Antitrust Suit on Abortion Protests Fails

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that anti-abortion protesters violate racketeering and antitrust laws by demonstrating at abortion clinics.

The 5-year-old lawsuit, filed by the National Organization for Women, sought an injunction against protests at abortion clinics around the country. NOW claims that demonstrators engage in extortion by threatening personnel, blocking entrances, trespassing and damaging equipment.

U.S. District Judge James Holderman dismissed the lawsuit this week, saying that anti-abortion protesters do not violate antitrust laws because they are engaged in a political activity, not a commercial one. He said the protests are protected by the Constitution.

Holderman said racketeering laws do not apply to the protesters because they are not seeking financial gain.

Anti-abortion activists hailed the decision Friday.

“It’s a real . . . repudiation of the attempt to use the courts to suppress citizen protests across the country,” said attorney Thomas Brejcha, who represented the Pro-Life Action League and other defendants in the case.

“The ruling is very, very good for us,” said Joseph Scheidler, director of the Pro-Life Action League. “We’re real happy with it.”

Abortion-rights activists said they planned an immediate appeal.

“In our opinion, (the judge’s) analysis of racketeering laws is just dead wrong,” said Patricia Ireland, executive vice president of NOW.

Federal courts have split on the use of racketeering laws in abortion cases, with an appellate court in Philadelphia allowing the use of racketeering laws in a suit against 26 protesters for incidents at a Philadelphia clinic. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1989 refused to review the Philadelphia case.