Supreme Court rules in favor of Abortion Protestors

[jochhejaam]

What a joke it was that they were ever disallowed the right to peacefully protest the mass destruction of the unborn via abortion. They complain about the voilence outside of the clinic which was almost non-existent while violence abounded inside the clinics to the tune of 53,000,000 babies lives terminated worldwide each year!


High court rules in favor of abortion protesters


3:15 p.m. February 28, 2006

WASHINGTON – A 20-year-old legal fight over protests outside abortion clinics ended Tuesday with the Supreme Court ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used against demonstrators.
The 8-0 decision was a setback for abortion clinics that were buoyed when the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals kept their case alive two years ago despite the high court's 2003 ruling that had cleared the way for lifting a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others.


Anti-abortion groups appealed to the justices after the lower court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by findings that protesters had made threats of violence.

In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not create “a freestanding physical violence offense” in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.

Instead, Breyer wrote, Congress addressed violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which allows for court injunctions to set limits for such protests.

“It's a great day for pro-lifers,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue.

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said the decision was disappointing because the injunction had decreased violence outside clinics nationally.

She said the clinic access act is problematic because it requires abortion providers to seek injunctions “city by city” and turns back the clock to the late 1980s when NOW played cat and mouse with Operation Rescue in trying to anticipate the cities and clinics that abortion protesters planned to target next.

Newman said his group and others have set their sights on the clinic access law, filing legal challenges they hope will lead courts – possibly even the Supreme Court– to overturn it.

Abortion opponents hope momentum is shifting in their favor: Last week, the high court decided to consider reinstating a federal ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion, and the South Dakota legislature's passed a bill that would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life.

President Bush, asked about the South Dakota measure in an interview with ABC News' Elizabeth Vargas, said Tuesday he hadn't “paid attention to that, to this particular issue you're talking about” but “I am not going to prejudge how the Supreme Court is going to judge a particular issue.”

However, he said, “My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incests and the life of the mother.” Asked if he would include the broader category of health of the mother, Bush said: “No. I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office.”

In the abortion protest case, social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with the demonstrators out of concern that the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

The legal battle began in 1986, when NOW filed a class-action suit challenging tactics used by the Pro-Life Action Network to block women from entering abortion clinics.

NOW's legal strategy was novel at the time, relying on civil provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was used predominantly in criminal cases against organized crime. The lawsuit also relied on the Hobbs Act, a 55-year-old law banning extortion.

A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against the anti-abortion protesters after a Chicago jury found in 1998 that demonstrators had engaged in a pattern of racketeering by interfering with clinic operations, menacing doctors, assaulting patients and damaging clinic property.

But the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that the extortion law could not be used against the protesters because they had not illegally “obtained property” from women seeking to enter clinics to receive abortions.

Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the decision because he was not a member of the court when the case was argued.

The cases are Scheidler v. NOW, 04-1244, and Operation Rescue v. NOW, 04-1352.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060228-1515-scotus-abortionprotests.html

[JoeChalupa]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

All I have to say is, my cousin had to get an abortion, and she went through a lot of emotional shit because of it. If ANYBODY! and I mean ANYBODY would have said ANYTHING insulting to her while she was entering the clinic I would have brought a bat to their heads, I don't fucking care what you believe in! People who do that shit deserve to get beaten, that's my opinion!

If you want to protest abortion, find some other fucking way!

[Peter]

There's no guarantee of freedom from speech in the US.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

There's no guarantee of freedom from speech in the US.
that's true... but let me tell you something, in that circumstance, and with cousin involved, there is no guarantee of freedom from bat either!

[RobinsontoDuncan]

These protestors are so violent and are literally doing everything they can to stop women from being able to get to the doors of an abortion clinic. I think this kind of thing is disgusting.

[xrayzebra]

These protestors are so violent and are literally doing everything they can to stop women from being able to get to the doors of an abortion clinic. I think this kind of thing is disgusting.

There are laws to stop them from physically abusing or harassing people.
But that wasn't what the injunction was about. It was stopping anyone
from protesting outside an abortion clinic or at least stopping some groups
from protesting outside abortion clinics. Breaking the law is still breaking
the law. Even for those with baseball bats.

[smeagol]

These protestors are so violent and are literally doing everything they can to stop women from being able to get to the doors of an abortion clinic. I think this kind of thing is disgusting.
Funny how your eyes are wide open when pro lifers protest abortions but when pro gay rights people or NOW or some other left-wing organization protests (and they do it violently too) your eyes are shut.

Double standard anybody?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

There are laws to stop them from physically abusing or harassing people.
But that wasn't what the injunction was about. It was stopping anyone
from protesting outside an abortion clinic or at least stopping some groups
from protesting outside abortion clinics. Breaking the law is still breaking
the law. Even for those with baseball bats.
yes, I'm aware I would probably go to jail fro cracking someone's head with a bat xray, but in that situation I really don't know if I could stop myself. I think those who insult women when they are vulnerable like that are the scum of the earth.

[gtownspur]

I just hope you can actually swing a bat.

[Oh, Gee!!]

but when pro gay rights people or NOW or some other left-wing organization protests (and they do it violently too) your eyes are shut.

Are the protests violent, though?

[boutons_]

Screaming your heads off, waving placards, and standing so close to the walkways and entrance and the clinic visitors, even if not actually striking clinic visitors and staff, is violent behavior, very aggressive, and intimidating.

When war, etc dissenters wanted to protest in similar fashion at dubya/dickhead speeches and inaugurations, they have been suppressed by the police and forced to locate exclusivley on a small plot at a large distance from the event.

Remember how NYC police suppressed dissenters at the Repug nominating convention in 2003, even so far as to plant plain-clothes police among the dissenters in order to foment violence by the dissenters and counter-violence by the police?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I just hope you can actually swing a bat.
what??

[Oh, Gee!!]

what??


if a guy ever said that to me, I'd be confused as well.

[smeagol]

Are the protests violent, though?
I was reading about an incident in the early nineties where women protestors stormed St. Patrik's Cathedral in Manhattan while mass was going on, yelling pro life chants and throwing used tampons on the floor. They even desecrated the tabernacle.

Yes, protest on the left and the right can get violent.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I was reading about an incident in the early nineties where women protestors stormed St. Patrik's Cathedral in Manhattan while mass was going on, yelling pro life chants and throwing used tampons on the floor. They even desecrated the tabernacle.

Yes, protest on the left and the right can get violent.

an incident? I see.

[smeagol]

an incident? I see.
Incident, protest, whatever you want to call it. I guess that it's because its women protesting in favor of abortion and the targets of their protests is the Catholic Church, then its OK.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I was reading about an incident in the early nineties where women protestors stormed St. Patrik's Cathedral in Manhattan while mass was going on, yelling pro life chants and throwing used tampons on the floor. They even desecrated the tabernacle.

Yes, protest on the left and the right can get violent.
you mean yelling PRO-CHOICE chants, right? Remember, pro-life means against abortion, pro-choice is pro-abortion

[Mr. Peabody]

Incident, protest, whatever you want to call it. I guess that it's because its women protesting in favor of abortion and the targets of their protests is the Catholic Church, then its OK.

If those women were protesting in favor of abortion and yelling pro-life chants, it must have been a confusing situation.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Incident, protest, whatever you want to call it. I guess that it's because its women protesting in favor of abortion and the targets of their protests is the Catholic Church, then its OK.

no, but you're using one incident from the 90s to back-up your claim that gay pride and NOW rallies are violent. The incident you cited was violent, but I still don't believe that your average gay pride or NOW rally is nearly as violent or threatening as your average abortion clinic protest

[Oh, Gee!!]

If those women were protesting in favor of abortion and yelling pro-life chants, it must have been a confusing situation.


maybe they were Baptists

[MaNuMaNiAc]

no, but you're using one incident from the 90s to back-up your claim that gay pride and NOW rallies are violent. The incident you cited was violent, but I still don't believe that your average gay pride or NOW rally is nearly as violent or threatening as your average abortion clinic protest
they aren't

[Sec24Row7]

Funny how your eyes are wide open when pro lifers protest abortions but when pro gay rights people or NOW or some other left-wing organization protests (and they do it violently too) your eyes are shut.

Double standard anybody?


If a gay person needs an abortion, they are doing something wrong.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

If a gay person needs an abortion, they are doing something wrong.
tell that to Arnold in "Junior"! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[Mr. Peabody]

maybe they were Baptists

Southern Baptists?

[xrayzebra]

I was reading about an incident in the early nineties where women protestors stormed St. Patrik's Cathedral in Manhattan while mass was going on, yelling pro life chants and throwing used tampons on the floor. They even desecrated the tabernacle.

Yes, protest on the left and the right can get violent.

And neither side is correct when they do that sort of thing. But people
on either side have the right to protest, but not shout down or physically
threaten anyone.

[Mr. Peabody]

I agree with the protestors' right to protest; however , because you have the right to do something does not necessarily mean you should do it. A good example is the protests at the funerals of our military men and women. These are in very poor taste and should not take place, even though people do have the right. I feel the same way about harassing women going into an abortion clinic. I am sure the state of mind they are in is tough enough without somebody screaming at them and calling them a murderer.

[xrayzebra]

But you don't agree with anyone wanting to protect our borders, even tho all they
are doing is reporting what they see to the USBP. Especially the elected
representatives, who may be Hispanic, who you call coconuts. Obviously you
don't like Anglos either. Since you insult them by comparing them to an Anglo.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Southern Baptists?

They ain't Methodists.

[Mr. Peabody]

But you don't agree with anyone wanting to protect our borders, even tho all they are doing is reporting what they see to the USBP. Especially the elected representatives, who may be Hispanic, who you call coconuts. Obviously you don't like Anglos either. Since you insult them by comparing them to an Anglo.

No, I don't agree with an armed militia "protecting the homeland" as they put it. Why is it so wrong for me to disagree with that?

Also, calling Cuellar a "coconut" does not mean that I dislike white people. It means that I dislike Chicanos that act like white people.

[xrayzebra]

^^Read what you posted. I dislike Chicanos, what is a Chicano, who act like
white people. And who act white people. What's wrong with white people? How
bout they act like American's. You know like the the so called "white people".
Do you know where the so called white people came from?

Back to the original post. They were not armed. Get your damn story correct if
you are going to tell it.

[Mr. Peabody]

^^Read what you posted. I dislike Chicanos, what is a Chicano, who act like
white people. And who act white people. What's wrong with white people? How
bout they act like American's. You know like the the so called "white people".
Do you know where the so called white people came from?


:lol I almost feel bad that you take some of the shit I post so seriously. :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

^^Back to the original post. They were not armed. Get your damn story correct if
you are going to tell it.

From the article --

Last October, U.S. Congressman Henry Cuellar -- a so-called Democrat from Laredo, Texas -- sponsored a bill called the "Border Law Enforcement Act of 2005" that would essentially deputize members of the Minutemen militia by giving them new titles, badges and guns.

:rolleyes

[xrayzebra]

:lol I almost feel bad that you take some of the shit I post so seriously. :lol

You posted it, not me. I saw no humor in your posting. Now it is suppose
to be funny. I don't believe you for a little bit. You are a typical liberal,
get caught and now well, it's all your fault. Go suck a lemon.

[Mr. Peabody]

Back to the issue

I agree with the protestors' right to protest; however , because you have the right to do something does not necessarily mean you should do it. A good example is the protests at the funerals of our military men and women. These are in very poor taste and should not take place, even though people do have the right. I feel the same way about harassing women going into an abortion clinic. I am sure the state of mind they are in is tough enough without somebody screaming at them and calling them a murderer.

[jochhejaam]

Yes, protest on the left and the right can get violent.
If you think the protests are violent you ought to see the violence taking place inside the womb during an abortion.

]

[jochhejaam]

Back to the issue

I agree with the protestors' right to protest; however , because you have the right to do something does not necessarily mean you should do it. A good example is the protests at the funerals of our military men and women. These are in very poor taste and should not take place, even though people do have the right. I feel the same way about harassing women going into an abortion clinic. I am sure the state of mind they are in is tough enough without somebody screaming at them and calling them a murderer.
Oh that the baby about to be aborted should only face only a tongue lashing.

[Spurminator]

I say protest away.

The more spiteful assholes pretending to care about babies in front of abortion clinics, the more reason the general public has to consider the rights of the mother.

Boiled down, the Abortion battle is really about Nutjob Fundamentalists vs. Abrasive Feminist Lawyers and who can piss off the level-headed public more.

