Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
A Politicized Justice Department Strikes Again
DOJ lawyers target a 79-year-old pro-lifer.

By Hans A. von Spakovsky


Archive Latest RSS Send
Text  

The Department of Justice is now prosecuting a 79-year-old grandfather. The reason: Richard Retta walks alongside women on the sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood abortion facility and offers women hope that they can carry their babies to term.

“They go in and they’re kind of sullen in what they’re doing, and I’m sure there’s a lot of sorrow there,” Retta says in a short video by Pro-Life Unity. “But when they change their mind, most of the times they’re smiling, they’re happy. And they’re willing to talk to us,” he says.

This is the first time, in over a decade of sidewalk counseling, that anyone has sued him for obstruction. (Last month, however, he was pepper-sprayed for his efforts by a woman walking into the clinic who apparently didn’t want him talking to her.)

Advertisement

Retta estimates that he and other volunteers have helped more than 1,300 women change their minds about abortion. But that kind of success seems to be too much for this administration. It is so committed to the agenda of abortion groups that it threatened to shut down the entire government during the budget debate earlier this year to preserve more than $300 million in federal funds for Planned Parenthood. It also has threatened to cut off Medicaid funds to states like Indiana that ban state grants to the organization.

Obama’s DOJ claims that Retta’s sidewalk counseling violates the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, enacted by Congress in 1994. In a July 2011 complaint, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division says that Retta violated federal law because he “walks very closely beside patients” as they enter the clinic. It also claims that Retta follows them when they leave.

But FACE permits Retta to walk beside patients, coming or going, on a public sidewalk. And the First Amendment protects his right to speak to them. In fact, the FACE Act (18 U.S.C. § 248) forbids only physical obstruction, intimidation, or the use or threat of force. The FACE Act protects the activity that Retta engaged in: The statute specifically states that it does not “prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration).”

DOJ’s allegation that Retta physically blocked patient access is dubious. On Jan. 8, 2011, he supposedly “physically obstructed a patient from entering the clinic” by standing in front of her. The DOJ complaint alleges that, as she then entered the building, Retta yelled, “Don’t go in there. Don’t let them kill your baby.”

Retta was not dressed in a black paramilitary uniform, he was not carrying a nightstick, and he was not yelling racial epithets or blocking the entrance to a polling place. Yet this is the same Justice Department that dismissed a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther party, whose members engaged in exactly that behavior. Somehow the behavior and speech of a 79-year-old sidewalk counselor violates federal law against intimidation, but the speech and behavior of the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia in 2008 was just fine, according to the skewed perspective of the liberals who inhabit the Civil Rights Division these days.

As a result, DOJ is demanding that Retta pay a $10,000 civil penalty for violating FACE and $15,000 in fines to his alleged victims. It also wants Retta — and everyone “acting in concert” with him — to be prohibited from standing within 20 feet of the Planned Parenthood gate.

Retta was shocked to learn that DOJ had brought charges against him. The department’s doubtful claim is also brought into question by Retta’s history. He doesn’t just counsel women on the sidewalks about the tragic consequences of abortion; he has also taught sidewalk-counseling classes for about a decade.

He prints a homemade, 22-page training manual that teaches volunteers how to conduct themselves. Item number two on his list of “don’ts”: “DO NOT block the woman’s path.”

Retta also instructs counselors to “[a]void being intimidating in any way.”

1   2   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Trinko: Will Fear Decide Texas Senate Race?

Symposium: Polling Life

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST



COMMENTS   31

EXPAND  

John Walker
   08/17/11 08:49

That's why they call it pro-choice. The choice is the DOJs.
The Governor of a state is given the authority to stay the execution of a guilty death row inmate but he cannot intevene to pardon an innocent condemned fetus. Justice ended with Roe v. Wade.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 09:37

Very typical of the current government. The real problem of course is the victims in both cases. Both were unprotected classes of people and therefore don't deserve any kind of defense. Obama continues his program of defending the strong and strong arming the weak...

