I wonder if Toni Locy, Associated Press Writer, writes all her own words, or if someone else well-versed in strident drama heavily edits her:
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.....the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept [this legal fight] alive...Dealt a setback? When free speech wins in court, it's dealing a setback? She makes it sound like they ought now prepare for "anti-abortion" people everywhere to think it's open season to storm the walls of all abortion clinics in the country! Talk about stoking the fires of fear.
Much less fear-mongering and "witness-leading" is this, Toni (and her editors):
The Supreme Court Tuesday ruled in favor of abortion foes in a two-decade-old legal fight, deciding for the second time that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations in front of abortion clinics.
It's only a two-decade-old fight because various pro-abortion lobbyists/groups (including N.O.W.) and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn't deal too well with the Supreme Court's first strike-down in 2003.
Phrases like those above and the tired media-overuse of the "anti-abortion" phrase belie the writer's pro-choice and/or pro-abortion bias, but making such a big deal out of this second Supreme Court decision seems to me just strained frenzy-whipping.
Just because a person or fifty persons stand outside an abortion clinic abiding by the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, doesn't make them mob-like racketeers criminally guilty of extorting money, goods or property from abortion clinics or their clientele thereby violating the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
I mean, really, folks.
Certainly if any protesters threaten(ed) violence, we're all for due process and due justice, carting them to court and then to jail. But that apparently didn't happen, so concluded the High Court. That this second decision was "8-0" (Alito "did not participate in the decision") should be telling enough for N.O.W., et. al.
Interesting too that "social activists and the AFL-CIO" took the pro-life folks' side, "arguing that lawsuits and injunctions based on the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their [own] efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions."
Imagine, Joseph Scheidler and company have been enjoined in this garbage since 1986.
Still, if the effect of all this harangue was to greatly decrease/stop the menacing and/or actual harm done by any so-called, misnamed "pro-lifers", then once again, we're all for it. I'm sure Joe Scheidler would agree. I hope and pray that he would, anyway.
The cases, for those who want to DYOR, are Scheidler v. NOW, 04-1244, and Operation Rescue v. NOW, 04-1352.