Document: /pub/resources/text/breakpoint: SCabort.940429.TXT The following document is provided, courtesy of David McMeans ÒFollow up observations on the Supreme Court caseÓ ------------------------------------------------------------- Follow up observations on the Supreme Court case Others will certainly have their opinions, but I will weigh in with the following early observations from news reports of the Supreme Court arguments on Melbourne's abortion protest case. Thank you all very much for your continued interest and support. The decision is expected in early June. Until then, pray that the justices are able to clearly see this issue as one about the content of speech. If they do, I believe the pro-life community will win. The following I believe are encouraging observations. 1. USA Today's photo of clinic owner Pat Windle in her usual state: mouth open. 2. Judge Ruth Ginsburg's observation that free speech has been allowed even for the objectionable example of Nazi voices gave serious hope for the pro-life side. 3. On Nat'l Public Radio, one exchange reported had to do with speech content: "some words are intended to hurt, aren't they? Look at Nixon-era protests," observed a justice. Again, a favorable note as the _content_ of speech was the object of the questioning. 4. Pat Windle's complaint afterward gave reason for hope also: she wanted more emphasis on the so-called atmosphere of "violence" that surrounds the demonstrations (she continues to preach this, and people are listening _despite_no_substantiation_whatsoever_!). 5. The observation of a friend of mine that the local (liberal) news- paper seems to put a pro-life spin on the report, noting the incongruity of some speech being allowed while other speech was not - again, based on content. This is startling from that paper. Negatives: 6. New argument from the clinic side went something like this: "we have quiet zones around hospitals and the clinic is a medical facility; therefore, we should be entitled to protection." This should have been taken as a blindsided hit, as the argument has not, to my knowledge, been used in these proceedings before. 7. The pro-life attorney was told by Justice Scalia (USA Today report) that "You have completely confused me." The problem was getting the justices to understand the impact of the injunction. Apparently, Staver (the attorney presenting the pro-life case) did not get across the idea that people were being arrested without a burden of proof for "acting in concert" with those named in the injunction. The questions seemed to be along the lines of "so what's the problem?" and "who's getting hurt?" The answer that should have been given is "anybody who presented a pro-life viewpoint within the no-protest buffer zone!" What went unsaid is that the enforcement of the injunction was selective and based only on whether you were pro-life and present in the buffer, not whether you were actually violating specific provisions of the court order. Irony reigns: remember how people villified anti-Vietnam war protestors for being unAmerican, communist sympathizers, and the like? [Well, no, I suppose we don't since Clinton got elected]. Anyway, present before the Court yesterday was a Clinton administration attorney arguing in FAVOR of the anti-pro-life-protest injunction. And he still says he believes there are too many abortions in the US. I am sure that Clinton himself doesn't parallel this event with his own, unpopular demonstra- tions against the Vietnam war, but I know that the justices themselves picked up on it! (See observation #3). Score one for the pro-lifers. Confusion is certainly a possibility in these proceedings, as each side only gets to present its case for about 15 minutes (I believe). Since there is a lot to present, clarity is difficult. Furthermore, at this point, the justices have to assume that the premise for issuing the injunction - threats of violence, paranoia, noise, etc. that were alleged - are indeed fact. No arguments against this were heard yesterday. This certainly may color the deliberations of each justice over the next two months. Because of the number of justices asking questions related to observation #'s 2 & 3 above, I believe that the injunction will ultimately lose by about a 6-3 or better count (Blackmun & Stevens dissenting, possibly joined by one other justice). The "medical facility" argument is the most significant concern I have. This could manifest itself into a decision that modifies the injunction to make (all) protesters tone down the volume -- or worse, move pro-lifers away from the building, which would effectively legalize the buffer-zone. Pray without ceasing, -- Alan ----------- David S McMeans BreakPoint with Chuck Colson