US Supreme Court Hands Abortion Protestors Key Victory

[Jedi Knight]

The USSC has brought the matriarchal death-factories one step closer to eradication. I can only applaud the USSC decision. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/26/abortion.protests/index.html)

JK

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jedi Knight

The USSC has brought the matriarchal death-factories one step closer to eradication. I can only applaud the USSC decision. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/26/abortion.protests/index.html)Boy, JK, are you fscking dumb... Did you even read the article, you moron? The case was about free speech and civil disobedience, not about abortions. This case will apply to anti-abortionists as much as to anti-war activists. it's about forbidding the state to use the anti-organized-crime laws to go after peaceful but disruptive protests.

<shakes his head>

I guess this means I'll have to go back to volunteering as a human shield for women visiting Planned Parenthood. Back to the bad old days. :(

These people lose a lot of steam when the 5 foot 5 woman they're harassing is protected by a mean 6 foot 6 man in prime condition.

Any of you whove never considered it, call your local Planned Parenthood and volunteer to be a shield. It feels good to actively do something against these people.

My apologies JK, I know we won't see eye to eye on this, so I'll shut up now and not hijack your thread. ;)

[Victor Danilchenko]

heh. I wish I had the chance to "shield"... but in my ultra-liberal area ("People's Republic of Pioneer Valley", AKA "Happy Valley" AKA "Granola Valley"), anti-abortion protests aren't a problem...

[corplinx]

This topic was debated to death when this case was originally brought up. Lets not beat this to death again.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Jedi Knight

Boy, JK, are you fscking dumb... Did you even read the article, you moron? The case was about free speech and civil disobedience, not about abortions. This case will apply to anti-abortionists as much as to anti-war activists. it's about forbidding the state to use the anti-organized-crime laws to go after peaceful but disruptive protests.

<shakes his head>

Me, dumb? Not in this lifetime, loser.

What it means is that the RICO statute can no longer be used against anti-abortion groups. No more bankrupting anti-abortion groups using laws designed to attack the mafia. That was the last gasp for abortionists and they know it. They had all kinds of groups under the extortionist, deliberate bankruptcy attack using RICO, and now the USSC saw that cultural terrorism and wiped it out in one day.

The USSC deserves a steak dinner for this because it affirms the idea of America and not the matriarchal totalitarian terrorist state the feminazis are trying to create.

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Me, dumb? Not in this lifetime, loser.

...

JK

Wow!

He sure does live in his own world!

This is the same person who also proudly states that:
humans originated from Mars,
gravity is generated by planets as they orbit stars,
prostitutes are responsible for the Roe v. Wade decision,
and so on, and on, and on.

[Reginald]

JK

You talk a good fight, shoot this, nuke that, burn him, anhilate this, napalm that...ad infinitum

But deep down you seem so frightened by, intimidated by, of all things.........Women.

[RandFan]

I support civil disobedience in principle. I don't like it much in practice. I don't care for what pro-lifers (anti-abortion activists) are doing. However there should be parity when it comes to civil disobedience. I never believed that it should be under the Rico statute.

I should point out that there were some damn good arguments posted in the earlier mentioned thread why pro-lifers qualify for Rico. In any event I hope that pro-choice (pro-abortion) groups will find a way to deal with this issue.

[corplinx]

On the news tonight, I heard that next the Patriot Act will try to be applied to the protestors. And the lefties were worried that the right-wingers would be the ones to abuse the patriot act. Its just like a magic act, they get you looking at the wrong hand.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by sundog
I guess this means I'll have to go back to volunteering as a human shield for women visiting Planned Parenthood. Back to the bad old days. :(

These people lose a lot of steam when the 5 foot 5 woman they're harassing is protected by a mean 6 foot 6 man in prime condition.

Any of you whove never considered it, call your local Planned Parenthood and volunteer to be a shield. It feels good to actively do something against these people.


Thanks, I'll check it out. Where I live the post office box wing and the Planned Parenthood are next to each other. When ever I check my mail, I walk by those "protestors" and feel sad that they have nothing better to do but judge women. it is unny to see a man there, who knows aboutultely nothing about what woman go through.

Besides that a woman who makes a mistake and is upset about it, confronted with a full grow man (who knows nothing about her situation) should not be subjected to continued torment.

What I'd like to do, is go to their church or homes and protest their beliefs.

[renata]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The USSC has brought the matriarchal death-factories one step closer to eradication. I can only applaud the USSC decision. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/26/abortion.protests/index.html)

JK

Actually, according to several news sources, this will have no practical effect on the anti-abortion demonstrators. It will have an effect on PETA protests, peace demonstrators and other aggressive cause protestors- it will make it harder for targets of said protests to get these groups under federal law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8097-2003Feb26.html


In deciding that these groups and their leaders could not be treated like gangsters under the law, the court was not opening the door to a resumption of their campaign against clinics, which is barred under a separate federal law passed in 1994.

But at a time of large demonstrations against a possible war in Iraq, the ruling could help advocates of other causes by making it more difficult for the targets of sit-ins, aggressive pickets and other forms of civil disobedience to reach for the heavy hammer of federal law, legal analysts said.

...

When the abortion rights supporters filed their lawsuit in 1986, RICO, which provided for treble damages and authorized a single federal judge to stop the protests nationwide, was the strongest legal weapon available.
....

The decision eliminates a $250,000 damage award and a court-ordered nationwide protest ban against the antiabortion groups. But it does not open the door to a renewed campaign against abortion providers, because in 1994 Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), designed to stop aggressive clinic blockades.

....

With FACE now on the books, "the principal effect of a decision against [the antiabortion groups] would have been on other cases pursued under RICO," Ginsburg noted. She added that Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, arguing in favor of the National Organization for Women's position on behalf of the U.S. government, had conceded that civil rights sit-ins of the 1960s could have been punishable under his interpretation of the law.

The antiabortion protesters were backed by a long list of groups, including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- which told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief that anti-fur protesters have been sued under RICO for their actions outside a fur shop.



....

For abortion rights groups, a RICO suit offered the advantage of going before a single court, instead of pursuing protesters on a series of state criminal and civil charges. But FACE also offers strong civil and criminal penalties, including jail time and punitive damages.

[Smalso]

From what I understand of the Court"s decision, which is precious little right now, criminal presecutions and civil actions against anti-abortion protesters are not banned or forbidden. The Court, it seems to me, has decided that using RICO was a bit of a stretch and I tend to agree.