Anti-Abortion Racketeers?

By Gaffney, Edward, Jr. | Commonweal, November 5, 1993 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Anti-Abortion Racketeers?

Gaffney, Edward, Jr., Commonweal

On the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court opened its new term. As with any shift in the Court's personnel, the retirement of Justice Byron White and the appointment of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to replace him has Court watchers off and running looking for clever things to say about her. Each detail of her decisions will undoubtedly come under the intense (which is not always to say careful) scrutiny of the pundits, in order to place her conveniently into a facile category that will enable them to predict the outcome of the Court's docket.

Sometimes the pundits draw conclusions larger than the facts warrant. For example, as an advocate many years ago Ginsburg successfully litigated several equal-protection cases dealing with gender discrimination before the Court on which she now sits. It should be perfectly obvious from this and other things known about Justice Ginsburg that she will be sensitive to women's issues. But it does not necessarily follow, as Time magazine reports (October 4, 1993), that she will cast a decisive vote in National Organization of Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, to hold that the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) may be applied to Operation Rescue for its repeated acts of civil disobedience at abortion clinics.

One does not have to agree with Operation Rescue tactics in order to reach the conclusion that the Rico law should not be expanded to sweep in the activities that Operation Rescue followers engage in. For example, I wrote a brief amicus curiae on behalf of several organizations that engage in social activism relating to animal rights - including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Feminists for Animal Rights - opposing the broad reading of Rico that the National Organization of Women (NOW) has urged the Court to adopt in this case.

This brief adopts no position on the underlying issue of abortion in the Scheidler case. Some members and supporters of these organizations strongly support broad freedom of choice for women who seek abortion, and some strongly support unborn human life as at least equal in dignity to the lives of all the animals, large and small (from whales to sea lion pups), that they seek to protect.

If abortion is not the meeting ground for these activists, what is? The answer is the fear that allowing federal courts to apply the stiff sanctions of the Rico law to acts of civil disobedience such as those engaged in by Operation Rescue could have disastrous consequences for civil liberties in this country.

To do so, say these organizations, would constitute an unwarranted excursion into political and social advocacy and dissent not targeted by Congress when it enacted the Rico statute. It would have a strong chilling effect on activists who would be willing to engage in acts of civil disobedience if they might otherwise bring only minor sanctions in state courts, but who would rightly think twice about violating the federal Rico statute. Social dissent, including civil disobedience, plays such an important role in shaping our society that the judiciary should not expand Rico to apply to such activity without a clear mandate from Congress to do so.

It is not that acts of civil disobedience go unpunished. On the contrary, dissenters in our republic (from the abolitionists to the suffragists to the Vietnam War protesters) have usually suffered swift and certain penalties for their conduct. But our system of federalism dictates that when the acts of civil disobedience constitute offenses under state law, federal courts should be wary of construing federal laws as the appropriate vehicle for imposing sanctions.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Anti-Abortion Racketeers?


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?