|
Protected Speech or Extortion? 12/5/2002 'Turning trespass into extortion threatens the free speech of everyone.' The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday for Scheidler v. NOW, a federal racketeering case against Joseph Scheidler, national director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League (PLAL), along with two colleagues and the pro-life group Operation Rescue. Concerned Women for America filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief supporting Scheidler and the other plaintiffs.
The court will decide if the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Hobbs Act (which makes extortion a federal crime)—laws intended to deter organized crime and corruption—can be used to penalize pro-lifers who demonstrate in front of abortion clinics.
The National Organization for Women, which brought the lawsuit against Scheidler, argues that such actions by pro-life activists—particularly blocking clinic entrances—amounts to extortion because they interfere with interstate commerce and take away intangible property, such as the right to conduct abortion services.
“Turning trespass into extortion threatens the free speech of everyone,” said Tom Jipping, Concerned Women for America’s senior fellow for legal studies, who attended Wednesday’s arguments.
Scheidler, who marched with the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s civil rights movement, applied the principles of nonviolent protest.
“By NOW’s definition, most political protests that have effected social change over the past two centuries would qualify as extortion,” Scheidler said in a statement. “I followed the civil rights movement closely, and, like the fight for racial equality, the fight against abortion is rooted in non-violent direct action.
“Our country was founded on the right to protest injustice. There is no greater injustice than depriving unborn children of their right to life.”
The nearly 17-year-old lawsuit began in June 1986 when NOW charged Scheidler and two other pro-life activists with use of force, violence and intimidation in an attempt to block access to abortion clinics. Three years later NOW amended its complaint to include violations of RICO and expand its reach to a class-action suit that included every woman and all abortion clinics in the United States. The group also named Operation Rescue and two members from PLAL as defendants, along with other pro-lifers.
In May 1991, a U.S. district court dismissed the case, saying RICO was inapplicable. A federal appeals court agreed. However in 1994, the Supreme Court said RICO could apply if it could be proven that abortion protests fit a pattern of extortion. In April 1998, a jury found PLAL guilty of racketeering, ruling that its activities amounted to extortion. The jury awarded triple damages—nearly $258,000—to abortion clinics in Milwaukee and in Wilmington, Delaware, as class representatives for abortionists across the country. In July 1999, a federal district judge issued a nationwide injunction against sit-ins and other nonviolent protests outside of abortion clinics.
An appeals court upheld the 1998 judgment, and on April 22, 2002, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Scheidler said if the court overturns the judgment, it would be a victory for the pro-life movement and ensure that all groups can demonstrate without risk of prosecution under RICO.
“One of the most beautiful things about this country is we can protest our grievances,” he said. “That is a trademark of America.”
The Supreme Court is expected to release its decision in Scheidler v. NOW by next summer.
|
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
