Tuesday - February 28, 2006

Supremes Nix RICO For Protesters

Typical liberal bullshit. Scream freedom of speech violation whenever anyone tries to tell them they’re full of crap. But if anyone protests against their agenda like abortion they file a lawsuit claiming racketeering and extortion to shut the opposition up.

I’m getting just about fed up with all this hypocricy from the Left. This whole lawsuit was absurd from the git-go and should have been thrown out of court when it first came to trial - and the jerks who filed this suit should have been sentenced to thirty days hard labor for disturbing the sanity of the entire human race.

What we’re talking about here is ... a failure ... to communicate ...

Supreme Court Backs Abortion Protesters
Feb 28 10:25 AM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (BREITBART)

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.

Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion

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

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create “a freestanding physical violence offense” in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act. Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion groups in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/28/2006 at 01:07 PM   
Filed Under: • Abortion • Judges-Courts-Lawyers •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - February 23, 2006

Battleground

Forget the warring parties in the Middle East. There is about to be another meaner, nastier war right here in America. The opening salvo has been fired from South Dakota. Since South Dakota is in the middle of nowhere, none of the major Liberal forces showed up. No, they’re biding their time until the war moves to Washington, DC and the Supreme Court. Make no mistake. It is coming. You’d better strap on your combat helmets and hunker down in your foxholes. There will be incoming shortly ....

S.D. Closer to Strict Abortion Limits
February 23, 2006, 8:38 AM EST

PIERRE, S.D. (AP)

South Dakota moved closer to imposing some of the strictest limits on abortion in the nation as the state Senate approved legislation that would ban the procedure except when the woman’s life is in danger.

The bill, designed to spark a courtroom showdown over the legality of abortion, passed 23-12 Wednesday. On Thursday, it was headed back to the House, where lawmakers already approved similar legislation.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds, a longtime abortion opponent, has said he would “look favorably” on an abortion ban if it would “save life.” Under the measure, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion. The only exception would be for women who need abortions to save their lives.

“In my opinion, it is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children,” said Sen. Julie Bartling, a Democrat and the bill’s main sponsor. The legislation targets Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Opponents say it is too extreme and unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic that provides abortions in South Dakota, pledged to challenge the measure if it become law.

“South Dakota’s ban is the most sweeping abortion ban passed by any state in more than a decade,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America lawyer Eve Gartner said in a written statement. She said the organization would do everything it could to ensure that women and their doctors, not politicians, made their health care decisions.

Supporters say an anonymous donor has pledged to provide South Dakota with $1 million to help defend the law in court. The recent appointment of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito make the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to consider overturning Roe v. Wade now, Bartling and other supporters said. “It is a calculated risk to be sure, but I believe it is a fight worth fighting,” said Sen. Brock Greenfield, a Republican who also is director of South Dakota Right to Life.

Some senators, including Republicans, were concerned that the legislation did not include exceptions for abortions in cases of rape or incest. Republican Sen. Stan Adelstein said it would be “a continued savagery unworthy of South Dakota” to make a woman bear a child if she becomes pregnant as the result of rape.

The Legislature passed a similar bill two years ago, but Rounds issued a technical veto because it would have wiped existing restrictions off the books while the bill was involved in a court challenge. Including Thursday, the Legislature has five days left before the official end of its session.

Posted by The Skipper     on 02/23/2006 at 09:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
• Comments (14) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - January 23, 2006

The Gathering Storm

It looks like stormy weather is moving into South Dakota and the first major skirmish in the war against abortion will begin here. Look for this one to get real nasty. It should hit SCOTUS in about a year and forty-nine other states will be watching. Everybody get out your protective gear. This promises to be a really bad storm ...

South Dalota Legislature To Consider Abortion Ban
(KELO-TV)

In the next six weeks, South Dakota lawmakers will decide whether to make abortion a crime. A bill that would ban abortion in the state will be introduced within the next two days. The bill will be called the Woman’s Health and Life Protection Act. It will ban abortion, but won’t prosecute a doctor who performs one to save a woman’s life. And the lawmaker who’s introducing the bill says he thinks now is the right time to try and over-turn Roe vs Wade.

Rep. Roger Hunt says, “Abortion should be banned.” Those four words will likely lead to many others in the South Dakota House and Senate as lawmakers will decide whether to criminalize abortion in the state. The bill’s supporters are using findings from a controversial abortion task force report recently given to the legislature. Hunt says, “DNA testing now can establish the unborn child has a separate and distinct personality from the mother. We know a lot more about post-abortion harm to the mother.”

The legislature debated a similar bill two years ago, but Governor Mike Rounds vetoed it because of concerns over some technicalities. Hunt says, “We have made those corrections to the bill.” Sunday, Hunt and other anti-abortion advocates held an event promoting their legislation. They say now is the time to pass it, because other states are considering similar bills and because with new Chief Justice John Roberts, and possibly Samuel Alito, the US Supreme Court is changing.

Hunt says, “Two very solid, we feel, pro-life candidates. Again you never know but based on their testimony to the senate we feel they’re good candidates.” Hunt says he thinks enough other lawmakers support the bill for it to pass, but he still thinks the decision will be a close one. He says, “I learned a long time ago the only time you really count the votes is when you’re taking the votes.”

Hunt will also introduce two other bills this week. One is meant to ensure doctors explain the risks of an abortion to a woman is writing. The other deals with sex education and says school districts need to include principles in their curriculums dealing with abstinence and personal responsibilities.

Demonstrators Mark Roe V. Wade Anniversary
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP)

Thousands of abortion opponents massed outside Minnesota’s Capitol on Sunday in one of several protests nationwide on the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, amid heightened hopes and fears over what a new face on the Supreme Court will mean for the decision establishing abortion rights.

A crowd of sign-wavers clad in parkas, winter boots and collars turned up against a cutting wind to call for a ban on public funding of abortion. “We must stop abortion in our state,” said Scott Fischbach, head of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. “Things are changing in this country.” Many abortion opponents said they were heartened by President Bush’s choice of Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate who was often the court’s swing vote.

Alito, who appears to have solid support from the Senate’s Republican majority, refused during his confirmation hearings to agree with assertions by Democrats that Roe v. Wade was “settled law,” upsetting supporters of abortion rights and heartening opponents. “We have a dream today that someday soon this will not be an anniversary of sadness, but an anniversary of justice restored,” said Minnesota’s Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

In San Francisco, thousands of abortion opponents shouldering signs with slogans such as “Peace Begins in the Womb” marched Saturday, while abortion rights supporters along the march route waved clothes hangers and shouted “Bigots go home.” “Abortion rights have been slowly whittled away while we haven’t even been looking,” said Kitty Striker, 22, who decorated her hair with small coat hanger replicas for the counter-protest. “That’s what’s so shocking and so scary to me.”

In Idaho, nearly 400 abortion protesters marched at the Statehouse Saturday, including Reid Richardson and his 5-year-old stepdaughter, Allie Zebley, who carried sign with her ultrasound photo and the words, “This is me at 16 weeks.” About half that number gathered Sunday outside the Idaho Capitol in support of abortion rights. “When American women are barred from accessing health services at the whim of a politician’s religious beliefs, we are not in a democracy at all,” said Bree Herndon-Michael, a member of the Idaho Women’s Network.

The largest abortion demonstration was expected Monday in Washington, D.C., where anti-abortion activists planned to converge on the mall to hear speakers supporting their cause and march on the Congress and Supreme Court. Many who support abortion rights held a candlelight vigil in front of the Supreme Court Sunday night, waving signs that read: “Alito-No Justice For Women,” and “Keep Abortion Legal.”

The nation’s high court made abortion legal on Jan. 22, 1973. But efforts to restrict or outlaw the procedure have been just as enduring; 34 states have passed laws requiring parents either to be notified or to give consent when their underage daughters seek abortions. This year, abortion foes in Minnesota will try to encourage the Legislature to ban public funding of abortions for Medicaid recipients, which has been required since a 1995 state Supreme Court decision. They are also campaigning against the re-election of a justice who supported the decision.

In Michigan, a group of ministry leaders used the anniversary to launch a new anti-abortion organization, Michigan Chooses Life. One goal is to support efforts to get a measure on the 2006 ballot that would change the state constitution to legally define a person as existing at the moment of conception. The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has said that even if the measure does succeed, it will be challenged in court.

Posted by The Skipper     on 01/23/2006 at 07:15 AM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
• Comments (31) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner