Cross Burning Decision Could "Doom" Anti-Abortion Extremists' Case
The US Supreme Court's recent ruling that outlaws cross burning when it is intended to frighten or terrorize has set a precedent that could "doom" a pending appeal by anti-abortion extremists who use "UN-WANTED" wild-west style posters and a Web site to terrorize abortion providers, the LA Times reported today.
The majority opinion declared in Virginia v. Black that the First Amendment does not guarantee freedom of speech if terror or intimidation is the intent. Such speech is in the category of “true threats,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority. “While a burning cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burning intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives,” said O’Connor. University of Richmond law professor Rod Smola, who represented the defendants in Virginia v. Black said that there is “a lot of language” in the opinion will “probably make it easier” to prosecute anti-abortion protesters who “go beyond mere passive expression and engage in activity that is intimidating,” according to Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report.
In 1995, an anti-abortion extremist group published “UN-WANTED” posters featuring abortion providers. The group was well aware, as were the providers, that there was a pattern of doctors being murdered after the publication of such posters. The group also helped to construct a Web site called the “Nuremberg Files” that lists abortion providers’ personal information. On the Web site, the names of doctors who were murdered had lines through them crossing them off, and the names of those who had been wounded were marked in gray type. In 1999, Planned Parenthood of Oregon and four Oregon doctors listed on the wanted posters filed suit against 13 anti-abortion extremists and the anti-abortion groups American Coalition of Life Activists and Advocates for Life Ministries. In American Coalition of Life Activists vs. Planned Parenthood, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the extremists were liable for threats under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). The defendants have asked the Supreme Court to review the case; the Supreme Court has yet to decide what it will do.
The National Clinic Access Project of the Feminist Majority Foundation led a group of 13 reproductive rights organizations that filed an amicus brief in the case. “These posters and the website are threats, which are not protected by the First Amendment,” FMF President Eleanor Smeal stated. “We hope that anti-abortion extremists will learn that the violence and fear they preach will not be tolerated.”
Media Resources: LA Times 4/8/03; Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report 4/8/03; Christian Science Monitor 4/8/03; Associated Press 4/7/03; Feminist Daily News 12/20/02
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall.
The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies.
Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .