Protest is not extortion

Today the Supreme Court will review the infamous case, Joseph Scheidler v. the National Organization for Women (NOW). The justices will be determining whether organized protests can be considered extortion under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) -- legislation initially meant to convict mobsters. In this case, NOW sued a man who helped organize protests against clinics back in the 1980s. According to NOW's statements, even peaceful pro-life protests are "campaigns of terror against abortion clinics" and should be stopped with RICO. \nIn the words of Seattle lawyer Theresa Schrempp (Washington Times, Dec. 1), "NOW is alleging that extremely minor criminal conduct -- jaywalking, trespassing, standing on the steps of an abortion clinic -- constitutes extortion under RICO." \nWhile NOW would probably love to cram the nation's pro-lifers into jail cells across the country, this case, if decided in NOW's favor, will be used to squeeze the pro-life bank account dry. Pro-life resources would be drastically reduced, successfully quieting those who speak out for the unborn. \nIf NOW emerges the victor, this case will endanger all Americans' right to protest. Groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Greenpeace, although usually allies with NOW, have recently been making friendships with the pro-life camp. These groups will be threatened with hefty fines if they too engage in protests. And RICO violations are certainly hefty. RICO "victims" receive three times more in monetary compensation than normal plaintiffs.\nAbortion proponents want to so strongly protect a woman's "right" to obtain an abortion that they're willing to strip others of their right to free speech. Don't let these pro-aborts fool you -- protecting women is not their goal. Violence directed at abortion providers, their clients and clinics is already illegal. \nKeeping that in mind, it seems reasonable to conclude that NOW and their affiliates' real objective is to keep women in the abortion clinic and away from Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Heaven forbid someone inform a pregnant woman of another option besides abortion -- that would be providing a choice! \nThe core of this matter is that pro-abortion forces continue to get away with foul play. When pro-aborts don't want to debate about abortion, they play dirty. Avoiding dialogue necessitates annihilating the opposition. What better way to stifle the pro-life voice than to sue those anti-abortion "fanatics" into the red? \nNOW wants the courts to begin a round of discrimination against pro-life groups in hopes of seeing their opposition bankrupted. And pro-aborts are willing to make a mockery of our justice system in order to give themselves an advantage. Doesn't sound very fair, does it?\n The Court needs to respond to NOW with a resounding rejection. This case is ludicrously anti-American. Extinguishing discussion by suing others out of their right to free speech is undemocratic and reminiscent of pre-revolutionary British totalitarianism. Lobbyists should not use the courts to advance a political agenda.\n What NOW seems to forget is that what goes around always comes back around. By taking pro-lifers' right to protest away, NOW is removing pro-choicers' right to protest, say, a partial-birth abortion ban.\nPerhaps in sheer ignorance of their hypocrisy, NOW plans to flaunt their case by protesting outside the court building on Capitol Hill to draw attention to their cause. Such behavior undoubtedly undermines their court case, but like obnoxious bullies, they just can't help but boast.\nHow dare they lead a "campaign of terror" against our country. Lawsuit anyone?