Baldassarre, Danielle

English

Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law

Buffalo Women's Law Journal Volume 10 Article 3 9-1-2001 Women's' Right to Abortion Protected in NOW v. Scheidler Danielle Baldassarre Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bwlj  Part of the Family Law Commons, and the Health Law and Policy Commons Recommended Citation Baldassarre, Danielle (2001) "Women's' Right to Abortion Protected in NOW v. Scheidler," Buffalo Women's Law Journal: Vol. 10 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bwlj/vol10/iss1/3 This Court Watch is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Women's Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact lawscholar@buffalo.edu. COURT WATCHWOMEN'S' RIGHT TOABORTION PROTECTED INNOW v. SCHEIDLERDanielle BaldassarreOn October 2, 2001,the United States Court ofAppeals for the SeventhCircuit upheld the first-everpermanent nationwideinjunction prohibitinginterference with the rights ofclinics to provide abortionservices in the class actionlawsuit National Organizationfor Women, Inc. v. Scheidler.'Protecting and supporting theright of every woman to havean abortion, granted by theUnited States Supreme Courtin Roe v. Wade,2 this judgmentwill have a dramatic impact ondecreasing the anti-abortionviolence across the country.The lawsuit was filedin 1985 on behalf of theNational Organization for'National Org. for Women, Inc., v.Scheidler, 267 F.3d 687, 2001 U.S.App. LEXIS 21295 (2001),rehearing denied, 2001 U.S. App.LEXIS 23758 (2001).2 Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 35L.Ed.2d 147, 93 S.Ct. 705 (1973),rehearing denied, 410 U.S. 959, 35L.Ed.2d 694, 93 S.Ct. 1409 (1973).Women (NOW) and twonamed clinics, asrepresentatives of all clinics inthe United States and allwomen who might seek to usetheir services. The purpose ofthe lawsuit was to stop anti-abortion activists from denyingwomen access to reproductivehealth services by establishinga permanent, nationwideinjunction and charging themtriple damages fororchestrating anti-abortionterrorism.The defendants in thecase, including Joe Scheidlerof the Pro-Life Action League,were all among the organizersof the Pro-Life ActionNetwork (PLAN), which is aloose national organization ofgroups that engage in anti-abortion tactics such as protestmissions.3 Schiedler and otheranti-abortion protestors havephysically attacked patientsand clinic personnel,preventing them from enteringthe clinic and causing injury totheir persons. The protestorshave invaded clinics, chainedtheir bodies to operating tables3 National Org. for Women, Inc., v.Scheidler, 267 F.3d 687, 693, 2001U.S. App. LEXIS 21295 (2001),rehearing denied, 2001 U.S. App.LEXIS 23758 (2001).BUFFALO WOMEN'S LAW JOURNALto prevent the tables frombeing used, and destroyedmedical equipment.4  Theyhave issued letters andstatements to clinicsthreatening to stage missions atthose clinics unless theyvoluntarily stop performingabortions.5One woman testified attrial that when she arrived atone of the clinics for a post-operative procedure forovarian surgery, totallyunrelated to abortion, the anti-abortionists attacked her whenshe tried to enter the building.As a result of the attack, herincisions reopened and sheneeded to be rushed to a localhospital.An administrator atanother clinic, testified thatanti-abortion extremistschained and locked themselvesto vehicles which they parkedblocking the entrance to theclinic. No one could enter thebuilding including staff andmedical personnel until thepolice cut the locks and towedthe vehicles away.At another protestmission, protestors pressedfour clinic members up against4 See id.' See id.6 See id. at 694.a glass entranceway, refusingto let them go until the glasswall actually shattered andinjured them.The lawsuit wasbrought under the RacketeerInfluenced and CorruptOrganizations Act (RICO).8RICO provides a legal cause ofaction against individuals whoconspire to use an organizationto engage in patterns ofracketeering, including acts ofextortion - the use of forcethreats, or other illegal meansto deprive someone of aproperty interest and income asis the case with these types ofactions against abortion clinicswhich deprive staff of income.9This federal law allows victimsof anti-abortion terrorism tosue not only those whoactually pull the trigger or lightthe match but also those whopromote and coordinate theviolence.' 0 RICO also allowsplaintiffs to obtain injunctions'See id.8 Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§1961-68 (RICO).9 Marilyn Steingesser, Court AppliesRICO to Abortion Terrorists,http://www.wcla.org/98-summer/su98-03.html.10 National Org. for WomenFoundation, Annual Report 1994,http://www.nowfoundation.org/board94.html.VOL. XCOURT WATCHagainst further violations of thestatute." IIn a landmark decisionon April 21, 1998, a U.S.District Court jury found thatthe anti-abortion leaders,Joseph Scheidler, TimothyMurphy, and AndrewScholberg, had violated federalracketeering laws byconducting a nationalcampaign of intimidation andharassment at abortion clinics.These anti-abortionists wereconvicted of 21 counts ofintimidation under RICO.On July 16, 1999, U.S.Federal District Judge DavisCoar issued the first-evernationwide injunction againstScheidler and the Pro-LifeLeague from interfering withthe rights of the class clinics toprovide abortion services orwith the rights of the classwomen to receive thoseservices. 12  The injunctionprohibits such acts asinterfering with the right ofany clinic to conduct itsbusiness, blocking, impeding,obstructing, interfering, or" Racketeer Influenced and CorruptOrganizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§1961-68 (RICO).12 See National Org. for Women, Inc.v. Scheidler, 1999 U.S.Dist.LEXIS11980, RICO Bus. Disp. GuideP9739 (N.D.Ill. July 16, 1999).inhibiting ingress and egressfrom any clinic, trespassing onclinic premises, destroying ordamaging any clinic property,or using violence or the threatof violence against any clinicor any of it employees,volunteers, or any womenseeking clinic services.' 3 Theinjunction was carefullydrafted to prohibit the illegalconduct that the defendantsengaged in on past protestmissions while not threateningdefendants' First Amendmentrights.' 4 To protect the right tofree speech, a specificprovision was set forth in theinjunction. The injunctiondoes not prohibit peacefulpicketing, speeches, or prayingon public property, attempts tospeak with patients and staff,handing out literature or anyother activity protected by theFirst Amendment.' 5Scheidler appealed thedecision granting an injunctionon First Amendment groundsof freedom of speech. Afterbalancing the interest of FirstAmendment freedom against13 See National Org. for Women, Inc.v. Scheidler, 267 F.3d 687, 706, 2001U.S. App. LEXIS 21295 (2001),rehearing denied, 2001 U.S. App.LEXIS 23758 (2001).'4 See id. at 707.'5 See id. at 705-706.2001-2002BUFFALO WOMEN'S LAW JOURNALan individual's right to medicalcare, the United States Courtof Appeals for the SeventhCircuit found that the acts inquestion provided ampleevidence of illegal conductwhich may be legitimatelyregulated given thegovernmental interest inprotecting an individual's rightto seek and provide medicalcare. 16 This right was found tooutweigh the defendants' rightto freedom of speech under theFirst Amendment.17  CircuitJudge Diane Wood held,"...The First Amendment doesnot protect violent conduct, nordoes it protect threats orlanguage used to carry outillegal conduct."' 8  The courtfurther stated, "Even when adefendant's conduct involvesexpressive elements, thegovernment is free to regulatethe non-expressive aspects ofthe conduct if such regulationis necessary to serve importantgovernment interests." 19 "The16 See id. at 702.17 id.18 See National Org. for Women, Inc.v. Schiedler, 267 F.3d 687, 702,citing Giboney v. Empire Storage &IceCo., 336 U.S. 490, 502 L.Ed.834, 69 S.Ct. 684 (1949).19 See National Org. for Women, Inc.v. Scheidler, 267 F.3d 687, 702,citing United States v. O'Brien, 391protectionright tomedicalviolence,of the plaintiff'sseek and providecare free fromintimidation andharassment is such animportant governmentinterest., 20 "Violence or othertypes of potentially expressiveactivities that produce specialharms distinct from theircommunicative impact... areentitled to no constitutionalprotection.",21 Thus, the U.S.Court of Appeals for SeventhCircuit upheld the injunctionas constitutional."The Seventh CircuitCourt of Appeals ruled in favorof reproductive freedom," saidthe NOW President KimGandy,22 by upholding the"nationwide injunction thatincreases women's safe accessU.S. 367, 377, 20 L.Ed. 2d 672, 88S.CT. 1673 (1968).20 See National Org. for Women, Inc.v. Scheidler, 267 F.3d 687, 702,citing Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S.703,715, 147 L.Ed. 2d 597, 120 S.Ct.2480 (2000).21 See National Org. for Women, Inc.v. Scheidler, 267 F.3d 687, 702,citing Roberts v. United StatesJaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 628, 82 L.Ed.2d 462, 104 S.Ct. 3244 (1984).22 Rebecca Farmer, Abortion RightsProtected by Appellate Decision inNOWv. Scheidler, Oct. 2, 2002,http://www.now.org/press/04-01/10-03-01 .html.VOL. X

Women\u27s\u27 Right to Abortion Protected in NOW v. Scheidler

https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&amp;context=bwlj

Women\u27s\u27 Right to Abortion Protected in NOW v. Scheidler

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law