Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pro-life Women Jailed for Having Begged an Abortionist to Quit a Decade Ago...
Life Site News -- Your Life, Family, and Culture Outpost ^ | Friday January 4, 2008

Posted on 01/04/2008 4:33:56 PM PST by topher

Pro-life Women Jailed for Having Begged an Abortionist to Quit a Decade Ago

One faces five months in jail while another has been sentenced to serve eight months behind bars.

LINCOLN, Nebraska, January 4, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-life activists Shari McKee and Melissa Abbink were jailed on December 28th, 2007, for speaking to Lincoln abortionist Winston Crabb on two occasions in front of his home 10 years ago. Abbink faces five months in jail while McKee has been sentenced to serve eight months behind bars.

According to Operation Rescue, in February, 1998, both were charged with violating the "focused picketing" ordinance even though neither had signs and both incidents lasted only a minute each. "Just long enough," said OR, "to plead for the lives of pre- born children as he walked from his car to his house."

After exhausting the appeals of the criminal cases, the convictions were upheld by the Nebraska Supreme Court on September 10, 1999. However, for reasons unknown, the mandate did not come down until September 28, 2005, over 6 years later.

The last two years have been spent seeking a commutation. The women's cases were brought before the Board of Pardons, which was very sympathetic, but refused to act because the Board does not review misdemeanor cases. The Board referred the cases to the Mayor of Lincoln, who has refused to act claiming he does not have the authority to grant commutations.

According to the women's attorneys, the Mayor clearly does have the authority to commute misdemeanor sentences.

"We are asking pro-lifers to write to Mayor Beutler and ask him to commute the sentences of these two women," said Larry Donlan, Director of Rescue the Heartland. "Be sure to point out that the Pardon Board says he has the authority to do so. Be polite and remember, it is a commutation that we are after, not a pardon. Like the parable of the widow, we are seeking justice for these two brave, God-fearing women. Only Mayor Beutler has that ability to grant that justice. He can do so by merely picking up the phone."

Mayor Chris Beutler 555 South 10th, 2nd Floor Rm 208, Lincoln, NE 68508 Fax: 402-441-7120 E-mail: mayor@lincoln.ne.gov

The women in two separate facilities may be contacted by mail:

Melissa Abbink 4420 NW 41st Lincoln, NE 68524

Sharon McKee 1125 E. 17th St. Columbus, NE 68601

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

(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call toll free 1-866-787-9947.

Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Nebraska
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; abortion; abortionist; freedomofspeech; outrage; prolife; stalking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
They are charged with speaking to an abortionist. Saying words like quit performing abortion are against the law in Nebraska...

I guess the First Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights in Nebraska -- just the right to kill innocent babies...

Thinking about killing innocent babies, I think this turkey named Herod did that 2000 years ago trying to kill the baby the Three Wisemen had visited...

1 posted on 01/04/2008 4:34:00 PM PST by topher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: topher
I might get in trouble for putting on Front Page, but it is not that it is pro-life, but I feel it is a First Amendment issue -- Bill of Rights thing -- that makes it worthy for the Front Page...
2 posted on 01/04/2008 4:35:11 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

What an assinine law! “Focused picketing”? What the hell is “unfocused picketing”? Can a cross-eyed person be convicted of “focused picketing”? How a about a drunk who can’t see straight?


3 posted on 01/04/2008 4:39:02 PM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher
I did not format the contact information very well:

Mayor Chris Beutler
555 South 10th, 2nd Floor Rm 208
Lincoln, NE 68508
Fax: 402-441-7120
E-mail: Mayor@lincoln.ne.gov

4 posted on 01/04/2008 4:40:34 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Were they subject to a restraining order?


5 posted on 01/04/2008 4:40:36 PM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
A good question that I do not know the answer to...

There were, in the 1990s, people who followed abortionists around, and were arrested for that.

I guess if they were waiting for him to go to his car from his house, either they had been waiting a while or knew when he left for the abortion clinic.

It would seem malicious if they were waiting day and night for the abortionist -- so that is something that needs to be dug out of the conviction...

6 posted on 01/04/2008 4:43:49 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: topher

Yet the Phelps demons of the WBC are free to spew their bile to their heart’s content anyplace, anytime.


7 posted on 01/04/2008 4:45:21 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

Man, talk about an example of the phrase “the law is an ass.”

Here’s the nub of the story:

“...to plead for the lives of pre- born children as he walked from his car to his house...”

I do not favor abortion, but I just imagined someone who describes herself as an activist talking to me as I walked from my car to my house. Then I imagined that activist talking to me as an opponent - let’s say telling me that the wolf ruff and the beaver gloves are a reflection of my Nazi predilictions, as PETA activists have done to others wearing fur. It would be a royal pain in the ass.

The space between the street and my front door is mine. I frankly don’t want anyone bothering me as I walk into my house on any subject.

These women are not charged with speaking to an abortionist. They’re charged with bothering him on his property while he’s walking into his house. I agree with their pro-life stance, but their actions seem to be a bigger problem than the message.


8 posted on 01/04/2008 4:45:31 PM PST by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
From the article:

According to Operation Rescue, in February, 1998, both were charged with violating the "focused picketing" ordinance even though neither had signs and both incidents lasted only a minute each.

They violated a focused picketing ordinance, but they did not carry signs, they simply spoke to the abortionist, which I consider okay under the First Amendment...

There is no mention of a restraining order -- at least by Operation Rescue...

Maybe this should earn National Attention -- as the March for Life is a few weeks away...

9 posted on 01/04/2008 4:49:12 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: redpoll
Suppose you have a neighbor, to play devil's advocate, that is against the work you do. That neighbor on a couple of occasions pleads with you to stop working at such-an-such a place.

It could be environmentalist or a PETA person or whomever...

Should they be thrown in jail? Would not the charge be more Violating the Peace than Focused Picketing?

Someone else has mentioned about Phelps nutjobs from Topeka and the funeral of service men. They cannot be arrested on local ordinances... Why are two women arrested for pleading for the lifes of babies???

If these women are in JAIL, then should be the entire PHELPS clan...

10 posted on 01/04/2008 4:54:17 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
It seems the law has doublespeak, as the Phelps clan should be able to be arrested for disturbing funerals...

I find it hard to believe that these two women will serve time for such pretty offenses. They are not even a felony, and they are serving time in jail???

11 posted on 01/04/2008 4:56:16 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: topher

I don’t mean to sound harsh, but why shouldn’t these women be content to face the punishment meted out by the state? By doing so, they can demonstrate the injustice of the law that will throw somebody in jail for nothing more than speaking. If their sentences are commuted, they will not have an opportunity to make this point.

History is filled with examples of activists who have inspired the masses by being subjected to unjust inprisonment, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to name only a few.


12 posted on 01/04/2008 4:56:50 PM PST by gridlock (There are 49 other states in the Union. We don't need another President from Arkansas just yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher; generalissimoduane

I’m no professor of Constitutional law but doesn’t an ordinance which creates a prior restraint on speech violate the First Amendment?


13 posted on 01/04/2008 5:00:51 PM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: topher
On February 6, 1998, at approximately 7:05 a.m., Melissa Abbink and Sharon McKee approached the Lincoln, Nebraska, residence of physician Winston Crabb from the north, walking in a southerly direction on the sidewalk adjacent to 24th Street in Lincoln. As Abbink and McKee approached the Crabb residence, they began to yell at Crabb's son, who also resides in the Crabb home, that he should be afraid for his soul and that he should stop killing babies. When Abbink and McKee realized that they were not calling out to Crabb, but to someone else, they acknowledged their mistake; at that time, they were approximately 50 to 55 feet from the front step of the Crabb residence.

Crabb's son, who was outside on his front step as Abbink and McKee approached, went inside the house and called the Lincoln Police Department. Crabb was upstairs in his house when Abbink and McKee approached. When Crabb first noticed Abbink and McKee, they were standing on the sidewalk, one on either side of the end of his driveway, approximately 1 to 11/2 feet from his property line. In an attempt to avoid the disruption caused by Abbink and McKee, Crabb left his house, got into his car, and drove away. Realizing that Abbink and McKee had decided to follow him, Crabb returned to his house. Abbink and McKee followed Crabb back to his residence and parked their car on the street adjacent to Crabb's property. After getting out of their car, Abbink and McKee once again flanked Crabb's driveway and continued to shout at Crabb.

After Crabb returned to his house, he telephoned the Lincoln Police Department. While Crabb and his son were waiting for the police to respond to their calls, Abbink and McKee were standing on the sidewalk between the Crabb property line and the street adjacent thereto. Abbink and McKee again stood approximately 1 to 1 1/2 feet from the Crabb property line, where they remained until the police arrived on the scene.

The police arrived at approximately 7:30 a.m. and observed Abbink and McKee still standing on the sidewalk flanking Crabb's driveway. After the police arrived, Crabb came out to the sidewalk near the area where Abbink and McKee were standing as Abbink and McKee continued to shout at him. The police separated the parties, after which Abbink and McKee were issued citations for disturbing the peace in violation of Lincoln Mun. Code § 9.20.050 (1992); the complaints against Abbink and McKee were subsequently amended to include charges of focused residential picketing in violation of Lincoln Mun. Code § 9.40.090 (1997). Specifically, count II of the amended complaints alleged that Abbink and McKee 'intentionally or knowingly engage[d] in focused picketing in that portion of a street which abuts on the property upon which the targeted dwelling is located, or which abuts on property within fifty feet of the property upon which the targeted dwelling is located, in violation of L.M.C. section 9.40.090.'

After arraignment, Abbink and McKee entered pleas of not guilty, and the cases were consolidated for trial. Following a joint bench trial, both Abbink and McKee were acquitted on the respective counts of disturbing the peace, but were convicted of focused residential picketing, and each of them was sentenced to a jail term of 60 days. Abbink and McKee appealed to the district court for Lancaster County, which affirmed both convictions and both sentences. From that order, Abbink and McKee timely appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, and we moved these cases to our docket pursuant to our authority to regulate the caseloads of the appellate courts of this state. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Reissue 1995). Abbink's and McKee's appeals have been consolidated for oral argument and decision in this court.

So, we're talking about more than a minute - a half hour of harassment and following people around, and continuing when the officers arrived. What I'm curious about is how it went from sixty days to the stated six and eight months. Something further is at play here, and as the originating story appears to be short on maintaining any facts in the case, I don't feel inclined to disturb a mayor.

14 posted on 01/04/2008 5:04:32 PM PST by kingu (Fred08 - The Constitution is the value I'm voting for. What value are you voting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
No. That is a good point. There is the example of Dr. Paul Schenck, who won a SCOTUS decision. He was charged with blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic because he offered a woman a Bible.

However, there was one SCOTUS Justice that did not agree with the majority...

Here is a PDF about Paul Schenck:

http://www.acljlife.org/ussc/Transcripts/Schenck%20Transcript.pdf

To me, that occasion was about Freedom of Speech, and not blocking the entrance of an abortion clinic, but it had to go to the US Supreme Court to get thrown out...

15 posted on 01/04/2008 5:06:27 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: topher

Thanks for posting.


16 posted on 01/04/2008 5:10:48 PM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingu

“I don’t feel inclined to disturb a mayor.”

After reading this, neither do I. Free speech is one thing, harassment and abuse is something else.


17 posted on 01/04/2008 5:10:56 PM PST by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: kingu
That is one of the good things about Freerepublic and bad about Operation Rescue.

They may distort facts...

Maybe the jail time is deserved -- if they were indeed stalking -- and there were convictions handed down in the 1990s about stalking abortionists...

I am unfamiliar with the FACTS of the case...

It clearly may be more than a 1st Amendment case -- but rather a case of stalking...

18 posted on 01/04/2008 5:11:31 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I’m no professor of Constitutional law but doesn’t an ordinance which creates a prior restraint on speech violate the First Amendment?

This isn't prior restraint, since the women were not prevented from speaking, but were punished for having spoken. In the more classic sense of the term, a newspaper can't be prevented from printing a libel, but can be sued after the fact. As a free speech case, this has mostly to do with what is and isn't considered a public forum under the law, and there's a whole body of cases that speak to that.

19 posted on 01/04/2008 5:13:45 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: topher
It is one of the greatest things about this forum that it’s members rarely take anything at face value and are willing and able to investigate further. I’m still trying to dig around to find out how the sentences got extended, but I suspect that they involve failure to appear and failure to surrender penalties.
20 posted on 01/04/2008 5:14:42 PM PST by kingu (Fred08 - The Constitution is the value I'm voting for. What value are you voting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: topher

Maybe a dumb question, but is there no statute of limitations on a misdemeanor? I thought the S-of-L in misdemeanors was about 2 years.


21 posted on 01/04/2008 5:15:26 PM PST by ko_kyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redpoll

Depends on if they were on a public sidewalk or street.


22 posted on 01/04/2008 5:16:39 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain! True Supporters of Our Troops Support the Necessity of their Sacrifice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: topher
I might get in trouble for putting on Front Page, but it is not that it is pro-life, but I feel it is a First Amendment issue.

So you would be okay with the Fred Phelps crowd showing up at the home a family who lost their father in the WoT and permit them to ask questions of the widow as she and her children walk into their home?

23 posted on 01/04/2008 5:23:33 PM PST by trumandogz (Hunter Thompson 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: topher

Lincoln is the liberal capital of the state ie the statist understand that government is their protection racket & they aren’t going to worry about the 1st amendment rights of their sworn enemies. The fact that many on free republic do not understand that govt. is in fact a protection racket is sad.


24 posted on 01/04/2008 5:43:30 PM PST by Nebr FAL owner (.308 reach out & thump someone .50 cal.Browning Machine gun reach out & crush someone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

I think of the crazed photographers and reporters following everyone important home. Don’t they have the right to be on the sidewalk? Don’t the boom boxes blasting base speakers invade my privacy in every part of my home when they drive down the street? MY QUESTION WILL BE...WHY DOES A MURDERER HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE IN PEACE AND QUIET, when every day he does his “work”. Legally I could simply play a base heartbeat 24/7 and drive him crazy. If I weren’t told to love my enemies as I want to be (I hate boom boxes), I would invest in one tomorrow and sit outside the wichita abortion clinic, but I couldn’t stand it myself, and the pre-born would hear it too.


25 posted on 01/04/2008 5:49:49 PM PST by huldah1776 ( Worthy is the Lamb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
In the case of the Phelps gang, there were folks (motorbikers) who were going to use stuff like paint balls on that gang if they tried to do something to a family...

I think because of the people willing to protect the families, that the police got involved, and the Phelps folks were shouted down in some towns (with people waving flags, and keeping the Phelps folks out of view...

The Phelps gang (friends of Al Gore) is a different issue to me: it violates Freedom of Religion -- the right to have a solemn funeral for a dearly departed one...

But that is my viewpoint...

I think the IRS are after the Phelps gang because it is all family members, and they claim it is a church... (And maybe the IRS should be after them...)

But towns have tried to put ordinances in place to prevent the Phelps gang from protesting only to have those ordinances overruled by liberal courts...

26 posted on 01/04/2008 5:52:28 PM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: topher

Unfortunately, the law prohibits anti-abortion speech. Pro-abortion speech and acts are included in the Constitution, however, per the Supremes. The “law” seems settled. And yet, we decry Nazism. Such HYPOCRISY.


27 posted on 01/04/2008 5:59:32 PM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: topher

Their next step would be to take it federal.


28 posted on 01/04/2008 6:19:28 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher; Rocko; tricky_k_1972; Grannyx4; TDFox; activationproducts; recruiternc1; angel_eyes2003; ...
Pro-life activists Shari McKee and Melissa Abbink were jailed on December 28th, 2007, for speaking to Lincoln abortionist Winston Crabb on two occasions in front of his home 10 years ago.

The Mayor can resolve this with his pen.


Nebraska Freepers, scramble for intercept!


This message brought to you by FREEPNORAD. If anyone wants on or off this ping list, say so by FReepmail.


29 posted on 01/04/2008 6:35:30 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kingu

So, we are talking about a half hour of speaking to people in public, from a position on public property.


30 posted on 01/04/2008 6:44:28 PM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
So, we are talking about a half hour of speaking to people in public, from a position on public property.

Speaking to people in public? The facts of the case state shouting at the man's son, following the man away from the property and back to the property, and further shouting even when officers arrived.

Freedom of speech does not induce a requirement to listen. This was outright harassment.

31 posted on 01/04/2008 6:49:13 PM PST by kingu (Fred08 - The Constitution is the value I'm voting for. What value are you voting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

They already did take it to federal court, and got turned down, six years ago.


32 posted on 01/04/2008 6:50:12 PM PST by kingu (Fred08 - The Constitution is the value I'm voting for. What value are you voting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Nebraska , Lincoln 9.40.090

9.40.090 Focused Residential Picketing, Prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in focused picketing in that portion of any street
which abuts on the property upon which the targeted dwelling is located, or which abuts on property within
fifty feet (measured from the lot line) of the property upon which the targeted dwelling is located, except
the sidewalk space on the opposite side of the street from the targeted dwelling.
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Focused picketing shall mean picketing directed toward a specific person or persons
including, but not limited to, marching, congregating, standing, parading, demonstrating, parking, or
patrolling by one or more persons, with or without signs.
(2) Sidewalk space shall mean that portion of a street between the curb line and the
adjacent property line.
(3) Street shall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly
maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.
(4) Targeted dwelling shall mean any building or dwelling unit within a building, in which
the target or targets of focused picketing reside.
(c) This section shall not apply to any picketing, focused or otherwise, which lawfully occurs
before or about any commercial or industrial establishment or business, regardless of where located.
(d) This section shall not be construed to authorize conduct which is otherwise prohibited by law.
(Ord. 17164 §1; April 7, 1997).

****************************************************

Based on how it is written and the date on which it was adopted it appears that this code was written specifically for these 2 ladies..., it also appears that these ladies were well aware of being targeted and adjusted their meeting with the abortionist so as to not meet the conditions set forth in section “b1” ; based on “b1” it seems on the surface that this does not apply as their presence although timed to coincide with the abortionists arrival did not have them loitering in any way ...

Every activity in “b1” “marching, congregating, standing, parading, demonstrating, parking, or patrolling by one or more persons, with or without signs.” implies much more time on the premises.


33 posted on 01/04/2008 6:53:28 PM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Abbink faces five months in jail while McKee has been sentenced to serve eight months behind bars.
**********************************************
were convicted of focused residential picketing, and each of them was sentenced to a jail term of 60 days. Abbink and McKee appealed to the district court for Lancaster County, which affirmed both convictions and both sentences.
**********************************************
OK ,,, how did 60 days each turn into 5 months and 8 months?


34 posted on 01/04/2008 6:59:08 PM PST by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo; kingu
“I don’t feel inclined to disturb a mayor.” "After reading this, neither do I. Free speech is one thing, harassment and abuse is something else."

Sorry you guys feel the way you do. I am grateful that others are willing to call an abortion doctor out for murdering babies. I guess we can't count on you for any of the big important stuff, huh? Don't want to disturb your tea and crossaint break.

35 posted on 01/04/2008 6:59:58 PM PST by moonman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: topher
The Phelps gang (friends of Al Gore) is a different issue to me: it violates Freedom of Religion -- the right to have a solemn funeral for a dearly departed one...

Okay, but do you believe the Phelps people should be permitted to stand on the sidewalk outside the home of a dead US service member and ask the family questions about what their son/husband/father died for?

36 posted on 01/04/2008 7:04:23 PM PST by trumandogz (Hunter Thompson 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: topher

I think of the disgusting displays of hate and intolerance that the Phelps (sp?) crew regularly perform with impunity and wonder if the whole world has gone completely insane...


37 posted on 01/04/2008 7:06:16 PM PST by rockrr (Global warming is to science what Islam is to religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonman
Describe to me the goal of harassing someone at their home, for following them as they drive, for returning to the home, for harassing someone again at their home, all within a half hour period of time.

There is but one goal, not of free speech, but of intimidation, of coercing someone into following a set of actions to get relief from the intimidation. I absolutely believe that the words of pro-life activists should be protected, but in no way do I believe that anyone should be induced to listen to their words. Freedom of speech also means freedom from speech.

Would you support anti-war activists camping out in front of people’s homes across the country to shout down our soldiers? Their kids? How about illegal alien supporters camping out in front of Minutemen homes? Following them around in their cars?

This /is/ the big important stuff that we fight for each and every day.

38 posted on 01/04/2008 7:10:34 PM PST by kingu (Fred08 - The Constitution is the value I'm voting for. What value are you voting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ko_kyi
I thought the S-of-L in misdemeanors was about 2 years.

