Court could curb Fundie Terrorism Top Court To Consider Applying RICO to Abortion Protesto

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Court could curb Fundie Terrorism Top Court To Consider Applying RICO to Abortion Protestors ---------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court, returning to the controversy over abortion, said Monday it will decide whether anti-abortion protesters who block clinics can be sued under a tough anti-racketeering law. At issue is a decision by a US Court of Appeals in Chicago that calls activities of anti-abortion protesters reprehensible, but concludes they are not covered by racketeering or antitrust laws. The Clinton administration says the court wrongly spared "Operation 'Rescue'" and other such groups from being sued under racketeering laws. Justice Dept. lawyers, reflecting President Clinton's support for abortion rights, urged the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. The high court will schedule oral arguments during its term that begins in October, with a decision expected in early 1994. The case involves only the use of the racketeering law against the protesters, not the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling that made abortion legal or recent efforts by states to restrict abortion rights. Abortion-rights advocates have long sought to use the racketeering law to deter the blocking of entrances to clinics and the harassment of employees and abortion-seeking women. They have charged anti- abortion groups with extortion through the use of arson, bombings, destruction of property, assault and battery and trespass. The National Organization for Women and 2 clinics more than 6 years ago charged in a class-action lawsuit that abortion protesters had illegally conspired to drive abortion clinics out of business through acts of violence, intimidation and harassment. Among those named in the suit were "Operation 'Rescue'" and its founder Randall Terry, as well as 3 other anti-abortion cults. A federal judge and then the appeals court threw out the lawsuit. The appeals court held that anti-abortion protesters do not violate the antitrust law because they are engaged in political, rather than business, activity. It also said protesters could not be held liable under the racketeering law on grounds that it requires an economically motivated enterprise or economically motivated acts. Attorneys for NOW and the 2 clinics appealed to the Supreme Court to hear the case, warning that the ruling creates a disastrous precedent. They argued that the decision in their case conflicts with a 1989 ruling by an appeals court in Philadelphia, allowing abortion protesters to be sued under the racketeering law. Attorneys for the anti-abortion groups and individuals named in the lawsuit said the "unsound and surreal theory of the case does not merit review." The attorneys argued that the antitrust law was not intended to apply to non-commercial political protest and that the racketeering law requires an economic motivation. The 1970 racketeering law originally was aimed at fighting organized crime, but it increasingly has been used in cases covering business disputes and a wide range of other topics.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank