Federal Prosecution for Threats Against "Crisis Pregnancy Center"

[UPDATE 9/17/2024: Caleb Freestone has been sentenced to a year and a day in prison.]

The case is U.S. v. Freestone; here's the Justice Department's press release, from late January:

The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida, alleges that Caleb Freestone, 27, and Amber Smith-Stewart, 23, engaged in a conspiracy to prevent employees of reproductive health services facilities from providing those services. According to the indictment, as part of the conspiracy, the defendants targeted pregnancy resource facilities and vandalized those facilities with spray-painted threats. According to the indictment, Freestone and Smith-Stewart, and other co-conspirators, are alleged to have spray painted threats, including "If abortions aren't safe than niether [sic] are you," "YOUR TIME IS UP!!," "WE'RE COMING for U," and "We are everywhere," on a reproductive health services facility in Winter Haven, Florida. The indictment further alleges that facilities in Hollywood, Florida, and Hialeah, Florida, were also targeted.

The indictment also alleges that Freestone and Smith-Stewart violated the FACE Act by using threats of force to intimidate and interfere with the employees of a reproductive health services facility in Winter Haven because those employees were providing or seeking to provide reproductive health services. The indictment further alleges that Freestone and Smith-Stewart violated the FACE Act by intentionally damaging and destroying the facility's property because the facility provides reproductive health services.

The 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is generally used for threats against abortion clinics, but it more broadly covers any "facility that provides reproductive health services," "includ[ing] medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy." The clinics that the defendants targeted allegedly "provide[d] abortion alternatives including counselling, pregnancy testing, ultrasound examinations, and referral services." Here's the Justice Department's broader statement about the Act:

The FACE Act is not about abortions. The statute protects all patients, providers, and facilities that provide reproductive health services, including pro-life pregnancy counseling services and any other pregnancy support facility providing reproductive health care.

Sounds quite right to me. (For an argument opposing the prosecution, see this item by Natasha Lennard [The Intercept]; I'm not persuaded by it, given that the law was indeed deliberately written to protect not just abortion clinics, but all entities that provide "services relating to pregnancy.")

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

That took long enough to happen, given how long these attacks have been going on, all over the country.

[Sarcastr0]

Another yes but nevertheless from Brett.

Consider just saying about time and moving on. I don't much like most of these centers' way of doing business, but they get protection just the same.

As has been pointed out to you before, the bar the right wing media is setting for what counts as an attack is very low. Graffiti nearby all the way to arson can create the sense of an epidemic of arson without it being the case.

Doesn't mean this is all cool and good, but it does mean take off your drama pants a bit.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the flip side, it apparently counts as an "attack" on an abortion clinic if a guy who's protesting abortion defends his son from an assault.

So, right back at you. Both sides have motives to exaggerate, but Jane's Revenge is a real and entirely serious threat.

[Drewski]

He physically attacked a man he claims "verbally" assaulted his son, but nobody corroborated his story. The only physical assault was done by Houck.

[Bob from Ohio]

Acquitted so no "assault" occurred.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Acquitted so no “assault” occurred.

Does Bob from Ohio still claim to be a lawyer? Even an Ohio Northern grad should do better than this.

[not guilty]

"Acquitted so no 'assault' occurred."

And O. J. Simpson did not murder two people?

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's a reasonable argument to be made that Houck was the one who was assaulted.

[Sarcastr0]

Then make the argument, don't hide behind passive voice.

[Sarcastr0]

Your scare quotes say a lot about your own distorted view.

When I call you on your side's distortions, adding further distortions reveals a lot more than you may wish.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, but what about your own distortions?

[Sarcastr0]

Waiving your hands and saying 'No U' is a pretty weak offering.

[JohnTheRevelator]

Glad to see these people (finally) being prosecuted, but did they get a SWAT team like that anti-abortion guy? It's dangerous for law enforcement to appear to take sides in politics.

[not guilty]

This prosecution is appropriate, but do you seriously claim that a SWAT team would have been appropriate to arrest alleged perpetrators of conspiracy to spray paint?

[SMP0328]

I take John to be saying the opposite: the “anti-abortion guy” should not have received the SWAT treatment either.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"..but do you seriously claim that a SWAT team would have been appropriate to arrest alleged perpetrators of conspiracy to spray paint?"

It would be a good training exercise for the SWAT team in things like realizing when deadly force is neither needed nor justified, and would silence all of those who claim that the police are biased. That promotes both officer safety and respect for the law.

Furthermore, every can of spray paint sold in the past 30+ years has been a potential bomb. (They replaced Freon with Propane, Butane, & Isobutane as the propellant.) I neither know how to do it nor want to, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't be overly difficult to turn a dozen or so cans of spray paint into some sort of fuel/air explosive as that's an "interesting" mix.

Besides, for all you know, the perps are also cooking meth, and at least the SWAT team is trained to watch for that...

[Drewski]

No SWAT team was involved, just some regular special agents. Houck, in good Catholic tradition, gave false witness out of spite after refusing to turn the other cheek when he was out judging the state of others' souls.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm a firm believer in "rolling heavy" when you have the ability to do so -- as long as you do it consistently.

First, the biggest problem with SWAT teams is the mentality that they MUST use deadly force and it is good for them to realize that 95% of the time, there is neither going to be any need to nor any justification for doing so. Would Ruby Ridge have turned out differently if the FBI sniper had been better trained -- I think so...

Same thing with Waco -- I kept asking myself "WHY" they were doing that instead of simply having two guys tackle Koresh when he was wandering around downtown. If nothing else, there would have been a bleepload less paperwork involved, particularly if they didn't injure him in the process...

The flip side of this is that if the situation goes south, you have more options to fall back to. Most of the truly sketchy situations, where both officers and bystanders get killed, happen because they didn't have enough resources on the scene to deal with what they actually were confronted with.

[JohnTheRevelator]

The problem with SWAT is that there's no way they wouldn't assume they must use deadly force. If you're bringing out the tactical team it must mean there's a worthy opponent, right? I don't think it matters if you tell them that it's "just in case," that's just human nature.

And as far as Houck, I thank Drewski for reminding me that he's Catholic. That explains a lot, given the leaked memo from the Richmond field office.

[Brett Bellmore]

They did what they did at Waco because they were trying to recover from some really, really nasty publicity, (Agents caught selling "Nigger hunting licenses" at a White Supremacist gathering.) and thought that a splashy raid on somebody they could portray as dangerous cultists would be just the thing as they were heading into Congressional hearings.

And once things went South, they were absolutely determined to not make this mistake they'd made at Ruby Ridge. (The mistake from THEIR perspective, at least.) Letting the crime scene be documented BEFORE it could be rigged to agree with their account of what happened.

At the same time, the Davidians knew that documenting everything before the feds could alter it was what saved Randy Weaver, and were equally determined not to let the feds in until they could get observers in to see the evidence. Total standoff.

Which the feds decided to call to an end to as a militia band was preparing to rescue the Davidians by walking in unarmed with cameras streaming, daring the feds to open fire on them on a live feed. Which I know of because I was invited. And begged off because I thought they'd kill us all.

So they cleansed the place with fire to destroy the evidence, and made off with surviving evidence the Texas Rangers testified had been present before they turned the place over.

And, no, Horiuchi would have shot just the same with training, because he was operating under "kill them if you get a clear shot" orders.

[Bored Lawyer]

I agree that law enforcement should not take sides in politics and enforce laws neutrally.
That said, there are neutral reasons why a SWAT team might be sent to arrest one set of suspects but not the others: their perceived dangerousness. If one group is armed and has made threats, while the other group has done nothing but spray paint walls, that is a good reason to use a SWAT team for only the one. And that is true regardless of which side the armed group supports.
Whether that justification can be used in this instance, I don't know.

[M L]

“Whether that justification can be used in this instance, I don’t know.”

It can’t.

First, the guy just shoved some lunatic who was screaming in his child’s face, trying to provoke them (and who by the way, then went in and worked with the abortion clinic to delete all of the security footage surrounding the incident except for the shove itself).

Second, the lunatic tried to press charges but the local authorities declined to bring charges (from what I understand) over a shove (which resulted in a scraped elbow or something).

Third, the FBI waited a whole year after the incident to pull this stunt near the midterms, and then raided his house predawn with some 25-30 armed agents pointing guns at his family (but the FBI corrected his statement — it’s technically not a “S.W.A.T.,” tee-hee!).

Fourth, the guy’s lawyer sent a letter long in advance of the raid and repeatedly let the FBI/DOJ know that he would voluntarily surrender himself upon request.

As an aside, apparently there have been over 150 attacks of pro-life groups in the last few years. I’m not sure if this spray paint even rises to that level. What about the fire-bombings, anyone remember those? There are 24 separate cases of arson. The FBI, only in response to major continued public pressure from conservative politicians, belatedly announced 7 months ago that it would investigate, but there's been no movement except for this token.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"worked with the abortion clinic"

A "crisis pregnancy center" is not an abortion clinic, you ignorant twit.

[M L]

I see you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. What's being discussed here and contrasted with the instant prosecution, is the case of Mark Houck who was recently acquitted.

[Tallman]

>given that the law was indeed deliberately written to protect not just abortion clinics,

If someone dug into the legislative history, I'd be surprised if they found a ton of evidence that the law was "deliberately" written to protect pregnancy crisis centers. My guess is the 'drafters intent' was to protect PP field offices that did pre/post abortion visits, but didn't do abortions themselves. Just a gut-feel guess based on the underlying politics; I don't have any hard facts either way.

OTHO, from a textualist PoV, you're undoubtedly right.

[Life of Brian]

Haven't looked at the legislative history yet, but just looking at (a)(2) in the statute suggests some strange bedfellows got together on this:

(a) Prohibited Activities.—Whoever—
(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship

[not guilty]

Your citation to subsection (a)(2) is curious. What is strange about people, who may not agree on other issues, wanting to protect houses of worship? While this is not 1963 in Birmingham, terrorist attacks directed at churches, synagogues and mosques still occur all too frequently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_against_African-American_churches

[not guilty]

See also https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/us/anti-semitism-attacks-violence.html

[not guilty]

See also https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/discriminatory-profiling/nationwide-anti-mosque-activity

[Life of Brian]

It's not at all strange that people want to protect places of worship.

It is fairly strange that they would insert that into the middle of the "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994."

And, in fact, when you look at the original House bill, there's nary a word about places of worship. The later-introduced Senate version included it, which suggests they had to do some logrolling to get enough votes on the actual goal of protecting abortion clinics. Which in turn suggests it's not all that surprising that the legislation would have been intentionally written to cover CPCs etc., to secure those votes.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I seem to recall that the bill originated out of a desire to protect PP offices, but that they'd had to draft it in general terms that would apply to all pregnancy related services to make it uncontroversial enough to pass. It never could have passed if it had been restricted to just protecting PP.

[lucia_l]

I think this is the more likely interpretation. To pass bills, they sometimes need to be more generic and so often broader. But the broader bill protecting both the abortion clinics and crisis pregnancy center is what passed. It would have been hard to firmly argue that it's wrong to protect other pregnancy services. And possibly those wanting to protect the abortion centers didn't imagine anyone would attack the crisis pregnancy centers as people often think "our side" wouldn't do that!

[Brett Bellmore]

Or maybe they just thought they'd fix the general language by selective enforcement. Kind of a pattern of adopting general language or tradeoffs to get something passed, and then welshing on the deal in enforcement. Happens a lot.

Honestly, I didn't expect the Biden DOJ to do this, I'll have to revise my opinion of them up a bit.

[Sarcastr0]

maybe they just thought they’d fix the general language by selective enforcement

You don't need to make up bad faith like this. It adds nothing.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't need to make up bad faith at all, there's a history of it in civil rights law enforcement.

Then there was Reagan immigration deal, where the amnesty happened, but the enforcement never did.

Or the Motor Voter act, where the voter roll cleanup provisions included to get it passed never got enforced.

Why do you think things are so dysfunctional in DC now? It's because nobody can make deals, because everybody knows deals will be broken.

Anyway, like I said, I actually have to think better of the Biden DOJ, thanks to this; I didn't think they'd ever get around to going after people attacking pro-life centers.

[Sarcastr0]

You are conflating legislation churn with enforcement.

The law at question here *was passed.* It's a different beast than the examples where no followup law materialized that you are unhappy about.

There is no sign of planned bad faith in enforcement of this. I continue to be amazed and chagrined at your view of people.

[Armchair Lawyer]

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act made it illegal to hire illegal immigrants, and put in place penalties for companies that actually did so.

If that law was actually enforced, consistently, across the board, we wouldn't have the illegal immigration issue we have today.

But that law wasn't enforced consistently. It was enforced haphazardly, at best.

[Sarcastr0]

'The law is not enforced consistently' is an argument by people who have been told that the Act says, but don't actually know what the Act says.

I'm familiar with the law. I work with it pretty regularly, actually.

It is not really clear on anything - it is a tangled mess.

But one thing that is clear is that it includes a great deal of discretion in how the executive may enforce it's provisions.

Why do you think they added that part?

[hoppy025]

Wake me up when they use the law to prosecute someone protesting a pro-life center.

[hoppy025]

I should have said just "protesting," not threatening.

[Illocust]

I'm not sure I like the law in general. Too easy to overcharge for things that don't really deserve it. Though Iam pleased to see if we are going to have the law, that it is starting to be applied no matter your political leanings.

[John F. Carr]

I hope the investigators can find out if this is a nationwide conspiracy, copycat crime, or something in between.

[tkamenick]

From Lennard's piece:

"a gross misuse of the term 'reproductive health services'"

No, abortion is a gross misuse of the term "reproductive health services", as it is literally the opposite.

[Mr. Bumble]

Part of a bigger problem with the ever growing corruption of language.

[not guilty]

Per 18 U.S.C. § 248(e)(5), the term “reproductive health services” means reproductive health services provided in a hospital, clinic, physician’s office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy.

Abortion services are expressly included. Provision of birth control presciptions, devices and information would appear to be services relating to pregnancy. The so-called crisis pregnancy centers typically do not provide medical or surgical serrvices, but I suppose that a broad reading of counselling or referral services would include such facilities.

[Bob from Ohio]

If a statute defines a dog as a cat, the animal remains a dog in fact.

"Abortion" is not "health care" in fact.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

All of your opinions are wrong, in fact.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hey, what about the gross misuse of the term “mothers” in reference to women trying to get abortions?! (I've actually seen "pro-choice" commentators / politicians do that!)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Remind me of the constitutional basis for the FACE Act.

Is this one of those hippie, "everything is connected, man" uses of interstate commerce?

Have the states failed to protect abortuaries, pregnancy centers and churches from violence?

[Bored Lawyer]

"Is this one of those hippie, “everything is connected, man” uses of interstate commerce?"

That theory long pre-dates the hippies.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That was intended as mockery, not a historical description of the genesis of modern commerce-clause doctrine.

[not guilty]

“Remind me of the constitutional basis for the FACE Act.”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. Congress has authority to regulate persons or objects in interstate commerce and the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

Abortion clinics are engaged in interstate commerce. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has opined that the FACE Act:

regulates a commercial activity — the provision of reproductive health services. Cheffer[ v. Reno, 55 F.3d [1517,] 1520-1521 [(11th Cir. 1995).] Reproductive health clinics engage in interstate commerce by purchasing, using, and dispensing goods that have travelled in interstate commerce. Their commercial activity also includes owning and leasing office space, employing staff, and generating income. The Access Act regulates this commercial activity by preventing its obstruction. Moreover, Congress’s findings reveal that there exists a substantial interstate market for reproductive health services. Largely because of the scarcity of certain services, women seeking health services and providers of such services travel interstate. The Access Act helps ensure that these individuals are able to engage in this interstate commercial activity. The Act by its terms prohibits interference with persons because they are engaging in commercial activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1) (prohibiting interference with “persons … obtaining or providing reproductive health services”).

United States v. Wilson, 73 F.3d 675, 683-84 (7th Cir. 1995). See also, American Life League, Inc. v. Reno, 47 F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 55, 133 L.Ed.2d 19 (1995).

Congress has criminally proscribed performing partial birth abortions in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1531(a). If an abortion clinic were not engaged in interstate commerce, clinic personnel would have nothing to fear from enforcement of this statute.

[Bored Lawyer]

Everything you write is correct acc. to modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence. It also means that virtually nothing is beyond Congress' power to regulate.

[Dilan Esper]

Unless an abortion clinic was using only equipment manufactured within state lines, employed no doctors who went to out of state medical schools, and never advertised across state lines, that abortion clinic would have been in interstate commerce in 1787.

What you guys are railing about is that modern COMMERCE expanded so much that now a lot of things that used to be local now cross state lines in one sense or another. But that's just human progress-- you can't impose a de facto amendment of the Constitution just because you don't like that human progress shifted the balance between federal and state.

[Tallman]

That argument proves too much; even in 1787, some doctors would study out of state or use some medical supply from an out of state supplier.

The more reasonable interpretation (SCOTUS precedent notwithstanding) is that the "commerce you are actually regulating" must be interstate...not that every single input, no matter how trivial, must have been procured in-state.

[Dilan Esper]

A congressional regulation on doctors who studied out of state and crossed state lines to practice would have been constitutional in 1787.

[Tallman]

If that were the case, the Commerce Clause means nothing; the founders would have just written "can regulate anything and everything" or "the states delegate all soverign powers."

[Bored Lawyer]

Unless an abortion clinic was using only equipment manufactured within state lines, employed no doctors who went to out of state medical schools, and never advertised across state lines, that abortion clinic would have been in interstate commerce in 1787.

No it would not have. Please prove your thesis. I very much doubt you can.

[Dilan Esper]

The key is there weren't a lot of such businesses in 1787. But those that did exist, such as shipping, were clearly part of interstate commerce.

And the instruction to the Committee of Detail was to ensure Congressional power extended to any issue of national import. The intention of the Constitution was to expand federal power.

[Bored Lawyer]

There was substantial trade with Great Britain at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (which is one reason Washington wanted to stay neutral in the war by Britain and France). Many US businesses and homes had British goods. Acc. to you, the entire business was thus subject to regulation.

[Bob from Ohio]

"abortion clinic"

There were no such clinics in 1787.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's way to simple. There were doctors and hospitals. But the notion that a hospital was engaged in interstate commerce merely because one of its doctors was educated in another state or country, or because some of its medicines came from another state or country, would have been thought a joke.

[David Nieporent]

I don’t think there were any hospitals in the US in 1787.

But I think what would be thought a joke was not the notion that buying medicine from out of state is interstate commerce, but the notion that an entity engaging in some interstate commerce brought all of the entity’s operations under the interstate commerce umbrella.

[Bored Lawyer]

Issue 1 -- History of Hospitals:

The History of Hospitals in the United States
In the 1700s and much of the 1800s, caring for the ill fell largely to families and communities. The first U.S. hospitals were built by communities to care of the sick, poor, and mentally disabled. Colonial and early hospitals were often funded by wealthy citizens who donated money as a part of their civic duty. But because physicians had not yet begun to apply scientific discoveries to medical practice, little effective treatment was available. These hospitals mainly served as a place for the poor who were sick to pass away.

The nation’s first government-funded institution for treating medical conditions was the Pennsylvania Hospital, founded in 1751 by Dr. Thomas Bond and Benjamin Franklin. At the time, Philadelphia was quickly growing, and the pair determined there was a need to care for the increasing number of sick, poor, and mentally ill. Bond had studied medicine abroad, and while in Europe had become impressed with a French hospital, called the Hotel-Dieu. He brought back the idea to create a hospital in Pennsylvania. Franklin became a strong supporter of the concept and was instrumental in gaining the government approval that led to the hospital’s creation.

https://www.biomerieuxconnection.com/2020/05/14/from-homes-for-the-ill-to-institutions-of-science-and-technology-the-evolution-of-american-hospitals/#:~:text=In%20the%201700s%20and%20much,part%20of%20their%20civic%20duty.