Go Nutjobs!

[jochhejaam]

I say protest away.

The more spiteful assholes pretending to care about babies in front of abortion clinics, the more reason the general public has to consider the rights of the mother.

Document them being pretenders or be just another voice in the wind wrecklessly and aimlessly throwing around callous and unfounded rhetoric. (I think we'll find you are entrenched with the latter).


And just how the hel does more people protesting the monstrosity known as abortion equate to more reasons for the general public to consider the right of the mother to destroy the baby? The majority of the general public is against abortion except if the life of the mother is in danger which does not include those going to abortion clinics.
I can't wait to hear your rationale for this one.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Document them being pretenders or be just another voice in the wind wrecklessly and aimlessly throwing around callous and unfounded rhetoric. (I think we'll find you are entrenched with the latter).


And just how the hel does more people protesting the monstrosity known as abortion equate to more reasons for the general public to consider the right of the mother to destroy the baby? The majority of the general public is against abortion except if the life of the mother is in danger which does not include those going to abortion clinics.
I can't wait to hear your rationale for this one.
wow, I'd like to see where you got that fact from. ( and please don't bring another one of those pseudo scientific articles that you got from a RELIGIOUS website, bring a scientific source please)

[jochhejaam]

wow, I'd like to see where you got that fact from. ( and please don't bring another one of those pseudo scientific articles that you got from a RELIGIOUS website, bring a scientific source please)
In other words you only want a scientific poll spun, skewed, twisted and served up on a platter by none other than the left-wing media...<sigh>
Would you prefer this "scientific" poll come from the liars at CBS, the liars at the NYTimes or the lunatic left at MoveOn.org.?

[scott]

Document them being pretenders

Did I really just read this?

[jochhejaam]

Did I really just read this?
I just scrolled back up for ya scott and you sure did.

[Mr. Peabody]

The majority of the general public is against abortion except if the life of the mother is in danger which does not include those going to abortion clinics.



He's correct on this point and you can count me in that majority. I am not "for" abortion. However, I am pro-choice and many people in the "majority" are the same way.

[Yonivore]

Any idea how Ruth Bader "Snoozeberg" feels about this?

http://newsbusters.org/media/2006-03-01-FNCSpecRpt.jpg

[Spurminator]

Document them being pretenders or be just another voice in the wind wrecklessly and aimlessly throwing around callous and unfounded rhetoric. (I think we'll find you are entrenched with the latter).


And just how the hel does more people protesting the monstrosity known as abortion equate to more reasons for the general public to consider the right of the mother to destroy the baby? The majority of the general public is against abortion except if the life of the mother is in danger which does not include those going to abortion clinics.
I can't wait to hear your rationale for this one.


Uh, yeah maybe I'll quote that study where people admit to not really caring about the babies.

Or I could just use logic.

The real issue for Pro-Lifers is sex. You're afraid kids are going to have sex before marriage and you think that consequences (like pregnancy) discourage premarital sex.

You don't care about the feti, but you convince yourself that you do. I'm not saying you're intentionally deceptive or apathetic, you're just confused. Your intentions are decent, but you're not considering all sides and you never will.

There's nothing wrong with being against abortion, obviously. But those of you who demonize and humiliate people on their way to the clinics do not help your case in the eyes of the general public. Most of us, including those who may be morally opposed to abortion, think you're assholes who should mind your own business.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]Uh, yeah maybe I'll quote that study where people admit to not really caring about the babies.
You have nothing to back up what you said? You don't, just your hate driven subjectivity to back up your ridiculous assertion that those that protest abortion are only pretending to care about babies.




The real issue for Pro-Lifers is sex. You're afraid kids are going to have sex before marriage and you think that consequences (like pregnancy) discourage premarital sex.
Wow, spurminator unplugged! This opinion's every bit the equal in absurdity as the "pretender" post.




You don't care about the feti, but you convince yourself that you do. I'm not saying you're intentionally deceptive or apathetic, you're just confused. Your intentions are decent, but you're not considering all sides and you never will.
Spurminator, what are you a wannabe psycologist? Two sides are a woman's right to destroy the living, growing child within her vs the child's right to live. I have a very clear understanding of both sides and yes I'll remain steadfastly on the right of the child to live every time.





There's nothing wrong with being against abortion, obviously. But those of you who demonize and humiliate people on their way to the clinics do not help your case in the eyes of the general public. Most of us, including those who may be morally opposed to abortion, think you're assholes who should mind your own business.
I've never protested at an abortion clinic but I understand the high regard for the sanctity of human life of those that do and I support them 100%. I'll bet you have nothing to support this last nonsensical charge? You're demonizing those that care about the unborn a position that we both know God supports so why should anyone care about your opinion that they're assholes for voicing their concern?
Let's see, who do I postion myself behind on this issue, God or Spurminator...


“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you came to birth I consecrated you.”
Jeremiah 1:5


“God called me when I was in the womb,
Before my birth he had pronounced my name.”
Isaiah 49:1


“Children are a gift from the Lord,
A blessing, the fruit of the womb.”
Ps 127:3

[SA210]

^^^ So does the Bible only apply to abortions or war too, which = killing as well?

[Spurminator]

You have nothing to back up what you said? You don't, just your hate driven subjectivity to back up your ridiculous assertion that those that protest abortion are only pretending to care about babies.

There's not a study or Bible verse for every logical assertion. Perhaps you could point to a study that shows Pro Lifers DO only care about the lives of the feti? You can't? Why Not?

Duherahuhr...


Wow, spurminator unplugged! This opinion's every bit the equal in absurdity as the "pretender" post.


Convincing argument.


Spurminator, what are you a wannabe psycologist? Two sides are a woman's right to destroy the living, growing child within her vs the child's right to live. I have a very clear understanding of both sides and yes I'll remain steadfastly on the right of the child to live every time.

Yeah sounds like you've carefully considered both sides of the argument to me... You're obviously very simpathetic and compassionate towards women in these situations. I'm sure it pains you to tell them how hot hell is going to be for them.



I've never protested at an abortion clinic but I understand the high regard for the sanctity of human life of those that do and I support them 100%. I'll bet you have nothing to support this last nonsensical charge? You're demonizing those that care about the unborn a position that we both know God supports so why should anyone care about your opinion that they're assholes for voicing their concern? Let's see, who do I postion myself behind on this issue, God or Spurminator...

Your response has no relevance or relation to my comment which you quoted. And frankly I don't have the patience right now to explain how confused you clearly are. I encourage you to read more carefully before beginning your canned responses.

Final thought, I love how you pick and choose Bible verses that seem to support whatever argument you're making... For example, you quote the above verses in opposition to abortion, yet in another thread less than a week ago, you quote this verse to argue that drug use is wrong because governing authorities (established by God) have deemed it so.



Romans 13:1-7 states: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Guess a Law is only established by God if you agree with it.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Spurminator]There's not a study or Bible verse for every logical assertion. Perhaps you could point to a study that shows Pro Lifers DO only care about the lives of the feti? You can't? Why Not?
You deflected the question because your charge is baseless and without merit, I accept your indirect non-answer as substantiating my assertion that they were unwarranted.




Yeah sounds like you've carefully considered both sides of the argument to me... You're obviously very simpathetic and compassionate towards women in these situations. I'm sure it pains you to tell them how hot hell is going to be for them.
More unfounded wild accusations on your part, it's becoming the norm in your posts.




Your response has no relevance or relation to my comment which you quoted.
Spurminator: "those of you who demonize and humiliate people on their way to the clinics"
jochhejaam:"I've never protested at an abortion clinic..."

No relevance or relation? OOOOOOOOkay :lol








And frankly I don't have the patience right now to explain how confused you clearly are.
Paraphrasing this comment of yours: 'I'm so lost and confused in this arguement I really don't know which way is up'




Final thought, I love how you pick and choose Bible verses that seem to support whatever argument you're making... For example, you quote the above verses in opposition to abortion, yet in another thread less than a week ago, you quote this verse to argue that drug use is wrong because governing authorities (established by God) have deemed it so.
Guess a Law is only established by God if you agree with it.
You conveniently left out the qualifier I added to the verses that laws that would call for egregious sin are not to be followed which makes the point you tried to make null and void.
The whole sum of the Ten Commandments can be condensed into four words "Thou shall not sin"! Do you believe otherwise?