Anti-Abortion Poster Case Rejected by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal in the case of American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) v. Planned Parenthood for the third time today. The appeal sought to question whether lower courts properly interpreted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) (see PDF) by rewarding monetary damages.
The case comes out of a suit originally filed in 1995 by four physicians who were depicted on anti-abortion "wanted" posters and on an anti-abortion website entitled the "Nuremburg Files." The web site listed the addresses and phone numbers of the physicians, according to the Associated Press.
The circuit court decision (see PDF) reasoned that "ACLA was aware that a 'wanted'- type poster would likely be interpreted as a serious threat of death or bodily harm by a doctor in the reproductive health services community who was identified on one, given the previous pattern of 'WANTED' posters identifying a specific physician followed by that physician's murder. The same is true of the posting about these physicians on that part of the 'Nuremberg Files' where lines were drawn through the names of doctors who provided abortion services and who had been killed or wounded. We are independently satisfied that to this limited extent, ACLA's conduct amounted to a true threat and is not protected speech."
Media Resources: First Amendment Center; 9th Circuit Court Decision; Associated Press 10/6/08
7/1/2015 Women's Rights Activists are Suing the Kenyan Government for Reproductive Rights - A woman in Kenya is suing the Kenyan government for failure to provide safe and legal abortions, which caused her daughter - a 15-year-old rape victim - to suffer a kidney failure after undergoing the procedure illegally.
Currently, there are four petitioners on the case: the mother of the survivor, the Federation of Women Lawyers-Kenya, and two other women's rights advocates. . . .
6/30/2015 Supreme Court Ruling Prevents Gerrymandering in Arizona - In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Ginsburg this morning, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, allowing the use of independent state commissions that draw federal congressional districts, taking that power away from the state legislature.
This gives states an opportunity to deal with partisan gerrymandering by giving an independent commission power to draw federal congressional districts.
In 2000, Arizona voters amended their constitution, shifting the responsibility of drawing congressional districts, previously held by the state legislature, to a panel called the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. . . .