NOW vs. Scheidler: Game over, NOW loses big

now.gifToday, after 21 years and an unprecedented three hearings before the U.S. Supreme Court, NOW vs. Scheidler was finally settled in a U.S. District Court in Chicago, and NOW may have lost big.

You can read the history of the case here.

This has always been a free speech case. Many liberal activists, including PETA and Martin Sheen, filed amicus briefs in support of Scheidler.

You can read the press release by Scheidler's attorney here..

I just spoke with the attorney, Tom Brejcha, to understand how the tables may have been turned on NOW. Here is how Tom explained today's court decision....

It's a little complicated. It was a class action, which means all the clinics in the country, all the women in the country who are members of NOW, and any women who ever felt intimidated by pro-life people in the country were brought into this case.

NOW sued every pro-life activist organization with a title.

In a way the whole abortion crowd sued the whole pro-life activist movement. Importantly, all the clinics were involved except a few who dropped out. Then-PP president Alan Guttmacher sealed the list of involved clinics.

There's a doctrine in law that when you file a lawsuit, it has to include every claim A brings against B. NOW vs. Scheidler included every event and transaction that ever occurred with an abortion provider from 1984 for as long as the case was pending.

Now we have a final judgment that includes anyone in the pro-life movement who was accused of any wrong doing at or about the premises at an abortion clinic – threats, harrassement, disorderly conduct - if that clinic hasn't dropped out of the case. So this final judgmenet can be brought into oourt to say the case is barred against that pro-lifer, because all claims have been dismissed.

Any lawsuit filed against a pro-lifer since 1984 is potentially dismissable, up to the date of the jdugement.

The point is, NOW said our guys had to answer for anything anybody did in the pro-life movement. But it works both ways. They said on record the co-conspirators were up to one million people.

I am going to put a kit together to send papers to whoever needs it to raise a defense. Mr. and Mrs. Anybody may say that they won this case.

There's a lot of paper you could throw at any prosecutor in the country. Boy, I'm gonna get that paper ready to throw. They wanted to make this thing top down against activism. They asked for it, they got it.

Congratulations to Joe and Ann Scheidler and Tom Brejcha!

[Hat tip: Marathon Pundit]


Comments:

NOW and NARAL are horrible pro death organizations.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 8, 2007 8:45 PM


Hey,

Tom Brejcha is my lawyer...He's awesome. He says he believes that he is the only lawyer in the country that went the US supreme court three times and won!

Go TOM! Go JOE! Go ANNE!

Does this mean I can step on the driveway again?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 8:53 PM


Oh SOMG,

You're such a party pooper!
Missed you at the wedding.
Did you hear?
Cameron is gay and marrying a Queen...or a member of that rock band anyway...

Can you blow smoke rings?
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 8:55 PM


But of course it could be anyone, any well-known right-to-lifer. The target of the FIRST PRO-CHOICE TERRORIST, I mean.

Someone might even take a shot at Jill Stanek one day!

Posted by: Doctor Defense at May 8, 2007 9:10 PM


Oh SOMG,

Honestly...go get a martini. Put on a boa and some Zeppelin...We're partying tonight.

And she wouldn't be the first.
Are you hinting at something SOMG...

And what's with the disguise. This is a wedding, not a masquerade ball...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 9:12 PM


Jill,

this is great news. I read it, NOW was trying to bring RICO charges up against pro-life organizations, which is a joke. RICO is mostly used against gansters, organized crime, bribery, etc.

Posted by: jasper at May 8, 2007 9:23 PM


We've been saying the same thing for 17 years...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 9:25 PM



Hi MK,

Is doctordefence SoMG?

Posted by: jasper at May 8, 2007 9:29 PM


Press on pro-lifers.

Jill, do you see the subliminal messages and hints being sent out by various bloggers on this sight. Take note.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 9:30 PM


"But of course it could be anyone, any well-known right-to-lifer. The target of the FIRST PRO-CHOICE TERRORIST, I mean.

Someone might even take a shot at Jill Stanek one day!"

How about if come to my house, I'll give you my address?

Posted by: jasper at May 8, 2007 9:33 PM


Jasper,

Yeah. But I don't know if he knows, so "mums" the word...

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 9:33 PM


Jasper and HisMan,

Kind of weird that he makes that threat and then disappears isn't it...

creepy in a sort of, well, creepy way...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 9:35 PM


HM, that was subliminal? :)

I'd like to think I'm ready. This world is not my home.

My, the party has quickly become a dirge!

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 9:54 PM


I had no idea there was still a RICO case going on... apparently not a big deal though. Only three hits on the news lines; WorldNet, ProLife, Christian News Wire, a Chicago news source and Canada Free press.

For anyone interested, there's a less enigmatic portrayal of the case on wikipedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheidler_v._National_Organization_for_Women_%282006%29

Posted by: Cameron at May 8, 2007 9:57 PM


Cammie, the decision is just hours old. You heard it here first.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 8, 2007 10:12 PM


Actually, now that we have FACE, we no longer need to use RICO to go after low-level right-to-life thugs.

As usual, the importance of the event is being exaggerated.

Posted by: SoMG at May 8, 2007 10:13 PM


Yeah and I wonder, was that person overtly threatening violence to pro-life individuals, including Jill? It sure sounded like it. Jill, did you get this clown's IP address? Are you going to report it?

