Abortion Clinic Protesting Ban Reversed by Supreme Court

[Betsy]

Today, the Supreme Court dealt a setback to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations. The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

(Alito did not vote)

[Doug]

Today, the Supreme Court dealt a setback to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations. The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

DOUG
No one panic. This is not the end. I predict the pedulum is about to swing the other way, against the conservatives.



Bush's approval rating is so low (see separate thread, recently posted), there must be some positive momentum.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Abortion clinic protesters have a touching faith in the humanity - and brakes - of women trying to get to the clinic, considering the number of small children they place in the street to prevent that. I wrote a letter to the editor sometime last year (lost now, my system crashed & took everything I wrote pre Jan '06 with it) that basically said, "Whose life (woman or fetus), whose choice (woman or government/church)". If males needed medical help to masturbate, I wonder if we'd have this problem ("every little sperm is sacred").

[Doug]

If males needed medical help to masturbate, I wonder if we'd have this problem ("every little sperm is sacred").

DOUG
Men need no help. That's why the Internet was invented.

[Hogeye]

That's wonderful news for civil libertarians. Congratulations to the ACLU and many other orgs which fought against this frivolous use of antiquated anti-racketeering laws to stifle peaceful protest.

Here's the background: NOW (National Organization for Women) came up with a convoluted way to prevent its ideological opponents from peaceful assembly. They used some old law aimed at organized crime, a vague law saying that if a crime is committed and an organization was involved in organizing the setting/event where the crime took place, then the organization is somehow responsible and can be criminally charged or prevented from organizing. E.g. If I break smoke a joint in the Fayetteville library during the intermission of a Freethinkers meeting, then FayFreethinkers could be charged with racketeering under RICO. The motivation for NOW was short-sighted: they wanted to prevent people from protesting at "abortion clinics." There had been some abortion clinic bombings, and NOW wanted to use that to hassle an opposing organization which had organized events (but otherwise had little or no connection to the terrorists.)

I was in San Francisco when the case was launched. The local gay rights groups saw the danger immediately - that this novel interpretation could easily backfire. They took the principled road and opposed the NOW case from the getgo. If the law had not been ruled unconstitutional, then e.g. Cindy Sheehan's recent protest near the Bush ranch no doubt would have been prevented. In virtually every protest or demonstration, someone does something that can be construed as illegal (littering, trespassing). Also, for virtually every protest, there is "collusion" over the internet or at planning meetings. If NOW's ultra-authoritarian interpretation of RICO had been upheld, the government would be in a position to stop any protest it wanted. Bye-bye freedom of assembly, etc.

This is a good illustration of the naivite of many statists, and statist groups, who give the State vast new coercive powers somehow expecting that power to only be used against their enemies. Luckily, for civil libertarians everywhere, they didn't pull it off this time.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I can't remember, but it was either McClave or DQ who said anyone who belonged to ACLU was a liberal - He would have been right if he was using the dictionary definition of liberal, but since he uses the Faux definition, this should floor him.

That said, while we absolutely don't need any rulings forbidding peaceful assembly (let's pretend we didn't notice the arrests of folks wearing or carrying anything unsupportive of Bush during the campaigns), many of the anti-choice people assemble in such a manner as to forbid access to health clinics (sometimes using the bodies of their 3-year-old children to do it), even when they don't spit and throw things. We have competing rights here. I guess the right of access to medical care, not being enumerated in the Bill of Rights, doesn't count.

[Hogeye]

I'm neither conservative or liberal. I think those terms are too fuzzy to be useful at all. I'm libertarian; more specifically anarcho-capitalist. This gives me the happy position of being able to bash "conservatives" and "liberals" equally.

Here's the political ideology map as I see it:




I'm rather surprised at the lack of support (except me) for civil liberties among freethinkers (so far.) I would expect civil libertarians and freethinkers to overlap significantly.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I support the ACLU every year with a little donation and almost never disagree with them. In fact I can't think of an example of when I have.
Without knowing too much of the details I am consoled that there must be some sense to this position with the 8-0 ruling.

D.