2012 can't come quickly enough!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 10:17

When it comes to abortion, I keep thinking about how Lincoln, when feeling remorseful about all the death taking place in the war, would think the country had to pay the price in blood for all the pain and death brought about due to legalized slavery.
Will we pay a price for the fifty million plus lives snuffed out through abortion? Perhaps it's already started.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 10:26

How many polling places have suffered the kind of intimidation practiced by the NBPP in Philadelphia? Is it widespread? Something to make a test case about?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 12:18

So justice is only served if it's to make a point, MikeB? I thought we enforced the laws, evenhandedly, and punished those who broke them.

Obama either, instead, enforces laws he likes, and grants waivers or ignores laws he doesn't. This is not civilization, this is a Banana Republic Third World Cult of Personality.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Roger H.
   08/17/11 16:00

It wasn't a "test case." In fact, a conviction had already been entered against the defendants (who hadn't contested the charges), when this crew took over DOJ. Instead of entering an order taking the conviction, which is not a costly exercise in any way, DOJ dismissed the case. It had nothing to do with the allocation of DOJ resources. It had everything to do with ideology. It was not a case of cost but, rather, a case of kto kogo.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Roger H.
   08/17/11 16:09

I don't know why NRO doesn't marry up replies with the comments they are in reply to but it didn't here. Of course, the case I'm referring to in my comment is the Philadelphia NBPP case that MikeB, in his comment, thought may have been dismissed because it wasn't a cost-effective prosecution. It was this comment to which I was replying.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 10:48

In Mike's world, hearing something the left doesn't want you to hear is intimidation.

Then again, liberalism is a mental disorder.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 11:09

i defend the right of free speech as vehemently as i do women's individual liberties right to choose. he has as much right to try to talk her out of it, without using force or intimidation of course, as she does to have it.

just another example of our out of control government that has no respect for our constitution

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
WRTolkas
   08/17/11 12:37

Eric Holder, the Algonquin J. Calhoun of the legal profession. When the messiah is cast out next November, I will be delighted to witness any and all Department of "Justice" investigations. Holder, you had better move to France.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 16:45

And the Pres. is the George K. Stevens of probity.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 13:15

Grown-up people have a voice,
Shouts and cries for freedom flood,
Women have the right of choice,
Dripping from this phrase is blood.

Little cries from unheard voice,
Tiny fists are clenched in dread,
Never given any choice,
Unborn infant now is dead.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 13:54

RightEveryTime, DOJ can't take every case. But you knew that. Most of the comments here assume that DOJ's decision in taking the Retta case instead of the NBPP case had to do with DOJ's bias. I don't know whether it did or didn't. I just figure that there are likely to be fewer wackos standing menacingly in front of polling booths than right-to-lifers accosting women seeking abortions, and DOJ may have thought the same thing.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 14:57

MikeB, you are telling me the Department of Justice decides who to prosecute and who not to prosecute based on manpower, and not on the evidence available and likelihood of dismissal?

The Civil Rights Division is tasked with enforcing the Voting Rights Act (amongst other laws). According to the WaPo it has about 36 lawyers in the Voting Section that is tasked with enforcing the Voting Rights Act within the Civil Rights Division.

So far this year, they have filed 3 cases.

I think they could possibly handle 1 more, I couldn't say for sure, though.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
EJF
   08/17/11 16:15

The problem is that the NBPP case was done and over, all the DOJ hade to do was file it andthe NBPP would have been in a Federal prision. But the Obama administration has put a policy in place that they will not go after minorities for civil rights violations.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 16:49

And it all evens out; one dead Democrat per one intimidated Republican.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 15:02

Exactly right, RightEveryTime. And right now, the 36 lawyers of the Civil Rights Division (if that's how many there are) are neither playing tabletop football nor blogging on NRO.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
James L. Sutherland
   08/17/11 15:52

There is a question that applies to the Justice Department regarding individual rights, and it applies in any administration, not just this one:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 17:21

Hello MikeB!

The DOJ had accepted the case and it was an obvious winner. I also remember hearing that a DOJ attorney resigned in protest over the dismissal. (Correct me if I am wrong on this.)

Why do you think they would walk away from this? Do you have any other credible explanation for abandoning a case in which some people had already confessed and convictions of the others would be a slam dunk?

I am open to alternative theories.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/17/11 17:39

Dunno, Eristic. Could be. Could be.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact