Pro-Choice
Related: About this forumAnti-Abortion Terrorist Thinks Dobbs Ruling Should Set Him Free
Anti-Abortion Terrorist Thinks Dobbs Ruling Should Set Him Free
Robyn Pennacchia
June 23, 2023 02:50 PM
Anti-Abortion Terrorist Thinks Dobbs Ruling Should Set Him Free
Domestic terrorist James Charles Kopp has filed court papers asking that his federal convictions be overturned on the grounds of the United States Supreme Court determining in the 2022 Dobbs decision that Americans have no constitutional right to abortion which he seems to believe gave him the right to kill an abortion provider.
?width=1200&height=800&quality=85&coordinates=0%2C0%2C26%2C0
In 1998, Kopp, a member of a radical anti-abortion group called the Lambs of Christ (or, alternately, Victim Souls of the Unborn Christ-Child), shot and killed Dr. Barnett Slepian in a sniper attack in his home near Buffalo, New York. Kopp was convicted in 1993 on state charges of second degree murder and on federal charges of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence and of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) resulting in death. "FACE was intended to protect a 'right' to abortion that thus never existed, and, as such, the fate of FACE attaches to and follows perfectly the fate of Roe," Kopp wrote in the court papers, as per the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. "Since Roe is now overturned FACE also is now gone and never existed."
The FACE Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 following several years' worth of anti-abortion terrorism on US clinics, makes it illegal when anyone:
(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.
Dobbs has had no impact on the legality of FACE, and it is hard to see how it would.
Kopp also alleges, in these court papers, that he was denied the ability to claim in court that he killed Slepian in defense of "the humanity of womb children." He's not the first anti-abortion radical to assert that he should be able to plead "defense of others" in court, though this defense has yet to be successful. It is highly unlikely that this nonsense will get any kind of hearing, though the fact that a domestic terrorist like Kopp is looking at that ruling and thinking "Killing abortion providers is definitely legal now" is certainly frightening. He's not alone, either.
. . . . . . . .
Barnett Slepian, by the way, is likely not the only abortion provider that Kopp shot, though he is the only fatality; Kopp is suspected of four other sniper attacks on abortion providers in their homes in southern Canada and in Rochester, New York. These are largely referred to as the Remembrance Day shootings, as they all took place around November 11, which Canadian anti-abortion radicals celebrate as Remembrance Day for the Unborn. Dr. David Gandell, the Rochester abortion provider he was suspected of shooting in 1997, passed away in 2021, a year before Roe was overturned. He was remembered fondly by the many people he helped.
https://www.wonkette.com/anti-abortion-terrorist-thinks-dobbs-ruling-should-set-him-free
The Unmitigated Gall
(4,547 posts)niyad
(120,272 posts)catharineg
(10 posts)IMO, part of the problem with pro-choicers is that we've been too polite and tolerant of selfish religious preferences which are more often than not, misogynistic. I personally think bluntness is the way to go...guess its a bit late now but really. All the way thru rvw, its like we had to respect the other sides misogynistic fuzzy feelings cuz religion is like good or whatever. It didn't matter if what they said made no sense..that they flat out lied. It seems to me, tho i could be a tad biased, that the pro choice side was tooooooo polite, tolerant and understanding. I hope my rant doesn't bother anyone..,.its an emotional issue plus i've had a left temporal lobectomy..not the sharpest knife in the drawer anymore, but oh well
Things about the abortion debate that either bother me or fly over my head:
1. putting the cart before the horse. It seems that the only right that antichoicers wanna give the embryo is authority over the pregnant women's body....they're not particularly concerned about its nourishment, well being etc
2. if abortion is completely outlawed in some states, why haven't they investigated miscarriages as well? i mean accident killing of a person is involuntary manslaughter, still a legal issue
3. crisis pregnancy centers frequently open up near planned parenthood offices in hopes of intentionally intercepting birth control seekers
4. in some states, doctors are required to tell women whom they give the pill to, that it can be reversed, which it cant...and doing so can be dangerous for women, shaky at best
5. the 6 week fetal heartbeat law would make it nearly impossible for a female to discover she's preggo, then jump through all the antichoice intentional obstacle hoops in time to have an abortion.
6. at 6 weeks, its not a fetus and there is no heart
7. i believe the hyde amendment was created cuz holier than thous didn't want their money going to something they didn't approve of. I'm an LA lady and Cali is the 4th largest economy on mother earth...antichoice states dint pay for nothing....they take take take from federal taxes decade after decade. Why should they be able to determine whats done with others money? in economics, antichoice red states are whats known as moral hazards
8. Another obstacle for the honest, factual prochoicers was the self stroking antichoicers deciding that a medical procedure that they didn't approve of was a moral issue. No it isn't. Its a MEDICAL issue...and people who detrimentally try to control others lives. When they will never be there to help with the human being...and usually ...not even with the taxes in their unproductive backward states lack of federal tax contributions
9. antichoicers are either dumber than a box of rocks or deceptive and intentionally give out TONS of misinformation like abortions cause cervical cancer, breast cancer, infertility, ptsd and other mental illnesses. Why are they not penalized for giving out health misinformation? Does being tax exempt because a *medical* org is religious make it ok to distort facts cuz that's how religion makes people feel
10. the egos of antichoicers r astounding. I mean abortions aren't done at repair shops, but medical facilities because abortions are medical procedures. If antichoicers put their fuzzy misogynistic indoctrinated feelings about a medical procedure...above what the american medical association says on the matter, they are either narcissistic or just want to oppress women by any means necessary. And actually, according to the big 5 personality traits, they're NOT the compassionate type..not for the embryos and not for the women fer sure. Antichoicers are more often than not, right wing authoritarians
11. I personally think the term *moral* issue was created by the self stroking authoritarian antichoicers. I personally find it quite immoral that ignorant uneducated misogynistic people who believe in talking snakes think so highly of themselves that they should be able to impose their ignorances onto others who wished they never met them
12. catholic hospitals...tax exempt, and quite profitable, are legally entitled to, tax exemptedly, be deceptive about being a catholic hospital to begin with and not be honest with the patient about what they're entitled to deprive me of, as required by law
13. lets not forget the in vitro fertilization clinics that abort way more than they dint. Not even our current morally bankrupt prolief SCOTUS thought to apply the 6 week tx law to all the precious innocent embryos despite implying it was a very important case, shadow docket and all
14. antichoicers claim that embryos are people and abortion is murder. to that, i bluntly ask them if they really equate a woman drowning her kids to a woman having an abortion...or losing a kid to leukemia to a miscarriage. ya ya, that might be *insensitive*, but taking away my right to choose is a bit beyond insensitive. I do think harsh and maybe even mean bluntness is the only shot at getting a point across to the holier than thous
15. when states restrict abortion access, female suicide rates go up. I wonder if pro-liefers care about those lives
16. SCOTUS was inconsistent in taking away our right to choose. all the stupid cases they brought up about women's health issues was not just about what they feel others should do with their lives...but the cases were full of misinformation, fuzzy feelings and flat out lies
17. How can rights be taken away when the prochoicers have science and facts and brilliant respected organizations that help humanity whereas the antichoicers make things up, wish to control others and really...their only other cause tends to be oppressing gays.
how did it come to this