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]