THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, September 24, 1996 TAG: 9609240292
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ROBERT PEAR, NEW YORK TIMES
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: 90 lines
New data show that violent protests at abortion clinics have decreased sharply in the 28 months since Congress made it a federal crime to obstruct access to clinics.
The National Abortion Federation, which represents abortion clinics and their employees, said Monday that there had been fewer than 400 incidents of violence and disruption this year, down from 1,815 in all of 1995, 1,987 in 1994 and 3,429 in 1993. The federation has been tabulating such incidents since the mid-1980s.
Vicki Saporta, executive director of the federation, said that as a result of the 1994 law, ``there has been significantly less violence outside clinics and a significant opening of access, with fewer blockades and less picketing.''
Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who wrote much of the law, said Monday, ``It is working beyond our highest expectations.''
The law, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, was prompted by violence at abortion clinics around the country. The statute makes it a crime to interfere ``by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction'' with anyone who is seeking or performing an abortion or other reproductive health services. People who blockade clinics or threaten employees or patients may be fined or imprisoned.
``The law has proved to be a major deterrent,'' Saporta said. ``You don't have so many blockades of the type that used to make it impossible to enter a clinic. Fewer people are willing to get arrested and federally prosecuted.''
In an interview, Deval L. Patrick, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, said, ``This law has made a difference.''
Since President Clinton signed the measure in May 1994, Patrick said, the government has filed criminal charges in 13 cases and has filed 10 civil cases, generally to obtain injunctions against people who were blocking access to clinics.
But Saporta said enforcement of the law had been uneven. ``In some places like Rochester,'' she said, ``it's working very well because local law-enforcement officials understand how to enforce it. Access is excellent, despite picketing and demonstrations.''
In other places, she said, local police officers appear to be unwilling to assure access to clinics or do not understand what they need to do. ``Local law-enforcement officers need more training,'' she said.
The criminal cases filed by federal prosecutors were in Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Washington state and Wisconsin.
In 1994, for example, a federal court convicted six people who had blocked the entrance to a women's clinic in Milwaukee. In 1995, two men were convicted of obstructing a clinic in Wichita, Kan.; a Houston man was convicted of smashing the car windshield of a doctor who provided reproductive health services, and two men were convicted of obstructing a clinic in Palm Beach County, Fla. And in April, a woman pleaded guilty to threatening to bomb an abortion clinic in Kentucky. Being found guilty of a first offense is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of six months in prison and a fine up to $10,000.
Catherine W. Short, legal director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation in Napa, Calif., which provides legal assistance to opponents of abortion, agreed that the new law had been a deterrent, but said it had deterred activity protected by the First Amendment.
``A lot of people are very scared to go out and engage in any type of free-speech activity at clinics,'' Short said. ``They're afraid even to offer alternatives to women considering abortion because they fear that such sidewalk counseling will be construed as an attempt to intimidate women. In fact, the law prohibits intimidation only if it is accompanied by force or physical obstruction.''
Patrick said in an interview that nothing in the law interfered with ``valid, lawful, peaceful expressions'' of opinion at abortion clinics.
``We have been very, very careful to respect the First Amendment limitations on enforcement of a law like this,'' Patrick said. ``But people who seek to interfere with a woman's reproductive rights understand that if they cross the line past free expression and engage in physical obstruction or violence, there will be consequences.''
In one case, the law has been used to protect the rights of people opposed to abortion. A Yakima, Wash., man pleaded guilty to placing threatening phone calls to a counseling service that encouraged women to consider alternatives to abortion. ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
Reported incidents:
400
so far this year
3,429
in 1993
KEYWORDS: ABORTION CLINIC VIOLENCE STATISTICS by CNB