February 28, 2006

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Abortion Protestors; RICO Cannot Be Used Against Protestors
— Ace

Finally.

Can you imagine RICO being used against almost-entirely-peaceful organizations on the left? I can't. I'm not even sure they use RICO against violent, destruction-promoting organizations like ALF or ELF, or at least they don't use RICO to the extent they could. They could bankrupt PETA if they did.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion.

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 decision by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

8-0. Good news. All sense isn't departed from the left wing of the Court yet.

For those who squeal about the loss of civil liberties-- they sure didn't make a fuss about an act intended for use against organized crime being used against political protestors. And I'm sure they're gnashing their teeth about it today.

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Comments (51)
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This was nuts. The courts took away a couple's house for protesting the baby-killing clinics.

Posted by: Bart at February 28, 2006 10:30 AM (tKvD7)

2 This will probably immunize the ACLU from any RICO prosecution, as I've seen recommended on righty blogs.

Posted by: Sobek at February 28, 2006 10:57 AM (6GK9U)

3 The whole case against the protestors was ridiculous. Made to break their spirit.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 28, 2006 11:04 AM (t/SB8)

4 I'm pleasantly surprised, but it sure looks like abortion (or Roe, at least) is on the way out.

Has anyone seen the law passed in South Dakota virtually banning abortion? It's probably set to be the next challenge to Roe that goes before the Supreme Court.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at February 28, 2006 11:06 AM (bn2XT)

5 Last I checked you could still buy a fur coat in most of america, while most people in rural states are having trouble finding an OBGYN because some nut job with an agenda convinced a barely functional idealist that anyone trianed to perform abortions was a 'baby killer' and harrased them right out of health care.
oh wait, that's just women, and it's not like they need an obgyn if they just are good little girls and abstain from sex.

hell, let's really protect the pre-born. Women need to have virginity tests to drink and smoke, because they might be harming the pre-born by drinking and being pregnant but unkowningly.

But then, I guess I'm just a godless old school Conservative that thinks the government's job isn't telling me what parasite i can treat and which one i can't because someone told them that God didn't like it. 'Cause, y'know, this country is supposed to be differnt than the crazy motherfuckers in the mid east that make laws based on the literal reading of thousand+ year works.....

Posted by: at February 28, 2006 11:25 AM (P30BQ)

6 Good thing you didn't put a name on that huge lump of crazy.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at February 28, 2006 11:35 AM (bn2XT)

7 Hey, can I sign up to do the virginity tests, if anonymous's plan becomes law?

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at February 28, 2006 11:38 AM (bn2XT)

8 That rant was.....AWE-some.

It's a wonderful world where doctors won't perform abortions on people who have been legislated to die but have no trouble when the wet work is in someone's womb.

I guess women's rights supercede the rights of that little baby. What if the fetus was female? What about HER rights??

Posted by: Pixelflash at February 28, 2006 11:57 AM (O+1/6)

9 Hey, anono-ranter, do you have any facts or figures to back up your claim?

'Cause I've understood that the reason that OB/GYNs are getting rarer is due to malpractice insurance rates being insanely high. (Apparently a whole lot of parents react to the birth of a medically-challenged baby by hiring a lawyer and suing the doctor.)

And has it not occured to you that pro-life families tend to have, or at least want, children? And that those children are almost always delivered by OB/GYNs?

Or do you really look at people with six or seven kids and think, "I'm glad I'm not like them - I bet they never have sex!"

Posted by: Victoria at February 28, 2006 12:31 PM (v2tO4)

10 Anonymous Coward vomited numerous inanities...

Actually the paucity of OBGYN's in rural areas is due to high insurance premiums, not anti-abortion protestors. How many OBGYN's even perform abortions? Not that many I don't think. What the AC meant to say is that there is a shortage of abortion providers in rural areas. This is certainly true, because most people who spent many years and money of their lives training to be health care professionals want to save lives, not end them. Hence if there's few people who are willing to perform abortions, then they'll locate where the pickings are good - urban areas.

Posted by: Otho Laurence at February 28, 2006 12:31 PM (R9O/9)

11 I don't know about the rest of you, but when he tells me last time he checked, you could still buy a fur coat in most of America,

Well, I believe he really checked. Just a feeling I have, he isn't like the others.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 28, 2006 12:36 PM (pzen5)

12 "But then, I guess I'm just a godless old school Conservative that thinks the government's job isn't telling me what parasite i can treat..."

Wow, could that sentence more perfectly miss the point? When the government passes a law banning something, that's the government telling you what to do. When the government is forbidden from interfering with free speech on specious legal grounds, that's not government telling you what to do.

Adolfo Velasquez said: "Has anyone seen the law passed in South Dakota virtually banning abortion?"

Yeah, I've read it, as well as the proposed amendments and such. It's pretty draconian (no exceptions for rape, incest or health of the mother), but it's the will of the people. Planned Parenthood of South Dakota has promised to challenge it the moment it's signed into law.

Yes, it's designed as a direct challenge to Roe. I suspect they're jumping the gun, because pro-lifers only have four (at the most) reliable conservatives on the bench, and no particular reason to believe even the aged Stevens will leave before the case goes all the way up.

Posted by: Sobek at February 28, 2006 12:39 PM (6GK9U)

13 Nice use of the word parasite.

Really makes you sound reasonable.

Make the removal of parasites safe, legal, and rare!

Posted by: lauraw at February 28, 2006 12:40 PM (QMMge)

14 having trouble finding an OBGYN because some nut job with an agenda convinced a barely functional idealist that anyone trianed to perform abortions was a 'baby killer' and harrased them right out of health care.

Biggest load of horse poop today.

OBs are priced out of states that endorse public health at the expense of a free healthcare market. Take Washington State, where socialized medicine was backdoored by saying that the insurance companies couldn't refuse anyone a policy. More insurance policies = more claims, esp from society's downtrodden. OB rates shot through the roof, which happened on top of the current national trend.

I can't recall the exact number, but there are counties in WA now without licensed OBs.

Socialism! It's Mike's dream!

Posted by: DDG at February 28, 2006 01:02 PM (4uzEh)

15 DDG, when you say Washington won't let insurers refuse anyone a policy, does that mean they can simply price the policy so high that no one would buy it? Or did the state mandate price ceilings, as well.

Posted by: Sobek at February 28, 2006 01:34 PM (6GK9U)

16 DDG: Not saying you are totally wrong, but you're only telling half the story there, bub. Back in 1993, a liberal legislature passed a law that would have phased in universal health care by 1999, required all employers to offer health insurance to workers AND capped rates. You were right there, socialized medicine, probably riding on Hillary's aborted national effort. In '95, a more conservative legislature repealed only parts of the bill, specifically the caps. (insurance industry give away?) Consequently, and predictably, insurance rates skyrocketed My understanding is that insurance companies are still required to provide service (except if you had a pre-existing condition or change jobs, at which point they can drop you), but at the rate they choose, so I doubt your theory about poor folks causing malpractice rates to climb. Can you provide a reference?

That being said, insurance initiatives in the recent election cycle have NOT directly been addressing this issue, but rather on tort reform, one initiative (sponsored by the insurance industry and Wa State AMA) capping the maximum damages that can be rec'd by plaintiffs, the other (sponsored by the trial lawyers) sought to "reform" the malpractice insurance code through a series of all bite and no bark measures (although one provision was the capping of malpractice ins. rates and public hearings for malpractice rate increases). Gratefully, both failed.

I wish to God the legislature would get off it's collective ass and do SOMETHING about this situation. Not a problem for me, as I'm well insured through a large corporation, but the annoying calls for insurance reform are an annoying distraction from more pressing issues.

Posted by: Larry the urbanite at February 28, 2006 01:53 PM (Lpswv)

17 Just remember guys, if Roe v. Wads is overturned (which I doubt) then the REAL fun begins.

We actually get to debate it. We actually get to show all sides.

WE actually get to decide ourselves.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at February 28, 2006 01:56 PM (t/SB8)

18 Or did the state mandate price ceilings, as well.

There were caps. They were removed as law in the state of WA. But the national price trend continued ever higher, forcing a lot of OBs to relocate.

but you're only telling half the story there, bub.

The better half. I'm only telling the part that makes it look like market economics were actually given a chance, and not a coup by liberal democrats to practice social experiments.

The better article is here, and details the cause and effect.

Trimmed WAY down ...

After the 1994 election, the new Republican-dominated Congress, fundamentally opposed to Clinton-style health care reform, refused to waive the regulation that excluded people in company self-insured programs from the state's cost-sharing program. Without that waiver, [WA St. Insurance Commissioner] Senn had 1.4 million fewer policyholders to absorb the cost of her new effort. ... Insurers doing business in Washington's individual market began filing for big rate increases to cover the soaring costs. During the 1995-1996 rating period, Blue Cross of Washington and Alaska filed for a 19 percent increase for 80,000 individual policyholders. Pierce County Medical wanted a 34 percent boost on its individual policies. Rate increases were denied. Principal Mutual notified Senn's department it planned to stop writing individual health insurance policies altogether.

Things got worse ...

Group Health and Regence Blue Shield left, leaving individuals and families in 32 of the state's 39 counties without private individual health insurance options. To make matters worse, officials for Basic Health Plan (BHP), the state-run "safety net," announced the plan would not accept new patients after January 2000. ...In 1993, roughly 880,000 individuals and families in Washington State were insured in the individual health insurance market. By 1998, the number had dropped to 513,000. (The figure has since climbed to 653,000 in 2001 as legislators adopted new reforms.)

Long story short, this situation is still with us up here. Small business is taking it on the chin, as there are only a few insurers who will even bother dealing with the State. It is very expensive to get insured up here.

Larry: Can you provide a reference?

Based on a pretty fundamental analysis, that's my take. It makes sense.

However, you can call the cause whatever you want - there is still a flight from WA by doctors, and especially OBs. My partners (in biz) both just had children, and had many complaints about quality, focused time. The OBs complained of being spread way too thin.

I worked in a hospital until 3 months ago - the complaint was the same - spread too thin, thinking of leaving, etc.

Larry: but the annoying calls for insurance reform are an annoying distraction from more pressing issues.

Those dastardly serfs are just ruining your day, Larry. Allow me to apologize for the Great Unwashed.

Jack ass.

Posted by: DDG at February 28, 2006 02:17 PM (4uzEh)

19 But the national price trend continued ever higher, forcing a lot of OBs to relocate.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of!!! How can high price trends even remotely be related to OBs!?! I would not like for you to not prove that this can't be true if national price trends did not continue ever un-higher

Why can't you just admit that "there is still a flight from WA by doctors, and especially OBs." is caused NOT BECAUSE OF WA, but because of W!!!!!! You fags need to get your heads out of Bush's ass and learn to admit that he has not done one thing good for this bad, evil country. he has refused to create free medical health care or make Jews be nice to Arabs.

In fact, I bet none of you fags have teh deep thoughts to prove that Bush is not bad and not reponsible for the lack of any bad news that is not making his approval ratings plummet among those of us rational thoughtful people who hate his guts.

fags

Posted by: Mike ver. 2.312a auto-trollbot at February 28, 2006 02:27 PM (K0x/A)

20 Looks like the Mike-Bot's been infected with the PLV virus.

Posted by: zetetic at February 28, 2006 02:32 PM (nsx4i)

21 This is the dumbest thing

Almost as dumb as not bolding the entire word.

But I will concede that I put that poorly. Why would a national trend push docs out of the state?

The answer is that malpractice rates aren't the same everywhere. In most states they are rising. They are rising more in states where there are more claims, or where the conditions for more claims exist.


Posted by: DDG at February 28, 2006 02:37 PM (4uzEh)

22 Last I checked you could still buy a fur coat in most of america, while most people in rural states are having trouble finding an OBGYN because some nut job with an agenda convinced a barely functional idealist that anyone trianed to perform abortions was a 'baby killer' and harrased them right out of health care.

This might be the most idiotic, uniformed thing ever written here. At least Mike's idiocy is cut and pasted, you actually had to come up with that one on your own.

The reason there are shortages of OB/GYNs is because of trial attorneys and the ridiculous lawsuits being filed. Anyone remember how former Sen John Edwards, Esq, made all his money? By suing OB/GYNs in North Carolina. Drove most of them out of business.

My sister lives in rural North Carolina and had a baby about a year ago and had a very hard time finding an OB/GYN that would deliver the baby.


Posted by: Brad at February 28, 2006 02:42 PM (uzxXX)

23 -- uninformed --

damnit

Posted by: Brad at February 28, 2006 02:47 PM (uzxXX)

24 The reason there are shortages of OB/GYNs is because of trial attorneys and the ridiculous lawsuits being filed.

This has got to be the
dumbest thing I have ever read, you can't actualyl believe that lawyers would cause doctors to provide less births!!!! Maybe if bush would stop not creating free health care to pay for my self mutiliation I could illustrate to you how trial lawyers are helping prevent unnecessary births by forcing rural communities to abort their babyies..1.1.221321314

And another t hing, I doubt John Edwards is even a lawyer let alone RICH!!>?!?!?!?

Get your head out of Bush's ass, to see that he has billions of Saudi ARabias money and halliburton's $$$ to be evil!!!

Posted by: Mike ver. 2.312B auto-trollbot at February 28, 2006 02:57 PM (K0x/A)

25 The hens at NOW will be clucking

Posted by: spurwing plover at February 28, 2006 04:42 PM (1mdPR)

26 Josie was a parasite about 14 years ago.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at March 01, 2006 04:17 AM (rE+jU)

27 Great work!

Posted by: Tina at April 12, 2006 06:12 AM (CqsuV)

28 Great work!

Posted by: Irene at April 12, 2006 06:17 AM (vzWID)

29 Well done!

Posted by: Candice at April 16, 2006 09:05 AM (i8RiW)

30 Thank you!

Posted by: Craig at April 17, 2006 08:58 AM (/LrDt)

31 Well done!

Posted by: Emily at April 17, 2006 08:59 AM (JZ8+o)

32 Great work!

Posted by: Gabriel at April 17, 2006 09:02 AM (Uk4I/)

33 Well done!

Posted by: Robert at April 19, 2006 05:49 AM (2pYcY)

34 Great work!

Posted by: Gary at April 22, 2006 04:03 PM (6iOle)

35 Thank you!

Posted by: Cindy at April 22, 2006 04:06 PM (45PBT)

36 Great work!

Posted by: Monica at April 22, 2006 04:10 PM (2Go9D)

37 Well done!

Posted by: Carl at April 22, 2006 04:12 PM (dU4iV)

38 Bite Me!

Posted by: Fred at April 22, 2006 04:13 PM (qf8md)

39 Great work!

Posted by: Cory at April 22, 2006 04:14 PM (PvLPq)

40 Good design!

Posted by: Ann at April 25, 2006 11:11 AM (nfphS)

41 Well done!

Posted by: Paula at April 26, 2006 04:29 AM (BZiT7)

42 Great work!

Posted by: Karl at April 29, 2006 08:18 AM (lKpGa)

43 Well done!

Posted by: Barbara at May 02, 2006 01:12 PM (JGZc4)

44 Well done!

Posted by: Cassie at May 10, 2006 01:15 PM (Dpto6)

45 Great work!

Posted by: Ivan at June 24, 2006 11:13 AM (u7GtA)

46 Well done!

Posted by: Elaine at July 01, 2006 01:32 PM (ee2lJ)

47 Great work!

Posted by: Holly at August 05, 2006 02:12 PM (6hn9T)

48 Well done!

Posted by: Simon at August 12, 2006 04:20 AM (Y3UQ1)

49 Well done!

Posted by: Ruth at August 14, 2006 01:40 AM (D88g7)

50 Great work!

Posted by: Abby at August 14, 2006 01:44 AM (jox3H)

Posted by: sa58h at November 28, 2011 12:19 AM (R9wBA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
99kb generated in CPU 0.72, elapsed 1.3651 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2453 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.