Eric Zorn profiles pro-lifers

japanese%202.jpgWere he a columnist in WWII, Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune would have demanded that all Japanese-Americans pledge not to bomb any ships at sea.

That's the equivalent of his insulting October 2 post, "Will abortion protesters be as good as their lawsuit claims they are?"

After writing about the libel suit pro-lifers filed against Planned Parenthood and Steve Trombley, Zorn wrote....


Trombley said, "This suit sounds like just another attempt to harrass and intimidate us. They're trying to intimidate us into not talking about their movement's history of harrassment, violence and intimidation."

Planned Parenthood can talk all it wants and its opponents can strike all the saintly, innocent poses they want. The proof will be what happens at what both sides are calling "ground zero" of the national debate over abortion.

The first court date isn't until December 20, by which time the court of public opinion will have taken full measure of the tactics employed by the anti abortion-rights movement in what is almost sure to be continual protests and civil disobedience at the clinic site.

Zorn then reprinted a 22-year-old "profile" (apt wording in keeping with the thrust of his piece) on Joe Scheidler and opened the door for his groupies to pile on, which they did with glee, to the point of calling Eric Scheidler "the Abbie Hoffman of the Anti-Choice crowd, only not as funny."

I entered into the debate with Zorn late yesterday (see page 2).

Pro-lifers need to step back and look at what the other side has been doing and stop biting at the bait.

japanese%201.jpgYears ago the abortion industry hit on the tactic of branding all of us for the miniscule number that seek vigilante justice. They did this to intimidate and stigmatize us.

And both plans worked.

Fighting stigmatization is an uphill battle. People want to believe the worst. The fact is, if people are bent on thinking something, there's not much that can be done to stop them. The libel lawsuit is working toward that end. It's saying, no more.

But one thing we certainly have control over is letting ourselves be intimidated. We must stop that.

Consider the fact that the abortion industry - any person (including politicians) or group making money from abortion - is our enemy. Why in the world do we care what they think? Why in the world have we spent so much time trying to prove to them that we're really very nice people?

Screw them. If we allow ourselves to be intimidated, we act defensively not offensively. We react rather than act. We lose our assertive tone.

Get over the profiling. Cease to care about their accusations as they relate to the tasks at hand. Don't let them distract you.

Friends in the movement will say we must worry about their souls. I say, picking up on a point Scott Klusendorf makes, if you observed a man gunning down a room full of two-year-olds, would you worry about his soul or saving the children? Priorities, my friends. Stop the killing first.

As I pointed out in my WND column yesterday, their characterization of us is coming back to bite them anyway.

And as a related aside, OpenlineBlog.com has a hysterical post up about Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner now requiring extra police protection for himself. Oh, please. Talk about delusions of grandeur.

Stanek/Zorn debate:

FROM JILL STANEK-- http://www.jillstanek.com
Eric, your post is condescending yet amusing. You said the other day you didn't want to talk about the nuts and bolts and fors and againsts of abortion any more, but you like the conversation abortion arouses, so you've come up with a detractor's angle.
Get this, Eric. I don't care if you think I'm violent, or if you perpetuate the myth that Joe Scheidler is violent. These are false assertions your side only promotes to intimidate and stigmatize pro-lifers.
The debate is meant to put us on the defensive, like "Have you stopped beating your wife." And I've never fallen for it. In fact, it amuses me to think we might intimidate you. That gives us a lot of power and causes you to think irrationally.
My WND column today, entitled, "Planned Parenthood's bulletproof glass," is all about how the "pro-lifers are violent!" line has backfired big-time on Planned Parenthood et al.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57955

ZORN REPLY -- Don't talk to me about condescension, Jill -- part of your schtick these days is a smug and patronizing tone toward those who favor abortion rights, and it's on display even here. That's fine if if works for you. I don't happen to feel that everyone who disagrees with me on this issue obtuse and/or morally bankrupt-- I've certainly never thought you had violent tendencies ,much less accuesed you of same. Nor do I believe your heart is in the wrong place.
Trombley's controversial, lawsuit prompting assertion is: "The activists of the Pro-Life Action League who have been opposing our new facility... have a well-documented history of advocating violence against both persons and property as well as other related criminal activity."
Is this true of the PLAL?
The reason I posted the entire 1985 profile of Scheidler here (and probably should post more news stories about the charges made against him) is to let the reader look at a bigger picture.
There's an irony, don't you think, in you enjoying the fact that some think the protests might turn violent and lawless...even that employee lives might be at risk...while howling that the movement has been libeled?
I know you can't speak for Joe or the PLAL, but you can speak for yourself -- do you categorically condemn violence against employees of abortion clinics? Vandalism or damage to property by abortion-clinic protesters?


Posted by: Jill Stanek | Oct 3, 2007 3:37:46 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ERIC: Trombley's controversial, lawsuit prompting assertion is: "The activists of the Pro-Life Action League who have been opposing our new facility... have a well-documented history of advocating violence against both persons and property as well as other related criminal activity."
Is this true of the PLAL?

JILL: Eric, in a word, no. You conveniently quote the 1985 lawsuit but not the 2003 Supreme Court 8-1 overturn or the 2006 Supreme Court 8-0 affirmation overturn.

ERIC: do you categorically condemn violence against employees of abortion clinics? Vandalism or damage to property by abortion-clinic protesters?

JILL: Yes, as I said in my column today, that is vigilante justice. But I understand the impetus, wrong as it is, akin to understanding how a father could take justice into his own hands and kill his daughter's rapist.

ZORN REPLY-- Now Jill, don't mislead readers about what was and wasn't overturned and what that means about PLAL. Jill In March, 2006, the Tribune reported that in twice overturning a civil verdict against Scheidler, the high court "did not address the pattern of criminal activity that the lower courts ruled had been perpetrated by the anti-abortion activists. The justices confined their ruling to the question of whether the clinics could sue under RICO and related laws."
Even some liberal groups were on PLAL's side, as we reported in 2003: "NOW (had) prevailed before a Chicago-based federal appeals court but found itself with atypical opponents in (front of) the Supreme Court. Criminal defense lawyers and civil liberties groups weighed in against the organization, arguing that a ruling in its favor would mean the tough federal laws could apply to other protests, such as those waged by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Even non-violent kinds of protest could turn into RICO concerns, sweeping up potentially thousands of people," said William Mertens, a Washington attorney who wrote a friend of the court brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers opposing NOW's position."
In other words, your response to my question was non-responsive.
Your response to my second question was a bit evasive. I understand the impetus behind acts of vandalism on behalf of PETA, say; for that matter, I understand the impetus behind Islamic terrorist acts (in part because I have read the excellent book, "The Looming Tower"). Nevertheless I feel comfortable in categorically rejecting such vandalism and mayhem without softening it with the nod and wink.

Posted by: Jill Stanek | Oct 3, 2007 5:50:14 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric, my answer to your second question was "a bit evasive"? Incredible. My answer was completely direct, Eric, more honest than you'll get from most.

The reality is I subjected myself to your stereotyping, Eric. Your column and question to me were exercises in profiling. You could have been no more insulting than had you demanded a gay man swear he didn't have AIDS, a black man to deny he had fathered 2 illegitimate children, a Muslim to swear s/he wasn't a prospective terrorist.

And Joe? Such a cheap shot your column was. NOW lost its case. Now you parse to continue to declare a man guilty who was proven innocent. Very American of you, Eric. What's worse, you've known Joe for years. He answers your every call and responds to your every question. You know he's not capable of violence as evidenced by both his demeanor and his faith. And yet for ratings and attaboys you'll pull that card.

ZORN REPLY -- Please, Jill, you say Scheidler was "proven innocent"? I can't decide whether you truly don't understand that court ruling or if you think that if you continue to misrepresent it loudly enough people will come to believe what you say. The high court said that what the jury concluded Scheidler did did NOT amount to conspiracy and racketeering under the federal statutes.
Further, I did not accuse you and never have accused you of committing violent acts; I asked you if you condemned them, even as I have in other forums asked local Islamic leaders for their views on, say, the violence that greeted the publication of cartoons of Muhammed.
Is it fair for me to ask a prominent leader in a movement such as yourself for your views of the tactics and acts of the most extreme members of that movement? Of course it is, of course it is.
People have been asking Joe about this for years and he, at least, seems to understand that it's a fair question (and his answer, like yours, stops short of unequivocal condemnation)

Posted by: Jill Stanek | Oct 4, 2007 3:11:14 AM


Comments:

Jill you have great patience.....

Posted by: Phil at October 4, 2007 8:43 AM


"Friends in the movement will say we must worry about their souls. I say, picking up on a point Scott Klusendorf makes, if you observed a man gunning down a room full of two-year-olds, would you worry about his soul or saving the children? Priorities, my friends. Stop the killing first."

amen Jill.

Eric Zorn: "I know you can't speak for Joe or the PLAL, but you can speak for yourself -- do you categorically condemn violence against employees of abortion clinics? Vandalism or damage to property by abortion-clinic protesters?"

Jill, can anwser this question too? .....

Eric, how about you, do you categorically condemn violence against unborn babies? what? you're pro-choice on that matter? OK, well, my answer is that I'm pro-choice too when it comes to your question.

Posted by: jasper at October 4, 2007 8:53 AM


* can I *

Posted by: jasper at October 4, 2007 8:55 AM


Jill, do you equally "understand" how someone could take justice into their own hands by killing Paul Hill's children?

Posted by: DoctorDefense at October 4, 2007 8:59 AM


By the way, Jill, Eric is right--the Supreme Court never acquitted Scheidler of criminal activity. It overturned his conviction on a technicality.

Posted by: SoMG at October 4, 2007 9:01 AM


Jill,
Unbelievable! It was like talking to a wall! You poor thing...You responded excellently. It's too bad that many writers pull only pieces of the whole truth to make their ridiculous points. It really makes them look foolish. :)

Posted by: Laura K. at October 4, 2007 9:02 AM


You should have asked him if he supports the slaughter and dismemberment of the unborn. Would have been fun watching him dance his way out of that one...can't you just hear him?

"I abhor abortion. I would never do it myself, but I can certainly understand the mindset of those that do and would never impose my personal views on them..."

So you support the fight against abortion and while being against violent tactics, understand why some people resort to them.

And you are considered wrong.

But Eric supports the right to abortion while being personally against vacuuming children through a hose, but understands why some people would resort to this.

And he is considered right.

The guy may not be violent, but he sounds like a buffoon!

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:03 AM


From Chapter 81 of "Closed: 99 ways to Stop Abortion"

In Joe's own words...


"Direct action, and even civil disobedience, have an important part to play in winning the pro-life battle. But violence, we believe, does not.
*
We must point out for the sake of proper perspective, however, that no amount of damage to real estate can equal the violence of taking a single human life. Civilized societies rate the loss of life as far more serious than property damage. But today, in our society, punishment is meted out to those who damage property—while those who destroy life are rewarded. It is a sign of the deterioration of our values that much of the national media concentrates on damaged buildings, with pictures of charred real estate, while refusing to present pictures of the human victims who are heartlessly and systematically dismembered and painfully killed inside that real estate.
*
Pro-lifers are rarely allowed to show on network television the victims of abortion—the real violence of the abortion debate. Yet we have had to watch adnauseam pictures of damaged buildings carefully panned on America’s TV screens, while being directly or indirectly accused of causing the damage.
*
But we will not play the abortionists’ violent game. We plan to win without resorting to violence.
*
The shooting death of Dr. Gunn, while allegedly committed by a man new to the movement, only served to bring on a rash of restrictive bills, speed up legislation aimed at curtailing totally non-violent pro-life activity, and give the pro-abortionists a "martyr". It made it momentarily more difficult to convince the man-on-the-street that pro-lifers had an undisputed claim to high moral ground."

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:08 AM


SoMG,

By the way, Jill, Eric is right--the Supreme Court never acquitted Scheidler of criminal activity. It overturned his conviction on a technicality.

Yeah, the technicality that it never happened!

Show me where, other than the NOW documents, that Joe Scheidler has ever committed an act of violence!

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:15 AM


Great post at www.openlineblog.com but what on earth is wrong with the mayor of Aurora? Is he doing this for sympathy or is Weisner crazy?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2007 9:16 AM


And this from:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/fw/conspira.htm

In April, 1994, at a meeting in Chicago of approximately
80 leaders in the movement, there was a dramatic split
among attendees, with Paul Hill and his support for
violence at the center of the dispute. At least half
of those in attendance supported Hill. According to
the Pro-Life Action League's Joseph Scheidler, the
founder of the radical wing, "It wasn't just justifiable
homicide; it was [support for] violence, bombing and
arson... I thought, 'Wow, the movement has gone through
some kind of transition.'" According to Operation Rescue
National director Flip Benham, "I went to Chicago because
I had to confront Paul Hill. What he's saying is heresy,
it's sin.... But I think I was in the minority."

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:24 AM


MK!!! Have you been hiding from me?? *cry*


Posted by: Lyssie at October 4, 2007 9:24 AM


Great post at www.openlineblog.com but what on earth is wrong with the mayor of Aurora? Is he doing this for sympathy or is Weisner crazy?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2007 9:16 AM

He's crazy.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2007 9:34 AM


I second what Phil said. You have great patience.

Posted by: Carrie at October 4, 2007 9:46 AM


I agree with what you say about not caring about what the proaborts think of us. I know what is in my heart and I know that I am not capable of violence. I am not going to let anyone intimidate me. I just returned from a prayer vigil where I was screamed at a couple of times. Of course, I also got a few middle fingers pointed my way. As a matter of fact, the intimidatinon tactics help to strenghten my resolve. The proaborts have their rights to free speech and I have mine, which I will continue to exercise.

Posted by: Carrie at October 4, 2007 9:57 AM


Alyssa,

I emailed you...but only to tell you that I'm not talking to you anymore. :)

Brat!

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 10:07 AM


Well, I am off to watch a couple of Zena Warrior Princess episodes. Any Zena fans out there?

Posted by: Carrie at October 4, 2007 10:13 AM


Actually, I know that all pro-lifers WANT to commit acts of clinic violence, but after watching Sarah Silverman last night you know that you will be thwarted by brave, middle-aged Dungeons and Dragons players...

Posted by: Laura at October 4, 2007 10:24 AM


Putting the words "abortion clinic bomb" in to Google's Advance search yielded approximately 630,000 results. Here are tidbits from just a few of them showing how "peaceful" these anti-choice people are:

-- "On one occasion Scheidler sent two men and a woman into my clinic. One of the men screamed, 'Look at my face and remember me, Ilene. I'm going to kill you.' "

-- "U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith in Birmingham sentenced Eric Rudolph to two consecutive life terms without parole in connection with the January 1998 bombing of the New Woman All Women clinic, which performs abortions.

The blast killed off-duty police officer Robert Sanderson, 35, who was working as a security guard at the clinic, and maimed a nurse, Emily Lyons, then 41.

-- 1993-MAR: Michael Griffin, allegedly a member of Rescue America, killed Dr. David Gunn outside an abortion clinic.

-- 1994-JUL: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action killed a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic; he wounded the wife of the bodyguard.

-- Abortion providers in northern New York state and Canada were attacked on five of the six years from 1994 to 1998:

* 1994-NOV-8: Dr. Garson Romalis of Vancouver BC was shot in the leg.
* 1995-NOV-10: Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster ON (Near Hamilton) was shot in the elbow.
* 1996: No shootings occurred.
* 1997-OCT-28: A physician in Rochester NY received minor shrapnel wounds.
* 1997-NOV-11: Dr Jack Fainman of Winnipeg MN was shot in the shoulder.
* 1998-OCT-23: Dr Barnett Slepian from Amherst NY (near Buffalo) was murdered.

All five were shot through a glass window or door at their homes.

-- 1992-MAY: An explosion generated by a sophisticated gas weapon leveled the Morgentaler abortion clinic in Toronto, ON.

Yes, Ms. Stanek - you "pro-lifers" have given Planned Parenthood more than enough reason to install bulletproof glass and bullet resistant drywall.

And please, knock off the sanctimonious crap about "pro-lifers are peaceful and only baby killers drive by screaming bad language at us and flipping us off". I live in the Oakhurst area and have a sign in my yard supporting the clinic. I can't believe the treatment your side puts me, my wife AND CHILDREN through on a daily basis. Your kind does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to stand in my driveway with grisly photos and call me a "baby killer" and many other worse names.


Posted by: BC at October 4, 2007 10:35 AM


BC, what's your point?

Posted by: Kelli at October 4, 2007 10:37 AM


BC, the abortion industry kills 1.3 million innocent babies a year. Talk about violence.

Posted by: Kelli at October 4, 2007 10:40 AM


"Actually, I know that all pro-lifers WANT to commit acts of clinic violence"
Laura: How DARE you make that statement without even knowing me or ANY of the pro-lifers out there. You make MANY unintelligent comments, but this one takes the cake! I'm sure this makes you happy...you seem to thrive on hurting others and making statements like these. I usually ignore your posts, but in the pro-lifers defense, YOU ARE WRONG!

Posted by: Laura K. at October 4, 2007 10:40 AM


MK, you should use this updated email. I used the other one over the summer, but I think it's been inactivated. *sigh*

Posted by: Lyssie at October 4, 2007 10:51 AM


"I abhor abortion. I would never do it myself, but I can certainly understand the mindset of those that do and would never impose my personal views on them..."

I abhor rape, sodomy, adultery, molestation, slavery, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, perjury, murder, slander, libel, kidnapping, burglary, drunk driving, and incest. I would never do any of those things myself, but I would never impose my personal views on those that do...?????

Posted by: just thinking at October 4, 2007 11:07 AM


http://abortionviolence.com/

What these "all pro-lifers are violent nuts" automatons don't want known.

Posted by: Matthew at October 4, 2007 11:15 AM


Matthew,

thanks for that link...those prochoicers are so tolerant....

Posted by: jasper at October 4, 2007 11:27 AM


Good one, just thinking! It got me thinking how
I abhor shooting abortionists and bombing death camps that masquerade as "reproductive health clinics", and would never do such things myself... but far be it from me to impose my personal views on those that do...;)

Posted by: tolerant at October 4, 2007 11:37 AM


BC,

Your kind does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to stand in my driveway with grisly photos and call me a "baby killer" and many other worse names.

Actually we do. And you, as of now, have the right to have an abortion. Which frustrates the hell out of us.

Now you know how we feel. Watching people do things that are legal, and there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

Suck it up!

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 12:10 PM


BC,

And for the record, I have yet to see one act of violence that Joe Scheidler did, that didn't come off of Now documents.

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 12:11 PM


Alyssa,

Can't use your "new" email address if I don't have it! Helloooooo?

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 12:12 PM


Your kind does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to stand in my driveway with grisly photos and call me a "baby killer" and many other worse names.

Actually we do. And you, as of now, have the right to have an abortion. Which frustrates the hell out of us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, but what if I have an abortion in your driveway?

Posted by: Laura at October 4, 2007 12:21 PM


Laura,

I guess it all depends on whether or not you have a permit! ;)

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 12:27 PM


BC,

Real pro-lifers condemn violence as a response to the violence of abortion. Sadly, there are a few (and I mean very few in contrast to the sheer volume of people in the legitimate pro-life movement) who do commit violent acts.

Despite the fact that the last act of clinic violence you can find was almost a decade ago, let's compare and contrast the violence:

4 people killed from anti-abortion folks. 4 in that last 14 years that you quoted.

vs.

4,400 people killed everyday by pro-abortion folks.


6 people wounded by anti-abortion folks in that last 14 years.

vs.

8 people that have were wounded by abortion attempts that survived for a period of time after birth (that we know of).

Like Little Ana Rosa Rodriguez, whose arm was torn off by an abortionist:

Let's not forget the over 46 MILLION so far in America that have been killed by abortion.

Who, then, is violent, BC? A few vigilantes that take justice into their own hands with the intent of saving lives? Or is it the pro-abortion movement that intentionally takes lives for the sole purpose of taking lives every single day?

So you think we are violent? Pot, let me introduce you to the kettle.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 4, 2007 12:31 PM


MK, I just used the new email addy in my comment post login...do you not have access to it?

:)

Posted by: Lyssie at October 4, 2007 12:32 PM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH6zN4pMrhw

How's this for "choice?"

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2007 12:48 PM


No, MK, the technicality was that RICO cannot be used against right-to-life criminals.

Posted by: SoMG at October 4, 2007 12:59 PM


Jill your post just made me think of something that happened in Canada about 2 years ago. At that time I was studying at the University of Western Ontario which is in London, Ontario Canada. Henry Morgentaler who is our bane up here, for he pretty much single-handedly caused Canada to remove any laws re: abortion, was to receive an honorary law degree.
Two days before commencement, black uniformed officers swarmed the campus and the Alumni Hall where Convocation is held was cordoned off. Security was EVERYWHERE because, you know, those violent, evil anti-abortion people were comin to town to protest. I was in class two evenings before Convocation and black uniformed officers were checking out the hallways!
Of course, it was a HUGE case of OVERKILL. Protestors remained silent, holding signs along the streets leading into the campus and around Alumni Hall. No one responded to even the worst kind of insults and there were plenty.
When Morgentaler received his award, even he was embarrassed about it all. The city of London and the university looked like fools. How much money this cost Canadian taxpayers - who knows?
The 2 saddest things though
1. A reputable university honored a man condoning the worst sort of medicine under the guise of "choice".
2. The students who worked so hard for years had their convocation made a sham. Morgentaler received an 10 min standing ovation.

Posted by: Patricia at October 4, 2007 1:05 PM


Doesn't the entire thing sound like a horror movie? Children being tortured in their mother's wombs. Arms and legs being severed. George Tiller injected Digoxin into that little girl's head instead of her heart. She lived for a few years. Women dying at the hands of abortionists. Let's not even get into how many women are sexually violated by the abortionist. We have women cheering this on. It's your body ladies. Don't you care? Don't you care about other women?

Posted by: Kelli at October 4, 2007 2:17 PM


Matthew, an excellent post. Most pro choicers are not tolerant people, unless you support the evil things they stand for. Why do they get so angry at pro lifers? Abortion was a choice that you were so proud of. Why get angry at me? We haven't been able to make abortion illegal for the last 34 years. So, do you feel threatened by us? Are you guilt ridden from your choices? What is it?

Posted by: Kelli at October 4, 2007 2:22 PM


Somg,

you wrote

"the technicality was that RICO cannot be used against right-to-life criminals."

Posted by: SoMG at October 4, 2007 12:59 PM

It is my understanding of the case that Joe Schiedler organized protests at abortion clinics. During one of the protests someone alleged they were pushed or hit or assaulted etc. Since Joe didn't actually do any of this alleged assaulting, the only way to include him in a suit was use RICO.

The Supreme Court found this baseless two (three?) times.

So the plaintiffs were looking for a technicality by which to implicate him rather than he looking for a technicality by which to exonerate himself.

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 2:25 PM


hippie -

Kind of. The trial court made findings of fact regarding the violence/harassment perpetrated by various people associated with Schiedler's group, and I believe some acts perpetrated by Schiedler himself. At the trial level, they found that this satisfied the RICO statute in a couple of ways. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court has overturned a couple of times based upon different things.

First, one way that you can violate RICO is to be guilty of extortion, and in order to be guilty of extortion, you have to have used threats, intimidation, and/or coercion to obtain the property of another.

Put simply, the trial and appellate court found that access to a clinic was "property" for purposes of the extortion element. The SC disagreed. One thing the SC did NOT do, was overturn any of the other findings regarding the other elements of extortion, just whether "property" had been obtained.

Meaning...the other elements were satisfied. That is, threats, intimidation, and/or coercion was present. Just not the obtaining of property.

Posted by: Carol at October 4, 2007 3:07 PM


So there.

Posted by: SoMG at October 4, 2007 3:33 PM


"Meaning...the other elements were satisfied. That is, threats, intimidation, and/or coercion was present. Just not the obtaining of property."

Could have the courts got it wrong before it got the Supreme Court? I mean, most of those who are "pro-choice" are willing to bend over backwards to give someone on death row the benefit of the doubt. Are you willing unwilling to make that point because you are so die-hard?

Posted by: Matthew at October 4, 2007 3:33 PM



Zorn would not have to ask Japanese Americans to promise they would not bomb any ships at sea. Japanese-American old people, men, women, and children, were in concentration camps in the western United States, their homes and businesses confiscated.

Posted by: Mary at October 4, 2007 3:43 PM


They were internment camps, Mary. Nasty things indeed, but they weren't ala Nazi camps.

Posted by: Erin at October 4, 2007 3:58 PM


Could have the courts got it wrong before it got the Supreme Court? I mean, most of those who are "pro-choice" are willing to bend over backwards to give someone on death row the benefit of the doubt. Are you willing unwilling to make that point because you are so die-hard?

Posted by: Matthew at October 4, 2007 3:33 PM

Matthew -

Could the trial court, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court all have gotten it wrong based upon the factual record? Not likely, but I guess it's a remote possibility.

Could Scheidler and his group actually be a bunch of bullies and jerks who are willing to terrorize vulnerable women and people who are there to provide services for them? I mean, most of you who are anti-abortion are willing to bend over backwards to excuse the most outrageous behavior committed by people who are associated with your side. Are you so die-hard that you can't admit that point?

Posted by: Carol at October 4, 2007 4:06 PM


Carol,

You wrote:

"Meaning...the other elements were satisfied. That is, threats, intimidation, and/or coercion was present. Just not the obtaining of property."

Posted by: Carol at October 4, 2007 3:07 PM

So if the plaintiffs had evidence of the other stuff, why bother with RICO?

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 4:12 PM


"Could Scheidler and his group actually be a bunch of bullies and jerks who are willing to terrorize vulnerable women and people who are there to provide services for them? I mean, most of you who are anti-abortion are willing to bend over backwards to excuse the most outrageous behavior committed by people who are associated with your side. Are you so die-hard that you can't admit that point?"

The problem is that many "pro-choicers" dumb-down the definition of "terrorize." If Scheidler was convicted and/or videotaped of assault, terroristic threatening, or similar charges, then he deserves to be condemned. But if all he is "guilty" of is praying, holding signs, and/or chanting, he deserve praise, not condemnation from "pro-choice" hacks. Point to something, other than something that was "proven" with documents from NOW or their cohorts.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2007 4:19 PM


"I abhor abortion. I would never do it myself, but I can certainly understand the mindset of those that do and would never impose my personal views on them..."

I abhor rape, sodomy, adultery, molestation, slavery, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, perjury, murder, slander, libel, kidnapping, burglary, drunk driving, and incest. I would never do any of those things myself, but I would never impose my personal views on those that do...?????

Posted by: just thinking at October 4, 2007 11:07 AM


I abhor drinking alcoholic beverages, but I can certainly understand the mindset of those who do. I will not drink even one glass of wine because I think alcohol is evil; so many crimes are committed and millions of people's lives have been ruined BECAUSE it is legal to drink alocholic beverages; however, I would never impose my views about alcohol on anyone else.

Posted by: Libby at October 4, 2007 4:19 PM


" The trial court made findings of fact regarding the violence/harassment perpetrated by various people associated with Schiedler's group, and I believe some acts perpetrated by Schiedler himself."

I haven´t read anyone say in plain English what these "facts" and "acts" are.

Did Joe or someone push, or hit, spit, call them names, block the driveway or what?

Does anybody know?

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 4:20 PM


So if the plaintiffs had evidence of the other stuff, why bother with RICO?
Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 4:12 PM


Took the words right outta my mouth!


Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 4:23 PM


So if the plaintiffs had evidence of the other stuff, why bother with RICO?

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 4:12 PM

I'm just guessing, but I think it's because the plaintiffs weren't the women who were harassed, but NOW and a couple of clinics who provide abortions suing on their own behalf in a civil (not criminal) forum. This means that they didn't have standing to sue for the harassment, coercion and/or intimidation. Also, what they were seeking was a nationwide injunction against such behavior, which is a remedy that isn't available for a single instance of harassment.

But it really doesn't matter why. Regardless of the reasons for pursuing the case under RICO, the court found that the behavior did exist, and that's a matter of fact.

Posted by: Carol at October 4, 2007 4:34 PM


Carol,

So did those with legal standing sue or press criminal charges?

