After the National Organization for Women's April 20 victory in NOW v. Scheidler, some columnists and legal analysts criticized the jury's verdict. Bob Blakey, the anti-abortion activist and former Congressional aide who drafted the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, insisted that "this kind of litigation will unconstitutionally chill social protest." Another critic said in the New York Times that "a law intended to hobble the mafia has been used successfully to punish aggressive protesters."

Calling these defendants "aggressive protesters" is like calling Saddam Hussein a little pushy.

Legitimate protesters use peaceful means to convey their message. Terrorists -- and racketeers -- use fear, force and violence. The jury unanimously found Joe Scheidler, Operation Rescue, and their enterprise, the Pro-Life Action Network, responsible for over 120 criminal acts, including extortion and physical violence.

In this class-action suit brought by NOW and the Delaware and Summit Women's Health Clinics, dozens of patients and staff from clinics across the country described the impact of the defendants' actions on their lives. A California woman described the mob that prevented her from reaching her doctor for a post-operative appointment. A cancer survivor who'd had surgery to try to preserve her reproductive organs, she was hit on the head with an Operation Rescue sign, her sutures ruptured during the assault, and she fainted in the parking lot. She was not allowed to tell the jury about her year-long nightmares.

Dr. Susan Wicklund told of wearing bullet-proof vests to enter her clinics, and the violent threats that became a daily part of her life. "Jane Doe A" left several jurors in tears after she told of her own trauma, and that of the 14-year-old rape victim she had tried to comfort, during the three days they tried in vain to get through the violent mobs surrounding a Wichita clinic. Other patients, along with clinic doctors and administrators from Pensacola, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Wichita, Milwaukee and many other cities, described the effect of the defendants' intimidation, extortion and violence on their lives and their communities.

Despite the evidence, and the jury's finding of more than 120 criminal predicate acts, it doesn't surprise me that the defendants continue to falsely describe themselves as peaceful picketers - as non-violent social protesters who have been wrongly accused.

What does surprise me are the statements from "experts" who so detest RICO, or abortion (or both), that they make outrageous mischaracterizations of the facts and the law. They provide, and the media publish, repeated "examples" of the kinds of actions that RICO does not cover, leading the reader to infer that those kinds of peaceful acts were at issue in the NOW lawsuit.

For example, although the RICO Act clearly requires a pattern of racketeering and at least two serious criminal acts involving force or violence, a prominent criminal defense lawyer was quoted as saying that it "could be applied to any demonstration or protest."

And the National Law Journal reported a shameful statement, allegedly from a law professor - that abolitionists could have been imprisoned under RICO "because it was a violation of the fugitive slave law to not return slaves to their masters." That statement is patently false. Unlike extortion and assault, a violation of the despicable Fugitive Slave Law would not have qualified as a predicate act under RICO.

In a similar vein, Bob Blakey implies that RICO would apply to "a college kid who sits in a draft board office to protest war in Vietnam." These blatant distortions make good copy, but they add to the public's perception that lawyers will say anything, true or not, if it suits their ends.

There are indeed legitimate concerns about the RICO law, but they don't apply to this case against the network of thugs (the self-described "pro-life mafia") that has used fear, force and violence to stop abortion "by any means necessary." As the drafter of the ACLU's brief said, "the First Amendment is not a license to engage in acts of extortion."

The jury questionnaire in NOW v. Scheidler was designed to ensure that any finding of liability was based on evidence of violent acts. To the direct question "Was your answer [to the previous question about the number of acts or threats of extortion] based solely on blockades of clinic doors or sit-ins within clinics, without more?" The jury answered by checking the box "No."

As a national officer of NOW, I know that the National Organization for Women has a strong interest in preserving free expression. As former counsel in this case, I know that we have been scrupulous in addressing issues of violence, not speech or peaceful demonstrations.

NOW's marches, informational pickets and sidewalk demonstrations are effective and legal. Anti-abortion activists have the same right to distribute pamphlets and display signs and make their voices heard. But no group has a right to use violence or threats of violence to force others to give up their constitutional rights.

Racketeering is not free speech. Marching in front of a clinic, carrying signs and distributing literature is free speech. When that picket becomes a brutal blockade . . . when those signs are used as weapons . . . when prayers change to overt threats . . . then the "protest" has crossed the line into violence and lawlessness, and has left the First Amendment behind.