Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (363871)	2/26/2003 2:26:21 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

you for giving them choice too?? Or , since you are a capitalist, are you worried that the females being born will be too much future competition for you? I usually ignore you especially on this issue- you have to wonder why a male would be so consumed with this issue anyway... but to answer your question I am not concerned with "competition" from 2 colliding cells or a 3 month old fetus with no brain. I have worked with staff members without brains before and its a slam dunk, I win everytime.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (363871)	2/26/2003 2:55:07 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters' Right to Free Speech Thursday, Feb. 27, 2003 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Wednesday that nationwide abortion protesters did not violate federal racketeering law. The ruling is a major defeat for pro-abortion groups such as National Organization for Women, and a major victory for the anti-abortion movement and free speech. It might force federal prosecutors to rethink their definition of "extortion." Although other federal laws still protect abortuaries, abortion supporters lost a principal weapon in their arsenal with the decision. Writing for the large majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the court agreed to decide the case on two questions: Whether protesters committed "extortion" within the meaning of the federal Hobbs Act. Whether NOW and abortion "clinics" could obtain an injunction against the protesters under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as RICO. Extortion is one of the crimes, or "predicate acts," required by RICO. A jury had claimed that the protesters did commit extortion and therefore were in violation of RICO. The Supreme Court reversed the verdict. "We hold that [the protesters] did not commit extortion because they did not 'obtain' property from [the abortuaries] as required by the Hobbs Act," Rehnquist said. "We further hold that our [ruling on extortion] ... renders insufficient the other bases or predicate acts of racketeering supporting the jury's conclusion that petitioners violated RICO." Rehnquist said there was no need to answer the question of whether a private party can obtain an injunction under RICO, so that question was left open. Justice John Paul Stevens was the sole dissenter. He called the majority's opinion "murky." Stevens pointed to the loss of business by abortuaries shut down or blocked by protesters. "The term 'extortion' as defined in the Hobbs Act refers to 'the obtaining of property from another,'" Stevens said. "... The court's murky opinion seems to hold that this phrase covers nothing more than the acquisition of tangible property. No other federal court has ever construed this statute so narrowly." Stevens said the "use of violence or threats of violence to persuade the owner of a business to surrender control of such an intangible right is an appropriation of control embraced by the word 'obtaining.'" The "principal beneficiaries of the court's dramatic retreat from the position that federal prosecutors and federal courts have maintained throughout the history of this important statute," the justice claimed, "will certainly be the class of professional criminals whose conduct persuaded Congress that the public needed federal protection from extortion." But Rehnquist wrote: "To conclude that such actions constituted extortion would effectively discard the statutory requirement that property must be obtained from another, replacing it instead with the notion that merely interfering with or depriving someone of property is sufficient to constitute extortion." The case before the court began in 1986 when National Organization for Women and abortuaries filed suit in Chicago against protesters, including Operation Rescue, at the time one of the most active anti-abortion groups in the nation. In the suit, NOW alleged RICO violations by a loose association known as Pro-Life Action Network, or PLAN. NOW and the abortuaries charged that PLAN was an "enterprise" under RICO and had committed acts of extortion. A federal judge dismissed the claim, and a federal appeals court ruled that RICO does not apply to enterprises that have no "economic purpose." But in a landmark 1994 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and ruled that RICO did not have an economic requirement. That allowed NOW's suit to advance. The case was heard at the trial-court level in 1998. The plaintiffs produced evidence showing numerous incidents at abortuaries over 15 years. A jury ruled for NOW and the abortuaries on the RICO claim. It said PLAN committed 21 acts or threats under the federal Hobbs Act, and 25 violations of state extortion law, among others. Censorship Acting on RICO's provisions, the jury awarded the two abortuary plaintiffs triple damages. A federal judge then issued a nationwide injunction censoring PLAN protests at abortuaries. When a federal appeals court upheld the judge, the abortion protesters asked the Supreme Court for review. The justices heard argument Dec. 4. Wednesday's decision reverses the ruling of the lower court. (Nos. 01-1118, Scheilder vs. NOW; and 01-1119, Operation Rescue vs. NOW) Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel stated: "Today, the Supreme Court breathed new life into the pro-life movement. If abortion advocates were able to hang the RICO ax over the neck of pro-life demonstrators and sidewalk counselors, then all those who peacefully stand up for the unborn would have faced the prospect of bankruptcy for raising their voices in defense of life. "RICO has been like a ghoul in the night used by abortion clinics to frighten those who defend life. The Supreme Court's decision runs a stake through the heart of RICO. Using the whip of the First Amendment, the High Court has finally caged RICO. Free speech is alive and well in America." newsmax.com