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 5:04 PM


The Now v Scheidler, et.al. trial was a sham from day one and a huge waste of taxpayers money in the courts for over 20 years! I have known Joe Scheidler since 1992, protested with him many a time, including last Tuesday in Aurora. I have met and spoken with many associated with him over the years, his wife and some of his children, his lawyer, Tom Brejcha, and I can tell you that I have never ever seen him say or do anything that would promote any kind of violence against any person or destruction of property.

NOW brought that suit against Joe specifically because he of all people in the country was and still is considered a kind of national leader in the pro-life movement. He has always been unashamedly outspoken for the children in the womb and their mothers. They wanted to stop him and his effective pro-life, baby-saving activities, because they were effective. Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.


Joe, as you know is a devout Catholic. Hello?

Remember that Jesus said "If they persecute me, they will persecute you."

Joe and Ann and the family and supporters have taken an awful lot of 'hits' - attacks on them personally, pushed, shoved, spat upon, yelled out in the ear with a megaphone (this was also done to me in 1992 by crazies in Chicago). Yet he has never given up. Most of the other plaintiffs named gave up the long hard fight vs. NOW. Randall Terry, former leader of Operation Rescue gave in to the demands of NOW, promising he would never do another peaceful sit-in, or organize one. He did that because he wanted to run for office somewhere. But not Joe. He never gave up fighting that ridiculous law suit. I was at the closing arguments of the initial trial. Faye Clayton, lead attorney for the plaintiff, tried to lead Judge Coar around with her silly arguments and rhetoric as if he was a little child.

Well, it took ten years, but thanks be to God, much prayer and the determination of Joe and his lawyers, the suit was overturned twice by the U.S. Supreme Court. We all know the decisions. As far as I know, the Joe Scheidler and the PLAL are still awaiting for the court to issue an order for NOW to pay triple damages to the defendants.

This information is to the best of my knowledge. If you want, contact either the Thomas More Society in Chicago, or go to http://www.prolifeaction.org/nvs/ for more information.

Read the summary at least. It will only take you five minutes or so.

Posted by: Paul at October 4, 2007 5:10 PM


In Google, try typing in "Joe Scheidler" and "conviction" or "felony" or "felon." You'd think if there was something substantive, it would be all over the Internet. There isn't. All there is are these "court findings" which were part of the RICO suit, not criminal convictions. So, even if the court "found" it to be true, doesn't mean it is necessarily correct.

Posted by: Matthew at October 4, 2007 5:16 PM


Carol,

So did those with legal standing sue or press criminal charges?

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 5:04 PM

Well, here is a sample of the predicate acts that the lower courts based their decisions on (I pulled this from the 7th Circuit decision in 2001):

"At a protest mission in Chico,
California, protesters pressed four
clinic staff members up against a glass
entranceway to the clinic for several
hours and refused to let them go even
when they complained they were being
crushed. The glass wall eventually either
loosened or shattered, injuring a clinic
staffer."

"At a similar mission in Los Angeles,
protesters grabbed at a patient's arms
and legs and tried to restrain her
physically from entering the clinic. The
patient was actually at the clinic for a
follow-up to ovarian surgery, and the
attack by the protesters reopened her
incisions. As a result of the attack, the
patient had to be rushed to the hospital."

"In several instances, protesters entered
clinics and destroyed medical equipment."

I would assume that in those instances, criminal cases were prosecuted against the offenders.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2007 5:21 PM


In Google, try typing in "Joe Scheidler" and "conviction" or "felony" or "felon." You'd think if there was something substantive, it would be all over the Internet. There isn't. All there is are these "court findings" which were part of the RICO suit, not criminal convictions. So, even if the court "found" it to be true, doesn't mean it is necessarily correct.

Posted by: Matthew at October 4, 2007 5:16 PM

Matthew - I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as why a RICO suit was filed. Remember that NOW and the clinics involved weren't just suing Joe Scheidler the individual. His co-defendants were PLAN/PLAL. The point of the suit wasn't that Joe was out there committing all of these acts, it was that he had an organization that was committing all of these acts, kind of like the Mob, if you will excuse the comparison.

Posted by: Carol at October 4, 2007 5:24 PM


Erin,

I didn't say they were Nazi, I said they were concentration camps. Internment camps just sound a little nicer.
Japanese Americans were stripped of their rights, removed from their homes, had their businesses and property conficated, and were imprisoned without a trial or being found guilty of anything other than being Japanese Americans. Something like the Jews in Germany were.
The "internment camps" consisted of baracks surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. I saw pictures and if these pictures were taken in Nazi Germany, you would have called them concentration camps.

Posted by: Mary at October 4, 2007 5:33 PM


The point of the suit wasn't that Joe was out there committing all of these acts, it was that he had an organization that was committing all of these acts, kind of like the Mob, if you will excuse the comparison.

Indeed NOW was trying to show a similarity between Scheidler, PLAL, et.al., and the organized crime syndicates, and so used the RICO statutes to that end. It didn't work.

And every charge of mentioned above is categorically false.

NOW was trying to link Joe and others with instances of violence he and they had nothing to do with, other than they both claimed to be pro-life.

Posted by: Paul at October 4, 2007 5:56 PM


. Regardless of the reasons for pursuing the case under RICO, the court found that the behavior did exist, and that's a matter of fact.,/i>

I don't think anyone is questioning whether the behavior exists. We are saying it wasn't done by Joe Scheidler or by his direction.

But that is what Steve Trombley is saying...and he's wrong!

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 7:27 PM


BC -

Let's talk about violence. Since I have been at the Aurora PP site quite often, I can tell you about violence. Go look at the police reports from Aurora. You'll find that no pro-lifer has been arrested. However, we have been verbal attacked, physically attacked, shot at with BB guns, egged, tomatoed, our cars have been vandalized and we've been followed home. We've had angry drunk people destroy our possessions. So who are the violent ones??? Has any of this happened to you? I don't think so.

Seeing those pictures are disturbing. I agree, but the truth of what is happening is disturbing.
Out of site, out of mind. It is easy to keep one's head on the sand, but expose light to it and it is really ugly.

If I had been on the jury for any of those who shot at or killed an abortionist, I would have voted to convict. One violent act doesn't solve anything by committing another violent act. Unfortunatly, I doubt you have bothered to come talk to us. You're making blanket statements without knowing anything about us. But, then I'm not surprised, bc if you talk to us you'd realize we are not crazy. We care about women and thier unborn babies.

I could give you lots of stats to backup why abortion is bad, but I doubt that you would even care. You care about appearances, not substance.

Posted by: Tara at October 4, 2007 8:03 PM


Um, why do you have a picture of a Japanese Internment camp? I mean, to compare Japanese Americans during WWII to pro-lifers today the Japanese Americans would have had to have bombed some American ships. But they didn't, they were innocent. But have any pro-lifers bombed random clinics?

One day a crazed pro-lifer will mistakenly bomb a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Then maybe you won't be as supportive of them.

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2007 8:58 PM


One day a crazed pro-lifer will mistakenly bomb a Crisis Pregnancy Center. Then maybe you won't be as supportive of them.

Posted by: Jess at October 4, 2007 8:58 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Something like that already happened:
Friday, September 15, 2006

Pro-Lifer Drives his Saturn into a Clinic that DOESN'T Provide Abortions

Anti-abortion nuts really need to work on attracting a better class of terrorist these days. Detroit Free Press reports on one man's kamikaze raid on a women's health clinic in Davenport, Iowa:


Based on what he told police, David McMenemy's plan to destroy an abortion clinic worked out much differently in his head from what played out Monday in Davenport, Iowa.

