in November 1991.
The mother contended that the midwife failed to act when she alerted her to heart irregularities in the fetus on the eve of the expected birth.
A day later, the child was stillborn by Cesarean section, with lack of oxygen diagnosed as the cause of death.
"The principle behind the legality of crimes and punishment, requiring a strict interpretation of penal law, is opposed to the possibility of trial for manslaughter in the case of a child not born alive," the Cour de Cassation ruled.
The French are nominally Catholics, who believe life begins at conception, although France is a secular republic and has relatively liberal abortion laws.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=585&e=10&u=/nm/20020625/sc_nm/life_france_fetus_dc_1
More news stories to come soon
