Saving Doctors' And Clinic Workers' Lives
Saving Doctors' And Clinic Workers' Lives
New study shows abortion providers still face intimidation and violence
BEFORE DR. GEORGE TILLER, AN ABORTION PROVIDER IN WICHITA, KANSAS, WAS shot to death by an anti-abortion extremist in 2009, he faced persistent threats and intimidation. Anti-abortion radicals stalked him and his family, harassed him at home and at his church (where he was eventually killed) and plastered “wanted” posters— featuring his name, photo and address—all over town. At that time, a little more than one-quarter of abortion clinics reported similar kinds of threats and intimidation by anti-abortion extremists. But now, according to data from the Feminist Majority Foundation’s 2014 National Clinic Violence Survey, those numbers have shot up to nearly 52 percent of clinics.
. . . .
The survey of 242 clinics by FMF (publisher of Ms.) shows that nearly 18 percent of clinics found that their doctors’ pictures and personal information had been posted online, while 8.7 percent of clinics reported that doctors had been stalked. Nearly 28 percent of responding clinics reported that pamphlets featuring photos of their doctors and clinic staff had been distributed, including some titled “The Killers Among Us,” and the use of wantedstyle posters was reported by 7.7 percent of clinics.
. . . . . .
The case revolves around Anthony Elonis, who began making violent and vulgar postings on Facebook after his wife, Tara, left him in 2010. For example, he once asked if Tara’s protection-from-abuse order could “stop a bullet.” Elonis v. United States will test the limits of free speech, as Elonis claims he was channeling his frustrations about the separation and not actually threatening his wife. The Supreme Court will determine whether a prosecutor would have to prove that the accused actually intended to place the victim in fear of great bodily harm or death (known as “subjective intent”), or if that prosecutor only must show that a “reasonable person” would regard a statement as threatening (known as “objective intent”).
. . . .
Chemerinsky is cautious but hopeful. “What’s ultimately at stake here is whether or not those who threaten reproductive health-care facilities and the personnel who work there can be punished and deterred,” he says. “If the Supreme Court changes the law and requires a subjective intention to threaten, then that really is going to make it much harder to protect reproductive health-care facilities. [But] assuming the Supreme Court takes the [reasonable person] standard, I think we’ll continue to be able to protect clinics.”
http://www.msmagazine.com/Winter2015/ClinicViolence.asp