Ruling in Scheidler v. Trombley
Posted by Matt Yonke on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008
If all you read was the Beacon News headline this morning, you may have gotten the wrong idea about what happened in the hearing in the Scheidler v. Trombley libel case yesterday. Their headline read "Libel suit against Planned Parenthood is dismissed".
What actually happened was that Judge Judith Brawka allowed Planned Parenthood's Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion against us, thus dismissing the charges in our previous complaint.
However, she allowed us to file four new charges based on evidence our attorneys uncovered in the discovery process.
For all the back story on this case, Eric Scheidler's blog post from before the last hearing will get you up to speed.
In the process of discovery, our attorneys, Tom Brejcha, Peter Breen, and Jason Craddock of the Thomas More Society Pro-Life Law Center, found several new documents that we hadn't seen before. These were ads and press releases that contained no appeal to government whatsoever.
The judge's ruling [PDF] hinged on the Illinois Citizens Participation Act (CPA) whichs exist to keep giant corporations with limitless resources from using the legal system to intimidate private citizens or grassroots coalitions trying to appeal to government legitimately.
These new charges, however, deal with items which in no way seek government action of any kind. They are statements Steve Trombley knew to be false, made to defame pro-lifers pure and simple. Unless she simply wants to side with Planned Parenthood for ideological reasons, she will have to admit that these statements are truly libelous.
The most outrageous thing about Judge Brawka's ruling yesterday is that nothing in it addressed the merits of our case. You would think that a ruling in a libel suit would have something to do with whether the accused made statements he knew to be false about the plaintiff, but there wasn't a word about it. Her only concern was whether or not Steve Trombley was pursuing a favorable outcome from the government of the City of Aurora when the ads and letter were published.
Unfortunately, her utter disregard for Steve Trombley's dishonesty and for the good name of the Pro-Life Action League and Eric Scheidler doesn't simply mean that Planned Parenthood gets away with libel. It also means that the Pro-Life Action League and Eric Scheidler will be responsible for Planned Parenthood's legal fees up to this point in the trial.
So we see the incredible irony of the situation: The multi-million dollar corporation is using the Citizen's Participation Act to intimidate the small non-profit public intrest group from pursuing favorable government action by holding them responsible for their high-priced attorneys' fees.
But we won't let them win that easily. Our attorneys will be pushing these new charges to the end of the road, and even if Judge Brawka refuses to see their merit, they will appeal as far up as they have to go to get justice.
Because this isn't simply about clearing the Scheidler name. This is about the right of every American to be protected from lies and distortions of their good name, which Proverbs tells us is worth more than gold. This is about keeping Illinois politics from devolving into a cesspool of muckraking and mudslinging. This is about the truth, which Planned Parenthood hates with a passion.
Please continue to keep Eric, the League, and Tom Brejcha, Peter Breen, and Jason Craddock of the Thomas More Society in your prayers. God has overcome greater odds than this, we pray He will show that the heart of the Magistrate is in His hands once again.
Here's a sampling of the press on the ruling:
- Chicago Tribune—"Kane County judge greatly limits defamation suit against Planned Parenthood of Illinois"
- Beacon News—"Libel suit against Planned Parenthood is dismissed"
- Christian News Wire—"Court grants Planned Parenthood license to lie"
- CBS News—"Judge tosses libel suit against Planned Parenthood"
I am so sorry that this evil has blinded justice in our courts. I do not want you to become disheartened Eric. Everything happens for a reason. This is just so wrong it can not stand, like abortion itself. God Bless You and your family.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Good. It will be none too soon when the zoning case suffers the same ignominious fate.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
The law was designed to prevent big powers from shutting up the little guy. Instead, big powers can say what they want about the little guy and get away with it. You always want to read a decision and the law may indeed have been interpreted correctly, but the intent of the law was not to stick Eric with PP's attorneys' fees for their BS advertisement. I'm sorry for this loss.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
To Eric, Pro-life Action League and FVFAPP, I am praying for you, your family and the attorneys. God is still in control. He will avenge you of the horrible ruling by this judge. God help this city, state and this country. David vs. Goliath is the spiritual analogy for this miscarriage or should I say abortion of justice.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Maybe Eric will stop filing frivolous lawsuits now? A result devoutly to be wished.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Hi Professor,
Haven't heard from you in a while.
Just to be clear, you believe that Planned Parenthood should be allowed to tell blatant lies because they are "seeking a favorable political outcome"?
As a parallel example, should I be able to tell lies about a political candidate on the eve of an election and be immune from prosecution because I was seeking a political outcome?
That's exactly the sort of thing Judge Brawka's reading of this law would allow for.
Nobody wants that. This case has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with the ability of citizens to protect their good names.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Professor,
The Scheidlers are no strangers to difficult legal battles brought about by the abortion industry's blatant abuse of written law. Fortunately they have truth on their side, and thus the tenacity and resolve to see this through to the end. Justice will prevail here, just as it did in the RICO case and the Scheidlers will emerge even stronger.
Eric, my prayers are with you and your family!
September 4th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I don't think they did
I don't think it's a good example, however, it happens all the time. See, http://www.factcheck.com (it may be .org).
I respectfully disagree.
Nobody wants that. This case has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with the ability of citizens to protect their good names.Sorry….not buying that argument at all.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I love how this turns into "PP is allowed to tell lies!" Nice lack of context there. What happened was that at the last minute, you all found out that PP had built a clinic in Aurora and was about to move in and open.
You all went into freak-out overdrive because you didn't get a chance to institute the same "harass the contractors" tactics used in Austin, TX and in Colorado. Swimming in your own bitterness over being out-maneuvered, you all went on the attack, and tried to pressure the city to keep PP out, which in turn, caused them to have to defend themselves.
What you are complaining about now isn't that PP "lied" about the history of anti-abortion tactics, its that you didn't get a chance to use them. You are the ones who are trying to shut them up.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
The question was whether, in the context of political warfare, the past tactics of the PL crowd can be described, especially when those tactics were used by those in the current debate. Clearly, the answer is that such information can be used.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Professor,
That's actually not the question. If you'd read the context, you'd see that the judge never actually addressed the merits of the case.
She simply decided that, no matter what Steve Trombley said, because he said "Call your alderman" at the end of the letter, he was protected under the Citizen Participation Act.
We may get to see, in dealing with the four new counts that the judge allowed to go forward, whether what Trombley said was acceptable or not.
But all that aside, it is patently false that Joe Scheidler or the Pro-Life Action League has a "clear record of violence". Neither Joe nor any League staff has ever been convicted of a violent crime. The charges listed in the ad were charges Joe and the League had been cleared of not charges they were guilty of.
It's not true, plain and simple.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
So are you saying that Joe Scheidler wasn't found guilty in 1998 by a jury in Chicago of any violence whatsoever? Are you really willing to make that statement?
September 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Student wrote:
So are you saying that Joe Scheidler wasn't found guilty in 1998 by a jury in Chicago of any violence whatsoever? Are you really willing to make that statement?
******************
Student, what was Joe Scheidler charged with specifically? I'm guessing he WAS found guilty of that particular charge?
September 4th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Student,
You know as well as I do that Joe was vindicated at the Supreme Court of the United States not once but twice on those charges.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Kathi wrote:
I am so sorry that this evil has blinded justice in our courts. I do not want you to become disheartened Eric. Everything happens for a reason. This is just so wrong it can not stand, like abortion itself. ************************
Yes, it happened for a reason; it was a FRIVOLOUS lawsuit, and the judge recognized it as such. And please don't insult our intelligence by saying it is only abortion that F.A.P.P. opposes.
You also oppose all or most forms of contraception as well, isn't that true? And Planned Parenthood also supplies contraception to many women who couldn't afford contraception otherwise, isn't that correct?
September 5th, 2008 at 7:01 am
While there are some of us who think contraception is harmful to women, I can guarantee Planned Parenthood wouldn't have felt the need to deceive if all they did was distribute contraception. Three are already places in Aurora and surrounding communities that offer women's health care, including contraception, at reduced prices for those that need it. No protests there, right? No sidewalk counselors there, right? No, this is about abortion, plain and simple.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am
WRONG! FAPP also protested PP's satelite office that offered no abortion services whatsoever. That wasn't about abortion, plain & simple.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Joe Scheidler was never "vindicated" of the allegations that his organization committed violent acts. The Supreme Court decision had NOTHING to do with whether violent acts were committed by anti-abortionists connected with him and with his group.
What the Supreme Court decided was that the RICO statute could not be applied to Mr. Scheidler and his organization.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
AuroraResident,
First of all, FAPP never organized a protest at the PP Express, though we did encourage people to join the protest that another group organized there.
But when was the last time you saw FAPP protest a walgreens? You can get your ortho try-cyclen there just as easily as you can at Planned Parenthood (easier, actually, walgreens doesn't require an ID and videotape your visit) but FAPP has no issue with them.
So what's the difference between walgreens and PP? Why would we protest the one and not the other? Can't be the contraception.
Maybe it's because the organization is called Families Against PLANNED PARENTHOOD! I don't care if they're performing abortions, handing out condoms, or giving a talk at a school, we stand against them. We believe them to be a pernicious influence on our society.
Though many members of FAPP may be personally opposed to contraception, no one is fighting to take away your right to use it. That just a myth and a diversion that attempts to make the American public think pro-lifers are fascists who want to take all their freedoms away.
Let's just be honest about each other, huh?
September 5th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The issues of Joe's trial have been hashed, rehashed, and overhashed in this combox. If you want all the facts, you can go to http://prolifeaction.org/nvs and decide what you think for yourself.
Otherwise, you can start a thread in the forum or talk about the libel case.
All the best,
Matt
September 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
MattYonke wrote:
Maybe it's because the organization is called Families Against PLANNED PARENTHOOD! I don't care if they're performing abortions, handing out condoms, or giving a talk at a school, we stand against them. We believe them to be a pernicious influence on our society.
********************
Must be the militant religionist society. You know, the one that wants to drag everyone, particularly women, back into the DARK AGES where religion controlled everything and women had NO rights at all. Yes, I can see why your organization would stand against anything that offered women CHOICES. Luckily, your group doesn't get to dictate everyone else's choices FOR us.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Nonsense! When you attempt to classify birth control pills as an abortifacient that is EXACTLY what you're doing. As to the "pro-lifers are fascists who want to take freedoms away"…..you said it and I believe it.
Yes, the Supreme Court stated that "Physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the Hobbs Act’s scope. Congress did not intend to create a freestanding physical violence offense. It did intend to forbid acts or threats of physical violence in furtherance of a plan or purpose to engage in what the Act refers to as robbery or extortion (and related attempts or conspiracies)." Basically the Court found in your favor because there was no "robbery or extortion" — NOT because there was no criminal and/or violent conduct.
However, the Court also stated, "…in 1994, Congress enacted a specific statute aimed directly at the type of abortion clinic violence and other activity at issue in this litigation, thereby suggesting it did not believe that the Hobbs Act already addressed that activity. See Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U. S. C. §248(a)(3) (imposing criminal liability on anyone who “intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services”)." The Congressional Record supports that the actions of Joe Scheidler (and others) gave rise to the FACE law.
SCOTUS also said, "Likewise, petitioners' counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients' conduct were CRIMINAL." (emphasis mine) (2003 Opinion, Page 9).
So while you are “technically correct,” I still believe the alleged allegations to be accurate, thus, the recent case filed was (IMO) yet another frivolous lawsuit.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I do not have the advantage of being a student of law but it would seem that when a decision is overturned, the finding of the lower court is nullified. The United States Supreme Court came down overwhelmingly on the Scheidlers' side and as I understand it ordered the lower court to vacate the decision against the PLAL without prejudice.
If we are to believe the Trombleys of the world, they seem to feel that everything that happened on this case since 1998 is irrelevant. Hmmmm. Let's see how this thinking would apply if the shoe was on the other foot.
If, for example, Doctor X and PP were found guilty of criminal negligence in the death of a client but were ultimately cleared of the charge upon appeal, would it be right for opponents of the doctor and PP to ignore this legal vindication? More to the point, would it be libelous if someone were to broadly publish in a scathing report that Dr. X was found guilty of negligence, even as they ignored the fact of the doctor's vindication? And if this scathing report was published in a community in which the doctor was a relative newcomer and it had profound implications as to his public persona, would the doctor be justified in claiming he was libeled? And if those scathing reports included assertions that the doctor joined with other doctors in a conspiracy to deliberately engage in felonious negligence in the treatment of patients, what then?
Presumably those who defend the notion that the PLAL was not libeled would not be as jaundiced when applying the same standards to the hypothetical case.
And yet this is exactly what Trombley did in his full page ads–he dragged the PLAL through the mud of a verdict from which they were exonerated twice in 8-1 and 8-0 rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States. Furthermore, insult was added to injury when he published a picture of a bombed out clinic, suggesting that the PLAL was associated with the same criminal mindset, a claim that he did not (nor could not because it is blatantly false) certify with findings of fact.
But this is how it is with the twists and turns of the law–one never knows how a particular court will rule on any given day. In this latest ruling, Judge Brawka turns the Citizens Participation Act on its head and says it protects billion dollar goliaths like Planned Parenthood Inc. from the likes of veritable Davids whose size and budget do not begin to compare. Yes, this organization which receives $835,000 of our tax dollars each and every day, more in one day than the entire annual budget of their opponent in this suit, claims it has "absolute immnunity" from being held to libel.
It really doesn't take a student of the law to know a travesty of justice when one sees it. In this case, one can conclude an injustice was done by simply applying fundamental rules of fair play. Nevertheless in the end, just as the PLAL was ultimately vindicated by the highest court in the land in the N.O.W. suit, so too will this ruling be overturned. We have faith in our system of jurisprudence that when the final argument is heard and the rule of law applied in its entirety, the court will rule without equivocation that the plantiffs were libeled. This case is far from over.
But more than that, we have faith and confidence that the unseen hand which governs all and blesses those who fear God will lead us to victory both here and in our prayerful and peaceful efforts to shut down the illegally erected PP facility.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Jerry, if you can find where the SCOTUS said there was no criminal conduct on the part of Scheidler I would love to see it. I can find no such statement. SCOTUS did say, "Likewise, petitioners' counsel readily acknowledged at oral argument that aspects of his clients' conduct were CRIMINAL." (emphasis mine) (2003 Opinion, Page 9).
I have not doubt about that. Frivilous lawsuits and waste of taxpayer dollars seem to be FAPP's strong suit.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
"If, for example, Doctor X and PP were found guilty of criminal negligence in the death of a client but were ultimately cleared of the charge upon appeal, would it be right for opponents of the doctor and PP to ignore this legal vindication? More to the point, would it be libelous if someone were to broadly publish in a scathing report that Dr. X was found guilty of negligence, even as they ignored the fact of the doctor's vindication?"
Jerry, you are comparing apples and oranges. In your example, the finding that Dr. X committed criminal negligence was overturned. The NOW v. Scheidler case is very different. To summarize, the finding that violent acts were committed was never disputed or "overturned". Even the SCOTUS opinion acknowledged that criminal conduct and acts of physical violence had been committed. However, the reason the lower court decisions were vacated was that mere physical violence does not satisfy the elements of a Hobbs Act violation. As Student quoted above, SCOTUS said this specifically about the FACT that physical violence had occurred:
"Physical violence unrelated to robbery or extortion falls outside the Hobbs Act’s scope. Congress did not intend to create a freestanding physical violence offense. It did intend to forbid acts or threats of physical violence in furtherance of a plan or purpose to engage in what the Act refers to as robbery or extortion (and related attempts or conspiracies)."
September 6th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Student, you've cited that section of the court's ruling several times in the past. I've pointed out to you the footnote that says that the criminal charge was trespassing–that is, no violence. You conceded your mistake before, but not for the first time here, you are acting in bad faith.
September 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
To all prolifers:
You will not get the pro-death crowd to give a fair hearing to any action that is against pro-life organizations, no matter how unjust. They really don't care. They already know that FVFAPP has never condoned or perpetrated violence on anyone not even the abortionist, a consideration they are not willing to give to innocent, unborn babies. The most dangerous place for unborn babies today is in their mother's womb. I can tell you it is a violent, horrible death for these babies as a dialator is inserted into the mother's cervix, a currette is inserted into her uterus, the baby is dismembered, a cannula inserted in the uterus and then the baby suctioned out by a high powered vacuum. They are hell bent on the so-called "choice" to destroy innocent, unborn babies and their blood thirst will never be satisfied.
