Ashcroft orders pro-lifers to stay away from DC abortion clinics
By Gary McCullough
January 18, 2002
(Washington, DC CCN News) Yesterday, the US Attorney General John
Ashcroft, was granted a federal injunction against pastor Patrick Mahoney
and six other pro-lifers to keep them off the public sidewalks near DC
abortion clinics. This comes as hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers are
traveling to Washington, DC for the 29th annual March for Life.
A similar injunction was brought by Janet Reno and the Clinton
Administration, but that injunction was thrown out by the 2nd Circuit
Federal Court of Appeals. Now Ashcroft has asked for and received a
20-foot stay-away order, slightly modifying what Reno did.
The actions against Rev. Mahoney stem from 1998 when Rev. Mahoney prayed
on a public sidewalk in front of a Washington abortion clinic (that clinic
is now closed). The then attorney general, Janet Reno, filed federal
charges against Rev. Mahoney and six other pro-lifers saying that they had
intimidated women seeking abortions. Despite the fact that no women
seeking abortions, nor any staff, nor owner of the abortion clinic filed a
complaint, Reno took action against the pro-lifers on behalf of the
federal government. In this unprecedented action Reno made the United
States of America the plaintiff, the injured party, in a claim against
peaceful pro-life demonstrators.
Rev. Mahoney told CCN, We came to expect Janet Reno to use the courts to
silence peaceful protest and even prayers made in front of abortion
clinics. It was an abuse of power, and the injunction was overturned, but
that was how things were under the Clinton Administration.
The order that came from the courts yesterday was requested and written by
John Ashcroft. Once again no abortion clinic filed for the injunction, the
order was at the sole request of Ashcroft. We are absolutely stunned, says
Mahoney. Why does the Bush Administration want to keep me from peacefully
praying on a public sidewalk near an abortion clinic?
For Attorney General Ashcroft to use the weight of the Justice Department
to keep peaceful pro-lifers from praying on a public sidewalk is an abuse
of power, says Mahoney. When Reno did it, it was found to be
unconstitutional, and I am confident what Ashcroft has done is equally
unconstitutional.
http://ww.maranatha.tv/_wsn/page2.html
Patrick Mahoney is the director of the Washington DC based Christian
Defense Coalition. He may be reached for comment at 540-373-8099
Domestic Terrorists Plan Violence at Saturday Rally from Operation Rescue
West (second story on webpage)
http://ww.maranatha.tv/_wsn/page2.html
Response to Tiller & Carhart offering free abortions in "celebration" of
Roe-v-Wade from Operation Save America Wichita
http://ww.maranatha.tv/_wsn/page3.html
A First Amendment Exception?:
Suppression of Pro-Life Speech
A Colorado law prohibits any person within a hundred feet of a "health
care facility" to come within eight feet of another person to hand out
leaflets. They may not display a sign or "engage in oral protest,
education, or counseling with that person."
So is this a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition of "laws
abridging the freedom of speech"? You would think so, but the Supreme
Court says no.
In Hill v. Colorado, the Court ruled that Colorado's statute is valid.
Justice Stevens said it is a "content-neutral" restriction that regulates,
"not speech," but merely certain "places where some speech may occur."
But wait a minute, you say: Aren't liberals supposed to be champions of
individual freedoms -- especially free speech?
They claim that burning the American flag is constitutionally protected
speech. They say even Nazis have a First Amendment right to parade their
hate past the homes of elderly Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois.
Indeed, liberal judges accused the State of Indiana of shredding the First
Amendment when it enforced public nudity laws against table-top dancers at
the Kitty Kat Lounge in South Bend. Wiggling one's naked body in a public
barroom, they say, is "free speech."
But protesting, displaying signs and handing out leaflets in front of a
"health care facility," is not constitutionally protected speech. What on
earth is going on here?
Well, as you've no doubt guessed, the so called "health care" facilities
that Colorado's law was designed to shield from protests are abortion
clinics. The women entering these specially protected facilities are not
sick, but pregnant. The "choices" they're about to execute are not "health
care" choices, but, rather, what abortion defender Ronald Dworkin, with
remarkable candor, describes as "choices for death."
And to immunize such "choices" from legal restriction -- or even private
efforts to dissuade women from submitting to abortion -- liberal judges
set into motion what Justice Scalia, in his dissent, described as "the ad
hoc nullification machine that . . . pushes aside whatever doctrines of
constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice." That
is, abortion.
Well, Justice Scalia hit the nail on the head.
Abortion is pure destruction. It destroys the precious human beings whose
lives are snuffed out in utero. It is destructive of the interests of
women who are so very often, and in so many respects, truly abortion's
"secondary victims."
Abortion's record is one of taint and damage to everything it touches, not
least, fundamental American constitutional principles. Free speech and
religious liberty are only its most recent victims.
Does anyone doubt how the Court's liberals would have resolved this case
if, instead of abortion clinics, coal mines, or gun dealers, or tobacco
shops would have been the "facilities" singled out for unique immunities
from First Amendment guarantees?
This case exposes the rank hypocrisy of the court. Hill v. Colorado came
out as it did because the speech actually restricted by the law is
pro-life speech.
Our neighbors need to understand the issues here. Christians are often
accused of being bigoted and hypocritical. Well, simply lay out the facts.
And when you do it becomes clear to all who the real hypocrites are in
this, the greatest moral debate of our time.
For reference:
Colorado Rev. Stat. Section 18 -- 9 -- 122(3).
Hill v Colorado (98-1856), 973 P.2d 1246, (2000).