"Supreme Court Rules Pro-Life Protestors Not Subject To RICO" By Rusty Pugh & Jody Brown of Agape Press
Supreme Court Rules Pro-Life Protestors Not Subject to RICO
Written by Rusty Pugh and Jody Brown
www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D152633%2526M%253D50011,00.html
WASHINGTON (AgapePress) — The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish pro-life advocates demonstrating outside abortion clinics. The decision is being called a huge victory for the pro-life movement.
The court's 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all types, and not just at clinics. The ruling says the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – known as RICO – cannot be used to punish those who protest the killing of children.
The decision brings to a close 16 years of legal action in which pro-life demonstrators had been sued by abortion clinics in two states and the National Organization for Women. Those groups had argued that racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from protests
that drive away clients.
The Federal statute defines extortion as "obtaining" property from a victim through "actual or threatened force, violence, or fear." Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in today's ruling, said pro-life activity does not constitute extortion, which the RICO was designed to fight.
It is a huge victory for Operation Rescue, which was ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics. National director Pastor Flip Benham says he knew the attitude of the court was changing – but he did not realize how much until this ruling. "With this 8-to-1 decision, what the Supreme Court in essence has done is said the gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be censored in the streets," Benham says.
"It also is a stunning blow to the enemies of Christ who have done everything that they possibly can to censor the gospel of Christ and get us off the streets – because they know that when we're on the streets, the battle is being won…and for that we thank God."
Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), also praises the decision. "Pro-life activists are not mobsters," Rios says in a press release. "The Supreme Court has set the record straight on the time-honored American tradition of the right to protest."
Rios' organization was one of many that file briefs in the case. CWA stated in its brief that the case was built on a faulty claim that pro-life protestors were guilty of extortion.
The two cases involved in this ruling are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women.
Today's ruling is the second this week favoring pro-life issues. On Monday, the high court decided to let stand an Indiana state law requiring that women considering abortion be counseled face-to-face about the medical and emotional risks involved in a crisis pregnancy.
-----------------------------
Written by Rusty Pugh and Jody Brown
www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D152633%2526M%253D50011,00.html
WASHINGTON (AgapePress) — The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish pro-life advocates demonstrating outside abortion clinics. The decision is being called a huge victory for the pro-life movement.
The court's 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all types, and not just at clinics. The ruling says the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – known as RICO – cannot be used to punish those who protest the killing of children.
The decision brings to a close 16 years of legal action in which pro-life demonstrators had been sued by abortion clinics in two states and the National Organization for Women. Those groups had argued that racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from protests
that drive away clients.
The Federal statute defines extortion as "obtaining" property from a victim through "actual or threatened force, violence, or fear." Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in today's ruling, said pro-life activity does not constitute extortion, which the RICO was designed to fight.
It is a huge victory for Operation Rescue, which was ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics. National director Pastor Flip Benham says he knew the attitude of the court was changing – but he did not realize how much until this ruling. "With this 8-to-1 decision, what the Supreme Court in essence has done is said the gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be censored in the streets," Benham says.
"It also is a stunning blow to the enemies of Christ who have done everything that they possibly can to censor the gospel of Christ and get us off the streets – because they know that when we're on the streets, the battle is being won…and for that we thank God."
Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), also praises the decision. "Pro-life activists are not mobsters," Rios says in a press release. "The Supreme Court has set the record straight on the time-honored American tradition of the right to protest."
Rios' organization was one of many that file briefs in the case. CWA stated in its brief that the case was built on a faulty claim that pro-life protestors were guilty of extortion.
The two cases involved in this ruling are Scheidler v. National Organization for Women and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women.
Today's ruling is the second this week favoring pro-life issues. On Monday, the high court decided to let stand an Indiana state law requiring that women considering abortion be counseled face-to-face about the medical and emotional risks involved in a crisis pregnancy.
-----------------------------
Comments
Interesting nonsense on the Web about this, by the way.
The "AgapePress" article quoted by Kerry is a good example, claiming that Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority, which is false. Rehnquist is dead (you'd think they would know that at the AgapePress office. Breyer wrote the opinion. They also report it as an 8-1 decision, which is false. It was an 8-0 decision, with Alito not participating because he was not on the court
when it was argued and decided. In other words, it was unanimous. (O'Connor could not vote once Alito was on the court.)