Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Supreme Court Ends Protection Against Abortion Clinic Violence
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that could add to the increasing difficulty women face in obtaining reproductive health services.
For Immediate Release
Contact: Lisa Bennett, 202-628-8669, ext. 123; cell 202-641-1906
Supreme Court Ends Protection Against Abortion Clinic Violence
Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that could add to the increasing difficulty women face in obtaining reproductive health services. If the Court's 8-0 decision in Scheidler, et al., v. National Organization for Women (NOW), et al. and Operation Rescue v. NOW, et al. ushers in a return to clinic violence in the United States, NOW stands ready to fight in every jurisdiction.
For two decades, NOW has pursued every legal strategy, including three Supreme Court cases, to stave off the violent attacks that gripped this country from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. This case, brought under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, was one of the most successful long-term strategies. The federal jury found unanimously that these defendants had engaged in a nationwide criminal enterprise to close women's health clinics through extortion, violence and threats of violence, and specified over a hundred acts in furtherance of their efforts.
The filing of this case and the resulting injunction, which protected clinics nationwide, contributed to the dramatic reduction in clinic violence that we have witnessed in recent years, and we will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to protect women's right to obtain abortion services.
This case was never about protests or pickets -— it was about violence and extortion. But without strong protections against clinic assaults, the legal right to abortion could become meaningless. If women are too terrified to walk into clinics and healthcare providers are too terrified to keep their doors open, then we will have lost the fight for reproductive freedom even with Roe v. Wade still on the books.
We will not let that happen. NOW helped to draft and enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994, and we will use that law to its fullest extent in pursuing those who would use violent means to prevent women from making their own reproductive decisions. As Susan Hill (president of the National Women's Health Organization and owner of the two clinics that joined NOW in the lawsuit) said, "[w]e cannot allow anti-abortion extremists to take this decision as a signal to once again increase violent activity aimed at clinics and clinic staff."
In the coming weeks, our attorneys will make available a FACE kit that local clinics and lawyers can use to enforce the FACE act in their communities. We must do whatever is necessary to protect doctors and patients, or our legal right to abortion will be a hollow shell.
Joseph Scheidler, Randall Terry and other leaders of the self-described "pro-life mafia" had vowed to stop abortion "by any means necessary," and the ensuing attacks included arson, bombings, violent blockades, death threats and even murder. By vacating the injunction on narrow, technical grounds, the Supreme Court sided today with thugs and bullies, not peaceful protestors.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Since when is protest "violence"? Why are abortion clinics the only group that gets a no-protest exception to the first amendment? Ever wonder why your buddies in pro-labor sided against you? Because they had the foresight to understand how dangerous it is to start defining groups that can't be protested.
You should be thankful. If you think the supreme court is dangerously leaning conservative, consider that winning this case might have gotten pro-choice activists banned from some protests in a few years by magical judicial fiat.
You should be thankful. If you think the supreme court is dangerously leaning conservative, consider that winning this case might have gotten pro-choice activists banned from some protests in a few years by magical judicial fiat.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 28, 2006
Supreme Court Takes Away Additional Tool to Protect Women, Doctors, Clinics from Anti-Choice Activities
Washington, DC—NARAL Pro-Choice America called today's decision by the Supreme Court a hindrance to reproductive-health-care clinics' efforts to protect their patients and employees from anti-choice violence and intimidation. In Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, the Supreme Court held that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to stop anti-choice extremists from obstructing access to clinics, trespassing on or damaging clinic property, or using violence or threats of violence against clinics, their employees, or their patients.
"This decision by the Court takes away a legal resource doctors, clinic employees and women could have used to protect themselves from the violent acts of these extreme anti-choice demonstrators," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "As NARAL Pro-Choice America argued in our amicus brief, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act enacted in 1994 has not curtailed the illegal actions of extremist anti-choice protesters. This case would have helped fill the gap in protecting women and doctors. To me, there is a great hypocrisy surrounding the actions of these anti-choice groups; the doctors and clinics they target are the same ones offering women a broad range of reproductive-health care including services that prevent unintended pregnancy and to reduce the need for abortion."
Unfortunately, violence at reproductive-health-care clinics is still a reality today. Among other acts, in the past year there has been an attempted firebombing at a Louisiana clinic and one incident of arson in Florida. In the past decade approximately two murders, one attempted murder, two bombings, 18 incidents of arson, 298 acts of vandalism, 642 anthrax threats, 121 bomb threats, and 27 blockades have occurred at clinics. Since 1993, three doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard have been murdered. In addition to these seven murders, 17 attempted murders have also occurred since 1991.
Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032
Supreme Court Takes Away Additional Tool to Protect Women, Doctors, Clinics from Anti-Choice Activities
Washington, DC—NARAL Pro-Choice America called today's decision by the Supreme Court a hindrance to reproductive-health-care clinics' efforts to protect their patients and employees from anti-choice violence and intimidation. In Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, the Supreme Court held that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to stop anti-choice extremists from obstructing access to clinics, trespassing on or damaging clinic property, or using violence or threats of violence against clinics, their employees, or their patients.
"This decision by the Court takes away a legal resource doctors, clinic employees and women could have used to protect themselves from the violent acts of these extreme anti-choice demonstrators," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "As NARAL Pro-Choice America argued in our amicus brief, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act enacted in 1994 has not curtailed the illegal actions of extremist anti-choice protesters. This case would have helped fill the gap in protecting women and doctors. To me, there is a great hypocrisy surrounding the actions of these anti-choice groups; the doctors and clinics they target are the same ones offering women a broad range of reproductive-health care including services that prevent unintended pregnancy and to reduce the need for abortion."
Unfortunately, violence at reproductive-health-care clinics is still a reality today. Among other acts, in the past year there has been an attempted firebombing at a Louisiana clinic and one incident of arson in Florida. In the past decade approximately two murders, one attempted murder, two bombings, 18 incidents of arson, 298 acts of vandalism, 642 anthrax threats, 121 bomb threats, and 27 blockades have occurred at clinics. Since 1993, three doctors, two clinic employees, a clinic escort, and a security guard have been murdered. In addition to these seven murders, 17 attempted murders have also occurred since 1991.
Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032
For more information:
http://prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-rel...
have stood in solidarity with the prochoice movement here and elsewhere. We know how reproductive rights affect women in the workplace.
As a female union member who has fought for the right to choice, I call on any male union member who is antichoice to remember one word. If we don't have that, then we have a problem. SOLIDARITY.
As a female union member who has fought for the right to choice, I call on any male union member who is antichoice to remember one word. If we don't have that, then we have a problem. SOLIDARITY.
Abortion is horrific violence. It is a sell of the feminist movement. It sells out non violence. And guess what. I am not right wing. I oppose Bush, oppose the terror on Iraq, marched against the war and am a union rep. I simply do not believe that abortion, often done for convenience and not to save the mothers life is right.
It wasnt an act of violnce. it was an act of sustainability. YOu r using a conservative analysis of abortion and in the process becominng, at least momentarily, conservative.
I think the evidence speaks for itself. You obviously don't ever have to personally have an abortion as you are an "Erik" and the fact that you so baddly want to control any woman who wants to, speaks for your obvious desire to simply control women. You can't obviously control sex, i.e. get it on demand, etc.. So your anger is directed at the women who attempt to have control over their womb, i.e. their body, their sex. All the secret desires of these controlling anti-abortionists, harbor secret fantasies of reducing women down to sex slaves and domesticated animals to impregnate at will. Read "A Handmaid's Tale" if you want to see where these right wing Christian nut jobs want to create as a culture.
It seems to most folks around this website that if you don’t think abortion is a good idea, you are working for Adolph Hitler to suppress the liberties of women. We don’t allow for murder in our country, why should we turn a blind eye to unborn children? And if you really think that we should not consider the child that is left out of this discussion, you are a loon who should not receive a moment of our time.
As for calling anyone who disagrees for your disrespect for life a fascist, grow up.
As for calling anyone who disagrees for your disrespect for life a fascist, grow up.
A few questions for you.
-You have determined for youself that you have the right to tell a woman, any woman, even a woman you know nothing about, that she should have no say over her reproductive existence. If the government made a law telling you that men were responsible for overpopulating the planet and needed to be sterilized to save babies from dying of starvation, would you comply with such a law, even if it appeared unjust to you?
-Do you support the right of a rapist to have a say over whether the woman he raped has an abortion or not?
-Should the rapist be allowed to be a part of the child's life, if the woman is forced to go through with the pregnancy against her will?
-Have you ever adopted a child with a disability or a child that is considered unadoptable? If not, why not? There are plenty available.
-You have determined for youself that you have the right to tell a woman, any woman, even a woman you know nothing about, that she should have no say over her reproductive existence. If the government made a law telling you that men were responsible for overpopulating the planet and needed to be sterilized to save babies from dying of starvation, would you comply with such a law, even if it appeared unjust to you?
-Do you support the right of a rapist to have a say over whether the woman he raped has an abortion or not?
-Should the rapist be allowed to be a part of the child's life, if the woman is forced to go through with the pregnancy against her will?
-Have you ever adopted a child with a disability or a child that is considered unadoptable? If not, why not? There are plenty available.
-First of all sterilization and abortion are completely different issues. Sterilization is to stop people from getting pregnant; abortion is to destroy the child once it is pregnant. To make them sound as if it is the same thing is not honest. And women do have a right to control their reproductive existence. Don’t have sex if you don’t want a child, or protect yourself accordingly if you will.
-In the case of Rape, abortion would have to be permitted. Although I do feel all unborn life is valuable, I do not think it would be right to subject someone to that.
-Again, since rape is a felony and a vicious attack, of course a rapist should not be involved with the raising of the child. I have yet to hear someone make that argument.
-My brother has a mental disability. I don’t under stand this line of argument however. Of course there are plenty of “unwanted” children in this world, is this your argument for abortion? It does not change the value of unborn life.
-In the case of Rape, abortion would have to be permitted. Although I do feel all unborn life is valuable, I do not think it would be right to subject someone to that.
-Again, since rape is a felony and a vicious attack, of course a rapist should not be involved with the raising of the child. I have yet to hear someone make that argument.
-My brother has a mental disability. I don’t under stand this line of argument however. Of course there are plenty of “unwanted” children in this world, is this your argument for abortion? It does not change the value of unborn life.
"First of all sterilization and abortion are completely different issues. "
No Oscar, they are about reproductive rights. As the old saying goes, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." You chop off mine, I chop off yours. Ouch.
"In the case of Rape, abortion would have to be permitted. Although I do feel all unborn life is valuable, I do not think it would be right to subject someone to that."
So now all of a sudden, it's not murder? I give you credit there, but many of your antichoice friends would enact laws that say who cares if she was raped, they say make her have the rapist's fetus AND have the rapist in her life for the duration. Sorry Oscar, no sale.
"since rape is a felony and a vicious attack, of course a rapist should not be involved with the raising of the child. I have yet to hear someone make that argument."
Dear Oscar. Welcome to the internet. Check out this website:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/24/dakota.abortion.ap/
"If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault."
The onus is on you to prove Krista wrong. Hope you're a lawyer, pal.
"My brother has a mental disability. I don’t under stand this line of argument however. Of course there are plenty of “unwanted” children in this world, is this your argument for abortion? It does not change the value of unborn life."
Good for you. Personally, I know a lot of people living with disabilities. So back to the question, how many of these children who are being left to rot (denied government funding by our wonderful 2 party system, being sent to other countries) are you committed to taking care of? Somebody's gotta do it Oscar, but gee whiz, nobody's stepped up to the plate. In spite of all those gosh-darned holy-holy right to lifers, we're missing out on the real right to a real life of kids who actually can look at you and see what you're really doing for them. Which is basically SQUAT, Oscar.
No Oscar, they are about reproductive rights. As the old saying goes, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." You chop off mine, I chop off yours. Ouch.
"In the case of Rape, abortion would have to be permitted. Although I do feel all unborn life is valuable, I do not think it would be right to subject someone to that."
So now all of a sudden, it's not murder? I give you credit there, but many of your antichoice friends would enact laws that say who cares if she was raped, they say make her have the rapist's fetus AND have the rapist in her life for the duration. Sorry Oscar, no sale.
"since rape is a felony and a vicious attack, of course a rapist should not be involved with the raising of the child. I have yet to hear someone make that argument."
Dear Oscar. Welcome to the internet. Check out this website:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/24/dakota.abortion.ap/
"If a woman who is raped becomes pregnant, the rapist would have the same rights to the child as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault."
The onus is on you to prove Krista wrong. Hope you're a lawyer, pal.
