Anti-Abortion Protest Ruling

* Your editorial, “Good Ruling, Bad Law” (Jan. 25), was good but didn’t explore the full impact of the U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting use of RICO against anti-abortion protesters. You rightly described RICO’s purpose as punishing persons who engage in a conspiracy where intimidation and violence are used to achieve their goals. You also touched on the abuses because the RICO law is overly broad and vague.

Many groups along with Operation Rescue will be subject to this broader interpretation of RICO. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund may find itself embroiled in criminal litigation if it supports more takeovers of facilities at UCLA. ACT UP may also be subject to RICO if it organizes or assists organizations that vandalize Catholic churches.

While the National Organization for Women states it will only use RICO in cases where violence is involved, it is only one pool of potential plaintiffs for whom RICO will be an option. The nuclear industry, toxic waste handlers, logging companies and the military are under no obligation to follow NOW’s self-imposed limits on the use of RICO.

All our First Amendment rights have been dealt a blow by the court’s decision to extend RICO to purely political and moral issues. Isn’t it ironic that the single greatest restriction on our right to protest, by means of civil disobedience, has come about while a liberal, Democratic Administration is in power.

SEAN McCARTHY

Los Angeles

* You state that in light of the ruling these protest groups should acknowledge that their First Amendment right does not apply. The fact is that the First Amendment right was not raised as a defense because Operation Rescue believed that RICO did not apply. The First Amendment right will be argued in a Florida case. Many legal experts believe that the First Amendment right defense will prevail.

JOHN FLEISCHER

Burbank

* For 21 years an American holocaust has been carried on against the unborn. There have been more than 20 million innocent victims slaughtered on the altar of “choice.” Those who are trying to stop this violence against the unborn because of strongly held moral convictions now face the threat of RICO. While we applaud the quiet heroism of Oskar Schindler and what he did to save some Jews from the Nazi Holocaust, we would make criminals of those who are his equivalent today. I am confident that history will affirm that pro-life activists are heroes cut from the same cloth as Schindler.

SANDRA R. SKELLY

Santa Ana