OPINION
Decision on RICO law means little in abortion battle
Martin Fishf.r
"Convictions nrr more date
gerous enemies of truth than
lies "— Friedrich Nietzsche
By now you've probably
hoard about the Supreme
Court's abortion ruling
Monday, allowing anti-abortion
protesters to be sued under fed
ural racketeering laws (called
RICO). If you're like most peo
ple. you probably have at least
one of the two following ques
»tions on your mind: 1) What is
RICO? and; 2) What does Mon
day's decision really mean?
RICO is the Racketeer Influ
enced Corrupt Organizations
Act. a piece of l‘)7i)s legislation
that was originally intended to
provide a powerful weapon in
the fight against organized
crime.
In a nutshell, a RICO violation
requires engaging in any one of a
broad list of offenses, including
mail fraud, securities fraud and
interference in commerce, at
least twice There also inusi lx? a
threat of continued violations If
found liable under RICO, the
guilty party must pay threefold
damages
So what does this have to do
with abortion? In the usual
sense in which discussions of
abortion occur, not much. Mon
day's decision makes no men
tion of the right to choose, and
in fact makes virtually no men
tion of abortion other than to
describe the activities of those
involved in the suit
Perhaps it would help at this
point to put the case in some
perspective. The suit involves
the National Organization for
Women and couple of abortion
clinics and a number of uuti
ahortion activists and organiza
tions. The claim is that the
activists' blockading of clinics
and terrorizing of employees
and patients has caused the i lin
ics economic damages (spec ifi
callv. they are charged with vio
lating the Hobbs Act. which has
to do with extortion)
The suit goes on to claim that
the repetitive nature of the
offenses is sufficient to justify a
RICO claim. The suit was dis
missed by an Illinois district
court and the dismissal was
upheld by the Court of Appeals
for the 7th Circuit
The reason for the dismissal
was that the t ourts lielieved that
for a RKX) i Iflim to bo valid, th»>
offending parts must have l»>t>n
staking some economic: benefit.
The courts decided the anti
abortion groups were not milk
ing money by blockading i Un
its, and thus there could he no
RICO claim
All the Supreme Court said
Monday was that a RICO action
does not require the defendant
to have sought economu benefit
from the otherwise illegal ncti\
its It then reinstated the low
suit. which will now go to trial
Pro-choice advocates are
already claiming victory, and
the decision is being heralded as
placing a potent new weapon in
the pro-c hoice arsenal Howev
er, suc h proclamations are pre
mature All the Court said is that
a RICO suil may bo brought
against % mlators who don't gain
monetarily from their ac tions.
The success of such a suit
remains to be seen.
And in fact, the sure ess of
such an action was questioned
by justices Souter and Kennedy.
who in a concurring opinion
pointed out that sue h a suit mnv
not survive a First Amendment
challenge
It will be a number of years
before the question is resolved,
and eventually this case will all
hut assuredly return to the
Supreme Court on i First
Amendment question Activists
lire already claiming the dec i
mod si i fles their efforts to
protest at abortion clinics It
does no such thing Rather, it
stifles their efforts to inflict eco
nomic damage on a clinic by
blocking access, harassing
patients and destroy ing proper
ty
In issues of free speech, the
courts have tried hard to distin
guish between speet h and
action Molding a sign and
chanting slogans outside a c Un
it is speech Physic ally restrict
mg access and vandalism are
actions It is the latter at tivities
that are the basis for this lacs
suit, and it is unlikely that those
activities will ho considered
protes ted speech
If pigeon-holing people into
categories like- "liberal" and
"conservative'' is how you get
your ku ks. then you might be
interested to know that Mon
day's derision will do more to
interfere with "liberal" activists
than with "conservative"
activists
Groups such as PITA. Green
peac e and Knrth First! are now
w ide open to RICO suits, only a
couple of whic h would be
required to liankrupt an organi
zation For example, tree spiking
causes et onomic harm, and thus
will expose offenders to RIGO
suits Interferenc e with fishing
vessels could create a Kil l)
action.
In short, every activist group
would lie wise to re-evaluate its
protest methods to ensure that
they do not expose themselves
to a potentially devastating law
suit.
It is worth noting that Mon
day's decision was unanimous
This is not a case of the "lilieral"
Court furthering the Clinton
agenda of baby killing, as some
anti abortion cliques are claim
ing The dei ision was written hv
Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
not exactly the poster child for
liberal causes
Rather, this is a case of the
court say mg that those who vio
late the law i annot escape lia
hihty liecause they are political
ly or morally motivated instead
of liemg ei onomicallv driven.
No one is suggesting that anti
abortion protesters cannot con
tinue to protest at clinics, and if
their moral values require them
to do so. they should he given
tiie same degree of reaper t as
anti-war or environmental pro
testers
if the suit is suci essful. it will
send a powerful message to all
who would protest You may
say yvliat you like, hut you will
tie held responsible for your
ai turns, "moral'' or otherrvise
Miirtin hshitr is a iolii/nno-l
for thi' i merald
LETTERS
Placing blame
When people experience feel
ings in themselves with which
they're uncomfortable. they con
demn th.it whit h reminds them
of those feelings.
The OCA reminds people of
hatred they feel inside, and peo
ple blame the OCA for the expe
rience of hatred This is paral
leled by OCA members who
blame homosexuals, who
remind them of the feeling of
hatred.
Helen Posey [ODE. |an. 25) is
reminded of the feeling of
hatred by other people's belief
in God.
Il is easy to deny one s own
hatred In blaming those who
remind one of it. however, it's
difficult to take responsibility
for feelings one has that don't
feel good.
Some .ire so afraid of facing
feelings that they try to make
laws to prohibit expression that
reminds them of how they feel
To avoid feelings, barriers to
free expression have been creat
ed
To illustrate this point. 1 offer
some free expression;
hvery week they added
to the list of regulations
One for every occasion
which
might make them feel
The very things about
themselves for which they
lacked acceptance
They continued their insis
tenet*
that thev were fitting real
Pointing fingers uutwnrdi)
detached from their
weak spots
It was always others, not
themselves, from which
the problems came
l or if thev felt each
circumstance, they'd touch
where they aren't happy
I he feelings there are
"cruppv." so they stick
with rules and blame
Jeffrey Oswald
Eugene
Offensive
This is a reply to the letter
from Helen Posev (ODE. )an 15)
regarding her opinion that Iwlief
in God is the cause ol intoler
ance such as that shown by the
OCA. anti-abortion organiza
tions and the anti-( ivil rights
groups
First you are wrong Many
religious people do not agree
with the doctrines held by these
groups and very likely there are
non-religious people yvho do.
Belief in a divine being has
nothing to do with intolerant
behavior It is unfortunate that
there are a number of people
who claim God is the basis for
their OW'D intolerance
Second, no one is requiring
you to believe in God In this
country, we have freedom of
religion. The University did not
LETTERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald will attempt to print all letters
containing comments on topics of interest to the University
community.
Letters to the editor must be limited to no more than 250
words, legible, signed and the identifuation of tho writer must
be verified when the letter is submitted.
The Emerald reserves the right to edit any letter for length or
style.
ask VOU to profess ,1 belief I!)
God to bei uiiiii a student or to
hold a job, did it"' Nor will it
prevent someone else from dis
cussing their beliefs with regard
to (iod or religion
Finally your letter is offen
sive That’s right, offensive
When you publicly denigrate
something that many people
cherish and dw lure it "silliness''
to believe in such a thing, you
are being offensive, as well as
intolerant You could have stat
ed your opinion in a much nit er
way.
If I muv rephrase a sentence
from your letter
"Until people dump intoler
ance along with the rest of their
K<irlmgi\ I hurt* will tic no
advaiuaiimmt iti the human con
dition
Samantha Corte
Student
Heil Fisher!
Kumur lias it that Martin Fish
er wrote another column for the
Fmcrald Although I haven't
rend it (and won't). I'm sure it
was as crappy as all his others
One look at his Hitleresque
moustache and liberal hating
glam, and 1 knew this was one I
had to miss 1 didn’t even read
the first sentem e — doing so
would have degraded my
humanity
fisher Ini-, gut to stop quoting
( elehrilies ,it tho start ot lus
i olumns It s time to abandon
the crutch, Martin hoove it
alone ]ust because you • an t
think oI creative ipint.it inns
yoursnlf, thorn's no mason to
slander other people's words
with your asinine observations.
Did everyone notice that I'ish
nr mnssnd up his suhjtu t-verh
agreement. again'1 At Innst, I'm
assuming h« did He always
dons Knniomhnr, I didn't mad
the column If it weren't for
copy editors, this guy would he
working at the Commrntator (oh
wait, he already is)
Rivers Janssen
Eugene
Date 29th January 1994
Time: 7 pm
Venue: EMU Ball Room
Price: $7 Students
$8 non-students
(Tickets available at EMU Mam Desk and front door)