News Intelligence Analysis
March 1, 2006
From the N.Y. Times
Abortion Opponents Win Dispute
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 — The Supreme Court brought an end Tuesday
to a 20-year effort by the National Organization for Women to
hold a coalition of anti-abortion groups accountable for a campaign
of disrupting and blockading abortion clinics during the 1980's.
Ruling 8 to 0, the court held that the Hobbs Act, a federal law that makes it a crime to use robbery, extortion or, under some circumstances, violence to obstruct commerce, did not provide a proper basis for the federal court injunction that NOW and two women's health clinics had obtained against groups like Operation Rescue.
A Supreme Court opinion three years ago had narrowed the case substantially, ruling that what had happened at the clinics was not "extortion" within the meaning of the Hobbs Act. That opinion also overturned an $85,000 damage award the plaintiffs had won after a federal jury trial in Chicago. The award would have been tripled under the federal racketeering law, of which the Hobbs Act claim was an essential element.
After that ruling, however, the federal appeals court in Chicago declined to lift the injunction, ruling that incidents during the clinic blockades had amounted to "physical violence" within the meaning of the Hobbs Act. But writing for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said "violence" under that law had to have a connection to robbery and extortion.
"Congress did not intend to create a free-standing physical violence offense in the Hobbs Act," Justice Breyer said in the opinion, Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 04-1244.
He noted that the passage in 1994 of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a federal law "aimed directly at the type of abortion clinic violence and other activity at issue in this litigation," suggested that Congress did not believe the Hobbs Act was available for that purpose.
Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article
Law and Legal Issues
Read All the
Articles on Dominionism:
Directory of the Rise
of Dominionism
in America
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Back to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2006 Yurica Report. All rights reserved.