Anti-Abortion Extremist Will Stand Trial for Threatening a Provider

[niyad]

Anti-Abortion Extremist Will Stand Trial for Threatening a Provider


A Kansas anti-abortion extremist will have to stand trial for threats made against a doctor planning to provide abortions, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.




In a powerful decision for abortion providers being threatened by extremists, the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals found in a 2-1 ruling that a jury – not a judge – should determine whether or not a 2011 letter Angel Dillard sent to Dr. Mila Means constitutes a true threat actionable under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The ruling overturns a lower court’s summary decision that Dillard’s letter was constitutionally protected free speech.

“This decision sends a critical message to extremists across the country,” said Feminist Majority Foundation National Clinic Access Project director duVergne Gaines. “The law is clear: threatening abortion providers with stalking, car bombs and murder is not protected speech under the First Amendment. The decision strongly reinforces the integrity of FACE and its use to stop threats and other conduct designed to terrorize and intimidate providers and patients. We applaud the Department of Justice’s commitment to prosecute extremists like Dillard and protect abortion providers across the country.”

The Department of Justice brought a civil FACE lawsuit against Dillard after she sent a threatening letter to Dr. Means, a family practitioner who was in training to provide abortions in Wichita. “We will not let this abomination continue without doing everything we can to stop it,” Dillard wrote. “You will be checking under your car everyday – because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.” At the time the letter was sent, abortion services had not been available in Wichita since May of 2009, when Dr. George Tiller was murdered by anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder.

The Appeals court decision corrected the lower court’s two key findings when granting summary judgment for Dillard, stating that it did not matter that the threats contained in Dillard’s letter were conditional because many “true threats” are conditional and are not protected by the First Amendment. Secondly, the Appeals court stated it did not matter whether or not Dillard intended to carry out the threats contained in her letter; the letter could still be construed by a jury to intentionally threaten and intimidate Dr. Means out of providing safe legal abortions.

. . . .

http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2015/08/03/kansas-anti-abortion-extremist-to-stand-trial-for-threats-made-against-doctor/

[guillaumeb]

1. THIS is what terrorism looks like in the US. Recommended.

[niyad]

3. they didn't even bother to call it terrorism when the clinics were suffering the anthrax

attacks.

[guillaumeb]

4. True, because the US media does not recognize right wing domestic terrorism. eom

[niyad]

5. especially when directed against women.

[niyad]

2. . . . .

[Person 2713]

6. A conviction and sentence may send a message to others thinking of doing the same

A crime to threaten to blow someone up
A crime to kill someone you simply do not agree with

[niyad]

7. I would hope that would be the case, but these extreme women-haters are beyond reason.

[niyad]

8. . . .