American Coalition of Life Activists

Last updated

The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) was a controversial anti-abortion advocacy group in the United States. The organization was known for its extreme tactics, including the creation of "wanted-style" posters targeting abortion providers, which led to significant legal battles over the limits of free speech and the definition of threats.

Contents

History

During a 1995 meeting, the group unveiled a "wanted" poster that listed the names and addresses of a "Deadly Dozen" abortion providers. The poster accused them of "crimes against humanity" and offered a $5,000 reward for the "arrest, conviction and revocation of license to practice medicine" of these physicians. The poster was published in Life Advocate magazine. A second poster targeted a doctor, Robert Crist, offered a reward for persuading him "to turn from his child killing," and included his name, address, and photo. [1] [2]

In 1996 the coalition revealed its "Nuremberg Files" which included dossiers on abortion providers, politicians, judges, clinic employees and other abortion rights supporters. They claimed that these dossiers could be used for trials for "crimes against humanity" when the nation's laws changed to prohibit abortion. Neal Horsley, an activist, published the information on his website. His website greyed the names of those injured and crossed out the names of those killed by anti-abortion activists. [1] [3]

The ACLA's activities led to significant legal challenges, most notably in the case of Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists . Planned Parenthood successfully sued the ACLA, arguing that their posters and website constituted a threat to abortion providers. Although the posters and website did not contain explicit threats, the jury awarded $107 million in damages. The coalition appealed the verdict on First Amendment grounds. Initially, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, ruling that the ACLA's actions were protected speech under the First Amendment since they did not directly threaten harm to the plaintiffs and were not communicated privately. However, the en banc 9th Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the ACLA could be held liable for damages because the website's content was intended as a deliberate threat, anticipating that someone might act on it, which is not protected by the First Amendment. [1] [2]

The decision was heavily influenced by the fact that several abortion providers had been murdered following the publication of such materials. The majority of the en banc Ninth Circuit concluded that the posters and website were designed to intimidate, rather than persuade, abortion providers, which constituted a "true threat" under the FACE Act​​. [4] [5] [6]

Broader Implications

The case highlighted the ongoing debate over the limits of free speech and the definition of threats. It underscored the tension between advocating controversial political views and inciting violence. Legal scholars and commentators have debated whether the court's decision appropriately balanced First Amendment protections with the need to prevent intimidation and violence against specific individuals. [7] [8] [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States abortion-rights movement</span> Support for womens right to elective abortion

The United States abortion-rights movement is a sociopolitical movement in the United States supporting the view that a woman should have the legal right to an elective abortion, meaning the right to terminate her pregnancy, and is part of a broader global abortion-rights movement. The movement consists of a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act</span> 2003 U.S. federal law banning partial-birth abortion

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, any physician "who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both". The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (PPFA), or simply Planned Parenthood, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that provides reproductive and sexual healthcare, and sexual education in the United States and globally. It is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

Otis O'Neal Horsley, Jr. was a militant anti-abortion activist and Christian Reconstructionist who produced a website called the Nuremberg Files, which provided the home addresses of abortion providers in the United States.

Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that perform abortions or provide abortion counseling. Incidents of violence have included destruction of property, including vandalism; crimes against people, including kidnapping, stalking, assault, attempted murder, and murder; and crimes affecting both people and property, as well as arson and terrorism, such as bombings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas More Law Center</span> Christian conservative law firm in Michigan, US

The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian, conservative, nonprofit, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and active throughout the United States. According to the Thomas More Law Center website, its goals are to "preserve America's Judeo-Christian heritage, defend the religious freedom of Christians, restore time-honored moral and family values, protect the sanctity of human life, and promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M. Margaret McKeown</span> American judge (born 1951)

Mary Margaret McKeown is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Diego. McKeown has served on the Ninth Circuit since her confirmation in 1998.

Governments sometimes take measures designed to afford legal protection of access to abortion. Such legislation often seeks to guard facilities which provide induced abortion against obstruction, vandalism, picketing, and other actions, or to protect patients and employees of such facilities from threats and harassment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law in the United States by state</span> Termination of pregnancy in states of the United States

The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly, depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction, although there is no uniform federal law. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions; others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while some allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements.

A true threat is a threatening communication that can be prosecuted under the law. It is distinct from a threat that is made in jest, or a threatening remark that no reasonable person would perceive to be a genuine threat, intended to be acted upon. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that true threats are not protected under the U.S. Constitution based on three justifications: preventing fear, preventing the disruption that follows from that fear, and diminishing the likelihood that the threatened violence will occur. There is some concern that even satirical speech could be regarded as a "true threat" due to concern over terrorism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abby Johnson (activist)</span> American activist and author (born 1980)

Abby Johnson is an American anti-abortion activist who previously worked at Planned Parenthood as a clinic director, but resigned in October 2009. She states that she resigned after watching an abortion on ultrasound. The veracity of her account and the details and motivation for her conversion have been challenged by investigative reporters, as medical records contradict some of her claims.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment."

Abortion in Alaska is legal on demand at all stages of pregnancy, as long as a licensed physician performs the procedure. As of 2016, Alaska does not require a minor to notify a parent or guardian in order to obtain an abortion. 63% of adults said in a poll by the Pew Research Center that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Alaska was one of only four states to make abortion legal between 1967 and 1970, a few years before the US Supreme Court's decision in 1973's Roe v. Wade ruling. Alaska had consent requirements for women seeking abortions by 2007 that required abortion providers to warn patients of a link between abortion and breast cancer, despite it being scientifically unsupported.

Abortion in Colorado is legal at all stages of pregnancy. It is one of seven states without any term restrictions as to when a pregnancy can be terminated.

Abortion in Michigan is legal at all stages of pregnancy. A state constitutional amendment to explicitly guarantee abortion rights was placed on the ballot in 2022 as Michigan Proposal 22–3; it passed with 57 percent of the vote, adding the right to abortion and contraceptive use to the Michigan Constitution. The amendment largely prevents the regulation of abortion before fetal viability, unless said regulations are to protect the individual seeking an abortion, and it also makes it unconstitutional to make laws restricting abortions which would protect the life and health, physical and/or mental, of the pregnant individual seeking abortion.

Abortion in South Dakota is illegal. Anyone who induces an abortion is guilty of a Class 6 felony. An exception is included to "preserve the life of the pregnant female," given appropriate and reasonable medical judgment.

Abortion in Maryland is legal at all stages of pregnancy. The first laws regulating abortion in the state were passed in 1867 and 1868, banning abortion except by a physician to "secure the safety of the mother." Abortion providers continued to operate both within and outside of the law. Legal enforcement became more strict from the 1940s through 60s, with numerous police raids on abortion providers. In 1968, Maryland passed a liberalized abortion law that clarified the wording of the previous law, allowing abortion in hospital settings in cases of rape, severe fetal deformity, or when life and health were endangered.

<i>Planned Parenthood v. Rounds</i> 2012 US legal decision

Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889, is an Eighth Circuit decision addressing the constitutionality of a South Dakota law which forced doctors to make certain disclosures to patients seeking abortions. The challenged statute required physicians to convey to their abortion-seeking patients a number of state-mandated disclosures, including a statement that abortions caused an "[i]ncreased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, along with its medical director Dr. Carol E. Ball, challenged the South Dakota law, arguing that it violated patients' and physicians' First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. After several appeals and remands, the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the South Dakota law, holding that the mandated suicide advisement was not "unconstitutionally misleading or irrelevant," and did "not impose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions or their physicians." This supplemented the Eighth Circuit's earlier rulings in this case, where the court determined that the state was allowed to impose a restrictive emergency exception on abortion procedures and to force physicians to convey disclosures regarding the woman's relationship to the fetus and the humanity of the fetus.

<i>Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists</i> 2002 US legal case

Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (2002), was a freedom of speech case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over statements by anti-abortion activists who publicized personal information about specific abortion doctors, and indirectly suggested the possibility of violence against those individuals. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon that the speech was a true threat that is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Karen Sweigert, M.D., Plaintiff, v. Monica Migliorino Miller; Donald Treshman, Defendants-Appellants". findlaw.com. December 19, 2001. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  2. 1 2 "Free Speech - Abortion and Reproduction Law – Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, --- F.3d ----, 2001 WL 293260 (9th Cir. 2001)". law.lsu.edu. VersusLaw. Retrieved 9 October 2019.
  3. ↑ Colb, Sherry F. (December 19, 2001). "A Threat by Any Other Name: Do The Nuremberg Files Cross The First Amendment Line?". findlaw.com. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
  4. ↑ "Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists (9th Cir.) (2002)". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
  5. ↑ "Planned Parenthood v. Amer. Coal. of Life, 290 F.3d 1058". casetext.com. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
  6. ↑ "Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists". Legal Momentum. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
  7. ↑ "Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
  8. ↑ "A Threat by Any Other Name: Do The Nuremberg Files Cross The First Amendment Line?". FindLaw. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
  9. ↑ "Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists". Casetext. Retrieved 2024-06-11.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.