Think about how schizophrenic they are, if a woman decides a pregnancy is wanted it's ok to ask "How is your baby?", but if she decides it is inconvenient and unwanted you might ask "How's your blob of tissue or product of conception doing?" When I provided healthcare to pregnant women, whether the woman miscarried in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd trimester or had a stillborn, she would cry as I held her hand and she would say "I lost my baby", never " I lost my blob of tissue or product of conception".
Never forget pro-lifers how important your life-saving work is. Just as abolitionist were hated by slave-owners before, during and after the Civil War you today are the modern abolitionist working to save the lives of the innocent, unborn. Your words promoting life although hated and treated with distain are still truth and light in this dark world. God bless you and God have mercy on our nation for perpetrating this violence on innocent, unborn babies.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Brian,
Which footnote # in which ruling?
September 6th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
The one attached to the text you cited.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
See the quote you put in there, at 537 US 393, 404 n. 9. Scheidler's attorney concedes trespass, one of the Justices claims destruction of property, and Scheidler's attorney says "oh yes" but then says that what has never been contested is trespass. No violence was established.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/537/393/case.html
Since the PP ad claimed violence, I don't see how you can say that this ruling supports that claim.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Once again folks, there is a forum to discuss issues that are not pertinent to the topic of the post. Let's move the Now v. Scheidler discussion over there. Blog comment sections are for comments on the blog post, and this one is about the libel case.
I don't want to shut down comments on this post, but I've asked twice now.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Fair enough and sorry.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I'm a bit confused Matt. It seems to me that you all are using the final SCOTUS result in NOW v. Scheidler as the basis of the libel suit against PP. In that context, isn't NOW v. Scheidler really one of the major underlying issues of the libel suit? And doesn't that make it appropriate to discuss in a post about the libel suit?
September 6th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Carol,
Fair question. We don't need to use the SCOTUS decision at all actually. Eric is the only named plaintiff on the case (the Pro-Life Action League as an entity is on there as well). Our argument is that Trombley's statements alleged that the people involved in the Aurora campaign have a "well documented history of violence" and Joe wasn't involved in the aurora campaign beyond attending a few protests.
It's Eric's good name that's been sullied here and he wasn't involved in NOW v. Scheidler. Despite the fact that Trombley cited NOW v. Scheidler it actually has nothing to do with our defense.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Okie dokie, thanks Matt.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The jury found "that the defendants or others associated with PLAN committed 21 violations of federal extortion law (Hobbs Act), 25 violations of state extortion law, 25 instances of attempting or conspiring to commit either federal or state extortion, 23 violations of the Travel Act, 23 instances of attempting to violate the Travel Act, and four 'acts or threats of physical violence to any person or property."
Now, SCOTUS found Scheidler/PLAN's favor because there was no "robbery or extortion" — NOT because there was no criminal and/or violent conduct.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Student says:
Jerry, if you can find where the SCOTUS said there was no criminal conduct on the part of Scheidler I would love to see it.
Student, how about you show us exactly what criminal conduct SCOTUS found Scheidler guilty of? I doubt it exists; otherwise NOW and PPoA would still have a suit pending.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Going back time immemorial a person's good name was the single most important thing most people possessed. Whereas a person's physical possessions and "rights" were usually subject to the whims of imperial decree, only personal indiscretions or a lie could take away one's good name. Caesar determined the value of a person and the extent of one's individual rights, and if a person did something displeasing to the authorities, well, so much for him!
Even though we have come a long way since those days one thing has not changed, and that is the right of a person not to have his good name besmirched. When someone tries to take that away, the law recognizes it as a crime. Therefore, attempts to reclaim one's good name should not be viewed as "frivolous" (post 24).
Here is the problem. In both the content and tone of the newspaper ads, Mr. Trombly was trying to turn public opinion against those protesting the opening of the clinic. From day one (prior to the discovery of the Gemini deception) Planned Parenthood, Inc. took pains to "obfuscate", using Federal Judge Charles Norgle's word, and otherwise sidestep normal zoning protocol and deceive aldermen so as to hide the true purpose of the facility. Mr. Trombley bragged about this, saying in numerous interviews and soundbites that Planned Parenthood, Inc. had taken those steps in order to avoid a lot of public opposition and that he wanted to save the contractors and others from having to face all of that, etc, etc. Then to make his case stronger (or so he thought) he tried to link the peaceful and legitimate actions of the pro-lifers and veteran pro-life leaders to those of clinic bombers and violent extremists. This was a desparate attempt to explain why the deception which Planned Parenthood, Inc. had so cleverly concocted was justifiable. But in so doing, Planned Parenthood, Inc. told a whopper about the Scheidlers.
Now for us to believe that Planned Parenthood, Inc. had to make their case in such a public way in order to lobby city officials stikes us as incongruous at best. It is odd that an organization that took so much care to hide the true intent of their plans from city officials just a few short months before, suddenly claims that now full page newspaper ads front and center in the public eye were the only means to lobby those same officials. Whom are they kidding?
September 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The "four predicate acts" again? One of them was the testimony of a "Miss Hollywood," who so blatantly lied that she was easily refuted by a news clipping from the LosAngelesTimes. These so-called predicate acts were never really vetted in the lower federal court in Chicago, and never made it to SCOTUS, probably because NOW's attorneys felt they couldn't be supported. PLAL however, was fully prepared to refute them. So why don,t you Aurora pro-aborts just admit the NOW case was a lying frame-up and shut up?
September 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Obviously a jury believed the testimony of the witnesses at trial.
It appears that they were well enough "vetted" that a jury found them credible. As to the issue not making it to SCOTUS, NOW doesn't decide which issues SCOTUS will hear — that's strictly up to the justices.
You kids and your "proabout" language. May I point out that virtually no one posting here is pro-abortion. Most, if not all, would counsel (if asked) against having the abortion. The real positional difference is that pro-choice people believe that, in the end, we are all equally responsible for our actions and that no-one has the right to impose their beliefs and views. If, in fact, people were pro-abortion, then they would insist that you have an abortion, for whatever reasons they feel are applicable, regardless of your opposition to it. For example, "pro-abortion" people would demand that anyone testing positive for down syndrome or another disorders must have an abortion, and then have that forced on you through legislation. I think we can agree that this is certainly not the case. Then again, maybe we can't.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
It really strains credulity to suggest pro-choice supporters of Planned Parenthood Inc., the world's largest single provider of abortions, are not pro-abortion. Read their (PP's) literature. Look at their abortion statistics. If indeed they are not pro-aborts, they sure have a funny way of going about showing it.
OK you say, PP may be pro-abort, but we who volunteer there and work there and support them financially and vote for politicians who support PP and write letters and blogs in support of PP and participate in rallies in support of PP and rail against those who want to shut down PP, we are not pro-aborts.
If someone were to say he/she is against capital punishment but does everything to the contrary of that belief except pull the lever, one would be correct in saying despite what the person says he/she really does support capital punishment.
Pro-choice is a term that denotes support of abortion rights, pure and simple. If one supports abortion rights, whether it be even in the most rare of circumstances, that person is for (pro) abortion. That is why the term "pro-life with exceptions" is a fraud.
Posted today on Jill Stanek is one Ms.Camille Paglia who is pro-choice. She writes that: "Hence I have always believed that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful." Nevertheless she is pro-choice because she feels the state does not have the right to "intervene in the biological processes of a woman's body."
Camille's observation helps immensely to bring clarity and intellectual honesty to the issue. The question comes down to not whether one is pro-choice or, be it as it may, "pro-abort." Rather, it seems the pre-eminent issue is if one recognizes being pro-choice is favoring the right of women to engage in murder of their unborn children, as does Ms. Paglia, or if one believes that being pro-choice is a warm and fuzzy thing that does not have life and death consequences.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
[...] In the past twelve months, I've been involved in three different federal cases, and another that may reach the federal level before the end. So I care an awful lot about the judicial [...]
September 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
[...] trying to get their clinic opened (they were participating in “important public issues”. Again, as Eric wrote: nothing in it [Judge Brawka's ruling] addressed the merits of our case. You would think that a [...]
October 31st, 2008 at 12:25 pm