- Associated Press - Friday, May 6, 2016

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - Jurors sided with a Kansas anti-abortion activist on Friday by ruling that she didn’t intentionally seek to intimidate a doctor by sending a letter that suggested someone might place an explosive under the Wichita physician’s car.

The U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division sued Angel Dillard in 2011 for sending the letter to Dr. Mila Means, who had been training to offer abortions. At the time, no doctor was performing abortions in Wichita in the wake of the 2009 slaying of Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers who was fatally shot at his church in Wichita by an anti-abortion zealot.

Jurors ruled in favor of Dillard, whose attorneys argued that the letter amounted to constitutionally protected speech. But the jury also said a reasonable recipient of the letter would believe it conveyed a true threat. The lawsuit was filed under a federal law aimed at protecting access to abortion services, and jurors were tasked with deciding whether the letter constituted a “true threat.”

“I am glad it is over,” Means said in an interview from her office after the ruling. The doctor said she’s no longer afraid because she ultimately decided not to offer abortion services, but she expressed concern for the safety of abortion providers, noting it’s extremely difficult to prove intent.

Jury foreman Adam Cox said after the proceedings that the deciding factor for jurors was that the law specified the threat had to be a physical threat of bodily injury. Cox said jurors decided the letter was “more of a spiritual threat, more of an emotional threat - not a threat of physical violence.”

Defense attorney Theresa Sidebotham, whom Dillard hugged after the ruling in the courtroom, said Dillard never intended the letter to be a threat, adding: “This was a stretch case, always was for the government.”

The government could appeal the case. Justice Department attorney Richard Goemann declined comment after the trial.

Trust Women, an abortion rights group which opened a clinic in Tiller’s building in 2013, said in an emailed a statement that while it values free speech, threats against abortion doctors must be taken seriously, especially in Wichita where Tiller was assassinated at his church. “We are accustomed to obstacles in our work, but doctors at clinics such as ours should be able to practice without intimidation and fear,” the group said.

The government argued that Dillard intended to intimidate the Means to keep her from offering abortion services in Wichita. The lawsuit asked the court to bar Dillard from contacting Means or come within 250 feet of her home, car or business. It also sought damages for Means of $5,000, and a civil penalty of $15,000.

In her letter, Dillard wrote that thousands of people nationwide were scrutinizing Means’ background and would know her “habits and routines.”

“They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” the letter said. “You will be checking under your car every day - because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.”

Dillard testified Thursday that she never meant the letter as a threat, saying she would never do anything violent. But she said she didn’t regret writing the letter.

“I am not responsible for what she feels,” Dillard testified. “You can make anything sound like a threat.”

Government attorney Julie Abbate said Dillard had a right to oppose abortion, but not to use or invoke fear and intimidation. Abbate said Dillard wrote the letter to make the doctor fearful of expanding her medical practice to offer abortions.

“Dr. Means was getting ready to do something that had gotten a man killed, something nobody else stepped up to do since Dr. Tiller was murdered,” Abbate told jurors during closing arguments.

Shultz told jurors in his closing arguments that the letter wasn’t a threat of force or physical harm, but rather persuasive speech protected under the First Amendment. Shultz acknowledged that some of letter was “pretty tough sounding,” but he said it was nothing beyond what the doctor already knew or should have known. He said the letter amounted to “a warning that these things are commonplace.”

Abbate said the First Amendment has limits, and those limits were reached in this case.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide