Operation Rescue

In last Sunday’s coverage about Operation Rescue’s blockade of a physician’s office, a statement I made was placed in such a distorted context that it seriously misleads readers about what was said.

During the blockade, the Times reporter remarked to me that this blockade was quite different from an earlier one in Escondido, where the doctor’s office closed and no arrests were made, and asked for my comment. I told her that we were pleased with the prompt and effective response by the police, that the police had been able to get the patients into the building fairly early, and that was what was important. The reporter and I did not discuss at all any allegations of excessive force, or the use of pain-compliance holds on arrestees, nor was I in a position to observe the arrests.

The article, as edited, recounts allegations of excessive force by police for some eight paragraphs, then quotes me as saying, “We were pleased with the police response . . . “ In that context, a reasonable reader would conclude that my comment was in direct response to the allegations of excessive force. This is extremely misleading, since the reporter never asked me about those allegations, and I never commented on them. In fact, those of us who were not first-hand observers of the arrests learned about the allegations of excessive force only near the end of the event.

The American Civil Liberties Union believes that all complaints of excessive force by police should be investigated, both by the Police Department and by an independent review body. If excessive force was used against any arrestee, appropriate action should follow. In addition, the policy of using pain-compliance holds on passively resisting arrestees raises serious concerns, and is now under review by the ACLU.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that the San Diego Police Department deserves praise on several counts in its response to the Operation Rescue blockade. The police responded promptly and in a well-organized fashion; they made it a priority to provide access to the doctor’s office for patients, and were successful in getting those patients into the building quickly, given the concerted effort by Operation Rescue to keep the doors blockaded.

They did not impinge at all on the right to picket and demonstrate, which was exercised both by pro-choice and anti-abortion demonstrators. From my vantage point, the police honored the First Amendment rights of the demonstrators and also upheld the right of reproductive choice guaranteed by the Constitution to the women who were Dr. Byrnes’ patients. The significance of those accomplishments should not be lost in the legitimate debate about the pain-compliance hold.

BETTY WHEELER

Legal Director

ACLU Foundation of

San Diego and Imperial Counties