Injunction that protects patients and staff of women's clinics heads to the Supreme Court

words by Pseudo-Adrienne posted July 28, 2005 - 11:22pm

For seven years, the National Organization for Women has had a court-ordered injunction that protected patients and staff of women's clinics from anti-choice protestor violence--because I suppose violence, assault, hurling hateful slurs, bombings, shootings, stalking, threats, and vandalism are all apart of the misogynist "pro-life" dogma. This injunction was known as NOW v. Scheidler, and recently the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. And what is at stake is the safety and even the very lives of those who enter, exit, and work at women's clinics all across the country.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take another look at the nationwide injunction the National Organization for Women (NOW) obtained seven years ago against the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), Joe Scheidler and others, to stop violent attacks on women's health clinics.[...]

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the injunction after a jury concluded that the defendants' actions violated Rackteer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. After that decision, instances of clinic violence plummeted, and the defendants have relentlessly challenged this injunction against violent acts.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that while anti-abortion groups did commit crimes and interfere with clinic operations, the lower court's injunction could not be supported by these acts of extortion because no money or property had been obtained from the clinics as a result. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for further action, where NOW argued that even if defendants' acts of extortion were not covered by RICO, their acts and threats of physical violence were.

The 7th Circuit Court did not decide that issue, instead sending the case back to the district court to hear arguments and make an initial ruling. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, demanding that the injunction be lifted without further proceedings in any other court.

"Of course they want to have the injunction lifted," Gandy said. "They want to return to the days of using physical assault to terrorize patients and providers as a way to shut down these clinics. But even if they win, they won't be able to do that'


( words about: )
media girl's picture
Comment by media girl posted July 29, 2005 - 12:18am

The SCLB Enforcement Unit has mandated that all leftist or centrist talk must remain focused on Karl Rove and nothing else.


(1)
Comment by RedDan posted July 29, 2005 - 12:32am

Front page on Kos

Look, love armando, hate armando or don't really care one way or the other...there is a pretty rousing discussion going on...some members of that discussion are pretty lame, and I consider them pretty stupid and pathetic...but then again, other members of that discussion are excellent, progressive, and pretty damned awesome...and it is, in fact, front page on one of the premier "SCLB"...

(0)
media girl's picture
Comment by media girl posted July 29, 2005 - 12:44am

But there are other places besides dKos, too, RedDan ... or are you filling in for Armando's thin skin? ;) To be honest, my occasional forays into that world to rant about reproductive rights usually get a handful of 4's. But never much of a response, and the front page in general is at best indifferent to the entire issue. Nice to see Armando move away from the "I gave pro-choice at the office" meme. Maybe it's a good thing we all didn't shut up, as directed. :p


(1)
Comment by RedDan posted July 29, 2005 - 1:06am

other places...some good, some better, some bad, some worse...

I visit a lot of them, and comment on a few...occasionally at Drum's site when he is being particularly annoying, sometimes at Gilliard's place, often at Kos, sometimes at Booman or Eurotrib, and more often, of late, here.

I am not filling in for Armando's thin skin - only Armando can do that, and I wish he wouldn't...so annoying sometimes, but a good heart, I think.

And no, you all should absolutely not shut up as directed. No way!

(0)
kactus's picture
Comment by kactus posted July 29, 2005 - 3:01am

But what does SCLB stand for?


(0)
artemisia's picture
Comment by artemisia posted July 29, 2005 - 10:04am

n/t


(1)
Comment by Maruta posted July 29, 2005 - 12:30am

If this kind of tactics were used by the American Nazi Party toward one of their target groups, no one would need to take it to the Supreme Court to figure it out.

The trouble with true believers is that they will go to extremes to do what they think is right.

I have a friend who is getting a Ph.D. in history and got a link of a streaming audio of a speech made by Nazi leader Himmler during the Holocaust. He addressed the SS and he said that what they were doing was ultimately "right." That they were "decent fellows" and sometime decent people had to do some pretty extreme things, but in the long run these things would be right.

Germany by that time was a nation of men and not laws.

That anyone has to think twice about curbing people who harass and intimidate others means we have come pretty far down the wrong road.

(1)

» "Injunction that protects patients and staff of women's clinics heads to the Supreme Court"