Justice Department Obtains Settlement with Man for FACE Act Violation at Reproductive Health Clinic in Texas

WASHINGTON - The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered that Juan Antonio Gaona must adhere to a 25-foot buffer zone around a Planned Parenthood Reproductive Health Services Clinic in San Antonio, Texas. The court order is the result of a consent decree entered into by Gaona to resolve a civil complaint filed against him by the United States for violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act).

According to court documents, on April 17, 2009, Gaona, an anti-abortion protestor, entered the Planned Parenthood clinic’s front door and physically obstructed a patient by blocking the clinic’s interior entrance with his body. Gaona refused to leave the clinic and is said to have physically and verbally intimidated the patient and clinic employees. The FACE Act prohibits the physical obstruction of any person providing or obtaining reproductive health services, with the intent to intimidate or interfere with that person.

"Protecting the right to provide or obtain reproductive health services free from the threat of harm, intimidation, or physical obstruction is vital to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all Americans," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. "The Department of Justice will continue to aggressively enforce the FACE Act against those who seek to violate the rights of their fellow Americans to safely provide or obtain such services."

This civil action was filed by the Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Deputy Chief Julie Abbate and Trial Attorney William Nolan and Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Rodriguez of the Western District of Texas.

Comments

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog