9th Circuit Court Protects Anti-abortion Domestic Terrorism

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Press Release March 29, 2001 Contact: Mary Hood Phone: 323-651-0495

9th Circuit Court Protects Anti-abortion Domestic Terrorism

Outrage Over Court-Protected Domestic Terrorism

Statement of Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal

WASHINGTON, DC – We are shocked and dismayed that a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously chosen to limit and weaken the protections guaranteed by Congress through the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). Under the reasoning of today’s decision in Planned Parenthood, et al. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al., abortion providers and clinic staff must endure the distribution of "Wanted" posters and Web sites that the FBI, a federal jury, and a district court have agreed are threats of violence.

How can the Court ignore that these defendants – anti-abortion extremists and the groups they belong to – acted together to target doctors and clinics when they issued a "Deadly Dozen" list of doctors? How can the Court ignore that "Wanted" posters were distributed and seen as threatening, when historically the distribution of similar posters preceded the murders of doctors? How can the Court ignore the intimidation of the Nuremberg Files Web site, when even the FBI took steps to warn doctors and clinics of the possible dangers that existed when their names were added to that site?

The Court has gallingly characterized anti-abortion extremists as modern day patriots. Such language may only serve to embolden them to step up threats and their campaign of terror. Our research shows, that when the Supreme Court refused to curtail these terrorist activities (Bray v. Alexandria), violence at clinics escalated.

The initial jury verdict in this case chilled the anti-abortion reign of terror. But if this appellate court decision is left to stand, it will unleash it once again.

Should this Court ruling stand, it encourages a society where terror can be increasingly used to solve political debates. Remember that today threats of violence can be projected worldwide in split seconds over the Internet. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling may lead to an unraveling of a civil society – this is about more than anti-abortion violence, but about civility and democracy.

We fear a resurgence of anti-abortion violence if these extremists can threaten and target doctors with impunity. Our eighth annual National Clinic Violence Survey shows that severe anti-abortion violence remains an enduring problem at our nation’s reproductive health clinics with 20% reporting severe violence or threats in 2000.

The Feminist Majority Foundation filed an amicus brief for the plaintiffs in this case and runs the largest and oldest Clinic Access Project in the nation.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), March 30, 2001

Answers

Federal Appeals Court Rules Antiabortion 'Nuremberg Files' Web Site Protected Free Speech

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has handed "militant" abortion-rights opponents a "major victory," ruling that the " Nuremberg Files" Web site, which lists names and addresses of abortion providers and features "wanted" posters calling providers "baby butchers," is protected free speech, the Los Angeles Times reports. The ruling overturns a $107 million jury verdict against the American Coalition of Life Activists, Advocates for Life Ministries and 13 other individuals that found the posters and Web site to be a "real threat to the doctors and the clinics where they worked." Planned Parenthood of Oregon, a Portland, Ore.-based women's clinic and four doctors were plaintiffs in the case (Weinstein, Los Angeles Times, 3/29). The defendants maintained that they are "political protesters," adding that their posters and Web site are protected free speech because "they merely ... list doctors and clinics" and do not constitute a direct threat (Kravets, AP/Contra Costa Times, 3/28).

No Direct Threats

Writing for the three-judge circuit court panel, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski said that the defendants "can only be held liable if they authorized, ratified or directly threatened violence" (Los Angeles Times, 3/29). He added, "If [the] defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others," then their statements could properly support the verdict. But if their statements "merely encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the First Amendment" (AP/New York Times, 3/29). The defendants came "closest to suggesting violence on the Web page, where the names of murdered doctors are stricken and the wounded ones are grayed," Kozinski said. But while the markings "may connote approval" for past violence, they "cannot fairly be read as calling for future violence against the several hundred other doctors, politicians, judges and celebrities on the list; otherwise any statement approving past violence could automatically be construed as calling for future violence," he added (Los Angeles Times, 3/29). Much of the circuit court's decision was based on a 1982 Supreme Court case, which involved civil rights leaders who threatened African Americans continuing to shop in white-owned stores in Mississippi, despite an organized boycott of those stores. The activists took note of who continued to shop in the stores, later publicizing the names. In that case, the high court ruled that the threats were protected speech, despite contributing to "an atmosphere of intimidation" (Sanchez, Washington Post, 3/29).

Support for Decision

Abortion-rights opponents "hailed" the ruling, saying it "protected their right to speak out vigorously." The ruling "effectively limits" the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which prohibits the use of force or the threat of force to prevent access to reproductive health services, the Times reports (Los Angeles Times, 3/29). Donald Treshman, national director of Rescue America and one of the defendants, said, "Had this decision gone against us, our nation would have slipped very rapidly down a dangerous slope toward repression of free speech. The basis of the original lawsuit by Planned Parenthood was to stifle free speech in the areas of abortion and, by eliminating debate, allow the issue to be slipped under the rug and ignored" (Washington Times, 3/29). Michael Bray, a Bowie, Md., minister and another defendant in the case, added, "We did nothing but express our view, however radical it might seem. Not only do abortion advocates want to have their rights but they want to shut up everybody that calls it murder" (Washington Post, 3/29).

Opposition to Decision

Abortion-rights supporters said the ruling would "lead to a surge of violence against abortion providers" (Los Angeles Times, 3/29). Maria Vullo, the attorney representing Planned Parenthood of Oregon, said, "We are obviously disappointed with the panel's decision and firmly believe that it is wrong." She added that she would ask the circuit court to reconsider its decision or petition the Supreme Court to hear the case (AP/Contra Costa Times, 3/28). Planned Parenthood of Oregon spokesperson Donald Skinner added, "We're very dismayed that this kind of implicit terrorism is not being seen as such. What kind of message does this send to people who already seem prone to take the law into their own hands?" (Washington Post, 3/29)

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), March 30, 2001.


Debra,

FWIW, the 9th circuit court has the most opinions overturned by the Supreme Court than any other circuit. They handle the largest volume in the country, and thus do no always take the time and careful consideration of the law necessary for a good decision. I will wait to see what the end result is. Thank you for the update though. I will write several letters in an effort to change things. Some ears are not ever open, though I know you realize that. The problem that occurs is between this decision, and the decision of the Supreme Court, and those folks that must suffer the existing law in the meantime.

-- Aunt Bee (Aunt__Bee@hotmail.com), March 30, 2001.


This is an absolutely horrible decision. Any fool can see that the site is providing "how to" information for killers.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), March 30, 2001.

Oh, right. Porno sites have a Constitutional right to exist, but those who feel they are protecting the lives of the innocent do not. I'm surprised that the court had the courage to come up with such an anti-establishment position. Prior restraint has long been a no-no in first amendment cases, and it's interesting that the Court spoke out so definitely against censorship.

What is this group calling itself the "Feminist Majority Foundation-" does its membership make up more than half the US population, or has it just appointed itself to speak as though it did?

-- LittleAnthony (ko@ko.ba), March 30, 2001.


Well they ARE the "Deadly Dozen"; are they not?

When you reach up inside a woman, and cut a living, viable, defenseless child into pieces, and vacuum what's left, I'd say DEADLY is a fairly accurate description. You're free to call it "whatever"; and I'm free to call it a crime.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), March 30, 2001.



Little Anthony-

The Nuremburg Files had the home addresses, business addresses, phone numbers, names of offspring and location of their schools on its website with the suggestion that someone who wanted to strike a blow against choice could use this information to do just that. In some instances, the site had detailed information about routes to work and protection measures, including which doctors had private body guards and which wore bullet-proof vests. The First Amendment is not meant to cover terroristic threats or clear privacy violations.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 30, 2001.


Ah, but you're not free to tell people how to go about killing those you disagree with.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 30, 2001.

If you think it's wrong, it must be right.

Domestic terrorism is a baby cringing when it fees cold steel, reptile.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), March 30, 2001.


KoFE-

If you want to live in a society where it's okay to kill those you disagree with, you might want to consider Iraq. The weather's supposed to be nice here. Of course, you're welcome to remain in the United States, however, we do have a set of laws here that our citizens are required to follow, like it or not. You're welcome to work to change those laws, however, there will be people who oppose your efforts. Killing them is not an acceptable means of enhancing your work.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 30, 2001.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi- bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9935320

This is where the actual decision is printed. It never ceases to amaze me that some radical pro-lifers(yeah you, KOFE) think it is just fine to murder an adult for their cause. KOFE, how would you like it if it were done to you? If your personal information were put up for the world to see, and I formed a group to kill off pro-lifers?

I am going to form a group which kills the people who kill doctors who perform abortions. And then you can form a group who kills people who kill people who kill the doctors. Where does the cycle of violence end?

Take your agenda, KOFE, and put it where the sun does not shine.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 30, 2001.



I just finished reading the actual decision. If anyone would like to discuss the text, post here and we can dialogue.

Oh, and KOFE, I know I should stick my agenda in the same place : ).

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 30, 2001.


kill babies-------ok. ceasor! why kill the doctors they got the votes! something wrong with the picture???? what does GOD say about ''shedding innocent blood''

oh well childless couples can shop overseas for babies=duh?

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), March 30, 2001.


Tarzan:

Do you get my drift now on how/why the "underground" could handle this need safely and efficiently? Eventually, underground workers are revealed and executed. My dad's cousin's husband was executed by the Nazis for smuggling Jews into Norway. However, for every person executed, three pop up in their place....kindof like Napster, in that regard.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 30, 2001.


The killing already began with you and your agenda, FS.

Passing that kind of judgement on the life of an innocent, is the height of arrogance.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), March 31, 2001.


>>The Nuremburg Files had the home addresses, business addresses, phone numbers, names of offspring and location of their schools on its website with the suggestion that someone who wanted to strike a blow against choice

The idealogical difference is not about 'choice.' It is about aborting a baby. You may feel one way or another about the moral goodness of the act, but using a euphemism to describe what it is smacks of coverup, of trying to avoid thinking about the actual issue.

-- LittleAnthony (LA@Imperials.com), March 31, 2001.



Unlike you, reptile, I won't be taking part in the killing of anyone.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), March 31, 2001.

Way to avoid the issue Little Anthony. It's not about aborting a baby its about publishing the personal information of private citizens and their children in an effort to have them harassed or killed.

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), March 31, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