From: crail@nevada.edu (DONNA CRAIL-RUGOTZKE)
Subject: Re: Operation Rescue
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:39:19 GMT

In article <AULTJ.92Sep1152939@caleb.rpi.edu> aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:
>In article <68.844.uupcb@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us> daniel.moran@pcb.batpad.lgb.ca.us (Daniel Moran)  writes:
>
>   JN>allowing an end-run around the First Amendment.  This approach could
>   JN>have been used in the '60s to jail sit-in protestors on felony charges.
>   JN>Or Operation Rescue protestors today.
>
>   JN>        It's hard, but as with the "hate speech" issue, you have to
>   JN>separate words from actions and punish only the illegal actions.
>   JN>Otherwise you end up with people you agree with being silenced.
>
>   You're correct; you must separate actions from words. But let's note
>   that what Operation Rescue does is not an exercise of free speech; they
>   surround and blockade clinics that are legally in operation, engaging in
>   trespass on the clinic's property, and
>
>All this is true, and also was true of the sit-in protestors of the '60s.
>
>   harrassment of the clinic's customers. 
>
>Harassment?  How many examples of this have you actually *seen* personally?
>I would say that the majority of these protests are peaceful, and not
>harassing at all.  However, many people on the pro-abortion side feel
>that even walking in front of someone with a sign is harassment.
>
>   Let's throw in the death threats that have been directed at
>   the owners of such clinics, and the staff that work therein, and we
>   clearly are not dealing with anything recognizable as "speech," of any
>   sort.
>
>What death threats?  When?  Where?  Many people on the pro-abortion side
>mention these, but I have not seen anyone produce any attempt at
>evidence of these things.  Just a newspaper clipping that *documents*
>one (not just allegations) would be nice.
>
>Were you in Buffalo in April?  Which side was chanting and shouting
>and blocking the doors? The pro-abortion side.  Which side was
>peacefully walking up and down on the other side of the street?
>
>Which side was closer to harassment?
>--
>Jim Ault, ITS Systems Programmer, aultj@rpi.edu    <><

According to an August issue of the  Las Vegas-Review Journal (sorry, I can't
remember the exact day), a clinic in Reno was set on fire.  Arson was 
suspected.   No lives nor property was destroyed.  

According to one of the local television channels, a local Right-to-Life group
(I believe it was called the Cornerstone Church), was posting pictures all over
town of suppossedly aborted fetuses.  Unfortunately, they also decided to post 
these pictures on private property.  One of the people, who received one of 
these pictures, was a pro-choice candidate running for office.    She seemed
to feel that the picture was a threat.  

The reporter asked 2 Cornerstone Church leaders about the picture.  Although 
the pictures had the name of the church printed on them, the church leaders
would neither confirm or deny posting the pictures.  When the reporter 
pressed them further, they basically told her that they would pray for her
and walked away.  If these pro-lifers really believe what they are doing 
is right, why don't they take credit for their actions?

Unfortunately, the Las Vegas Review-Journal did not mention this incident.
The paper has mentioned  several incidences of Operation Rescue members
waving fetuses in front of those who disagree with them.  Some people would
consider this harrassment.   

Peace,
Donna
crail@nevada.edu