Thank the Lord we have a Christian Conservative as President!! [rolleyes]

[b]June 27, 2003, 11:27AM


Anti-abortion activists' appeal rejected
Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court turned back an appeal today from anti-abortion protesters facing a multimillion dollar judgment for targeting clinic doctors with "wanted" posters.

The court had been asked to give free-speech protection to the activists, but [red]the Bush administration discouraged justices from taking the case[/red].

Physicians sued, claiming they feared for their lives after being listed on a round of Old-West style wanted posters and having their personal information put on the Internet. Three doctors who had been featured on posters were killed.

The American Coalition of Life Activists and others [red]were sued under a racketeering law[/red] and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it illegal to incite violence and threaten abortion doctors.

The activists were ordered to pay $108 million in punitive damages and $12 million in compensatory damages. An appeals court told the judge in the case to reduce the punitive damages, and the matter is pending.

The case divided the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that protesters tried to intimidate doctors and clinic staff. Appeals court judges who disagreed said the posters were free speech.

Edward White III, the attorney for the anti-abortion protesters, said in court filings that if the decision were allowed to stand, "[red]political speakers accused of threats will be at the mercy of local juries, whose crushing verdicts will receive minimal First Amendment scrutiny[/red]."

Planned Parenthood attorney Maria Vullo told the Supreme Court that the organizers of the campaign "were fully aware of the poster/murder pattern and the fear in its wake -- and they capitalized upon it to intimidate the living physicians by threats of bodily injury."

The case is American Coalition of Life Activists v. Planned Parenthood, 02-563.

Also today, the court refused to consider whether a federal law requires cities to make sidewalks accessible to the disabled, leaving untouched a decision that cities argued would cost them billions of dollars.

The city of Sacramento is facing a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of people who are blind, use wheelchairs or have other disabilities.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered the most liberal court in the country, ruled last year that a landmark 1990 disabilities law requires the city to ensure sidewalks are free of things like benches and trees.

California cities said it would cost local governments there about $2.5 billion to comply if Sacramento ultimately loses the case because they are responsible for more than 69,000 miles of streets.

The Bush administration urged the court to reject the appeal. The case is City of Sacramento v. Barden, 02-815.

[/b]

Gotta love repub "Principles"!!! [:D]

Damn. That's pretty piss-poor. Thanks for the heads-up.

It's fair to say that, in some respect, Bush is responsible for the fed's asking SCOTUS not to grant certiorari in this case. This is because Bush, as head of the administration, is ultimately responsible for its actions.  However, the conclusion that "Bush approves using RICO against Pro-Lifers" is a stretch and a poor attempt to bash the President. Especially because the act involved was the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 248, and not RICO (18 U.S.C. 1961). It's good DUh fodder though.

Here is what the petition [i]actually[/i] said:

[url]http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2002/2pet/6invit/2002-0563.pet.ami.inv.html [/url]

Let me preface this with the fact that I stand kind of in limbo on the abortion issue.  While the concept bothers me personally, I think that the Government should have no involvement in it whatsoever.  The decision should be kept between the parents, the doctor, and God.

Some of these pro-life screwheads are out of whack and must be dealt with severely.  Taking a doctor's life will not solve any problems, and organizations that support such nonsense.  Of course, leave it to our fine court system to determine that public death threats are free speech.

You know, I work with a guy who is in the process of raising his fourth child; all of them adopted, and all of them impaired in some way, either physically or mentally, and two of them of a different race than he and his wife.

If, as, and when he ever says anything about being anti abortion (we've never discussed it), I'll be happy to listen and consider. Until you blowhards who want to tell everybody else what to do are willing to take on the burden of the product of someones unwanted pregnancy, as he and his wife have done, you're just blowing hot air. I hope those gangster groups that try to terrorise MDs and their patients, exercising their legal rights, are all hounded off the streets, and in some cases, right into prison.

I have no problem with this.

Sgtar15

Well I know Bush is pro-life but I don't agree with Justice not taking the case.


ABORTION IS MURDER!

CRC

Under that logic, you also cannot support abortion unless you've already had one.  

Howabout we let the people who produced those unwanted pregnacies take responsibility for their own actions?  

In any even, there are plenty of people, like you note, who do want to adopt these children, and do so. Only people who adopt children can oppose murdering them? get real.

And killing Abortion Doctors isn't?

I have often thought that the RICO Act should be used on Congress, the Senate, etc.

Of course it is. Those who do so are punished and while I do not support those who would kill someone the death of an abortionist will not cause me to lose one moments sleep. One less baby killer, one less muderer, probably less baby murders. Seems to work out for the betterment of society in many aspects.

Extremists are all "out of whack", whatever their cause.

No problem here, either.

Anyone who doesn't think this was an organized intimidation campaign based on the fear of being shot is kidding themselves.