Is this man a terrorist?

Many people across my Facebook feed are quick to call Christian pastor Josh Feuerstein a terrorist for a video he posted to his Facebook page back in July:

In case the video gets taken down, here's what Feuerstein said:

Planned Parenthood has hunted down millions and millions of little innocent babies, stuck a knife into the uterus, cut them, pulled them out, crushed their skull with forceps, ripped their body apart, sold their tissue, and threw them bleeding into a trash bin.

I say, tonight, we punish Planned Parenthood. I think it’s time that abortion doctors should have to run and hide and be afraid for their life.

This is pretty detestable stuff. But I don't think Feuerstein is a terrorist. In fact, I think his speech is probably protected. Let's review a little history...

In 1966, the NAACP ran meetings in Mississippi to organize protests and boycotts against white-owned businesses. The NAACP "store watchers" wrote down names of blacks who violated these boycotts. Names of boycott violators were read aloud at meetings and published in a local black newspaper. At one meeting, Charles Evers, the Field Secretary of the NAACP, stated: "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck."

This was a direct threat aimed by an NAACP official toward specific blacks who had been named, listed, and published as boycott violators. This is a much more direct threat than Feuerstein's video posted above. Yet the Supreme Court found that the store watchers' actions, and Evers' speech, was protected.

Unless speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action, it's protected by the First Amendment. It would be very difficult to argue that a Facebook video (posted last July) meets this standard. The mere advocacy of violence is not enough. No, in my opinion, this is not terrorism. Rather, it's very possible that this is protected speech. And yes, I'd stand up for his right to say these abhorrent things. That doesn't mean I agree with him.

Law in Plain English: McCullen v. Coakley

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

Planned Parenthood's clinic in Boston, MA. The
yellow line on the sidewalk and street marks the
35-feet buffer zone. Image from Google Street View.

SCOTUSblog: McCullen v. Coakley

Argument: Jan 15 2014 (Aud.)

Discussion: The Massachusetts legislature passed a law that created fixed and floating buffer zones around abortion clinics. In 2007, the legislature amended the statute to create a fixed thirty-five-foot buffer zone around the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics. McCullen and other plaintiffs regularly engage in "sidewalk counseling" at abortion clinics, but argue that the buffer zones prevent close personal contact with their intended audience and, thus, impede their ability to communicate effectively. The District Court ruled that the statute is a content-neutral, narrowly tailored time-place-manner regulation that protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees without offending the First Amendment rights of others; and the First Circuit affirmed.

Planned Parenthood's Springfield, MA clinic has
white arcs painted on the street to represent the
buffer zone. Image from Google Street View.

Issue: The questions before the Court are (1) whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’s selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents...acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners; (2) whether, if Hill v. Colorado permits enforcement of this law, Hill should be limited or overruled.

Holding:  In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Massachusetts law which makes it a crime to stand on a public road or sidewalk within thirty-five feet of a reproductive health care facility violates the First Amendment.

Planned Parenthood's Worcester, MA clinic has
white arcs painted on the street to represent the
buffer zone. Image from Google Street View.

Law in Plain English: Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice

This is one in a series of posts designed to describe court decisions in plain English. For more detail and background on the legal issues, see the link to the case below. For similar posts, click here.

SCOTUSblog: Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice

Argument:N/A

Discussion: In 2011, Oklahoma passed a law that regulates doctors’ prescription of drugs that have been approved for public use by the FDA, and that have the medical effect of inducing abortions. A trial court in Oklahoma found the bill unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed in a brief opinion without any discussion. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but first asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to answer a certified question: Whether H.B. No. 1970, Section 1, Chapter 216, O.S.L. 2011 prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies. Once the Oklahoma Supreme Court responds, the Supreme Court will then determine how to proceed.

Issue: Whether the Oklahoma Supreme Court erred in holding – without analysis or discussion – that the Oklahoma law requiring that abortion-inducing drugs be administered according to the protocol described on the drugs’ FDA-approved labels is facially unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Pursuant to the Revised Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, Okla. Stat., Tit. 20, §1601 et seq. (West 2002), respectfully certifies to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma the following question: Whether H.B. No. 1970, Section 1, Chapter 216, O.S.L. 2011 prohibits: (1) the use of misoprostol to induce abortions, including the use of misoprostol in conjunction with mifepristone according to a protocol approved by the Food and Drug Administration; and (2) the use of methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies. Further proceedings in this case are reserved pending receipt of a response from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Holding: On November 4, 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ of ceriorari as improvidently granted.

"I dare you to step over this line!"

Remember this one?

When Bugs Buggy dared Yosemite Sam to step over the line, I suspect he didn't think it would turn out to be a federal case. Nonetheless, two cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term quite literally involve lines in the sand, er, ground.

United States v. Apel: Dennis Apel is a frequent protester at the front gate of  Vandenberg Air Force Base. He was as subject to a pre-existing order barring him from the base, and was convicted of trespassing under 18 U.S.C. § 1382. After his conviction, the Ninth Circuit ruled in another case that a stretch of highway running through the base was subject to an easement "granted to the State of California, which later relinquished it to the County of Santa Barbara," and as a result the federal government lacked the exclusive right of possession of the area on which the trespass allegedly occurred. Therefore, a trespassing conviction under § 1382 was not valid. In a per curiam decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed Apel's conviction. The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law which prohibits a person from reentering a military installation after a commanding officer has ordered him not to reenter, may be enforced on a portion of a military installation that is subject to a public roadway easement. The protest area outside the front gate of the base is represented by the green line painted on the road in the image below.

McCullen v. Coakley: The Massachusetts legislature passed a law that created fixed and floating buffer zones around abortion clinics. In 2007, the legislature amended the statute to create a fixed thirty-five-foot buffer zone around the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics. McCullen and other plaintiffs regularly engage in "sidewalk counseling" at abortion clinics, but argue that the buffer zones prevent close personal contact with their intended audience and, thus, impede their ability to communicate effectively. The District Court ruled that the statute is a content-neutral, narrowly tailored time-place-manner regulation that protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees without offending the First Amendment rights of others; and the First Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court will decide (1) whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’s selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents...acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners; (2) whether, if Hill v. Colorado permits enforcement of this law, Hill should be limited or overruled. One of the clinic buffer zones is indicated by the painted white arc in the image below.

Judge rules pregnancy center ordinance unconstitutional

From the Baltimore Sun:

A federal judge has struck down the city ordinance requiring faith-based pregnancy counseling centers to tell clients upfront that they won't help them get an abortion.

Baltimore drew national attention 14 months ago with the legislation, sponsored by Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake when she was City Council president, that required the centers to post signs saying that they don't refer clients for abortions or birth control.

In a decision issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis wrote that the requirement violates the centers' constitutional right to free speech. Ruling in a lawsuit brought against the city by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore and a counseling center it supports, he declared the ordinance 'unenforceable.'

"Whether a provider of pregnancy-related services is 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice,' it is for the provider — not the government — to decide when and how to discuss abortion and birth-control method," Garbis wrote. "The Government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, require a 'pro-life' pregnancy-related service center to post a sign."

The text of the decision does not appear to be available on-line yet at the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Fact check the future! Journalism #fail in the health care debate

The Associated Press is running a story entitled "FACT CHECK: Spinning the new health care law." From the article:

The tumultuous health care debate that brought you death panels and socialism has spun off a catalog of popular myths that will keep growing as President Barack Obama and all sides battle toward the midterm elections this fall.
At a White House signing ceremony Tuesday, Obama ventured the hope that Americans on all sides will judge the legislation for what it actually says and does. "When I sign this bill," he declared, "all of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform."
Wishful thinking, Mr. President.
Facts are stubborn, the saying goes. But myths about the legislation are likely to persist as well. And a lot of people don't agree on which is which.
"People have taken away from the debate a number of beliefs about the bill that are very difficult to shake based on objective reports," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard public health professor who follows opinion trends. "There is enough skepticism out there that questions about how it's going to help the country are likely to continue."
Here's a look at some of the myths and realities, from both sides of the issue...

Ok, I'm skeptical (this is the MSM after all), but so far, so good. The opening suggests that someone will actually examine the legislation and compare what people have said about the bill, to what the bill actually says...right? Wrong. Let me quote three of the six myths stated in this article:

• Health care overhaul is going to lower your health insurance premiums.
• The Democratic bill will lead to government health care rationing.
• The legislation will save Medicare from bankruptcy.

Now, the point of this blog post is decidedly not to examine each of these myths, because that is precisely what the article does. Furthermore, I'm not going to examine whether or not I agree with some of the myths (if you haven't figured it out yet, this blog post isn't really about health care). Perhaps you already understand why I picked these myths...

How can you possibly "fact check" any of these statements? The accuracy of these statements will be determined by events that occur in the future. They haven't even happened yet. Is it a fact that health care reform has lowered (or raised) my health insurance premiums? What information could I possibly use to fact-check this statement? Estimates of what might happen in the future are estimates for a reason; they're not facts. And that sort of eliminates the entire point of this exercise, does it not? How is this considered serious journalism?

One of the other myths ("Obama has put the nation on a slippery slope toward socialism") is a subjective, philosophical question to which there is, realistically, no true factual answer. The others ("You will be forced to pay for other people's abortions" and "The American people have already rejected Obamacare) are probably debatable myths; but consider that if only 1/3 of the article is even debatable as being relevant, we have already failed.

On political opinions and credibility

On a number of occasions in the past, I have been told by well-meaning women that because I am a man, I simply cannot understand the issues surrounding abortion and therefore my opinion doesn't matter (for the record, I consider myself pro-life--although I think if I was pro-choice these same women would happily embrace my opinion). While I don't subscribe to this notion, I certainly understand it.

But let's suspend reality for a moment and consider this notion to be true--that if you're a man, your position on abortion does not matter specifically because you are a man. In other words, you have this deep emotional attachment to something that others cannot or have not experienced, and that attachment or experience makes you uniquely qualified and the expense of others who do not have that attachment or experience.

Now let us consider the many in our country who oppose the wars in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Should it not follow that unless you have actually been to Iraq, or Afghanistan, that your opinion on the war does not matter?

I'm more of the belief that anyone is certainly welcome to their opinions on any issue, but the amount of credibility that I give to that opinion will be based on a couple of factors. Sure, I would lend more credibility to someone's opinion about Iraq or Afghanistan more if they had actually been there, but on the other hand I also respect anyone's opinion as long as it is reasonably thought-out. So emotional attachment and experience do play a role, but it is not the only role, and it is not black and white. To me the second factor is more important, and that is whether or not you vote. If you haven't voted, I don't care what you've done, your opinion is of the lowest credibility.