title: Supreme Court rejects another anti-choice appeal in racketeering suit.
abstract: Without comment on December 12, the US Supreme Court denied two requests for review from anti-choice activists in Scheidler vs Delaware Women's Health Organization and Miller vs Delaware Women's Health Organization, which grew out of a class action suit filed by women's health clinics under the federal anti-racketeering statute.  Since the US Supreme Court decision in NOW vs Scheidler last January (see RFN III/2), the anti-choice defendants have made at least a dozen attempts to prevent a trial that would determine whether they violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  In NOW vs Scheidler, the High Court rejected their claim that RICO cannot be applied to organized, illegal anti-choice activities because the defendants are not motivated by an economic gain.  In this latest round, the two petitions asserted that unlawful actions, including blockades and property destruction, do not constitute extortion and are protected by the First Amendment.  Under RICO, private plaintiffs can file suit against individuals who conspire to use an organization to engage in a pattern of racketeering, including acts of extortion.  Extortion is defined under the Hobbs Act as the use of force, threats, or other wrongful means to deprive the plaintiff of a property interest, such as engaging in a legal business.  Plaintiffs in these cases are the National Organization for Women (NOW) and two women's health facilities--Delaware Women's Health Organization and Summit Women's Health Organization (Milwaukee)--which represent a class of clinics across the country.  Defendants Operation Rescue, Project Life, and Pro-Life Action League, are also joined by several anti-choice activists including Joseph Scheidler and Randall Terry.
mesh_terms: D000028:Abortion, Induced; D000569:Americas; D019049:Developed Countries; D005193:Family Planning Services; D007603:Jurisprudence; D009656:North America; D011057:Politics; D011639:Public Opinion; D014481:United States
keywords: Abortion, Induced--legal aspects; Americas; Anti-abortion Groups; Court Decision; Developed Countries; Family Planning; Fertility Control, Postconception; Interest Groups; North America; Northern America; Political Factors; United States