"My brother has a mental disability. I don’t under stand this line of argument however. Of course there are plenty of “unwanted” children in this world, is this your argument for abortion? It does not change the value of unborn life."
Good for you. Personally, I know a lot of people living with disabilities. So back to the question, how many of these children who are being left to rot (denied government funding by our wonderful 2 party system, being sent to other countries) are you committed to taking care of? Somebody's gotta do it Oscar, but gee whiz, nobody's stepped up to the plate. In spite of all those gosh-darned holy-holy right to lifers, we're missing out on the real right to a real life of kids who actually can look at you and see what you're really doing for them. Which is basically SQUAT, Oscar.
“No Oscar, they are about reproductive rights. As the old saying goes, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." You chop off mine, I chop off yours. Ouch.”
Again, abortion is to deal with an act that has already occurred. Sterilization is to deal with an act that COULD occur. Completely different things. Perhaps this point has evaded you. If you can’t see the difference between them, then I fear for you. Each individual is responsible for their sexual choices.
“So now all of a sudden, it's not murder? I give you credit there, but many of your antichoice friends would enact laws that say who cares if she was raped, they say make her have the rapist's fetus AND have the rapist in her life for the duration. Sorry Oscar, no sale.”
No, like I said, I still feel it is murder, but there has to be exceptions. Only Stalinists and Nazis see a world without exceptions. I personally feel that abortion is murder, and I would like to see it severely restricted. But to tell a women who was forced into sexual intercourse through a rape to bare a child is not something I can support. I do see the world in grays rather than black and white.
And don’t assume these types of people are my friends. Think beyond your own simplification of this debate.
“The onus is on you to prove Krista wrong. Hope you're a lawyer, pal.”
The South Dakota court is wrong, plane and simple. You have to deal with exceptions. But then again, no one really thinks that the SD court’s ruling will stand for long. It was meant as a direct challenge to R.v.W, or at least to change certain legal precedents for abortions.
“Good for you. Personally, I know a lot of people living with disabilities. So back to the question, how many of these children who are being left to rot (denied government funding by our wonderful 2 party system, being sent to other countries) are you committed to taking care of? Somebody's gotta do it Oscar, but gee whiz, nobody's stepped up to the plate. In spite of all those gosh-darned holy-holy right to lifers, we're missing out on the real right to a real life of kids who actually can look at you and see what you're really doing for them. Which is basically SQUAT, Oscar.”
You are right, there are too many unwanted children in this world. I am leaving to work in an orphanage in Albania come November because I personally feel this is a disgrace for our people to turn our backs on so many children. Hell, there are unwanted children in our own back yard, you don’t have to go far to find them.
But this does not change my feelings about abortion. I do not think that ANY child, whether they are ones in the womb or those walking this earth, should be denied life. I see your point, but I do not understand your argument. We should honor all children, not just those who are convenient.
I don’t think I will change any feelings about this subject, but I hope Indymedia will let it be posted. I personally classify myself as someone from the left, but this is an issue that is too often distorted and simplified.
Again, abortion is to deal with an act that has already occurred. Sterilization is to deal with an act that COULD occur. Completely different things. Perhaps this point has evaded you. If you can’t see the difference between them, then I fear for you. Each individual is responsible for their sexual choices.
“So now all of a sudden, it's not murder? I give you credit there, but many of your antichoice friends would enact laws that say who cares if she was raped, they say make her have the rapist's fetus AND have the rapist in her life for the duration. Sorry Oscar, no sale.”
No, like I said, I still feel it is murder, but there has to be exceptions. Only Stalinists and Nazis see a world without exceptions. I personally feel that abortion is murder, and I would like to see it severely restricted. But to tell a women who was forced into sexual intercourse through a rape to bare a child is not something I can support. I do see the world in grays rather than black and white.
And don’t assume these types of people are my friends. Think beyond your own simplification of this debate.
“The onus is on you to prove Krista wrong. Hope you're a lawyer, pal.”
The South Dakota court is wrong, plane and simple. You have to deal with exceptions. But then again, no one really thinks that the SD court’s ruling will stand for long. It was meant as a direct challenge to R.v.W, or at least to change certain legal precedents for abortions.
