Anti-Abortion Tactics On Trial In Lawsuit Now Uses Federal Racketeering Law To Allege Nationwide Conspiracy Of Violence, Intimidation
A federal class-action lawsuit filed 12 years ago charging anti-abortion protesters with a conspiracy of extortion and violence to close abortion clinics finally begins today in Chicago, and its resolution could have national reverberations.
In the suit, the National Organization for Women accuses the Pro-Life Action League and Operation Rescue of managing a nationwide campaign to shut down abortion clinics through acts or threats of physical violence and arson, among other things.
Several of the key players in the suit are based in Chicago, including the husband-wife legal team representing the plaintiffs as well as defendant Joseph M. Scheidler and his Pro-Life Action League.
“It feels exhilarating” to be on the eve of the trial, said Chicago attorney Fay Clayton, who has been with the case from the start and is representing the class of women who have used abortion clinics or may use them in the future. Clayton’s husband, Lowell E. Sachnoff, recently was put on the case to represent more than 1,000 abortion clinics nationwide, but none in Spokane.
“It feels like we are coming close to the end of an extremely long road and an extremely important battle for women’s lives,” Clayton said. “It will be a hard-fought case.”
To Chicago attorney Tom Brejcha, who joined the case 11 years ago and is representing Scheidler and his league, “there is no other case I can think of that quite involves an entire industry.”
Indeed, said Clayton, the scope of the case is unprecedented. And it has nationwide significance.
Though abortion protesters can be prosecuted now under local, state and some federal statutes, if NOW prevails in the suit, there could be a permanent nationwide injunction against the defendants. They and anyone working with them could be barred from using any method to forcibly interfere with the operations of more than 1,000 abortion clinics in the U.S., as well as with a woman’s right to use those clinics.
Also, the federal racketeering law being used by the plaintiffs allows for the prospect of triple damages - which in this case could include the costs of extra security precautions taken at the clinics.
Anti-abortion defendants say a loss would have far-reaching significance for free speech. Other radical protest groups, such as animal rights activists, also could be sued using the federal racketeering law originally designed to combat organized crime, Brejcha said.
In a novel use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the attorneys for NOW must prove certain violent acts that have occurred at clinics nationwide - clinic burnings, vandalism, harassment of staff - are part of a pattern of racketeering activity engineered by the defendants.
Two lower federal courts in Chicago dismissed the suit on the grounds that the racketeering act applied only to activities motivated by economic gain - and the anti-abortion groups were not motivated by economics. But the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994 ruled Congress had not included an economic motive in the 1970 law and returned the case for trial.
Jury selection in the case is scheduled to begin today and arguments on Wednesday in a trial that is slated to last three to four weeks in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge David H. Coar.
Scheidler and his colleagues will argue their activism is protected under the First Amendment right to free speech. Scheidler, for example, has written a book called “CLOSED: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion,” and has produced videos and led conferences on anti-abortion activism.
A central issue in the case, Brejcha said, is “the question of what sort of speech could be criminalized as an extortion and threat, as distinguished from constitutionally protected speech on a public issue of pressing concern. That’s a fine line.
“They are acting as if there is some tightly organized, disciplined group; it’s not, it’s a broad social movement comprised of tens or hundreds of thousands around the country who act according to their own convictions,” said Brejcha (pronounced BRECK-ah).
“I want to stop abortion any way I can but through non-violent, peaceful means,” said Scheidler, 70, who founded the league in 1980. “I hate it when I hear about … Birmingham. We get blamed for it, automatically,” said Scheidler, referring to the bombing in January of an abortion clinic in which a police officer was killed.
In addition to Scheidler and his Pro-Life Action League, also named as defendants are Tim Murphy of the league and Andrew Scholberg, who was formerly with the league, and Operation Rescue. Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, settled personally with the plaintiffs on Feb. 18, agreeing to protest clinics only with lawful means, said Larry Crain, the attorney representing Operation Rescue. Terry is running for Congress.
Clayton and the other plaintiffs’ attorneys must prove that the anti-abortion activists or someone in their group engaged two or more times in crimes covered by the RICO act, and that they did so in connection with the defendants in the case.
“We’re going to show hundreds” of crimes, said Clayton, who added that the “connection” between the defendants in the case and those committing RICO crimes is their shared goal.
“Their goal is to drive clinics out of business through unlawful means. They adopt different tactics,” Clayton said. “At one time they were big on human chains, locking arms to block an entrance. Then it was junker cars in front of doors. Or kryptonite locks. Or they would pour glue in the locks. They teach it at their training sessions; that shows the relationship, the connection.”
The idea that activist organizations will be silenced out of fear that they will be sued under the racketeering law is “phony,” Clayton said. “Most legitimate groups don’t want to resort to extortion,” she said.
xxxx WHAT’S AT STAKE In a novel use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act the attorneys for NOW must prove certain violent acts that have occurred at clinics nationwide arson, vandalism, harassment of staff are part of a pattern of racketeering activity engineered by the defendants.