Posted on 12/21/2004 8:31:36 AM PST by w6ai5q37b
Ten years ago, with eager support from the Clinton administration, Congress enacted the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) act. That measure created a federally enforced “no-protest” zone around abortion “clinics.” Under FACE, protesters who obstruct access to abortuaries can be prosecuted for federal offenses. The same is not true of radical environmentalists, union activists, or other political protesters who commit acts of violence, vandalism, or obstruction targeting businesses other than the abortion industry.
FACE is akin to a Bill of Attainder, an unconstitutional measure singling out one specific group of people for special punishment. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt has correctly ruled that the act exceeded congressional authority and violated the reserved powers of the states. Most conservatives would expect that the “pro-life” Bush administration’s Justice Department would approve of a judicial ruling against an unconstitutional law passed in service of the abortion industry. They would be wrong.
In late November, assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler flew from Washington to New Orleans to defend FACE before a three-judge panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judicial panel was considering a Bush administration challenge to District Judge Hoyt’s ruling. The original case involved an incident in which a Houston man named Frank Bird rammed his van into a local Planned Parenthood abortion facility.
“Congress chose to enact an unconstitutional statute which permits [the federal government] to do exactly what our Framers would have been appalled by, which is to regulate local violent criminal conduct,” argued Bird’s public defender, Brent Newton. “We still believe there are 50 states that are separate sovereigns in this country. That is what is at issue here. It’s not about abortion rights.”
Speaking on behalf of the Bush administration, Keisler “shot back by asking the appeals judges to recognize the simple motives behind acts such as the one Bird is accused of,” reported an AP account of the hearing. “It doesn’t [involve] a commercial transaction, but it does interfere with the workings of an interstate market,” contended Keisler. This reflected the view of a third-party brief in the case filed by the abortion advocacy group Legal Momentum. That brief, summarized the AP, maintained that “a local attack [on an abortuary] can dissuade doctors in other states from continuing to perform abortions or prompt them to spend more money on security, which could possibly raise prices for patients.”
bump
I wonder who was on the 3 judge panel. We've got a couple sleepers on the 5th circuit the liberals don't even suspect.
That is not being an ally of abortion. He is for not blocking access to a location that is at this moment legal. This is not about what you believe in or what’s morally right and wrong. It’s about what is legal and what isn’t.
Im against abortion and Im all for protesting. Im not for any single person or group blocking what you do, as long as the act your doing is legal.
Would you want a people blocking your way in to a gun store? would you want people blocking your way in to any location because that location is owned by a company that backs republicans? Of course not.
If we change the law, then its a different issue.
The dems will thank you for your efforts.
Yes. Under the current law, it is. Next_Time_NJ makes an excellent point - wishing for the power to block access to places where activities occur that you don't like might just extend to allowing others to do the same thing to places that you DO like tomorrow. That's why they call it a "slippery slope" - the slope doesn't care who slides down into the water.
Don't like it? Then work to change the law.
Guess they are just following Ahnold's advice...
**FACE is akin to a Bill of Attainder, an unconstitutional measure singling out one specific group of people for special punishment. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt has correctly ruled that the act exceeded congressional authority and violated the reserved powers of the states. Most conservatives would expect that the “pro-life” Bush administration’s Justice Department would approve of a judicial ruling against an unconstitutional law passed in service of the abortion industry. They would be wrong.**
I never looked at this through this lens before! (Legal) Wow! Do all of you think that with grassroots support against this unconstitutitonal law that it could get overturned?
**FACE is akin to a Bill of Attainder, an unconstitutional measure singling out one specific group of people for special punishment. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt has correctly ruled that the act exceeded congressional authority and violated the reserved powers of the states. Most conservatives would expect that the “pro-life” Bush administration’s Justice Department would approve of a judicial ruling against an unconstitutional law passed in service of the abortion industry. They would be wrong.**
I never looked at this through this lens before! (Legal) Wow! Do all of you think that with grassroots support against this unconstitutitonal law that it could get overturned?
If one does so in a way that prevents their freedom of movement, yes.
While I agree with most of what you say here, I think you're ignoring the fact that this law is beyond Federal jurisdiction. The absurd stretching of the acursed 'Commerce clause' is now being taken to a point where it encompasses anything and everything which has a market beyond a single state. Well, that's everything. This is an attempt to wrestle the last bit of commercial authority away from the states. Unless we simply want to abolish states altogether, we need to start looking at where Federal power ends and where state power begins. If the states wish to provide special protection to abortion clinics, then by all means, let them pass laws doing so. Even if the effect of a Federal law may be a 'good' one, that doesn't justify upholding a law so clearly beyond the power of the Federal government.
The Abortion Industry sends their regards.
So you don't believe that pubbie voters defecting to a 3rd party on the basis of single issues is the quickest way to elect dems?
I venture to suggest alienation of the Republican base is a good way of electing Demoncrats. And if you think Abortion is all there is you are wrong but it is a real good litmus test. Someone who will not defend babies will not defend Churches or the right of free speech. Which is part of the issue in this thread but kool-aide drinkers fail to notice such pesky problems. Baaaa baaaa four legs good two legs bad.
Is the GOP really pro-life ping?
Politically, you may have a point, but legally that's gibberish. FACE is no more a Bill of Attainder than the federal bank robbery statute is (it punishes people who rob banks, not liquor stores).
The Commerce Clause issue is a much better legal issue, though the Supreme Court will probably bury that issue for us-- with the help of the "conservative" justices-- when they rule on the medical marijuana case.
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.