Abortion blockades illega
E...@panix.com
Newsgroup: alt.president.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal
From: e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.
In <1993Nov20....@iti.org>, a...@iti.org sez:
>In article <2clndj$i...@panix.com> e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>
>>It's a federal felony to rob a bank,
>>but delicatessens, supermarkets, and the ticket windows at Aqueduct
>>aren't similarly protected. So what?
>
>Two things: First, a bank is an agent of the Federal Reserve System which
>brings it under federal law. Second, and more important, robbing banks
>isn't generally a political act.
Two things:
1) Leaving aside entirely the fact that S&Ls and credit unions are
also protected against robbery by federal statute, I'd say that
passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act will bring
pro-choice (and pro-life) facilities "under federal law". (Your
circularity is showing, my dear.)
2) Do you think that pro-life violence is somehow legally protected
because it's "a political act", whatever that's supposed to mean? The
only conceivable reason you seek refuge in this distinction is that
you perceive some protected First Amendment interest at stake. In
arson? Make me laugh.
>>Besides, you persist in describing the proposed law as "suppressing
>>dissent". Since all of the conduct in question is already criminal
>>under state laws, why should Congress give a rat's ass about
>>protecting it?
>
>Indeed. Kind of makes you wonder why they are making a federal case of
>things already covered under existing law. Generally this sort of thing
>(blockades) are given a lot of slack by the courts. The fact that the
>feds want to make blockades for this one particular cause (which they
>don't like) seems to me to imply they want to crack down on it.
I'd say you've got it exactly right. Local communities often lack the
police manpower to handle pro-life blockades; local judges also refuse
to enforce the law for whatever reasons, and federal judges can't
issue injunctions on the basis of state laws.
A few observations: you continue to speak of the feds "not liking" the
conduct in question, and wanting to crack down on it, as if there were
something unlawful about this legislation. Care to be more specific?
>If the
>intent where to protect people engaged in lawful activity as you say,
>then all causes would be included.
The pure and unalloyed sophistry of this claim serves as its best
refutation.
Pray, where exactly in the bill is the "cause" of the offender
mentioned?
And I'll repeat for the benefit of other readers (who may be able to
grasp this point after reading it only once) that FACEA criminalizes
attacks on pro-life counseling centers as well as abortion clinics.
It is viewpoint-neutral on its face.
>The feds don't want to suppress anti-war
>protesters, but they do want to suppress pro-lifer protesters so they
>pass a special law covering them and them only.
Wrong. FACEA doesn't apply only to pro-lifers. It applies to whoever
performs the *acts* described.
Your anti-war analogy fails because it relies on the false assumption
-- one which lies at the core of your argument -- that FACEA attacks
beliefs and political causes. It attacks *conduct*, regardless of who
engages in it. A disgruntled clinic worker bent on personal revenge,
lacking any pro-life motive, will go to jail just as surely as a
pro-lifer who throws a Molotov cocktail.
But since you're so worried about anti-war demonstrators, rest assured
that there are various provisions of the United States Code that bar
them (and pro-war activists, and mobs of any sort whatsoever) from
interfering with the functioning of federal courthouses, post offices,
and the like -- just as FACEA prohibits *anyone* from improperly
interfering with pro-life centers or abortion clinics.
>>Pro-lifers won't be any less free to dissent by
>>picketing and holding rallies; they'll just have to give up arson,
>>chemical attacks, and entrance blockades.
>
>Ah! But what constitutes a blockade? Now the Feds can take you to court
>and cost you millions anytime they want. Pro-lifers doing too well? No
>problem, just toss them in jail and bankrupt them with legal
>expenses.
Funny, I don't hear you railing about the existing state laws that
could theoretically be used in this manner.
FACEA isn't an infringement on anyone's First Amendment rights. And
if federal authorities do enforce it overzealously, I'm sure Randall
Terry and his friends will find their way into federal court -- God
knows they've been there enough times already -- where they can get
injunctions to their hearts' content.
The argument that "this law might be overenforced" is a pretty lame
one. Howzabout you try to argue whether the statute *as proposed* is
permissible?
>If
>that wasn't the intent, why was this law passed for this one and only this
>one cause? Why whern't other Democratic constituent groups included?
Strawman argument. See above re the utter absence of a "motive"
element in the proposed statute.
>>Thanks for displaying your ignorance. Firebombing an animal research
>>facility has been a federal felony for about a year now; cite on
>>request.
>
>Please cite. But also show that it is the same. I believe the law you
>are talking about only covers fedral facilities and facilities getting
>federal money.
You believe wrong: see below. I suggest you consult with your fellow
Evil Geniuses further before making any more claims about the state of
federal criminal law.
UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 3--ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH AND PLANTS
s 43. Animal enterprise terrorism
(a) Offense.--Whoever--
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used
the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, for the purpose of
causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise; and
(2) intentionally causes physical disruption to the functioning of an animal
enterprise by intentionally stealing, damaging, or causing the loss of, any
---
E...@panix.com
property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, and
thereby causes economic damage exceeding $10,000 to that enterprise, or
conspires to do so;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(b) Aggravated offense.--
(1) Serious bodily injury.--Whoever in the course of a violation of
subsection (a) causes serious bodily injury to another individual shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Death.--Whoever in the course of a violation of subsection (a) causes the
death of an individual shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for life
or for any term of years.
(c) Restitution.--An order of restitution under section 3663 of this title
with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution--
(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was
interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense; and
(2) the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the
offense.
(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) the term "animal enterprise" means--
(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses animals for food or fiber
production, agriculture, research, or testing;
(B) a zoo, aquarium, circus, rodeo, or lawful competitive animal event; or
(C) any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and
sciences;
(2) the term "physical disruption" does not include any lawful disruption
that results from lawful public, governmental, or animal enterprise employee
reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;
(3) the term "economic damage" means the replacement costs of lost or damaged
property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated
experiment, or the loss of profits; and
(4) the term "serious bodily injury" has the meaning given that term in
section 1365 of this title.
(e) Non-preemption.--Nothing in this section preempts any State law.
(Added Pub.L. 102-346, s 2(a), Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 928.)
--
It's a satanic drug thing. You wouldn't understand.
Mark Eckenwiler e...@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
---