Supreme Court Deals Set Back to Abortion Clinics, page 1

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:31 PM

link

I wonder if this is a sign of things to come. Last week SD announced their new law banning all abortions, now the Supreme Court is backing abortion protesters :shk: Not a good sign at all.

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters

The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 ruling by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the appellate court sought to determine whether the injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I hate to say it but I feel that Roe V Wade will be overturned soon and that I do not like.

edit fat finger typos.

[edit on 2/28/2006 by shots]

ChemicalLaser

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:49 PM

link

Originally posted by shots
I wonder if this is a sign of things to come. Last week SD announced their new law banning all abortions, now the Supreme Court is backing abortion protesters :shk: Not a good sign at all.

[edit on 2/28/2006 by shots]

Why? Because the Supreme Court unanimously decided that abortion protestors have free speech rights too? Come on - isn't that just a bit of a stretch? Abortion "rights" and free speech are two completely separate issues. Why do you think that this is a referendum on abortion?

WyrdeOne

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:51 PM

link

I don't have a problem with this recent decision.

There is a slippery slope developing, but we're not at the bottom of it just yet.

The racketeering law was meant to be a tool against organized crime. Excercising your right to protest isn't a crime.

Unless of course you're protesting the war. Then it's a crime.

Point being, this wasn't Roe V. Wade. This wasn't even the same issue, relating to doctors rights and patients rights. This was about anti-abortion groups being pursued as racketeers for protesting what they see as institutionalized, medical murder.

This seems a minor facet of the overall debate. I do think Roe V. Wade could get overturned, but it would have nothing to do with this case, I guess that's the bottom line.

marg6043

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 09:16 PM

link

Is two issues here, one is about two state passing laws that are not going anywhere in their states, and the second one is not about Roe vs Wade but privacy rights issues.

The two states wants the supreme court intervention and they will.

Now the supreme court can not ban abortions, the issue is about privacy not abortions.

The supreme court will not intervene on that issue either so is going to be the same old same.