Table Of Content

ABORTION CLINIC VIOLENCE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OX CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 1 AND JUNE 10, 1993 Serial No. 39 OWT Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary HN U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1994 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice 994 tendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044673-2 / SV V 4.3- yli_ I ABORTION CLINIC VIOLENCE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OX CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 1 AND JUNE 10, 1993 Serial No. 39 Mnted for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ^5 WASHINGTON 1994 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice tendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-044673-2 HN 90 .V5 A7 1994 United States. Congress. Rouse. Contra.ttee on the DON EDW abortion clinic violence •k JOHN cor> rnia ROMANO 1 WILLIAM , Jr., MIKE SYN PATRICIA DAN GLIC1 ia BARNEY F HN 90 .V5 A7 19S4 CHARLES HOWARD 1 United States. Congress. 1 RICK BOU( House. Conmittee on the JOHN BRY GEORGE E Abortion clinic violence CRAIG A. V JACK REEI JERROLD r> ROBERT C. DATE ISSUED TO DAVID MAI* PI MAC. MELVIN L. XAVIER BE< ^ DON EDWA john com $F ROMANO L. DAN GLICK] GEORGE E. CRAIG A. W: DAVID MAN. HjtfmiEN LAW LIBRARY 50 STATE ST., BOX 559 SPRINGFIELD, MA. 01102-0559 DEMCO CONTENTS HEARINGS DATES Page April 1, 1993 1 June 10, 1993 117 OPENING STATEMENT Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a Representative in Congress from the State ofNewYork, and chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and CriminalJustice . 1 WITNESSES Cole, David, associate professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Wash- ington, DC 165 Cowles, John E., attorney, McDonald Tinker, Skaer, Quinn & Herrington, P.A., Wichita, KS 82 Eliason, Victor, vice president, WVCY Channel 30 Christian Broadcasting, Milwaukee, WI 159 Foreman, Rev. Joseph, president, Missionaries tothe Preborn 40 Gunn, David, Jr 15 Helm, Joseph H., Jr., attorney, McLario& Helm, Menomonee Falls, WI 177 Hill, Susan, president, National Women's Health Organization, Raleigh, NC .. 20 Hudson, Katherine A., director, American Women's Association for Rights and Education [AWARE] 49 Levin, Rabbi Yehuda, executive director, GetFree, Brooklyn, NY 134 Mahoney, Katie, national spokesperson, Operation Rescue,Washington, DC ... 145 Mahoney, Rev. Patrick J., director, the Joshua Project, and national spokesperson forthe Christian Defense Coalition 138 McHugh, Rev. JamesT., bishopofthe Catholic Diocese ofCamden, NJ 119 Rasmussen Jeri, executive director, Midwest Health Center for Women, Min- MN neapolis, 17 Terry, Randall A., founder, OperationRescue 38 Tompkins, Norman T., M.D., Margot Perot Center, Presbyterian Hospital, Dallas, TX 16 Weber, Walter M., Esq., litigation counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, Washington, DC 97 White, Jeff, director, Operation Rescue forCalifornia 40 Wood, Stephen, president and executive director, Family Life Center Inter- national, Inc., Port Charlotte, FL 150 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARINGS Cole, David, associate professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Wash- ington, DC: Prepared statement 168 Cowles, John E., attorney, McDonald Tinker, Skaer, Quinn & Herrington, P.A., Wichita, KS: Prepared statement 84 Helm, Joseph H., Jr., attorney, McLario & Helm, Menomonee Falls, WI: Prepared statement 180 Hudson, Katherine A., director, American Women's Association for Rights and Education [AWARE]: Prepared statement 50 Levin, Rabbi Yehuda, executive director, Get Free, Brooklyn, NY: Prepared statement 137 Mahoney, Katie, national spokesperson, Operation Rescue, Washington, DC: Prepared statement 148 (III) IV Page Mahoney, Rev. Patrick J., director, the Joshua Project, and national spokesperson for the Christian Defense Coalition: Prepared statement 141 McHugh, Rev. James T., bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Camden, NJ: Prepared statement 123 Ramstad, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Min- nesota: Prepared statement 34 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a Representative in Congress from the State ofNew York, and chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice: Letter from Attorney GeneralJanet Reno dated April 1, 1993 3 Weber, Walter M., Esq., litigation counsel, American Center for Law and Justice, Washington, DC: Prepared statement 99 White,Jeff, director, Operation Rescue forCalifornia: Prepared statement 44 Wood, Stephen, president and executive director, Family Life Center Inter- national, Inc., Port Charlotte, FL: Prepared statement 154 APPENDIX Material submitted forthe hearing 187 ABORTION CLINIC VIOLENCE THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 1993 Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer (chairman ofthe subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Charles E. Schumer, Don Edwards, John Conyers, Jr., Dan Glickman, David Mann, F. James Sensen- brenner, Jr., Steven Schiff, and Jim Ramstad. Also present: Andrew Fois, counsel; Gabrielle Gallegos, assistant counsel; Rachel Jacobson, secretary; Lyle Nirenberg, minority counsel; and Mark Curtis, congressional fellow. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SCHUMER Mr. Schumer. The hearing will coming to order. First, the Chair has received a request to cover this hearing in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast, still pho- tography or other similar methods. In accordance with rule V, per- mission will be granted unless there is objection. Without objection. Good morning. Today we are having a hearing on "Beyond Block- ades" and what we should do about those. Why are we having this hearing? Well, it seems some have gone beyond peaceful means to try to exercise their rights to protest abortion and have had a dra- matic change in tactics. Blockades are no longer the only thing done. Individuals have been targeted. Newly announced targets of the antichoice movement are individuals who provide or seek abortions rather than the system that makes abortion legal. The advo- cates of this st—rategy have i—ntentionally targeted what they see as the weak link their words in the chain of legal abortions with tactics the originators have proudly given such language to as the "No Place To Hide Campaign." What do they do? They trace doctors, staffers, and patients through their license plate numbers. They videotape and eavesdrop on them in their homes. They follow and harass them in stores, restaurants, and theaters. They bother their neighbors, picket their homes at all hours. They make phone calls to them both threaten- ing and designed tojam lines. — We will hear testimony that certain doctors are there are 50 people dialing their number over and over and over again immo- bilizing their phone lines because they might choose to perform (l) abortion. They are putting them on wanted posters, sending hate mail, following and harassing their children in school. In other words, a doctor performs an abortion, the people follow the children to school and tell the children's friends your daddy is a baby killer. There has also been increased violence. We have seen a general and possibly related increase in abortion-related violence, death threats, vandalism, acid arson and now in one case, murder. In the last few years, there were 28 bombings, 61 arsons, 266 bomb threats, 57 acid attacks in 1992 alone, 395 incidents of vandalism, 68 assaults and hundreds of death threats by phone and by mail. In 1993 alone, 1 murder, 3 assaults, 3 arsons, with 2, 1 in Mon- tana and 1 in Texas, burning the clinic to the ground, and 11 acid attacks. So clearly the tactics have changed beyond blockades. Today we are here to examine that and see what should be done about it. The damages to clinics in 1993 already total nearly $2 million. These tactics are having a serious and sad effect. The stated goal of the tactics is to drive doctors and clinics out of the business of providing abortions and the tactics appear to be working. There are only 2,100 doctors left that perform abortions; 83 percent of U.S. counties are without a provider. Only 12.4 percent of medical schools routinely teach abortion. One-third of medical schools do not teach abortion at all. Two doctors stopped working at a Florida clinic where Dr. Gunn was murdered, for instance, the day after the shooting. There also seem to be, and we will have to explore this at some length, insufficient State resources either in terms of law or in terms of will and ability to prevent these things from happening. Law enforcement is overwhelmed. Blockades, we know, are enor- mously expensive. Five million dollars in costs to Atlanta in 1991; $1 million to Wichita in 1991; and $1.5 million in 1992 in Milwau- kee. Police cannot provide around-the-clock protection against the targeted 7-day a week stalking that presently occurs. As Dr. Tomp- kins will testify, he has had to pay for his own personal body- guards. Of the 28 cases of arson at abortion clinics during 1990 through 1992, only 3 resulted in an arrest. Second, localities may not have adequate laws on the books. The State laws are inadequate to deal with the problem. Thirty States have enacted stalking laws; but many of these cover only domestic stalking and would not cover abortion providers. Finally, even ifState laws exist, the States must be willing to en- force them. As we will hear today from our first panel ofwitnesses, police sometimes are reluctant to arrest, and State judges who must face reelection are reluctant to sentence. So the whole panoply of actions against the federally protected right to choose is at stake. Another reason that we have had this hearing is the Attorney General herself is interested in examining whether Federal help is appropriate for individuals targeted by antichoice harassment. She supports Federal protection both at and away from the clinic in the letter she sent to the subcommittee. She has stated that she wishes this area explored. [Ms. Reno's letter follows:] m % (Office of Attorneu <&t ral Basljington.B.(£.20530 April 1, 1993 Honorable Charles E. Schumer Chairman Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice Committee on the Judiciary- United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman: I have previously expressed my strong support for Federal protection for women seeking access to medical facilities that perform abortions. Upon taking office, I asked attorneys in the Department of Justice to review the possible basis under existing federal law for providing such protection. That review has persuaded me that existing Federal law is inadequate and new legislation is necessary. This will be a top priority for the Department of Justice. I have also concluded that it is necessary to extend the protections afforded by that new legislation to address conduct that occurs away from, as well as at the site of abortion clinics. There should be no distinction between an individual who uses force against a doctor or patient at an abortion clinic and one who does so away from an abortion clinic, so long as the intent of the individual is to prevent the doctor from providing, or the patient from receiving, an abortion at a clinic. From a policy standpoint, prohibition of such conduct only if it occurred at a clinic would present an invitation to violators to move away from the clinic and engage in equally disruptive behavior. There have, of course, been reports that individuals intent on preventing abortions already engage in such behavior. From a legal standpoint, there is no distinction between the authority of Congress to address such conduct whether it occurs near a clinic or elsewhere. The basis for Federal legislation in this area will be the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. That authority extends easily to interference with activities at abortion clinics, which receive equipment and supplies through interstate commerce, and whose patients and staZt frequently travel interstate. It also extends to activities that are intended to prevent women from receiving the services of an abortion clinic, wherever those activities occur. The effect on interstate commerce is the same whether the interference occurs outside a woman's home or at the clinic door. Similarly, the effect on interference with health care providers to prevent the provision of services at a medical facility is the same regardless of where the interference occurs. I endorse your efforts to pass legislation to address this very serious problem and look forward to working with you to craft final legislation that will bring protection against improper conduct to women who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who provide these important services, while respecting the right of expression enshrined in the First Amendment.