McMenemy, 45, most recently of Rochester Hills admitted dousing the interior of his silver 2004 Saturn with gasoline he had in a Gatorade bottle and plunging the vehicle into a women's health clinic early that morning. And he told police he planned to die in the ensuing fire.

But the clinic whose lobby the native Detroiter drove into -- the Edgerton Women's Health Center -- doesn't perform abortions or even provide referrals for them. And the impact wasn't enough to cause a fire, so McMenemy had to pour more gas on the car.

And once it was ablaze, he scratched his plan to kill himself when he realized it was going to be painful.

No one was injured.

Posted by: Laura at October 4, 2007 9:08 PM


Jess,

Can you name any pro-lifer who has been found guilty of bombing an abortion clinic? Also, can you name any legitimate pro-life organization that has supported any bombings?

Posted by: Mary at October 4, 2007 9:09 PM


Jess,

I was just getting ready to email you...haven't heard from you in a couple of days. Now I don't have to...glad you're still with us!

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:12 PM


Thanks to all who answered my questions regarding the Scheidler case.

"NOW was trying to link Joe and others with instances of violence he and they had nothing to do with, other than they both claimed to be pro-life."

Posted by: Paul at October 4, 2007 5:56 PM

By the way, Jill, Eric is right--the Supreme Court never acquitted Scheidler of criminal activity. It overturned his conviction on a technicality.

Posted by: SoMG at October 4, 2007 9:01 AM

I think I am starting to get it. This is my current understanding.

The plaintiff, NOW, was able to establish that others in the prolife movement had been guilty of violence. Schiedler was accused of being a leader and organizer in the prolife movement. NOW's contention was that the movement was inherently violent and that all leaders were therefore promoting violence. Scheidler was convicted by a lower court of being a leader in the movement but not of directing or participating in violence.

This reads like a false syllogism.

Bottom line, since Schiedler was never accused of criminal activity, he couldn't be convicted or acquitted of criminal activity. Which is why RICO was used to create guilt by association.

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 9:13 PM


Laura,

A similar incident happened in Scotland when two Muslim terrorists drove through the front of the airport. They botched it, so one of the terrorists poured gasoline on himself and set himself aflame. I suppose these two nut jobs represent all Muslims, right?

Posted by: Mary at October 4, 2007 9:13 PM


Laura,

That story is hysterical!

And earlier I listed a whole bunch of violent acts perpetrated on CPC's...by pro-choicers...

It works both ways. I know the pro-choice crowd doesn't condone that behavior any more than we do.

There are nuts everywhere! If I was a squirrel I'd be fat!

But I still say that Joe Scheidler isn't one of them.

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:15 PM


Hippie,

Bottom line, since Schiedler was never accused of criminal activity, he couldn't be convicted or acquitted of criminal activity. Which is why RICO was used to create guilt by association.

Perfectly stated as usual!

Which is why they are going to try and sue Sir Trombley's butt! Not only did he falsely accuse Joe of violence, but, again by association only, he accused the citizens of Aurora of violence! Many of whom had never been involved in the pro-life movement in their life before Aurora!

It should be interesting to say the least.

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:20 PM


Anonymous

"I would assume that in those instances, criminal cases were prosecuted against the offenders."

Posted by: Anonymous at October 4, 2007 5:21 PM

Yes, anyone would assume criminal cases would be prosecuted. I just wondered if anyone knew about these particular incidents.
Just curious if anyone actually knew since there are so many opinions out there.

Since I really don't know, I don't claim to. I am just trying to understand and get past all the vague language.

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 9:29 PM


Laura,

A similar incident happened in Scotland when two Muslim terrorists drove through the front of the airport. They botched it, so one of the terrorists poured gasoline on himself and set himself aflame. I suppose these two nut jobs represent all Muslims, right?

Posted by: Mary at October 4, 2007 9:13 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nah, Muslim usually crank out better terrorists.
(How embarrassing - WORSE because those jokers were physicians! Given a
Red Dawn"-type resistance operation, I bet any one of us could build a better device in our kitchens...)

Posted by: Laura at October 4, 2007 9:36 PM


A little historical illustration.

In 1859 John Brown and his followers led an armed insurrection in support of his Abolitionist ideology. He was responsible for violence and caused deaths. He was a zealot, but he was also an advocate against slavery. The vast majority of abolitionist were non-violent and often derided and harassed for bringing up a "peculiar institution" of slavery.

Elijah Lovejoy was the publisher of an antislavery newspaper. His insistence to continue publishing his views after several violent attacks, led to his death. Pro-slavery mobs attacked him on several occasions and in 1837 they shot him death. He is considered the a martyr for the 1st Amendment.

Basic differences concerning civil rights have brought about violence by passionate individuals on both sides of an issue.

The whole abolition issue is a very strong parallell to the pro-life movement. The Supreme Court, via the Dred Scott Decision, declared that slaves were not people, but property with no rights. It took a long time to change the publics minds on this issue, but it happened. The Republican Party was formed as an Abolitionist Party to take on the pro-slavery Democratic Party.

I would encourage any pro-abortion advocate to re-read the history of the abolition movement. Also, we pro-lifers need to take a look too.

Posted by: Library Betty at October 4, 2007 9:48 PM


Laura,

What kind of accents to Scottish Muslims have, I wonder? Make a great Monty Python skit...

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:49 PM


Laura,

What kind of accents to Scottish Muslims have, I wonder? Make a great Monty Python skit...

Posted by: mk at October 4, 2007 9:49 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, where McMullah issues a wee fatwa.

Posted by: Laura at October 4, 2007 9:54 PM


MK,

I was actually thinking of you today. I really don't know why. Do you live near St. Louis? Going to visit soon? I thought your awesome God-powers might have been alerting me to your presence! But seriously if you are in town I would love to give you a tour of SLU and have a coffee.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 4, 2007 10:39 PM


PIP,

That is so sweet! I can't remember the last time I was in St. Louis! But I certainly will keep it in mind. Same goes for if you're ever in the Chicago area.

I would love to find a halfway point and have all of my "girls" meet for a camping trip next summer. I'll cook. Campfire talks are great.

Alyssa, Rae, Midnite, You, Erin, Leah, Jkeller, JM, Jess...How fun would that be! I've camped in the Mississippi Pallisades. Isn't that close to Missouri? And Indiana has some GREAT campgrounds!

I took some "inner city" kids camping once...all they could talk about was roasting mushrooms and seeing baboons. Hated to break their heart with the news that we'd be roasting marshmallows and if we were lucky we might see some racoons, but unless we went to the zoo, babboons were unlikely! lol

Posted by: mk at October 5, 2007 5:46 AM


The plaintiff, NOW, was able to establish that others in the prolife movement had been guilty of violence. Schiedler was accused of being a leader and organizer in the prolife movement. NOW's contention was that the movement was inherently violent and that all leaders were therefore promoting violence. Scheidler was convicted by a lower court of being a leader in the movement but not of directing or participating in violence.

Posted by: hippie at October 4, 2007 9:13 PM

Yes, but with more culpability than just being a "leader." More (in keeping with the purpose of the RICO statute) like a mob boss, who keeps his own hands clean, but sends his foot soldiers out to do the dirty work.

And to MK, who said this:

"Which is why they are going to try and sue Sir Trombley's butt! Not only did he falsely accuse Joe of violence, but, again by association only, he accused the citizens of Aurora of violence! Many of whom had never been involved in the pro-life movement in their life before Aurora!"

Actually, the Trombley letter was very factually specific. Here are the relevant sections:

"We think you will understand the urgency of our concerns when you consider the following facts about the Pro-Life Action League and its leader, Joe Scheidler.

* Scheidler (along with a handful of other anti-abortion leaders) formed PLAN - the Pro Life Action Network. Scheidler called PLAN the "pro-life mafia" and proclaimed "a year of pain and fear" for anyone seeking or providing abortion.
* After a six-week trial in 1998, a jury in Chicago unanimously found that the Pro-Life Action League Network orchestrated 121 crimes involving acts of threats of force or violence against women's health facilities that offered abortion.
* These crimes proven at trial included beating a post-operative ovarian surgery patient over the head with a sign, knocking her unconscious and causing her to bleed from the sutures in her abdomen; seizing a clinic administrator by the throat, choking and bruising her; and slamming a clinic staff member and volunteer against the stairs (sending them to a hospital and causing permanent injuries) and destroying medications and equipment. Joe Scheidler personally praised the individuals who carried out some of these misdeeds, even taking credit for them.
* Scheidler once said "I just wish I had a medal or some sort of battle scar for each time I was arrested" for his forceful opposition to abortion and throughout the period of militant anti-abortion protesting, when clinic bombings and murders of doctors spotted the headlines, Scheidler was unapologetic about his group's tactics. "I'm doing what I have to do. So what? I've got some misdemeanors... I don't consider myself a criminal," he said.
* Immediately upon learning of the Aurora facility, these radical anti-abortion activists began photographing the license plates of our construction workers and vowed to harass those who were working to build the facility. They also announced their intention of seeking a permit to picket the homes of our employees who will operate the facility."


If you read each statement, you will note that Trombley is careful to state only facts. The suit against PP for libel/slander is going to fail ultimately, because he isn't saying anything that isn't an historical fact.

Posted by: Carol at October 5, 2007 7:08 AM


Carol,

I have seen this statement.

It is pieced together quoted phrases.

What I was looking for was one (or more) instances that was actually tied to Scheidler.

For example, did Joe Scheidler push or hit that surgery patient?

Was he present when it happened?

Did he know the person who did it?

Did he organize the event?

I understand that perhaps no one here knows that, I was just wondering if someone did.

Scheidler admits being arrested and having some misdemeanors.

I wonder what the misdemeanors are.

The "Survivor" group was arrested for not leaving as asked.

If they get arrested 121 times and even convicted, like so what?
Should we prosecute the leader who "orchestrated" these "crimes" for racketeering?

Also, there is an assertion that Scheidler praised those who were doing something.

Does anyone have any quote in context of whom he is praising for what?

I don't have enough information to have an opinion.

Posted by: hippie at October 5, 2007 8:11 AM


What I was looking for was one (or more) instances that was actually tied to Scheidler.

For example, did Joe Scheidler push or hit that surgery patient?

Was he present when it happened?

Did he know the person who did it?

Did he organize the event?

I understand that perhaps no one here knows that, I was just wondering if someone did.

Posted by: hippie at October 5, 2007 8:11 AM

Sorry, I don't have the information either. But the idea of the RICO suit was that as the "leader" of PLAN/PLAL, Scheidler was responsible for the actions of its members, who were the persons who committed the 121 predicate acts.

You also said this:

"If they get arrested 121 times and even convicted, like so what?
Should we prosecute the leader who "orchestrated" these "crimes" for racketeering?"

Well, that's exactly what NOW was pushing for. The argument was that it was Scheidler's intention to incite those kind of acts, and therefore he was ultimately responsible for them. And to answer your questions, yeah, I think that we should prosecute anyone who deliberately orchestrates that kind of activity. However, the racketeering statute is apparently the wrong statute to pursue it under, according to the SC.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 5, 2007 8:21 AM


"Mississippi Pallisades"
Haha, MK that is near to Iowa rather than Missouri. The closest think will probably be Forest Park that is in STL, but if we drive a couple of hours or so we could get to Pere Marquette.

You should come to St. Louis! There is a lot of stuff to do here and great restaurants. And great colleges ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 5, 2007 9:34 AM


Oops. The "anonymous" post above PIP's is mine. I thought I had signed it.

Posted by: Carol at October 5, 2007 10:01 AM


I just googled the Pro Life Action Network and I get nothin'!

Just who exactly belongs to this group? My understanding was that it was a way for ALL pro-life groups to get together and swap ideas.

I too would like someone to show me what exact crimes Joe Scheidler committed. It seems no one can.

Until they do, the things that Steve Trombley posted are not fact. All he did was pull up stuff that NOW claimed Joe had done. But where is the conviction? There is none, because there was no crime.

Look at the list of violent acts on NOWs website. 99% of them are picketing. These they call "Violent"...I'll bet big bucks that 120 out of the 121 "VIOLENT CRIMES" that Joe was charged with were for picketing! And the 121st one was a lie!

Posted by: mk at October 5, 2007 12:01 PM


This is from the National Abortion Federation...

I don't see Joe Scheidler's name anywhere. Do you?

http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/extremists.html

ANTI-ABORTION EXTREMISTS

For more than 30 years anti-abortion extremists have attempted to use violence against abortion providers to advance their own personal and political agenda. They have injured and murdered health care workers across the country and intimidated and harassed patients who need reproductive health care.

Many of the key anti-abortion extremists who advocate and perpetrate violence against reproductive health care centers and abortion providers frequently travel across city, county, state, and international boundaries to participate in these activities. They are often in contact and work to assist each other by offering resources such as housing and funding.

Army of God

The Army of God is an underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is an appropriate and acceptable means to ending abortion. More

Eric Robert Rudolph

Eric Robert Rudolph is serving a life sentence for the bombings at Olympic Park, a gay bar, and two abortion clinics. He was on the run from law enforcement officials and on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List for almost five years. Rudolph was captured and arrested on May 31, 2003 in Murphy, NC. More

James Kopp

James Kopp was convicted of the 1998 murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian and sentenced to 25 years to life in May 2003. He was later also convicted on federal charges and sentenced to life without possibility of parole. He is also a suspect in three non-fatal shootings of abortion providers in Canada. More

Clayton Waagner

Clayton Waagner was indicted on 53 federal terrorism charges related to the hundreds of anthrax threat letters he sent to clinics across the country in the fall of 2001. On December 4, 2003 a jury took only about two and a half hours to convict Waagner on 51 of 53 counts of the indictment. The trial was held in Federal District Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. More

Posted by: mk at October 5, 2007 12:05 PM


Laura,

Good point. You must be pretty inept not to detonate a carload of explosives that you crashed through a building.. Maybe that's why the guy doused himself with gasoline and ingnited himself. How could he live with such an embarassment?

