Issues Raised by the Abortion Rescue Movement Charles E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 1989 Issues Raised by the Abortion Rescue Movement Charles E. Rice Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles E. Rice, Issues Raised by the Abortion Rescue Movement, 23 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 15 (1989). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/316 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSUES RAISED BY THE ABORTION RESCUE MOVEMENT Charles E. Rice* The civil rights protests of the fifties and sixties taught the nation about the relation of the enacted law to the higher law of justice. Though less favorably publicized, the abortion rescue movement provides another such teaching moment today. As with the civil rights protests, the abor- tion rescue movement involves ordinary people putting their bodies on the line-and in jail-to vindicate their conception of justice. The rescue movement raises issues that transcend the question of whether one ap- proves or disapproves of abortion. This paper examines what society might learn from the Operation Rescue movement about the weaknesses of our law. A Newsweek commentary entitled Operation Rescue captured the movement's essence: Abortion is the most painfully divisive issue in American public life, and after years of relative dormancy, it shows signs of erupting again. The pro-life movement has discovered and adopted a key tactic of the civil-rights movement of the '60s: nonviolent disobedience of the law. Spearheaded by evangelical preachers like Jerry Falwell in tactical alli- ance with militant Roman Catholics, the right-to-lifers aim at a na- tional movement in the next few years, dramatic and disruptive enough to force the adoption of a right-to-life amendment to the Constitution. Whatever the outcome, the nation seems headed for a wrenching new confrontation over the old questions: When does life begin, and how sacred is it? What are a woman's rights to what is in her womb?1 Operation Rescue has dramatized the abortion issue as previous efforts have not.2 The movement's grass roots nature provides one explanation. * Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School. This article is based on the Twenty-Sixth Donahue Lecture delivered at Suffolk University Law School on November 3, 1988. 1. Martz, The New Pro-Life Offensive, NEWSWEEK, Sept. 12, 1988, at 25. 2. See id. The Newsweek article describes the movement's national sweep as follows: The new tactics have been tested in a rash of abortion protests in recent months, from Cherry Hill, N.J., and the New York City area to Pittsburgh, Chicago and Tallahassee, Fla. But the most dramatic actions have come in Atlanta, where a protest organized for the Democratic National Convention in July turned into a semipermanent demon- stration to make Atlanta "the Selma of the pro-life movement." In dozens of "rescue actions" at abortion clinics, protesters from as far away as Anchorage have blocked access to the facilities, harassed doctors and nurses and tried to persuade pregnant women that "Abortion is murder ... Don't kill your baby." So far, 754 people have been arrested. Many refused to give police their names, thus making it legally impossi- ble to set bail, and some have spent as long as 40 days in jail. Falwell came late to the movement but brought his usual zeal, putting up a $10,000 Moral Majority check for bail money and predicting a wave of 'massive nonviolent civil SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XXlII:15 Its originator was not an existing pressure group, but rather a twenty- nine-year-old activist, Randall Terry, from Binghamton, New York, whose motives are religious and whose organizational skills are consider- able. Operation Rescue owes part of its appeal to the notable persons at its forefront.' The sizeable number of arrests throughout the country has also added to the movement's notoriety.4 Operation Rescue is not the first manifestation of onsite, obstructive interference with abortion. A few years ago, a wave of bombings and arsons at abortuaries attracted society's attention.5 Less well publicized sit-ins and other nonviolent interferences have occurred in various com- munities for over a decade.6 Abortion opponents have caused frustration and loss of business to abortion proprietors through lawful picketing of abortion facilities and abortionists' residences, and through lawful side- walk counseling.7 The Operation Rescue proponents cite the common-law and statutory doctrines of necessity and justification as the foundation for their ac- tions.8 Courts at common law recognized necessity as a complete de- disobedience' in 1989. 'We have got a lot of teaching and instructing to do across the country,' he said, 'but then several million militants with the commitment and tactics of the civil-rights movement would create an irresistible momentum.' Id. 3. In addition to Jerry Falwell, Roman Catholic Bishop Austin Vaughan of the Archdio- cese of New York has also been actively involved. See The Life Advocate, Aug./Sept. 1988, at 10. On July 29th, Bishop Vaughan was arrested for the fourth time, along with 213 other people at a New York rescue operation. Id. at 10. Addressing a meeting on the eve of that rescue, Bishop Vaughan apologized "because I feel I have done nothing for 15 years" about abortion. Id. 4. See id. at Insert 1, col. 1, (listing Operation Rescue arrests). By the end of August, Operation Rescue listed 4,256 arrests among its members. Id. By the end of October, more than 7,000 persons had been arrested in rescues throughout the country. See Washington Times, Oct. 31, 1988, at A3, col. 4. 5. See Whose Life Is It?, Pensacola News-Journal (Fla.), Mar. 10, 1985 (Special News Project), at 3-4 & 8-9 (discussing abortion rescue tactics); Carlson, A Holy War in Pensacola, PEOPLE, Jan. 21, 1985, at 20 (discussing activist's bombing of abortion facilities). 6. See Abortion: The New Militancy, Gannett News Service Special Report, Dec. 1985, at 10; cf. Northeast Women's Center, Inc. v. McMonagle, 665 F. Supp. 1147, 1150-51 (E.D. Pa. 1987) (abortion clinic sued to enjoin abortion protestors from interfering with business). 7. See Frisby v. Schultz, 108 S. Ct. 2495, 2497 (1988). 8. While it is doubtful that necessity would justify the infliction of death in a situation not covered by the privilege of self-defense against an aggressor, the necessity of saving human life has long been recognized as a justification at least for the destruction of property and the infliction of personal injury. "The sailors took fright .... and to lighten the ship they threw the cargo overboard." Jonah 1:5. The Laws of Alfred even provided that a homicide "of necessity... as God may have sent him into his hands, and for whom he has not lain in wait [shall] be worthy of his life." I. THORPE, ANCIENT LAWS AND INSTITUTES OF ENGLAND § 13, at 47-49 (1840); see also Queen v. Dudley, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884); United States v. Holmes, 26 F. Cas. 360, 366 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842) (No. 15,383) (discussing law of necessity). Bracton lists necessity as a defense, provided that the harm was not avoidable. 2 DE LEGIBUS 1989] OPERA TION RESCUE fense in criminal prosecutions and in tort actions. 9 The Model Penal Code's codification of the justification defense sanctions the infliction of death if caused in an attempt to preserve the life of the actor or a third party."° The defense would likewise sanction the destruction of property to preserve life. The justification, or necessity, principle applies to actions taken to save the lives of third persons as well as the lives of the actors." "[T]he penal laws of most states would probably now recognize the privilege of the defendant to defend a third person against any kind of invasion against which the third person would have the privilege of self-defense, so long 277, fig. 121 at 277 (Twiss ed. 1879); see also HALL, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW 415 (2d ed. 1960). The principle of justification by necessity, if applicable, involves a determination that "the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged." ... The compulsion from the harm or evil which the actor seeks to avoid, should be present and impending. People v. Richards, 269 Cal. App. 2d 768, 777-78, 75 Cal. Rptr. 597, 604 (1969). 9. See United States v. Ashton, 24 F. Cas. 873 (C.C.D. Mass. 1834) (No. 14,470); The William Gray, 29 F. Cas. 1300 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1810) (No. 17,694). 10. See MODEL PENAL CODE § 3.02 (Proposed Official Draft 1962); see also MODEL PE- NAL CODE § 3.02, commentary at 7-8 (Tent. Draft No. 8 1958); N.Y. PENAL LAW §§ 140.10, .15, .17 (McKinney 1988). The two principal American formulations of the necessity defense are those of the Model Penal Code and the New York Penal Law. "The Model Penal Code privileges an otherwise criminal act when 'the harm or evil sought to be avoided by [the actor's] conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged." Greenawalt, Natu- ral Law and PoliticalChoice.' The General Justification Defense-Criteriafor PoliticalAction and the Duty to Obey the Law, 36 CATH.