Quantcast
About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitor essays
Our forum
New essays
Other site features
Buy a CD
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
.
CHRISTIANITY
Who is a Christian?
Shared beliefs
Handle change
Bible topics
Bible inerrancy
Bible harmony
Interpret Bible
Persons
Beliefs, creeds
Da Vinci code
Revelation, 666
Denominations
.
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
Other religions
Other spirituality
Cults and NRMs
Comparing religions

About all religions
Important topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handle change
Doubt/security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
World's end
One true religion?
Seasonal topics
Science v. Religion
More info.

Spiritual/ethics
Spirituality
Morality/ethics
Absolute truth

Peace/conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten commandm'ts
Abortion
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment
Equal rights - gays & bi's
Gay marriage
Nudism
Origins of the species
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

 

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

Use of the "RICO LAW"
against anti-abortion groups

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.


horizontal rule

Background:

The US Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970 was originally written to target organized crime. It allowed the courts to attack  "enterprises" that engage in a "pattern of racketeering." A similar piece of legislation, the Hobbs Act of 1946 makes it a crime to take property from another with force. Both have been used by pro-choice groups to target anti-abortion organizations.

horizontal rule

1986 case:

In the early 1986, the National Organization of Women (NOW) used RICO to initiate a lawsuit against Operation Rescue, the Pro-Life Action League, the League's Executive Director, Joseph Scheidler, and two of Scheidler's associates: Timothy Murphy and Andrew Scholberg.  The groups had allegedly blockaded a number of abortion clinics in Delaware and Wisconsin.

During the trial, U.S. District Judge David Coar prohibited the clinic lawyers from introducing evidence that they claimed would link the defendants to more than a decade of bombings and arson attacks throughout the U.S. However, they were allowed to introduce evidence about physical attacks and threats against clinic staff and patients.

The case proceeded against On 1998-APR-20, all of the defendants were found guilty of having engaged in 21 acts of extortion. The US Federal jury ordered the three activists and the two organizations to pay $85,962.92 in damages. The amount was based upon the cost of increased security arrangements during the blockade. Because of the nature of the RICO act, these damages were tripled to about $258,000. The way became clear for up to 1000 abortion clinics in the US to follow the lead of the the Milwaukee and Wilmington clinics, bring similar lawsuits, and claim massive damages.

Mr. Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League commented: "They want to bankrupt us; there's no question about that...We wanted to come out as a legitimate force in America, and not as racketeers. There is no honor in being a racketeer and we're not racketeers." Later, he said: "A million dollars, a billion dollars, a trillion dollars, the national debt - they won't get it. You can't get blood from a turnip - and we're turnips." Larry Crane, the lawyer representing Operation Rescue confirmed this; he said: "There's no chance or likelihood of collecting any judgment against these impecunious defendants."

Patricia Ireland, president of NOW, said: "A jury of six men and women saw through the thugs' shameless attempt to pervert the First Amendment."

NOW lost the case at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The court decided that RICO could not be used in this instance. It ruled that the law can only be used in instances of criminal activity motivated by economic gain. 6

In 1993, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as National Organization for Women v. Scheidler 114 S. Ct. 798. NOW argued that RICO could be used against abortion clinic blockaders. They argued that the latter formed an national conspiracy to eliminate access to abortion clinics through the use of extortion and harassment, with the goal of driving clinics out of business. In 1994-JAN, the Supreme Court overruled the Circuit Court decision and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The vote to consider the case was unanimous. They determined that the term "enterprise" could include an individual, or group of individuals, a partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity. The anti-abortion groups were found to have "conspired to shut down abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity..."

Defense lawyer Tom Brejcha disagreed with the US Supreme Court ruling of 1994 by stating that RICO should not have been used in this case. "RICO is terribly flawed, vague and over-broad." The defendants claimed that they do not advocate violence, and that they are not responsible for the excesses of a few of their followers who acted on their own.

Fay Clayton, a NOW lawyer, said: "This is the biggest courtroom defeat for the anti-abortion movement ever."

horizontal rule

horizontal rule

1986 case (cont'd):

On 2002-DEC-4, the Court heard arguments. Roy Englert Jr., a lawyer representing Operation Rescue and some anti-abortion leaders said that if the Court does not intervene, then leaders of any movement could be severely punished if their "followers get out of hand." An attorney representing the National Organization for Women and a group of abortion clinics said the laws protect businesses from violent protests that drive away clients. According to the Associated Press, "The issue dates back to the 1980s when large groups of anti-abortion demonstrators used aggressive tactics to disrupt clinics. In 1998 a jury in Illinois found demonstrators guilty of dozens of violations, including four acts involving physical violence or threats of violence. In its ruling the high court must differentiate between protected political activity and that which is illegal."

One of the conservative Justices, Antonin Scalia, who has traditionally opposed abortion access, appears to oppose the use of RICO. He said: "It wasn't smacking people around. It was just not letting people in" to the clinics." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a supporter of abortion access seems to disagree. She said: "We're not talking about conduct that's lawful here. To paint the picture we're talking about just pure speech is not the case." 7

On 2003-FEB-26, the U.S. Supreme Court voted in an unusual 8:1 split that RICO cannot be used against pro-life clinic protesters. The ruling released Joseph Scheidler of Operation Rescue and others from having to pay $258,000 in judgments. A national injunction which prevented the groups from interfering with abortion clinics was cancelled. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority: "...even when their [pro-lifers] acts of interference and disruption achieved their ultimate goal of 'shutting down' a clinic that performed abortions, such acts did not constitute extortion." 8

horizontal rule

References

  1. http://www.ppacca.org/ Planned Parenthood® Affiliates of California
  2. "Anti-Abortion Violence Movement," Office of International Criminal Justice of the University of Illinois at Chicago at: http://www.acsp.uic.edu/
  3. Feminist Majority Foundation and New Media Publishing, Inc collects and publishes data on the levels of violence at abortion clinics. See: http://www.feminist.org/
  4. National Abortion Federation maintains extensive clinic violence statistics at: http://www.prochoice.org/
  5. Data on abortion clinic violence is also available at: http://www.cais.net/
  6. "Abortion Opponents Suffer Setback: U.S. Verdict Could Bankrupt Movement," Associated Press, 1998-APR-20.
  7. "New Rules for Abortion Foes?," Associated Press, 2002-DEC-5, at: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/
  8. "Christians Get HUGE Pro-Life Victory at Supreme Court: 8-1 decision rejects NOW’s claim that abortion protestors violated RICO," Operation Rescue West, at: http://www.operationrescue.org/
  9. The text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision is at:  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ You need software to read these files. It can be obtained free from:

horizontal rule

Site navigation:

 Home page > "Hot" topics > Abortion > Legal aspects > here

horizontal rule

Copyright © 2000, 2003 & 2004 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2000-NOV-
Latest update: 2004-MAR-14
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)


Go to the previous page, or return to the "Legal aspects of abortion page, or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?


Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.