Abortion Foes’ Good Intent Is No Defense, Jurors Told

The trial of five anti-abortion activists drew nearer to a close Tuesday with the prosecution contending that the blockade of a women’s clinic almost six months ago may have been done with good intentions but such motives are no defense for breaking the law.

In closing arguments in the trial of five members of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, Deputy City Atty. Lara J. Bloomquist told jurors that leaders of the group had clearly committed the crimes of conspiracy, trespassing and related charges stemming from a March 25 protest and that the jurors should base their final decision on the facts presented during the trial rather than emotion.

“The law is applied in a way that has to be constant,” Bloomquist said. “It can’t be swayed by an issue of the day or public opinion.”

‘Lot of Emotional Responses’

“We’ve heard a lot of emotional responses in this case. We have had children take the stand, priests take the stand, people talk about dead babies,” Bloomquist continued, referring to the emotional testimony and antics that have been present throughout the four-week trial. But “your job is not to respond in an emotional way. . . . What you’re here to do is to determine the facts.”

The arguments marked the beginning of the end in the Municipal Court trial of five Operation Rescue activists, including its founder, Randall Terry. Terry, 30, and co-defendants Michael McMonagle, 36, and Jeff White, 31, are defending themselves against various misdemeanor charges stemming from a demonstration at the Family Planning Associates clinic on Westmoreland Avenue. Also on trial are Donald Bennette, 36, and Andrew Eppink, 41.

Although Bloomquist argued issues of law, McMonagle, as the first of the defendants to give a closing statement, argued what he perceived as matters of justice.

McMonagle said he agreed with Bloomquist that members of society cannot break laws en masse, creating a state of anarchy. However, he said, “law without justice can mean tyranny,” likening the laws that allow abortion to those that prevent blacks from voting in South Africa.

He also told the jurors that although it had been constantly said by the prosecution and judge that abortion was not the issue on which they should focus, the matter of abortion was very much a part of the trial.

“You were not asked your views on trespassing,” said McMonagle, referring to the questioning of potential jurors before the trial began. “And we (the clinic demonstrators) did not go to the grocery store that night.”

Defense of ‘Necessity’

Though the defense of “necessity” was thrown out by Municipal Judge Richard A. Paez before the trial began, defense attorneys have constantly made veiled references to the argument that they did not commit any crimes because they were preventing the greater evil of killing unborn children.

Bloomquist emphasized in her arguments that “in the crimes charged in this case, it is not a defense that they were done for a good motive. . . . That doesn’t negate criminal intent.”

If people are allowed to break the law because their beliefs dictate that illegal actions are appropriate, society would become “chaotic,” Bloomquist said, “because people don’t all believe the same thing.” If convicted, the five face a maximum penalty of $10,000 and a year in jail.

Terry is expected to address the jurors today as the defendant’s closing arguments continue. Jury deliberations are expected to begin later this week.