- Mar 31, 2009
- 95,079
- 71,629
- 3,605
Yeah I'm wondering why the FBI was involved in what is clearly a local jurisdiction
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's the purpose of protesting, to make the government react. The federal law is OVERREACTING on one very specific form of protest.
The law has already been challenged, and the courts upheld it. .A law that over punishes someone for a non violent action like this sure as hell will.
These people in some cases have been found guilty of simple trespass, or in the case of the guy defending his son, not even prosecuted at the local level.
But the DOJ to satisfy the abortion rights fanatics has decided to go after these people.
It's political as hell.
Did you note where I stated many times I supported her willingness to use civil disobedience to make her point?
The law has already been challenged, and the courts upheld it. .
The law prohibits the following three things: (1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion, (2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship, (3) the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health care facility or a place of worship.[1][2]And the Republican thought it would be used probably on violent protesters.
Of course progs like you consider any resistance to your cherished dogmas to be violent.
In cases involving actual violence, or someone just sitting down to protest?
Or in the other case, someone defending their 12 year old kid from a violent freak. A case, I might add, that was already reviewed by local law enforcement resulting in no charges against the father.
The law prohibits the following three things: (1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion, (2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship, (3) the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health care facility or a place of worship.[1][2]
Local officials do NOT enforce Federal Law. As to the specifics it seems neither side of that case actually wants to be specific but it is Federal officials that prosecute federal law. Just because a local law was not broke does not mean a federal law was not.
Why is this even an issue when the demise of Roe took abortion OUT OF the federal govt's jurisdiction?
Federal law was never designed to deal with local things such as this.
how utterly ignorant!Its very disingenuous to link the holocaust to abortion. The two are not linked. This ladies previous misfortune does not give her license to attack those people seeking abortions.
Take it up with the courts. They have ruled otherwise.
I know that.To note, the ruling did no such thing. It simply said that the Supreme Court had erred when they made it Constitutionally protected. They never ruled that Congress could not pass laws protecting or prosecuting abortion.
This will be challenged and doesn't change the fact that the law treats peaceful civil disobedience the same as violence, both property and personal.
So you were cool with BLM blocking roads?
Notice how Democrats can block highways and nothing happens to them.