Anti-abortion Violence

[CelestialBody]

 

[BustyTheClown]

Is on the rise, and has been since September 11. It's seems that the international tragedy was a call to arms for the most aggressive anti-Choicers in the Nation. There have been 480 recorded anthrax threats, totaling 654 since 1998. Here in Michigan, they have taken to videotaping women coming in and out of two clinics, intimidating and harassing women.

What do you think of the videotaping? Would you want to be monitered coming in and out of Planned Parenthood when all you want is your annual, or maybe birth control?

Rumor has some of these protestors are getting college credit from two Catholic Law schools. Some education, huh?

If what you say is true, I am disgusted. The videotaping is a blatant breach of the women's privacy, since Planned Parenthood is known for its confidentiality. It's sickening what some people will stoop to in order to force their beliefs on others.

 

[Guest]

 

[GHM]

Anti - abortion violence

I am for the rights of the individual in all things. Our way of life in North America is in far greater danger from those within than any outsider.

We should be much more protective of our rights as individuals. This includes the right to privacy and freedom of choice not only as regards abortion but in many areas.

When someone tries to take away our rights through violence or the threat of violence it is an act of war.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Ishmael]

Is on the rise, and has been since September 11. It's seems that the international tragedy was a call to arms for the most aggressive anti-Choicers in the Nation. There have been 480 recorded anthrax threats, totaling 654 since 1998. Here in Michigan, they have taken to videotaping women coming in and out of two clinics, intimidating and harassing women.

What do you think of the videotaping? Would you want to be monitered coming in and out of Planned Parenthood when all you want is your annual, or maybe birth control?

Rumor has some of these protestors are getting college credit from two Catholic Law schools. Some education, huh?

CB,

Nothing you've reported constitutes "violence".

The anthrax threats are a "threat of violence" and constitute a felony. I hope the perpetrators are caught and prosecuted.

Video taping anything is NOT a crime and I hope that it never is. Is it being used for intimidation? You bet. A few years ago I was in Las Vegas and the Frontier Resort and Casino workers were on strike. The strikers had a video camera set up outside taping all who entered. I wasn't even going to go in, but what the hell. I smiled for the camera, laughed, waved, made faces. Then I went in. So what? Intimidation is a state of mind. Nothing more.

Rumors? Pick up the telephone and check. It's easy. If the courses are legit, they'll tell you. And even if they are, it's a free country. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's illegal, or even evil.

Ishmael

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[CelestialBody]

Oops!

 

[Ishmael]

Maybe you should ask before you speak, eh?


There is a long history, I picked the picketers because they are the most prevalant. If you think that faux anthrax attacks aren't a form of intimidation and hasrassment they shut down clinics for weeks at a time.

The people videotaping have screamed atthe women that they will track them down and show their family? Violence isn't necessarily physical, it can also be verbal. The first amendment give us the ability to assemble peacably, that doesn't mean that we can stand outside a builfding, less than two feet from the door of a clinic and scream and intimidate citizens. That is what's going on here.

Violence isn't necessarily physical.

For physical violence, in 2001, there was one bombing, two arson attempts, fifty eight cases of vandalism, one hundred fourty four cases of trespassing, twp assault and batteries, fourteen death threats, six burglaries, and ten stalkings.


Happy now?

I don't have to ask. You posted the information that you were basing your header on. I merely pointed out that that wasn't violence.

The true violent acts you pointed out, are illegal and the perpetrators, if and when caught, will be prosecuted and punished us convicted.

Unless another crime is committed at the same time, for the most part under the law, violence is physical. We don't prosecute people because soem one else was intimidated or frightened. There is good reason for this. There is far to much room for abuse of this type of law should it ever be passed.

Now, you started this for a reason I suppose. While I don't agree with the actions of the people you have described, there are things that aren't against the law and never should be.

So, what is it exactly that you'd like to see done?

Ishmael

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[CelestialBody]

One more thing.

 

[Sir Alex 4 U]

Consistency in execution of laws, people doing their jobs, people who harbor criminals - and financially support them, to be held responsible. There is little or no support in my state for protection of abortion clinics, indeed, despite the fact that the majority of residents here are pro-choice, the legislature has a decidedly anti-choice bent. Currently there is no "bubble law" to protect women coming in and out of clinics. In the cases of one of those clinics, the police has deemed the protestors videotaping legal, but the Federal Marshalls office says it is not, there are questions raised now about juridiction. There is little or no public outcry over the attacks on clinics, which translates to little political power outside of those NPOs and NGOs. People just don't seem to care. That's why I brought it up.

Seems to me then, that the people are either ignorant, or uninterested in protecting the women utilizing the clinics. What does that say in, and of, itself?

 

[Sir Alex 4 U]

Re: One more thing.

We do prosecute people when they are intimidated. That is the basis for sexual harassment, creating an environment of hostility. We do prosecute for slander and libel, both of those are defamation of character and fall under tort, if I'm not mistaken.

Our laws are useless if the people don't support them. Law enforcement rarely enforces unpopular laws without being forced into it.

 

[Ishmael]

Consistency in execution of laws, people doing their jobs, people who harbor criminals - and financially support them, to be held responsible. There is little or no support in my state for protection of abortion clinics, indeed, despite the fact that the majority of residents here are pro-choice, the legislature has a decidedly anti-choice bent. Currently there is no "bubble law" to protect women coming in and out of clinics. In the cases of one of those clinics, the police has deemed the protestors videotaping legal, but the Federal Marshalls office says it is not, there are questions raised now about juridiction. There is little or no public outcry over the attacks on clinics, which translates to little political power outside of those NPOs and NGOs. People just don't seem to care. That's why I brought it up.

There is a persumption on your part that the laws, as written, are not being upheld. They are. You may feel, with some justification, that the investigators are not putting enough time in on your cause. But the victims of murder, rape, robbery, and burglary deserve some of their time too.

No private industry deserves 'special' protection under the law. You can not bar people from legal activity on public property, or on private property if they have the owners permission.

The Federal Marshalls are wrong. (This was another of Janet Reno's bad ideas.) The Supreme Court will hear that case soon enough and strike it down just as they did the "firearms within a 1000' feet" of a school statute.

That being said, believe it or not, I'm pro-choice. I'm just dead set against any group, gender, ethnic minority, or business having any laws granting them 'special' status or priveledge. To do so opens the doors for all groups to have 'special' priveledge and that is the first steps on the road to a totalitarian state.

Ishmael

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Tremolo]

I just don't get the reasoning behind the violence.

They are upset because they believe a life is being taken, yet in the case where abortion doctors are being killed, they don't mind taking life to further their cause. It is hipocracy (sp?) in its purest form.

I also don't buy the arguement that violence or the threat of violence will make people take their movement seriously or cause a change in laws. I didn't think governments negotiated with terrorists anymore. I would think that after september 11th the cases of violence would have gone down simply because pro-lifers don't want to be associated with terrorism.

Violence in any way, shape or form doesn't garner any respect from me. It makes me reject their position even more.

 

[Ishmael]

Bubble zone laws don't prevent them from protesting, I don't really care if they are ten feet from the building, I'm talking about people being followed in to their cars and being told that their families would be informed that they'd had an abortion. It's not a minority protection issue, its a matter of upholding the ENTIRE first amendment, there's a difference between Assembling peacefully and verbally assaulting people. There's a difference between free speech and slander.

I'm not going into whether the police are upholding the laws, the PD is next door, they don't fucking care. Nearby aparment complexes have complained about the signs and shouting, and they don't care.

Sorry, I don't buy the "pro-choice" but argument, this isn't a matter of minority rights, but unilateral enforcement of existing statuette. The very least they could do is slap them with a disturbing the peace violation.

If the existing laws are NOT being enforced, you have a legitimate greivance. Sit down with the police officials. If you still feel you are not being supported in a legitimate greivance, go to your loval representative.

As far as notifying relatives, etc. There is no law against it. Shouldn't be either. 1st amendment, remember.

Ishmael

 

[CelestialBody]

Anti-Choice websites.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Ishmael]

That is, unless those women are not there for abortions at all, a very small percentage of women actually go to those clinics for abortions, they are licensed medical facilities, providing annual gynecological exams, contraceptives etc. That has the potential to damage a person's reputation, which again, falls under tort.

Then those that feel damaged may 'tort' away. By your own admission there are legal remedies even for that. There isn't an abulance chasing shyster within a 100 miles of you that wouldn't take a strong tort case on contingency. Make it strong enough, or gather enough plaintiffs together and it can become a class action suit.

What I'm saying CB, is that the laws are there. If they aren't being enforced, work towards that end. All politics are local. The Federal government will not solve your problem, nor should it. If you tackle the issue one precinct at a time, instead of attempting a 'global' solution, you may find that miracles can indeed happen.

Ishmael

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Willing and Unsure]

Re: Re: Anti-abortion Violence

Video taping anything is NOT a crime and I hope that it never is. Is it being used for intimidation? You bet. A few years ago I was in Las Vegas and the Frontier Resort and Casino workers were on strike. The strikers had a video camera set up outside taping all who entered. I wasn't even going to go in, but what the hell. I smiled for the camera, laughed, waved, made faces. Then I went in. So what? Intimidation is a state of mind. Nothing more.

Ishmael

video taping can be a crime actually. if there is someone filmed either by video or still photos, they have grounds for defamation of character, and invasion of privacy. in order for that person to be filmed and that film to be shown to anyone they have to give consent to it. i really dont think that some woman that is walking into or out of a Planned Parenthood clinic for whatever reason has given that consent just by entering.

and intimidation is not a state of mind. as CB said already, intimidation creates a hostile environment which can/will cause others to do things they wouldnt normally do. I know that I wouldnt tolerate someone trying to intimidate me, for whatever reason and I also know that situation would turn physically violent as well. I know there are many others that would handle things the same way that I would.

As far as notifying relatives, etc. There is no law against it. Shouldn't be either. 1st amendment, remember.

As far as the 1st amendment goes, it covers the right to free speech, freedom to peaceably assemble and freedom of religion. not freedom of defamation of character, not freedom of entering a person's private life, and not freedom to harrass and intimidate another. The first amendment was set up so that we could speak freely and have our own beliefs, but it was also with the intention that we would not push our beliefs on others in a violent manner. Videotaping and notifying relatives can be considered a violent manner depending on the person. Just videotaping them in general can be a violent manner. And what happens to the 9th amendment then if you're allowed to videotape someone and inform others of what is on that tape? Does the 9th amendment just disappear?

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Anti-abortion Violence

video taping can be a crime actually. if there is someone filmed either by video or still photos, they have grounds for defamation of character, and invasion of privacy. in order for that person to be filmed and that film to be shown to anyone they have to give consent to it. i really dont think that some woman that is walking into or out of a Planned Parenthood clinic for whatever reason has given that consent just by entering.

and intimidation is not a state of mind. as CB said already, intimidation creates a hostile environment which can/will cause others to do things they wouldnt normally do. I know that I wouldnt tolerate someone trying to intimidate me, for whatever reason and I also know that situation would turn physically violent as well. I know there are many others that would handle things the same way that I would.



As far as the 1st amendment goes, it covers the right to free speech, freedom to peaceably assemble and freedom of religion. not freedom of defamation of character, not freedom of entering a person's private life, and not freedom to harrass and intimidate another. The first amendment was set up so that we could speak freely and have our own beliefs, but it was also with the intention that we would not push our beliefs on others in a violent manner. Videotaping and notifying relatives can be considered a violent manner depending on the person. Just videotaping them in general can be a violent manner. And what happens to the 9th amendment then if you're allowed to videotape someone and inform others of what is on that tape? Does the 9th amendment just disappear?

To the best of my knowledge, video taping from a public place, people that are engaging in public activity is not illegal if not intended or used for commercial purposes.

It is not violent, but it is possibly subject to tort litigation. See the previous posts.

Ishmael

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Willing and Unsure]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Anti-abortion Violence

To the best of my knowledge, video taping from a public place, people that are engaging in public activity is not illegal if not intended or used for commercial purposes.

It is not violent, but it is possibly subject to tort litigation. See the previous posts.

Ishmael

i took a class on this in high school... the person has to give consent to be filmed, be it verbal or written, they still have to give consent in some way.

and i did not say it was violent, just that it could create a hostile environment causing things to become violent. which in essence is showing that videotaping someone can become violent. and if you really want an example, i become rather violent whenever my boyfriend pulls out the camera to take my picture and usually end up curled up on the floor crying because i dont want my picture taken. so for me, anyone trying to videotape me would be in serious trouble because the situation would become hostile and eventually physically violent. and i'm sure there are others that have the same problem. i'm not disagreeing that it is possibly subject to tort litigation, and i have seen the above posts, but i just dont see it that way. i see it as a way of provoking and promoting violence, not preserving peace as we should be doing.