Posted by: Mary at October 5, 2007 12:45 PM


I took some "inner city" kids camping once...all they could talk about was roasting mushrooms and seeing baboons. Hated to break their heart with the news that we'd be roasting marshmallows and if we were lucky we might see some racoons, but unless we went to the zoo, babboons were unlikely! lol

MK, when I was working in Canada there were some city kids that had marshmallows, but they also had mushrooms, I mean real mushrooms - they didn't roast them, however, they just swallowed them.

Doug (I saw visions....)

Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2007 3:10 PM


"What kind of accents to Scottish Muslims have, I wonder? Make a great Monty Python skit..."

"Yeah, where McMullah issues a wee fatwa."

Ha! You guys are cracking me up today.

Doug

P.S. what is the definition of "symmetry"?

-- It's where many a Scotsman is buried.

Posted by: Doug at October 5, 2007 3:15 PM


The "pro-life action league" guy looks like a beady-eyed crazy man with bad breath.

Posted by: Rosa at October 5, 2007 3:56 PM


Carol,
Given that your husband worked on the PP Aurora facility, at what point did he know it was going to be used as an abortion facility? Before or after it blew up on the blogs?

Does/did it matter to him that it's going to perform abortions? Am curious, as usual.

Posted by: carder at October 5, 2007 5:30 PM


Carol,

I understand that you don't have the info I am looking for about Scheidler.

However, I think you misunderstood my question about the "survivor" group when you wrote:


"If they get arrested 121 times and even convicted, like so what?
Should we prosecute the leader who "orchestrated" these "crimes" for racketeering?"

Well, that's exactly what NOW was pushing for. The argument was that it was Scheidler's intention to incite those kind of acts, and therefore he was ultimately responsible for them. And to answer your questions, yeah, I think that we should prosecute anyone who deliberately orchestrates that kind of activity. However, the racketeering statute is apparently the wrong statute to pursue it under, according to the SC.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 5, 2007 8:21 AM

The "survivior" group was arrested for holding cardboard signs albeit without permission. If they get arrested 1000 times for holding cardboard signs, should the organizer be prosecuted for orchestrating the holding of cardboard signs?

I think that would be frivolous.

Posted by: hippie at October 5, 2007 7:17 PM


Rosa, you probably have him mixed up with the abortionist.

Posted by: heather at October 6, 2007 2:21 AM


Oops again. Yes, you're right. I did misunderstand your question about the survivor group. I thought you were still talking about the NOW v. Scheidler case. I don't know who the survivor group is or what they were doing, so I really don't know.


And to Carder...he only knew about Gemini until very recently. And no, he's pro-choice like me, so it doesn't bother him.

Posted by: Carol at October 6, 2007 8:53 AM


carder - one thing I forgot to mention. He knew only about Gemini, because Gemini owns the property, so he would have only dealt with them.

I mention this because I, like everyone else in this area, got the FAPP postcard that says the following:

"Planned Parenthood applied for permits for the AURORA abortion clinic under the name Gemini Office Development"

That technically isn't how it happened. Gemini applied for permits under its own name, because Gemini is the legal entity that owns and developed the property. Legally speaking, that's just how commercial development usually works.

Posted by: Carol at October 6, 2007 9:03 AM


ABORTION
Principled Choice: Contractors Boycott Abortion Clinic
By Lee Webb
CWNews


July 30, 2004


CWNews.org ? In January, we told you about a group of pro-life building contractors in Austin, Texas, who are trying to slow construction of an abortion clinic. Since then, they've had some success, and some setbacks. One man who took a bold stand, saw God back him up.

Austin, Texas has become a major battleground in the abortion debate. A self-proclaimed liberal college town, the capital of Texas is one of the only cities that funds abortions with public funds. It's also a thriving New Age center and used to be the headquarters of famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hare.

It's a tough town for anyone to take a stand against abortion. But remarkably a group of Austin-area construction company owners, led by Chris Danze, did take a stand.

Chris Danze said, "I think Texans, when they see evil, well, some Texans are willing to stand up and fight it and are not worried about what people in the media think, or people in the Northeast think or the power people think."

Danze owns his own construction company in Austin and has been active in the pro-life movement for years. In the fall of 2003, he contacted his closest associates in the construction business and asked them to boycott the abortion project - a new Planned Parenthood facility being built in Austin.

He explained, "Anyone who worked on the project was participating in abortion - even if it was indirectly."

Soon all the area construction companies pulled out of the multi-million dollar project. The lot sat vacant for months-until January when a company called Rainbow Concrete broke the boycott.

Mark Hamilton, former Vice President of Rainbow said, "Word came down from upper management that we were going to go supply it. And the die was cast, was the word they used."

So, the concrete slab for the clinic was poured. Not during the day, but in the middle of the night. Hamilton said, "I just didn't think it was the right thing to do. We had previously talked, six months earlier, about not doing that-and everybody agreed to it."

Hamilton quit his job over the decision. He was disappointed that his company would "sell out" to what he says was "political pressure to break the boycott."
Resigning was a tough decision with a family to support.

Hamilton said, "We were a little concerned, but we felt like we needed to keep the faith."

Yet, Hamilton wasn't out of work long. The day he resigned, another company called and offered him a job, not knowing the sacrifice Hamilton had just made.

Hamilton said, "I think it stems from my upbringing as a Catholic and as a Christian that the taking of innocent life is not right under any circumstance."

Danze said of Hamilton, "He set an example and set a standard for people nationwide to resist the evil of the abortion industry."

Even so, the boycott crumbled. Now construction companies go in and out of the building site every day.

Danze said, "We've had churches tell us that they will not use these companies that are working on the project. And they have indicated they want the list, when the project is finished. And many, many individuals have called me and asked me for the list. And they've told me they want to work with pro-life contractors and pro-life suppliers, pro-family suppliers."

Many construction companies actually working on the building have concealed the name of their companies on their trucks-to avoid being associated with the abortion project. Now the building is only a few months from completion, but Danze's says the boycott didn't fail.


Danze said, "No. Not at all. Not at all. We, the boycott group, said 'We're going to stop it, slow it down, and make it more expensive.' We've done all those things. So, no, never be discouraged."

Carol Everett, the CEO of the Heidi Group, a pro-life organization based just outside of Austin admires what Danze did.

Everett said, "What Chris did was different. Because he used his own sphere of influence. And I believe, if we could export this and everyone started to look at their sphere of influence, it could have a profound effect on the opening of Planned Parenthood clinics."

Danze believes the construction boycott will have a long-lasting effect on Austin. His pro-life construction team plans to continue to thwart new abortion clinics from going up.

He ended saying, "We are obligated as Christians to speak the truth. Even if we're a lone voice crying in the wilderness, we still have that responsibility. And then God will take care of the victories and the successes."

A pro-life company has recently taken over Rainbow Concrete and pulled it off the abortion project. But Planned Parenthood still says its abortion clinic will open this fall.


Translate Page Print Page Email to a Friend

Close

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBN IS HERE FOR YOU!
Are you seeking answers in life? Are you hurting?
Are you facing a difficult situation?
Find your way to peace with God
Send us your prayer request online

Posted by: heather at October 6, 2007 9:20 AM


"Send in some money and we'll grease your way to Heaven."

Posted by: Doug at October 10, 2007 11:51 PM