American Coalition of Life Activists

views updated

American Coalition of Life Activists

LEADERS: Andrew Burnett; David Crane

YEAR ESTABLISHED OR BECAME ACTIVE: 1994

USUAL AREA OF OPERATION: Portland, Oregon

NOT A U.S. TERRORIST EXCLUSION LIST DESIGNEE AFFILIATED GROUPS: Operation Rescue; Advocates for Life; Pro-life Action Movement

OVERVIEW

The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), based in Portland, Oregon, is best known for a series of court cases that stretched from 1999 through 2003, in which ACLA was sued by a group of physicians who perform abortions. The physicians sued ACLA for publishing "wanted" posters of abortion providers, and a web site called the "Nuremberg Files," in which more than 200 abortion providers' photos, home addresses, and telephone numbers were prominently displayed. The case traveled through the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001 and 2002, and the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to hear the case, though they declined in 2003.

In the end, the original 1999 Oregon court ruling, which awarded $107 million to the physicians and declared the posters and web site to be speech not protected by the First Amendment, was upheld.

The group, which split from Operation Rescue, approves of the use of violence in the fight against legal abortion, and considers the murder of abortion providers to be "justifiable homicide."

HISTORY

The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), founded in 1994, formed as an offshoot of the anti-choice/pro-life organization, Operation Rescue. Identifying themselves as "pro-life," the founders and the group state that violence and murder are acceptable means to securing their end: the abolition of legal abortion in the United States.

Throughout its history, ACLA has called the murders of abortion providers "justifiable homicide." ACLA considers Paul Hill a "hero"; in 1994 Hill murdered Dr. John Britton and his unarmed escort, James Barrett, at a Pensacola, Florida, clinic.

In 1995, a group of physicians sued ACLA and other pro-choice groups for creating wanted posters of various abortion providers, medical doctors who performed abortions at clinics that included Planned Parenthood sites. Two pro-life organizations and 14 individuals were named as defendants in the Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists case. The wanted posters included personal information about the doctors, offered rewards for helping to induce doctors to stop performing abortions and for helping to close clinics. In 1996, Neal Horsley, a leader in the American Coalition of Life Activists, also created a web site called the Nuremberg Files. This web site listed information on more than 200 doctors who performed abortions, including home addresses, telephone numbers, and personal details. The physicians who sued ACLA and others claimed that the web site and posters constituted "harassment, intimidation and threats of violence in order to cause violent acts and to drive plaintiffs out of business." On the Nuremberg Files web site, abortion providers who had been killed were depicted with a line through their poster, while those wounded were shaded gray. The web site explicitly explained the meanings of these symbols.

ACLA and the other groups, as defendants, claimed that the posters and the web site were protected under the First Amendment, as free speech. The ACLA claimed that the posters did not directly advocate violence; none of the writings told people to harm any single person, nor did they make explicit threats to the doctors.

LEADERSHIP

ANDREW BURNETT

Andrew Burnett is the publisher of Life Advocate, founder of Advocates for Life Ministries, and one of the founders of the American Coalition of Life Activists. According to public profiles, Burnett attended Multnomah Bible College in Portland, Oregon, where he received a Bachelor's Degree in 1976, and a Master's Degree in 1978, both in Religious Studies. In 1984, he became an anti-choice/pro-life activist, reportedly, after viewing a documentary on abortion. In 1985, he formed Advocates for Life, in 1987 he helped to form the high-profile group Operation Rescue, and in 1994 he helped to create ACLA, an offshoot of Operation Rescue that condoned the use of violence and murder as a means to ending legal abortion.

Life Advocate is considered to be the primary anti-choice/pro-life publication in the movement, and is one of the most vocal publications in supporting the use of violence in ending legal abortion in the United States. With articles that openly condone the murder of abortion providers in promoting the pro-life cause, Life Advocate and Burnett's primary organization, Advocates for Life Ministries, have gained national attention for holding and advocating violence as a tactic. Burnett was named as an individual defendant in the Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists case.

The plaintiffs used the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), which criminalizes the use of force or threat of force against anyone seeking an abortion in a clinic or with abortion providers, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law as the legal basis for their arguments against ACLA's activities. In 1999, an Oregon court sided with the physicians, awarding them more than $107 million in damages. ACLA immediately filed an appeal, which reached the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001. Three judges on the Ninth Circuit heard the case, and reversed the lower court's decision. The judges looked back at NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982). In this case, the NAACP organized a boycott of white-owned stores, and organizers wrote down the names of black patrons who crossed the boycott lines to shop in the white-owned stores. These names were announced at rallies, and some violent acts were later experienced by those whose names had been announced. One of the boycott organizers, Charles Evers, threatened at a public rally that, "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck."

In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that Evers did not directly incite violence against those black patrons, although the collection of their names and public announcements did lead to some violent acts against them. In its 2001 decision handed down by a three-judge panel, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used the Supreme Court's ruling in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. to make a conclusion.

Defendants can only be held liable if they "authorized, ratified, or directly threatened" violence. If defendants threatened to commit violent acts, by working alone or with others, then their statements could properly support the verdict. But if their statements merely encouraged unrelated terrorists, then their words are protected by the First Amendment.

The lower court ruling in favor of the physicians and the $107 million judgment were reversed. The physicians appealed and, in 2002, the entire United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (11 members) sat en banc (in full) to hear the case.

In a reversal of its own three-judge panel's decision, the Ninth Circuit Court's 2002 decision stated that, in fact, the speech did constitute a threat to the abortion providers. In their judgment, the court reaffirmed the original 1999 court ruling.

ACLA was aware that a "wanted"-type poster would likely be interpreted as a serious threat of death or bodily harm by a doctor in the reproductive health services community who was identified on one, given the previous pattern of "WANTED" posters identifying a specific physician followed by that physician's murder. The same is true of the posting about these physicians on that part of the "Nuremberg Files" where lines were drawn through the names of doctors who provided abortion services and who had been killed or wounded. We are independently satisfied that to this limited extent, ACLA's conduct amounted to a true threat and is not protected speech.

The American Coalition of Life Activists appealed the 2002 decision to the United States Supreme Court. In 2003, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case; the 2002 decision from the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stood. ACLA is still bound by the court's decision and cannot publish the Nuremberg Files online or in print.

PHILOSOPHY AND TACTICS

ACLA clearly states that its goal is to stop legal abortion. The group does not shy away from the use of force, intimidation, or violence in achieving this end.

The primary reason for the creation of ACLA was the issue of violence; while other anti-choice/pro-life organizations declared their disapproval of the use of violence, and even murder, in the cause to make abortion illegal, ACLA was created expressly as an organization that condoned violence. The "Nuremburg Files," developed as a strategy in the summer of 1996, offered a reward "for information leading to arrest, conviction and revocation of license to practice medicine."

David Crane, ACLA's national director at the time, announced that the purpose of the files "will be to gather all available information on abortionists and their accomplices for the day when they may be formally charged and tried at Nuremberg-type trials for their crimes. The information in these files will be specifically that kind of evidence admissible in a court of law."

KEY EVENTS

1996:
ACLA creates the Nurenberg Files web site.
1999:
Lost a lawsuit against physicians after two reviews by the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Crane and Andrew Burnett, ACLA's founder, both laid out the main purposes for ACLA: to use publicity to identify abortion providers and to gather information about them, and to help local groups close abortion clinics. ACLA offered a $500 reward to individuals and groups that convinced abortion providers to stop performing abortions, a $1,000 reward to those who helped to close an abortion clinic, and $5,000 for information leading to the arrest of an abortion provider, or information leading to the revocation of an abortion provider's medical license.

The group also highlighted Paul Hill's role in the murder of a doctor who performed abortions and his escort. Andrew Burnett has been photographed holding a sign that states: "Free Paul Hill! JAIL Abortionists." Unlike other anti-choice/pro-life groups, ACLA explicitly addressed the use of violence as a viable tactic in fighting to end legal abortion in the United States. ACLA has honored people such as Michael Bray, the author of a book that defends the use of assassination of abortion providers, and John Salvi III, who killed two clinic employees and wounded five people in Brookline, Massachusetts, in 1997.

OTHER PERSPECTIVES

The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision was a narrow 6-5 in favor of the plaintiffs. In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski stated that "a true threat warns of violence or other harm that the speaker controls." He further elaborated.

PRIMARY SOURCE
Hit List or Free Speech?

A key decision on what constitutes a "true threat" is revisited in the wake of the September terror attacks.

In one of the highest-profile cases of 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed a multi-million dollar jury verdict in the "Nuremberg Files" litigation—an action claiming that pro-life activists used WANTED-style posters, Internet hit lists, and other forms of protest to create a climate of fear and danger for abortion providers.

Legal scholars were not surprised by the court's decision—the jury's verdict had been controversial on First Amendment grounds. What did catch some scholars off-guard was the court's recent decision to withdraw its first opinion and order the case reargued.

The rehearing order came more than six months after the original decision, but a mere three weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks—and that timing may not have been coincidental.

The Nuremberg Files litigation began in 1995, when abortion providers sued the American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA), Advocates for Life Ministries and 14 individuals for engaging in "harassment, intimidation and threats of violence in order to cause violent acts and to drive plaintiffs out of business."

ACLA and the other defendants argued that the First Amendment shielded them from liability.

But the court did not buy the First Amendment argument in its entirety, leaving the jury to decide whether ACLA's free speech rights extended to certain posters and a website known as "The Nuremberg Files."

The site, created by Neal Horsley using information provided by ACLA, included a list of approximately 200 doctors under the heading "ABORTIONISTS: the shooters."

Many names were linked to photographs and detailed identifying information. Perhaps the most chilling feature of the site was the legend explaining the significance of certain typefaces: "Grayed-out Name (wounded); Strikethrough (fatality)." Although neither contained explicit exhortations to violence, the jury determined that both the posters and the website—quite ominous in context—constituted "true threats," a characterization that stripped them of all First Amendment protection.

The jury awarded the plaintiffs $107 million in damages, and the court enjoined the posters and imposed substantial limitations on what could be published on the website.

The Court Reconsiders

Horsley, the website's creator, has never paid the slightest bit of attention to the injunction, declaring that nothing short of his arrest would stop him. "This court case won't shut me up," he said.

As a result, the only interruptions in the availability of the "Nuremberg Files" have resulted from decisions by private Internet Service Providers to discontinue Horsley's service. As of this January, the site was fully functional and included a long list of names.

In March 2001, the 9th Circuit threw out the damages award and vacated the injunction. The court held that neither the posters nor the website constituted "true threats" because they had not "authorized, ratified, or directly threatened acts of violence."

The court viewed the posters and website as indistinguishable from the constitutionally protected comments of an NAACP activist—warning "that boycott breakers would be 'disciplined' and … that the sheriff could not protect them at night"—at the heart of a famous Supreme Court opinion.

Noting that "[e]xtreme rhetoric and violent action have marked many political movements in American history," the 9th Circuit concluded that if the NAACP activist's "speech was protected by the First Amendment, then ACLA's speech is also protected." Planned Parenthood immediately asked the court to reconsider, but six months elapsed without a word from the court. On Oct. 3, the 9th Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and ordered the case reargued before a larger panel of judges.

Several judges at the Dec. 11 rehearing appeared skeptical of the plaintiffs' argument that the posters and Web site constituted threats. As one judge pointedly asked: "Who was going to do what to whom?" The court has no time-table for deciding the case.

It is hard to ignore the possibility that the decision to rehear the case was motivated, at least in part, by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The last few months have witnessed a sea change in criminal procedure: secret tribunals from which even elected representatives are excluded, a drastic curtailment of the attorney-client privilege, suspicionless interrogation and racial profiling.

In the wake of Sept. 11, courts may be less inclined to afford First Amendment protection to speech that intentionally "encourage[s] unrelated terrorists," or makes "it easier for any would-be terrorists to carry out their gruesome mission."

Source: Southern Poverty Law Center, 2002

The record reveals one instance where an individual—Paul Hill, who is not a defendant in this case—participated in the preparation of the poster depicting a physician, Dr. Britton, and then murdered him. All others who helped to make that poster, as well as those who prepared the other posters, did not resort to violence. There is therefore no pattern showing that people who prepare wanted-type posters then engage in physical violence. To the extent the posters indicate a pattern, it is that almost all people engaged in poster-making were nonviolent.

Although reaction among anti-choice/pro-life organizations to the court's decision was largely negative, many mainstream organizations such as Operation Rescue, Feminists for Life, and Democrats for Life continue to reject the concept of "justifiable homicide" and condemn the use of violence and murder in the effort to end legal abortion in the United States.

SUMMARY

Neal Horsley's Nuremberg Files web site, which was at the center of the trials and the judicial decisions, had a message posted on its index page.

"The Web Sites Above Have Been Censored. The List of Abortionists On This Web Site and the Live Cameras Posted Outside Butchertoriums across the Nation Have Been Removed By the Federal Government of the USA Because It Deterred People From Aborting Unborn Babies, Thereby Depriving Satan of the Daily Allotment of Dead Babies Committed to Him by the Federal Government. Your Continuing Support of the Federal Government Made This Possible."

In the fall of 1997, ACLA disbanded, although the court cases continued until 2003. As of this writing, they are no longer an organization, though their leaders and membership are active in other groups, such as Advocates for Life Ministries and Operation Rescue.

Andrew Barnett continues to lead Advocates for Life Ministries, and is the current publisher of Life Advocate magazine.

SOURCES

Books

Mason, Carol. Killing for Life: The Apocalyptic Narrative of Pro-Life Politics. NY: Cornell University Press, 2002.

Web sites

American Civil Liberties Union. "Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists." 1999 decision. 〈http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=13583&c=227〉 (accessed July 27, 2005).

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists." 2001 decision. 〈http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/0/1b21cad7a2e437d988256a1d006a03a1?OpenDocument〉 (accessed July 27, 2005).

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists." 2002 decision. 〈http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement〉 (accessed September 22, 2005).

SEE ALSO

Operation Rescue

About this article

American Coalition of Life Activists

Updated About encyclopedia.com content Print Article

NEARBY TERMS

American Coalition of Life Activists