take up your cross
Bible
The Streets
Press Releases
Newsletters
Articles
Legal
Links
Pregnant?
Home

Our Purpose
Our Director
Support Us
Contact Us

 
    

A Bitter Harvest

April 21, 1998 Chicago Sun Times

The fruits of a vaguely worded racketeering law, which could smother First Amendment rights of speech and protest, were harvested Monday in a Chicago courtroom.

A federal jury found that three national leaders of the anti-abortion movement committed acts of extortion against abortion clinics and awarded $85,000 in damages. As a class-action suit in which the judge can treble the damages, the decision has the potential of financially crippling, if not bankrupting, anti-abortion activists across the nation. In effect, a law designed to fight organized crime and drug dealers might now silence a social and political movement. In this, it is a threat to every protest movement, shoestring or well-heeled, unpopular or popular, conservative or liberal.

How can this happen when the freedom to protest and speak freely is guaranteed in the first article of the Bill of Rights? Originally, a federal district judge and an appeals court threw out the lawsuit, agreeing that the intent of the law, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was to fight organized criminals who, for profit, deal in murder, drug sales, robbery, arson and extortion.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the legal question was narrowed to whether an economic motive was necessary to be sued under RICO, as most people, including its drafters, understood the law. The defendants argued that since their protests yielded them no financial gain, they could not be found in violation of RICO. The high court, however, ruled the defendants could be sued because the RICO law was not clear on the issue of monetary gain.

Four years ago when that decision was handed down, we warned about its consequences. Arguing that Congress never intended that a powerful law designed to combat organized crime should be used to stifle social or political dissent, we urged Congress to make its intent clearer. Sadly, it has not happened, but it still should. We have consistently supported a woman's right to an abortion, supporting only limited restrictions. But this ruling has more to do with free speech than the right to an abortion.

The crimes of anti-abortionists, among others, were the blockading of abortion clinics, a traditional--albeit illegal--tactic used by peace and civil rights groups. There were, and are, specific laws against such acts, and they ought to be enforced. But if there had been a RICO law on the books then, we can only wonder about the course of the civil rights and, even, the women's movements.


 
take up your cross