In no way should pro-life violence be condoned and in fact most pro-life groups are peaceful. However, one should not confuse expressions of First Admendment Rights (Freedom of Speech) such as Silent No More rallies, peaceful demonstrations (individuals standing with pro-life signs, silent praying, or non-confrontational sit-ins), thoughtful & non-threatening greeting cards, or pro-life booths on college campus as violence. Of course, pro-choicers are often alarmists and often play the victim just to spread fear of pro-lifers and censor the message their pro-life opponents are trying to get out. Also pro-choicers are eager to group together and stereotype all pro-life individuals as violent and blame individuals for violence which they did not participate in, were unaware of, or otherwise would not condone.
Those anti-abortion persons who use actual violent means (harassment, shootings, arson, vandilism, etc) are the fringe or individuals with no connection to anti-abortion activity and are usually looking for a cause to support their violent behavior. For more explination, see:
http://abortionviolence.com/0.HTM
And I'd like to point out that radical pro-choice groups (such as Refuse and Resist) and individuals are already threatening, beating, running over individuals with their vehicle, attacking them with bio harzard and caustic materials, and screaming profanities in pro-lifers faces as well as vandalising personal vehicles, churches, and crisis pregnancy centers. Such actions have been documented on the websites:
http://www.gargaro.com/otherside.html
http://abortionviolence.com/INDEX.HTM
And how does this make them any better than others who commit violence in the name of their political cause?
So the next time a person demands that you condemn anti-abortion violence or apologize, tell him that the apology must be mutual; if you are going to apologize for violence you were not involved in, he must also apologize for the actions of individuals in their movement.

Posted by: Rachael at May 8, 2007 10:25 PM


Jill,
I'm not a first time commentor, how come some of my comments still need to be approved, wherein for a while I was logged in and didn't have to be approved?

Posted by: Rachael at May 8, 2007 10:26 PM


Oh look, Dr.Defense aka SoMg aka Dr. Death makes a death threat. How many times have you complained about Shelly Shannon? You really have a lot of nerve. I remember when you left a similar message on Operation Rescue's site. I hope you really don't work at a hospital. That would be really scary!

Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 5:17 AM


Rachael, great post. It was held by my server for approval because of all the links. Just approved it. Welcome!

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 9, 2007 7:02 AM


Rachael, I think this board is set to automatically set some posts for pending approval if the post has lots of links in it. It's happened to me before too. If yours did, that's probably why it happened. It's a filter that hleps to prevent spam. :) Hope that helps.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at May 9, 2007 7:14 AM


Oops, Jill, I didn't see your response when I posted mine.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at May 9, 2007 7:14 AM


How is it that when REAL threats are posted, no one on the pro-choice side complains... but when a pro-lifer makes a rhetorical point which someone interprets to be a threat, or makes a joke, it's complained about so strongly by pro-choicers?

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at May 9, 2007 7:18 AM


Rachel, Fantastic post!!

Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 7:19 AM


Wow, Rachael, terrific links!
Thank you!

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at May 9, 2007 7:21 AM


Great point Bethany. Weren't they all beating up on John last week ? Where is your outrage pro choicers? Somg just might be writing us from prison. You never know.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 7:22 AM


jasper, Yes Dr. Defense and SoMg is the same person. He has several other screen names as well. He almost got booted from the Operation Rescue Boards. He left a somewhat threatening and very frightening message there too.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 7:26 AM


Heather, oh, really? Pray tell.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at May 9, 2007 8:36 AM


I'll chime in. These veiled calls for violence are as improper as John's last week.

I was at least impressed that Jill acted consistently, deciding, I guess, to let all incitements violence stand if they are not explicit.

Posted by: Hal at May 9, 2007 10:57 AM


I was totally thrown off by Dr. Defense.
After the first sentence of his comment

"Sometimes I wonder what things would be like if pro-choice activists behaved more like right-to-lifers."

I thought he was going to say something like:
Maybe we could actually have a dialogue with these people instead of pro-choice activists constantly screaming and tearing down signs held by peaceful right to life activists.

Pro-Choice aggression seems to my by far the more common scenario, as compared to bombs at abortion clinics.

Posted by: Monika at May 9, 2007 12:12 PM


If doctordefense is so concerned about the safety of abortion clinic workers, he should speak to his friends in the mainstream media.
Many years ago, a popular news show hosted a debate concerning clinic violence. For the pro-life side they dug up some radical no one ever heard of, I believe it was Paul Hill, as representative of the pro-life stand on violence.
National Right To Life pleaded with the network not to put him on. He was no pro-life leader, no one ever heard of him, and he was spouting some pretty dangerous rhetoric. NRL had serious concerns about giving credence and widespread public attention to him, as this could only fuel his sick and dangerous fantasies. NRL offered to send a true pro-life representative but the network would have no part of it. They were out to prove a point and Paul Hill was the man to do it. Guess what? Paul Hill shot an abortion doctor. He may have eventually done it anyway but this did not exonerate the network as far as I was concerned. Of course, the mainstream media expressed their abject horror at the shooting. How ironic it was a pro-life organization that tried so hard to prevent it.

Posted by: Mary at May 9, 2007 3:54 PM


Mary, I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 5:16 PM


Mary, You are correct. It was Paul Hill, and he was executed for the murder of the abortionist. I just wanted to add to this since I read about Paul several months ago.

Posted by: Heather4life at May 9, 2007 5:40 PM