Bioethics Discussion Blog: FACEing the Opposition to Abortion: A Law to Protect Doctors and Patients

REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.

TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice

FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD

Monday, June 08, 2009

FACEing the Opposition to Abortion: A Law to Protect Doctors and Patients

An Editorial in the June 7 2009 issue of the New York Times is regarding the Federal law enacted in 1994 “Freedom of Entrance to the Clinic Entrances (FACE)" and states that “reproductive rights advocates say enforcement of the clinic protection law waned in the Bush years” and indeed I think implies that the recent killing of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in Kansas may be a reflection and result of this waning.

The law itself is interesting in that it has to walk a fine line between interfering with First Amendment Constitution rights of free speech and assembly along with local laws and yet still protecting the lawful activities of physicians and their patients. In addition, the law also protects religion under the First Amendment by requiring freedom of entrance and protection from intimidation or injury at a place of religious worship. According to the Editorial, Dr. Tiller’s alleged killer’s previous actions against the clinic were not followed up by the FBI and it is ironic that the final act of killing Dr. Tiller occurred at a church.

For those who have not read the FACE law, I have reproduced it below from the United States Department of Justice website. Isn't it curious how the law has bound freedom to have access to a place for reproductive health along with a place to be able to worship religion? ..Maurice.


Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) Act -- Statute
18 U.S.C. § 248


§ 248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances


(a) Prohibited activities.--Whoever--
(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship,
shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.

(b) Penalties.--Whoever violates this section shall--
(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and
(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both;
except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.

(c) Civil remedies.--
(1) Right of action.--
(A) In general.--Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (B), except that such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(1) only by a person involved in providing or seeking to provide, or obtaining or seeking to obtain, services in a facility that provides reproductive health services, and such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(2) only by a person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such place of religious worship.
(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation.
(2) Action by Attorney General of the United States.--
(A) In general.--If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court.
(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph (1)(B). The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also assess a civil penalty against each respondent--
(i) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and
(ii) in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation.
(3) Actions by State Attorneys General.--
(A) In general.--If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States District Court.
(B) Relief.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph (2)(B).

(d) Rules of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed--
(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference;
(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this section, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies; or
(4) to interfere with the enforcement of State or local laws regulating the performance of abortions or other reproductive health services.

(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Facility.--The term "facility" includes a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility that provides reproductive health services, and includes the building or structure in which the facility is located.
(2) Interfere with.--The term "interfere with" means to restrict a person's freedom of movement.
(3) Intimidate.--The term "intimidate" means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another.
(4) Physical obstruction.--The term "physical obstruction" means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.
(5) Reproductive health services.--The term "reproductive health services" means reproductive health services provided in a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy.
(6) State.--The term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.



2 Comments:

At Tuesday, August 04, 2009 1:22:00 AM, Anonymous KL said...

“reproductive rights advocates say enforcement of the clinic protection law waned in the Bush years” and indeed I think implies that the recent killing of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in Kansas may be a reflection and result of this waning."

The "Bush years" have nothing to do with the FBI's enforcement (or lack there of) of the FACE laws. While laws may have passed during the Bush years regarding abortion, the killing of Dr. Tiller had nothing to do with them. The killer presented many warning signs and the failure to secure him was obviously a grave mistake. And might I add, NOT pro-life.

The law does indeed have to walk a fine line. As one of "those" people who have spent time outside the clinic without force, intimidation, or obstruction in prayer I can recount MANY instances of force, intimidation, and obstruction used against me. In PA a "pro-lifer" was beat up by a "clinic guard" with a gun for praying on the sidewalk across the street. The guard ran out the door, across the street holding his gun, and beat up the 19 yr old who was praying. The city enacted laws against that student so we had to be even further than mandated in FACE. Your comment of support of the articles author regarding "waning" of enforcement is not one that anyone actually involved in the industry could prove. If anything, enforcement has stepped up and gone beyond (even to the point of infringing upon "my" constitutional rights). Of course "reproductive rights advocates" will say that Bush's policies were responsible for this atrocity and that FACE is in danger... however, I would be curious to see how they could ever actually back that up with facts.

I found this post via your modesty forums. For a Dr. so eager to always check sources I'm dismayed that you've jumped to accept this assumption. FACE is not waning and Bush's policies have nothing to do with it or Dr. Tiller. Violence can only beget Violence and I am all for making sure VIOLENCE does not happen. However, "I" do have rights as well. I do not like being punished for being the one to follow the law ;-)

 
At Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:13:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

My quotation of a New York Times editorial is nothing more than a quotation of a New York Times editorial and my "implication" of what the article "implies" is certainly reasonable. I didn't make any "assumptions" or any support of the author.But the quote was from the New York Times and not from some activist blog either pro or against abortion.

About the law itself, you think that FACE has any merit? Do you think that this law is of merit? ..Maurice.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home