I thought you were a big Constitutionalist. If a law was in place before a president was sworn into office, the president can NOT summarily break laws by not enforcing existing laws, even if he and/or the head of the Justice Department don't agree with those laws.
Besides, you must have it all backward. Pro-choice mouthpieces were on TV yesterday accusing Bush and Ashcroft of doing exactly the opposite: NOT going after people and/or groups which target abortion clinics.
What are you talking about? When a "law" was enacted has nothing to do with anything.
What is relevant is this: A person who deliberately removes an obstacle that is causing the commission of a crime, makes himself an accomplice to the crime. When Bush/Ashcroft make it their policy to see to it that no one is able to keep an abortionist from killing a baby, Bush/Ashcroft make themselves accomplices in the killing of that baby. It does not matter how fervently Bush/Ashcroft hope that someday abortion will be illegal. What they are doing NOW is facilitating the killing of particular babies. That's a crime. It can never be undone. Those babies are dead, and Bush/Ashcroft are consciously, deliberately seeing to it that babies die. Anyone who cooperates in seeing to it that the Rescue Movement remains suppressed is personally cooperating in the killing of babies.
Any "law" that authorizes the killing of babies is null. Any "law" that authorizes actions which suppress life-saving interventions is null. Anyone who enforces those laws or obeys orders pursuant to those laws is an accomplice to homicides. Those homicides are present actions. They can never be undone by any future change in the "law."
A person who deliberately removes an obstacle that is causing the commission of a crime, makes himself an accomplice to the crime.
should be:
A person who deliberately removes an obstacle that is preventing the commission of a crime, makes himself an accomplice to the crime.