Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

March-29-01

9th Circuit Court Protects Anti-abortion Domestic Terrorism

Outrage Over Court-Protected Domestic Terrorism

Statement of Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal

WASHINGTON, DC – We are shocked and dismayed that a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously chosen to limit and weaken the protections guaranteed by Congress through the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). Under the reasoning of today’s decision in Planned Parenthood, et al. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, et al., abortion providers and clinic staff must endure the distribution of "Wanted" posters and Web sites that the FBI, a federal jury, and a district court have agreed are threats of violence.

How can the Court ignore that these defendants – anti-abortion extremists and the groups they belong to – acted together to target doctors and clinics when they issued a "Deadly Dozen" list of doctors? How can the Court ignore that "Wanted" posters were distributed and seen as threatening, when historically the distribution of similar posters preceded the murders of doctors? How can the Court ignore the intimidation of the Nuremberg Files Web site, when even the FBI took steps to warn doctors and clinics of the possible dangers that existed when their names were added to that site?

The Court has gallingly characterized anti-abortion extremists as modern day patriots. Such language may only serve to embolden them to step up threats and their campaign of terror. Our research shows, that when the Supreme Court refused to curtail these terrorist activities (Bray v. Alexandria), violence at clinics escalated.

The initial jury verdict in this case chilled the anti-abortion reign of terror. But if this appellate court decision is left to stand, it will unleash it once again.

Should this Court ruling stand, it encourages a society where terror can be increasingly used to solve political debates. Remember that today threats of violence can be projected worldwide in split seconds over the Internet. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling may lead to an unraveling of a civil society – this is about more than anti-abortion violence, but about civility and democracy.

We fear a resurgence of anti-abortion violence if these extremists can threaten and target doctors with impunity. Our eighth annual National Clinic Violence Survey shows that severe anti-abortion violence remains an enduring problem at our nation’s reproductive health clinics with 20% reporting severe violence or threats in 2000.

The Feminist Majority Foundation filed an amicus brief for the plaintiffs in this case and runs the largest and oldest Clinic Access Project in the nation.

Media Resources: Feminist Majority Foundation


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

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 Community Members, Advocates, and Celebrities Stand in Support with Bree Newsome - On June 27, at about 6:30 AM, Bree Newsome scaled the flagpole at South Carolina's Statehouse and removed the confederate flag. . . .
 
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. . . .