Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, December 15, 1993 TAG: 9402180012
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Cal Thomas
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The National Organization for Women contends in NOW vs. Scheidler that some protesters are part of a nationwide conspiracy designed to close the clinics and that their activities have specifically included extortion, burglary, criminal damage to clinic property and equipment, threats against clinics and suppliers, arson and firebombing.
Joseph Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action Network contends that his organization's activities are protected under the First Amendment's free speech and freedom of religion clauses. And he says the Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organization statute (RICO, for short) does not apply in this case because his organization's goals are not economic, but rather political, social and religious.
It is important to properly define the activities that NOW alleges and which it claims should invoke RICO. The commonly accepted definition of extortion is provided by the Hobbs Act, which calls it the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, but induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence or fear, or under color of official right.
But the central figure in NOW vs. Scheidler, Monica Migliorino, is only alleged to have taken aborted babies from a waste container on a pathology laboratory's loading dock and to have held religious burial ceremonies for them. She is also alleged to have ``threatened to disclose confidential information about previous patients'' of abortion clinics, though the confidential information is not described.
Migliorino is further alleged to have pressured a landlord not to rent to an abortion clinic by sending letters ``threatening disruption and harassment'' (by ``pickets and demonstrations ... sidewalk counselors ... press coverage ... '') if the clinic were allowed to move in.
And finally, she is charged with having violated the law by interfering ``with a prospective economic advantage.''
Any of these assertions could have been made against civil-rights demonstrators in the 1960s, who frequently sat in at establishments that would not serve blacks, and who boycotted buses and places of business that discriminated against blacks. The economic discrimination practiced by blacks was a useful weapon in winning many civil-rights battles, as were blockades of businesses.
Anti-nuclear demonstrators and those favoring animal rights who object to people buying and wearing fur coats might also be said to be engaged in activities that cause economic disadvantage to people and businesses. Those once arrested outside the South African Embassy for protesting apartheid supported economic sanctions against that nation that were harmful to some American corporations, which were intimidated into severing business ties with the white South African government.
And what about the black students at the University of Pennsylvania who last year raided student newspaper outlets because they didn't like the way the paper covered racial issues? It could be said that these demonstrators were in technical violation of RICO because, not only were economic issues involved, so also was a ``conspiracy'' to commit these acts.
Even the mostly liberal editorial board of USA Today is against linking RICO, with its treble damages and heavy prison terms, to the struggle over abortion. It correctly notes that the intent of RICO, when the law was enacted in 1970, was to attack organized crime. But President Clinton, who has said he thinks too many abortions are performed, is backing NOW's claim. Two lower courts have disagreed.
A majority of Supreme Court justices have previously ruled that the burning of an American flag is a legitimate form of speech covered by the First Amendment. Courts have also ruled that the ``expression'' of such vile groups as 2 Live Crew is similarly protected. So, too, should nonviolent abortion protesters be protected as they exercise First Amendment rights of speech and expression.
After all, today's alleged ``extremists'' could be regarded as tomorrow's heroes. Those who go to jail today might have a national holiday named after them tomorrow.
The Supreme Court should side with the lower courts and find in favor of Scheidler and his fellow pro-life advocates, preserving their constitutional rights even while those of the babies they seek to save continue to be violated.
\ Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB