NARAL and Bray v. Alexander

Apologist for racism and enthusiastic supporter of stripping people of property and liberty without due process or individualized suspicion based on their ethnicity Michelle Malkin touts this genuinely loathsome op-ed by Manuel Miranda. (Yes, that’s the same grossly unethical Manuel Miranda who hacked into Democratic computer files, now a wingnut hero, which tells you all you need to know about conservatives like Malkin.) NARAL’s ad notes that Roberts filed an amicus brief on behalf of Operation Rescue, arguing that they had the right to obstruct access to abortion clinics despite language in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 that makes conspiracies to deprive people of their rights illegal. The Court, regrettably, accepted Roberts’ argument that the statute should be interpreted much more narrowly than its language would suggest; for reasons very ably stated by Sandra Day O’Connor, I believe this decision was wrong. (Miranda’s objection aside, Operation Rescue and the Klan are both conspiracies that use violence to prevent particular classes of people from exercising their constitutional rights.) But reasonable people can disagree about whether the statute should apply–there’s a more serious problem. Here’s how Miranda frames the issue:

As a deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, Mr. Roberts filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1871, enacted to protect blacks from the Ku Klux Klan, did not prohibit peaceful pro-life demonstrators from standing outside of abortion clinics. [My emphasis]

Miranda is, of course, lying. If the groups in question were simply engaged in peaceful protest, they would be protected by the First Amendment. But this isn’t what they were doing: rather, they were trying to physically obstruct access to abortion clinics. Notably, they didn’t even claim that their actions were protected by the First Amendment. As Stevens noted in his dissent:

Pursuant to their overall conspiracy, petitioners have repeatedly engaged in “rescue” operations that violate local law and harm innocent women. Petitioners trespass on clinic property and physically block access to the clinic,preventing patients, as well as physicians and medical staff, from entering the clinic to render or receive medical or counseling services. Uncontradicted trial testimony demonstrates that petitioners’ conduct created a “substantial risk that existing or prospective patients may suffer physical or mental harm.” Petitioners make no claim that their conduct is a legitimate form of protected expression.

Petitioners’ intent to engage in repeated violations of law is not contested. They trespass on private property, interfere with the ability of patients to obtain medical and counseling services, and incite others to engage in similar unlawful activity. They also engage in malicious conduct, such as defacing clinic signs, damaging clinic property, and strewing nails in clinic parking lots and on nearby public streets. This unlawful conduct is “vital to [petitioners’]avowed purposes and goals.” They show no signs of abandoning their chosen method for advancing their goals.

So, to summarize, Roberts filed an amicus brief arguing for an extremely narrow construction of a broadly worded statute in order to protect a group that used various illegal actions up to and including violence to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights. NARAL’s ad is tough but fair.

While we’re on the subject of Miranda, I know it’s hard to believe but his op-ed actually gets worse. He trots out the old canard that “Roe v. Wade is not just the source of a right; it’s a business license for abortion clinics.” Obviously, the idea that people support reproductive rights so that a few doctors can engage in a not-especially-remunerative medical practice is abject nonsense on its face. But if it we take it seriously, it is of course conservatives–who (unlike NARAL) oppose policies such as rational sex education, accessible contraception, and child welfare that make abortion rates much lower in other democracies with similarly liberal abortion laws–who are increasing the profits of abortion clinics.

UPDATE: NARAL responds to FactChuck.