“Good for you. Personally, I know a lot of people living with disabilities. So back to the question, how many of these children who are being left to rot (denied government funding by our wonderful 2 party system, being sent to other countries) are you committed to taking care of? Somebody's gotta do it Oscar, but gee whiz, nobody's stepped up to the plate. In spite of all those gosh-darned holy-holy right to lifers, we're missing out on the real right to a real life of kids who actually can look at you and see what you're really doing for them. Which is basically SQUAT, Oscar.”
You are right, there are too many unwanted children in this world. I am leaving to work in an orphanage in Albania come November because I personally feel this is a disgrace for our people to turn our backs on so many children. Hell, there are unwanted children in our own back yard, you don’t have to go far to find them.
But this does not change my feelings about abortion. I do not think that ANY child, whether they are ones in the womb or those walking this earth, should be denied life. I see your point, but I do not understand your argument. We should honor all children, not just those who are convenient.
I don’t think I will change any feelings about this subject, but I hope Indymedia will let it be posted. I personally classify myself as someone from the left, but this is an issue that is too often distorted and simplified.
make sure you take a picture, so we can believe it. Never mind, you'll probably just photoshop it anyway.
"I personally classify myself as someone from the left, but this is an issue that is too often distorted and simplified."
If you're on the left, we have a lot to worry about. But I'm not worried since I've confirmed elsewhere that you are far from it.
"I personally classify myself as someone from the left, but this is an issue that is too often distorted and simplified."
If you're on the left, we have a lot to worry about. But I'm not worried since I've confirmed elsewhere that you are far from it.
Hahahahaha, hilarious. When I get back, I look forward to hearing about how you wasted two years of your life complaining.
...will be restored. Here's some reading material for you on Albania. Remember to take some condoms with you!
http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/ww/albania.htm
Marie Stopes International Albania: established 1997
Contraception and abortion were illegal in Albania under the former Communist regime: consequently, unsafe, illegal abortion flourished, resulting in high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality.
Since 1991, family planning activities and abortion have been permitted by the Government but many myths regarding the various forms of contraception persist among the population.
In response, Marie Stopes International Albania (MSI Albania) was set up. It comprises three arms: a reproductive health centre; a 'training and visit initiative' (TVI) targeting health professionals; and a contraceptive social marketing programme for the widespread distribution of contraceptives.
http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_ceeaborlaws.html
In the recent past, women in the ECE region have had access to abortion. In the republics of the former Soviet Union, and those of the former Yugoslavia, abortion has been legal since the 1950's. In countries where abortion was illegal, such as Romania and Albania, high rates of maternal mortality were attributed to unsafe abortions.
The abortion rates per woman in the ECE region are among the highest in the world. These rates reflect women's lack of access to modern methods of family planning. Since 1989, little progress has been made towards increasing access to modern contraceptive methods. Most contraceptives are still imported. Many countries in the region also lack the infrastructure to distribute contraceptives effectively, especially in rural areas. In light of these factors, abortion is still a popular and necessary means for women's exercise of reproductive autonomy.
http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/ww/albania.htm
Marie Stopes International Albania: established 1997
Contraception and abortion were illegal in Albania under the former Communist regime: consequently, unsafe, illegal abortion flourished, resulting in high rates of maternal morbidity and mortality.
Since 1991, family planning activities and abortion have been permitted by the Government but many myths regarding the various forms of contraception persist among the population.
In response, Marie Stopes International Albania (MSI Albania) was set up. It comprises three arms: a reproductive health centre; a 'training and visit initiative' (TVI) targeting health professionals; and a contraceptive social marketing programme for the widespread distribution of contraceptives.
http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_ceeaborlaws.html
In the recent past, women in the ECE region have had access to abortion. In the republics of the former Soviet Union, and those of the former Yugoslavia, abortion has been legal since the 1950's. In countries where abortion was illegal, such as Romania and Albania, high rates of maternal mortality were attributed to unsafe abortions.
The abortion rates per woman in the ECE region are among the highest in the world. These rates reflect women's lack of access to modern methods of family planning. Since 1989, little progress has been made towards increasing access to modern contraceptive methods. Most contraceptives are still imported. Many countries in the region also lack the infrastructure to distribute contraceptives effectively, especially in rural areas. In light of these factors, abortion is still a popular and necessary means for women's exercise of reproductive autonomy.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network