Issue 2 -- What's a joke

Obviously that is what I meant. Clearly, if a hospital buys supplies from another state, that's interstate commerce. That's not controversial. What is, is the notion that therefore everything the hospital does turns into interstate commerce.

[Dilan Esper]

But I think what would be thought a joke was not the notion that buying medicine from out of state is interstate commerce, but the notion that an entity engaging in some interstate commerce brought all of the entity’s operations under the interstate commerce umbrella.

Of course it would. The Constitution doesn't contain any requirement limiting the commerce power to only those aspects of a business that were interstate. Indeed, the Supreme Court tried to do that for awhile and it ended up striking down a child labor statute, which is one of the reasons that smart people eventually said "this is ridiculous and doesn't work".

[Bored Lawyer]

So your source is nothing, but your own intuition. Nope. That does not work.

[Josh R]

I thought the power to regulate the aspects of a business that aren’t themselves interstate commerce derives from the Necessary and Proper Clause permitting regulating things which substantially affect interstate commerce.

Of course it is arguable whether a hospital that uses out-of-state supplies entirely within the state is substantially affecting interstate commerce, but it could by interpreting the text in 1787.

[Tallman]

So, if one (1) iron nail used in one chair in your waiting room came from out-of-state foundry and/or mine, any-and-all of your activities are now “interstate commerce”? That’s a pretty bold claim.

[David Nieporent]

. The Constitution doesn’t contain any requirement limiting the commerce power to only those aspects of a business that were interstate.

The Constitution doesn't contain any provision extending the commerce power to any aspects of a business that aren't interstate.

It does not say, "Congress shall have the power to regulate all aspects of any business that engages in interstate commerce." It's that commerce itself that's regulable.

[David Nieporent]

"in one sense or another" is doing all of the work in your comment. It's that very sense that has changed. It's true that a lot more things cross state lines in 2022 than in 1787, but that's not the relevant factor. What's different is that in 1787, "Your business is in Pennsylvania, but you got some supplies from Maryland" would not make the business (other than the actual purchase of those supplies) regulable under the commerce clause. Once you acquired those supplies and they came to rest in PA, how they were used had nothing to do with interstate commerce.

[Bored Lawyer]

Well said.

[Dilan Esper]

But completely made up. There's no textual limitation of the commerce power to "only those aspects of a business that are interstate", and plenty of evidence that the commerce power was intended to reach all problems of national scope.

You guys want a different constitution than the one that was written, and lack the votes to amend it.

[Bored Lawyer]

Commerce is an action, not an institution. There is no grant of authority to regulate businesses, just to regulate activities, i.e., "commerce among the states."

[Bob from Ohio]

"plenty of evidence that the commerce power was intended to reach all problems of national scope."

Your view of the commerce power makes the rest of the Article I powers superfluous.

[hoppy025]

No, there was not "plenty of evidence." In fact, there isn't any.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The bigger issue is that STATES have traditionally had control over the practice of medicine, which abortion is.

[Dilan Esper]

That's exactly what changed from 1787. In 1787, for instance, most/all of what a typical lawyer did would have been offering services locally to local clients with local disputes. Now, a fair amount of the stuff I do crosses state lines in one way or another because interstate commerce has expanded.

So you could accurately say that states traditionally had control over the practice of law. That's true. But nowadays, if Congress wanted to regulate it, it could. Because interstate commerce has expanded. You guys have to amend the Constitution to roll back that natural expansion of federal power, and of course you guys lack the votes to do so.

[Bored Lawyer]

But acc. to you, if a lawyer was educated in a difft. state, or he bought his paper and ink from another state, his whole law practice was interstate commerce. Which is a joke.

[Bored Lawyer]

For that matter, if the lawyer bought his quills from a guy who raises geese that he feeds with corn he buys from another state, then the whole law practice is subject to federal control.

[David Nieporent]

That is a pretty astonishing piece by Lennard:

1) "I don't care about the language of the law; it was meant to protect us from you, not you from us. We're good people. They're bad people."

2) "This language was chosen to suggest our movement's power, but how dare you interpret it as a threat? That's just paranoia."

