The National Organization for Women is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an extremist organization that pretends to stand for mainstream American values such as equality and freedom of choice. While claiming to speak for women, NOW has an agenda that’s profoundly hostile to men, marriage, family life, and heterosexual women. The Supreme Court issued a stark reminder of NOW’s extremism yesterday by overturning, on an 8-1 vote (Stevens dissenting) NOW’s use of the federal RICO statute to silence protesters at abortion mills. While there’s so far been little in the way of editorial comment on this case in the Corporate Liberal Media, the Wall Street Journal had a few choice words to say:
NOW’s argument, which has been wending its way through the courts for years, was that abortion opponents were in violation of the RICO and Hobbs acts, federal statutes enacted to pursue Tony Soprano, not local church groups passing out flyers on a sidewalk.
NOW nonetheless claimed the latter was engaged in racketeering and conspiring to “extort” the “property” of abortion seekers by demonstrating in front of clinics. Since RICO violators are susceptible to treble damages, NOW had hoped either to bankrupt its political opponents or scare them away with the threat of a financially debilitating verdict. Mr. Terry, for example, filed for bankruptcy in 1998 owing $1.6 million to NOW and Planned Parenthood.
But Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, cited NOW’s “fatally flawed” efforts as an attempt to extend the reach of these laws well beyond what they were originally intended to cover. “Such a significant expansion,” wrote Justice Rehnquist, “must come from Congress, not from the courts.” And Justice Ginsburg reiterated that the court was “rightly reluctant, as I see it, to extend RICO’s domain further.”
It should have been obvious on its face that abortion protesters are driven by fundamentally different motives than are mobsters, but it took the Supremes to sort this all out. This is because courts bend over backwards to appear fair to NOW, even when that means sacrificing the fundamental civil liberties of the majority, such as peaceful protest.
More on this case in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the Washington Times. NOW’s analysis from president Kim Gandy: “It’s a green light for those kingpins to start again orchestrating violence across the country.”
Either there’s a pattern of violence against abortion clinics, or there isn’t, and judges and juries have mostly ruled that there is. An organized campaign of political (or social) violence is serious business–what’s your solution? (Other than flinging around labels like “extremism.”)
Your posting is a great example of why it’s impossible to trust extreme conservatives to govern. The real issue here is social order, not your grudge against NOW or even the ethics of abortion. Organized violence must be stopped, even if the victims are people you don’t like. But modern conservatives seem incapable of thinking–much less acting–“without fear or favor.” You want to influence society? Try being impartial. An impartial individual *might* see that using RICO was a stretch, but that the targets of organized violence are likely to use any defense available, and who can blame them? I realize the preceding sentence probably sounds like Sanskrit to you, but try to imagine if you were in their position. If this makes you feel like your head is about to explode, turn on Fox News quickly–I don’t want your death on my conscience.
The issue with RICO is whether the violence constitutes extortion or not. The Supremes ruled that it didn’t. They did not say (a) that the violence doesn’t exist, or (b) that it’s somehow NOW’s fault.
I studied Sanskrit in college, and your stuff looks nothing like it at all, anonymous.
I will point out to you that violent attacks against all businesses and people – including aobrtion clinics and feminists – have been against the law for a very long time, RICO or no RICO. It’s not necessary to stifle the right to free speech, assembly, and protest simply to please NOW.
You studied Sanskrit in college? I was impressed for a few seconds, but then I realized that way back when you were in college, everyone spoke Sanskrit.
Actually, with that comment you inadvertently made this web site seem much more pathetic–just when I thought that was impossible. How did you fall from studying Sanskrit (and presumably wanting to read Buddhist or Hindu writings in the original) to posting right-wing drivel at 4 am? I picture that as a rather sad story….um, and I guess that would be pretty much the story of your adult life, wouldn’t it?
Turning away from that little traffic accident, in you original post, the context of the lawsuit was carefully excised. The violence wasn’t mentioned, even though it motivated the court case. How are you going to say anything reasonable about this case if you evade talking about the context? Are you okay with the violence, or did you just forget the most important element in the story?
So, the violence is against the law, but somehow it continues. It might be interesting to think a little more about the violence–is this fascism? What is it? But you slid off my original question. If RICO’s not the answer, what is? What’s your solution, Yogananda?
And spare me the pious lecture about free speech and all that. We now have secret federal courts that can sentence people to death without a public hearing; the rules of evidence used are unknown. Habeas corpus is gone; people can be incarcerated indefinitely without charges or public notice. Nor has any time limit been attached to these measures–they appear to be permanent. You want to be a civil liberties crusader, Mr. B? Here’s your big chance! You can take on Ashcroft and Bush…or you can sneer at NOW because those selfish bitches don’t want to get blown up and shot anymore. Which is it?
Why would I attack Ashcroft for enforcing laws Congress passed? That’s his job, sister. And yes, murder has been against the law for quite a while, but still it continues. So do we pass more laws, or try to understand why the murderers hate us?