According to the source the offense occurred in 1998 and the case had been decided and appealed to the state supreme court by 1999. The jail order, for some reason, didn't come down till 2005, and appeals have been going on since then. States of limitation generally cover the period between criminal act and the filing of criminal charges

39 posted on 01/04/2008 7:15:42 PM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla (Mike Huckabee: If Gomer Pyle and Hugo Chavez had a love child this is who it would be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MountainFlower; metmom; wagglebee

^


40 posted on 01/04/2008 7:15:47 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
OK ,,, how did 60 days each turn into 5 months and 8 months?

My only guess is that either they were subject to additional prosecution in the interim, or there were penalties involved for not acting in a timely manner to report to jail.

41 posted on 01/04/2008 7:16:45 PM PST by kingu (Fred08 - The Constitution is the value I'm voting for. What value are you voting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kingu
"Would you support anti-war activists camping out in front of people’s homes across the country to shout down our soldiers? Their kids? How about illegal alien supporters camping out in front of Minutemen homes? Following them around in their cars?"

LOL Too funny! You and I both know unpatriotic idiots like that wouldn't last 5 minutes in 95% of the towns in America. Better think of a better comparison.

42 posted on 01/04/2008 7:25:21 PM PST by moonman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Well, the baby killer’s son WAS out in public. (He could not have been legally nude then, could he?) No, he did not have to listen, and could have gone inside. The 2 ladies did apologize when they realized their identification error. Still, if is saves ONE baby’s life,...isn’t it worth it?


43 posted on 01/04/2008 7:37:13 PM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
Last I checked, that was private property.

Still, if is saves ONE baby’s life,...isn’t it worth it?

So then shoot the doctor. After all, if that's the overriding justification for intimidating people in their own homes, why stop at shouting? Why not just kill them? You'd be saving at least one baby's life.

44 posted on 01/04/2008 7:46:38 PM PST by kingu (Fred08 - The Constitution is the value I'm voting for. What value are you voting for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kingu
On February 6 ... at approximately 7:05 a.m., Melissa Abbink and Sharon McKee approached ... from the north, walking in a southerly direction on the sidewalk adjacent ... began to yell at Crabb's son ... When Abbink and McKee ... acknowledged their mistake ... they were approximately 50 to 55 feet from the front step of the Crabb residence. Thanks for finding and posting that. I picked out parts of the paragraph to suggest that the two women apparently approached Crabb's home in low-light conditions such that they could not distinguish one male from another until they were 50-55 feet away. Didn't prevent them from presenting themselves as some kind of foe to a person on the property, though. Assuming similar visual acuity for the Crabbs, I can easily understand a bunker mentality on their part. That would creep me out, and being pursued as the sun climbs 25 minutes higher in the sky would not improve my perception of the interlopers.
45 posted on 01/04/2008 7:55:55 PM PST by Titan Magroyne ("Shorn, dumb and bleating is no way to go through life, son." Yeah, close enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: topher

wow. so much for amendment one in this country


46 posted on 01/04/2008 9:00:46 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redpoll
...These women are not charged with speaking to an abortionist. They’re charged with bothering him on his property while he’s walking into his house...

OK, so that's worth 8 months in jail, eh?

47 posted on 01/04/2008 10:19:34 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (whose spirit is hillary channelling these days?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: topher

save


48 posted on 01/04/2008 11:08:31 PM PST by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topher

effin ridiculous


49 posted on 01/04/2008 11:10:25 PM PST by wardaddy (Huckabee is dancing on Thompson's card)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Okay, but do you believe the Phelps people should be permitted to stand on the sidewalk outside the home of a dead US service member and ask the family questions about what their son/husband/father died for?

There have been folks willing to follow the Phelps gang around with paintball guns...

I guess if they show up there (in front of the homes of someone who died in Iraq/Afghanistan, they might get painted...

The more I think about it, paintballs is a form of Freedom of Expression, but it has the problem of damaging property. By the same token, the emotional damage done by the Phelps can be heard in a Civil Court.

Remember that O.J. Simpson was convicted in a Civil Court, where there was less burden of proof.

Now I might say that the Phelps IRS dodgers may have the right of Freedom of Expression, but if this results in emotional injury, then they should filed with a Civil Suit (or many, many Civil Suits)...

50 posted on 01/05/2008 7:12:03 AM PST by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson