CNN Views World Through Far Left Pro-Abortion Lens
CNN Headline is "Court deals setback to abortion clinics" (see http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/28/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html)
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.
If you just scanned the headline and description below it you might think that this new anti-abortion Supreme Court had dealt a "setback to abortion clinics." In this case, however, the ruling was 8-0 (Justice Alito sat out) and the opinion was written by Clinton appointee, Justice Stephen Breyer. In this case, NOW filed a class action suit alleging that pro-life individuals and organizations "engaged in a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through violence and other unlawful acts," and NOW wanted these pro-lifers held legally (civilly) accountable under a federal extortion law (the Hobbes Act) and under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).
The Hobbs Act makes it a federal crime to "obstruc[t], dela[y], or affec[t] commerce ... by ... robbery or extortion ... or commit[ting] or threaten[ing] physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section." 18 U. S. C. §1951(a),
RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) defines a proscribed "pattern of racketeering activity," in terms of certain predicate acts that include extortion. See 18 U.S.C. §1961, et seq.
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.
Instead, Breyer wrote, Congress chose to address violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which set parameters for such protests.
CNN's headline is so far left that in the article it admits that:
Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with abortion demonstrators in arguing that lawsuits and injunctions based on the federal extortion law could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.
Even with the a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, which is agreed to by the ACL-CIO and other "social activists," CNN still thinks that the Court dealt a setback to abortion clinics.
How about a headline about the Court applying congressional intent to a law and deciding accordingly and not deciding a case according to a political objective?