3) "It's anti-abortion to protect anti-abortion groups as well as pro-choice groups."

I believe that's called "saying the quiet parts loud."

[Illocust]

Yeah, I was pretty shocked she openly admitted in the first section that the two were trying to spread fear. It doesn't seem to occur to her that trying to make other people fear for their life might make someone on her side a bad person.

[Brett Bellmore]

The key thing to understand is that these guys DO understand themselves to be the good guys, doing nothing they should be ashamed of, and so they don't see any reason to hide what they're up to. Rather, they'll brag about it.

[Ed Grinberg]

Yes. From book burning (Ctrl-F "dandy fellow") to vandalism to threats to . . . well, as Heine said: "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." And they'll brag about it!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett’s right — you have to understand the modern left and that they ain’t like us.

Forget every aspect of liberal thought, starting with the value of the individual being more important than your cause — i.e. you are debating someone who has a heart attack, you stop the debate and begin CPR. The modern leftist wouldn’t do that — because the modern leftist does not consider the person who disagrees with her to BE a person.

The left has been commingling the personal and political for so long that they’ve created a mindset where only those who agree with you are worthy human life. It’s really scary when you realize that they actually believe this…

[Nige]

'The modern leftist wouldn’t do that — because the modern leftist does not consider the person who disagrees with her to BE a person.'

Can straw people give CPR?

[Sarcastr0]

you have to understand the modern left and that they ain’t like us...the modern leftist does not consider the person who disagrees with her to BE a person.

Projection.
Are those illegals you want the government to mow down people?

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course they are. They're just people committing premeditated crimes.

[Sarcastr0]

You wouldn't shoot people for jaywalking.

Don't defend this.

[Bored Lawyer]

Because in her viewpoint, the ends justify the means. It's only evil if you are on the wrong side, in which case even peaceful means are evil.
This is, generally, what separates leftists from liberals. And leftists are on the ascendancy over liberals.

[Ed Grinberg]

https://reason.com/2023/02/10/review-mother-country-radicals-spotlights-the-weather-underground/?comments=true#comment-9921698

[Dilan Esper]

I agree. That's a pretty baldly political, non-legal argument.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She sounds just as bad as the boorish "Mission from God" anti-abortion absolutists who seem to control the Republican Party's position.

[Bored Lawyer]

Tu quoque much?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No -- the only analogy would be the folks who blew up Black churches 60 years ago because they didn't consider Blacks to be human beings.

Well, we dealt with such persons....

[Sarcastr0]

Ed, are you saying you want to leftists to be killed by the state because you believe they want to do the same thing to you?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think he's saying that he wants leftists to be treated as criminals when they commit crimes. Which you can pretty much rely on some of them doing, because their consequentialist ethics says it's OK to commit crimes against 'bad' people.

Antifa, for instance, think it's OK to punch a "NAZI" just because they're a "NAZI", that bare fact makes it OK to assault them. The organization BAMN, which I was familiar with back in Michigan, were quite open about their willingness to commit criminal acts; That's what their name meant, "By ANY Means Necessary" meant, even criminal means. The Weathermen thought it was OK to commit bombings against people they disagreed with, and, yes, if that resulted in deaths, fine.

And did that thinking get them shunned by the left? No, Ayers ended up with a teaching gig. So did Dohrn. And not because they were innocent, they were guilty as hell, only got off on a technicality.

Consequentalist ethics are widely favored on the left, and leads directly to this sort of thing if consistently applied by people whose consciences don't rebel against it.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think that, generally spwaking, abortion as such involves interstate commerce.

Nor do I think crisis pregnancy counseling involves interstate commerce.

Terminating pregnancies, as such, are no more matters of interstate commerce than initiating them.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Terminating pregnancies, as such, are no more matters of interstate commerce than initiating them.

They are now, thanks to Dobbs. When that decision was not yet final, while newspapers published maps to show which states would end up with more severe anti-abortion laws, I took a look at the map, to see where medical demand would shift to. Southern Illinois stood out. A couple of months ago the NYT published a story about booming business in Carbondale, Illinois, brought on as a byproduct of the abortion ban.