Category Archives: First Amendment

Penn. ‘Zombie Mohamed’ Judge Mark W. Martin Didn’t Graduate Law School: Rumors Abound ‘Homeland’ Character Brody Based On Turned Iraq Vet Turned Sharia Judge-Photos And Transcript

Pennsylvania Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin provoked outrage when he

'Homeland' real-life character, Penn. Sharia Judge Mark Martin, served several tours of duty in the Middle East. The Sharia Judge carries the Koran to court and may be a technical advisor to Homeland.

summarily dismissed charges against a Muslim immigrant who allegedly attacked an atheist activist parading in a Zombie Mohamed costume.  For some reason, Zombie Mohamed’s pal, Pope Zombie, was not attacked.

But the most disturbing attack in the case was inflicted on the First Amendment by “Judge” Mark W. Martin, who launched into a six-minute tirade against the alleged victim for having the temerity to exercise his right to free speech and expression.  Now it turns out, the “judge” isn’t even a lawyer and didn’t graduate law school.  Apparently a four-week course suffices in Pennsylvania to become a magisterial district judge.

I called Judge Mark W. Martin at the telephone number provided here planning a serious First Amendment exercise workout myself, only to learn in a recorded message Monday morning that the court room had to be relocated to a more secure location on account of alleged threats the so-called judge had received.  (By the way, calling up judges with serious free speech urges on your mind and blogging about it is best done outside the boundaries of the United States – or at least the State in which the judge sits on the bench.)

The tirade is worth reading in its entirety, and I’ve included it below and interspersed highly relevant photos from Homeland and commentary – bracketed in bold.  (I’ve used the definitive transcript of the “Judge’s” remarks,  prepared by the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, based on audio recorded in court by the alleged victim,  Ernest Perce, and posted on YouTube).

Well, having had the benefit of having spent over two-and-a-half years in a predominantly Muslim country, I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact, I have a copy of the Koran here, and I would challenge you, sir, to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammed arose and walked among the dead.

Your Honor, the evidence is right here.

[Unintelligible.] You misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.  [Enough with the legalese]

And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi’s defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society. [Objection, relevance.  We’re not in “their” #$&%*ing society.]

Here in our society, we have a constitution that gives us many rights, specifically, First Amendment rights. It’s unfortunate that some people use the First Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers really intended. [Any cases to cite in support of what you “think”?  Didn’t think so]. I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did.

Dressed for Legal Success: 'Homeland's' Claire Danes heeds Sharia Judge's Admonition Not to "piss off other people and other cultures."

I don’t think you’re aware, sir, there’s a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity – uh, I understand you’re an atheist. But, see, Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence, their very being. [Correct Judge, that’s the problem] They pray five times a day towards Mecca.  To be a good Muslim, before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever. But you must make the attempt.

Their greetings, “Salaam alaikum,” “Alaikum wa-salaam,” “May God be with you.” Whenever — it is very common — their language, when they’re speaking to each other, it’s very common for them to say, uh, “Allah willing, this will happen.” It is — they are so immersed in it.

Then what you have done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. F’Im a Muslim, I’d find it offensive. [Unintelligble] aside was very offensive.

But you have that right, but you’re way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights. [And you’re way out of your league on First Amendment scholarship, Judge Doofus.  Try reading The Volokh Conspiracy blog.]

This is what — as I said, I spent half my years altogether living in other countries [Just like that blonde Muslim convert in Homeland who rented the pad by the airport with her Saudi boyfriend]. When we go to other countries, it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as “ugly Americans.” This is why we are referred to as “ugly Americans,” because we’re so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights. As long as we get our say, but we don’t care about the other people’s say. [No judge.  It’s because many of us are grossly obese, wear shorts and sneakers to the Louvre, and talk boisterously in fine dining restaurants. On the positive side, we’re considered the word’s best tippers.]

All that aside I’ve got here basically — I don’t want to say, “He said, she said.” But I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.  [Had you gone to law school you would have learned that judges often hear cases with conflicting stories.]  I understand — I’ve been at a Halloween parade, I understand how noisy it can be, how difficult it can be to get a [unintelligible]. I can’t believe that, if there was this kind of conflict going on in the middle of the street, that somebody didn’t step forward sooner to try and intervene — that the police officer on a bicycle didn’t stop and say, “Hey, let’s break this up.”

Before the end of Season 1, the evidence showed Sgt. Nick Brody from 'Homeland' had turned. The evidence suggests the same about Sharia Judge Mark Martin, the real-life character upon which Brody is based. How else could you be a Judge without going to law school?

[Unintelligible]. You got a witness.

[Unintelligible response. Judge Martin then continues:]

The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof is that the defendant — it must be proven that the defendant did with the intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person — The Commonwealth, whether there was conflict or not — and, yes, he should be took [sic] putting his hands on you. I don’t know — I have your story he did and his story that he did not.

But another part of the element [of the offense charged] is, as Mr. Thomas [the defense lawyer] said, was — “Was the defendant’s intent to harass, annoy or alarm — or was it his intent to try to have the offensive situation negated?” [Huh, “have the offensive situation negated”?  Sounds like the Vet’s military euphemisms are showing]

If his intent was to harass, annoy or alarm, I think there would have been a little bit more of an altercation. [No, “more of an altercation” would likely have been an assault; harassment is a less serious charge.  This is why judges should go to law school.]Something more substantial as far as testimony going on that there was a conflict. Because there is not, it is not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment. Therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.

Judicial incompetence and bias won’t be eliminated by the host of anti-“Sharia law” proposals bandied about by incompetent law makers with their own agendas.  We don’t have Sharia Law.  We do have lots of incompetent and routinely biased judges running loose of all stripes who wreak legal havoc with less fanfare than Mark W. Martin.  We just need judges who will apply our Anglo-American jursprudence as originalists.   Requiring they graduate from law school might be a start.


Colo. Republican Ali Hasan Supports Ground Zero Mosque: ‘Muslims for Bush’ Founder Attacks Opponents As “Bigots”

Wealthy Colorado Republican health care scion, Muhammad Ali Hasan, wrote an op-ed in the Huffington Post Tuesday supporting the building of the controversial mega-Mosque next door to Ground Zero, the site of the  9-11 World Trade Center attacks.  Hasan, the founder of Muslims for Bush, sweepingly portrayed the project’s opponents as bigots:

I deeply support building this mosque. To my fellow conservative leaders who say they are against this project, yet claim to not be bigoted, I have news for you: you are a bigot.

Hasan, who now appears to be a blogger for the left-leaning Huff-Po, employs some logically specious arguments in trying to make his case for the mosque.  One, is that in addition to being a mosque, an entire  community center called the Cordoba House, which would include bookstores, a swimming pool, and other amenities, would be part of the development, and open to all.   Objection – relevance?

Even worse, is this  non-sequitur:

Shame on Republican leaders for criticizing such a fine project. After all, I believe many of these conservatives were the same leaders who supported the bailouts of 2008 and turned blind eyes to the book-cooking that kept companies like Enron in business?

Perhaps the founders of the Cordoba House should abandon the project, convert to Christianity, and invest their $100 million into a more modest building, closed to the public, that will instead house an oil company that cooks its books to reflect fake profits? History dictates that the same conservatives criticizing the Cordoba House project would probably give this new oil company a large bailout — provided that the good oilmen are white and Christian.

And Hasan has the hubris to cast stones at other Republicans for bigotry?  With imaginative economic reasoning like this, we should all be grateful to J.J. Ament for singlehandedly knocking Ali out of contention for Colorado Treasurer.

Can it be possible that fellow conservatives could agree that the First Amendment’s  free exercise of religion clause permits the mosque, are not bigoted, but think the mosque project shows poor judgment?  Yes and no, according to Hasan.

While Hasan finds himself unable to conjure up any legitimate basis for the opposition,  he acknowledges that his friend and mentor, Newt Gingrich, is not a bigot (nor is Sarah Palin).  How does Hasan explain Gingrich’s outspoken and well-argued opposition to the Cordoba mosque-mall project?  He doesn’t.  Nor does he bother to engage readers rhetorically by presenting the best arguments of the opposition, then  countering them.

That leaves me to present the other side for purposes of this post.  As I prefer the Newt Gingrich side of the debate, however,  I’ll present his argument and cut down Ali’s points instead.

First,  just because something is constitutional doesn’t make it sound.  The free speech clause, to use an example,  protects lots of nasty things, and I defend anyone’s legal right to say them or write them.   But would I support a politician who wanted to demonstrate in favor of racial segregation or who runs around burning flags?  Of course not.   Muslim leaders, including Hasan, should be using sound judgment,  appropriately  targeted to achieving their aims.  Instead, Hasan jumps aboard the left wing of the debate, and instead of providing  a compelling conservative argument,  simply draws on his own credentials  as a card-carrying Republican.

Gingrich pointed out on Fox News Tuesday night that Ground Zero is the most emotionally charged  locale in the country.  If the mosque developers wish to project a  message of tolerance and inclusion, Gingrich suggests a center featuring all three of the Abrahamic religions, not just Islam.  I wonder why Hasan fails to engage his mentor’s thought-provoking idea?

And I would be remiss if I ignored the elephant in the room (no pun intended).  Radical Islam certainly does not represent any but a small minority of Muslims in the U.S., but it is also a small minority of Muslims who speak out against radical Islam – very small.  And they can be quite sensitive about their own sensibilities, as exemplified with the Danish cartoon fanaticism.

So  picture this.  A site of mass casualties of Muslims somewhere in say, western Europe.  A Jewish group decides they’d like to open a synagogue next door.  How many cries for tolerance do we think we’d be hearing from Muslims about that one?

Ali Hasan has the potential to build better understanding of Islam among conservatives .  To do that effectively, however, he needs to speak in the same breath about the need for American Muslims to speak out,  or they will continue to receive the skepticism about their intentions with which they’ve been greeted so far.   Hasan might call that bigoted.  I call it reality.  He can’t reserve all his wrath for conservatives – especially with arguments as weak as those on display in the Huffington Post op-ed.

Hasan  is wasting his enormous potential as a man of persuasion and bridge building if he merely tosses rhetorical grenades at fellow conservatives in what seems more like pandering to leftist readers than a genuine attempt to win conservative hearts and minds.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban of Animal Cruelty Images: 8-1 Decision Upholds First Amendment – UPDATED for Colorado

The Supreme Court today in an 8-1 decision, struck down a law in which a man was criminally prosecuted for producing videos showing pit bulls fighting, allegedly in violations of a ban on depictions of animal cruelty.  The decision is a major First Amendment victory, as it may hold implications for overly broad content-based speech harassment laws, hate speech laws, and anti-bullying laws.  Leading First Amendment scholar, Eugene Volokh, has called content-based speech harassment laws the greatest free speech threat facing the U.S.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority in U.S. v. Stevens, with Justice Alito the sole dissenter.  The dissent in my view, mistakenly focused on the underlying animal cruelty depicted in some videos.  Such underlying behavior is illegal.  “Crush” type videos might also still be illegal, but the video at issue was not in that category, and efforts to stop illegal conduct must be narrowly applied so as not to tread on protected speech.

Eugene Volokh, aptly focuses on Chief Justice Robert’s demolition of the prosecutorial discretion arguments and the Holder Justice Department:

Not to worry, the Government says: The Executive Branch construes §48 to reach only “extreme” cruelty, and it “neither has brought nor will bring a prosecution for anything less,” The Government hits this theme hard, invoking its prosecutorial discretion several times. But the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly.

This prosecution is itself evidence of the danger in putting faith in government representations of prosecutorial restraint. When this legislation was enacted, the Executive Branch announced that it would interpret §48 as covering only depictions “of wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” No one suggests that the videos in this case [which involve dogfights and dogs attacking other animals] fit that description. The Government’s assurance that it will apply §48 far more restrictively than its language provides is pertinent only as an implicit acknowledgment of the potential constitutional problems with a more natural reading.

(All quotes by Chief Justice Roberts, emphasis added by Ex-Pat Ex-Lawyer).

It is critical that the public stays informed about the Constitution and the First Amendment and realizes, as the Chief Justice points out so well, it’s not about whether you like or agree with the underlying speech, and we can’t trust prosecutors or police to decide which cases they want to prosecute and which they don’t.  We wouldn’t need a First Amendment to protect speech everyone likes or agrees with.  If we wanted that, we could just become like  Canada, where conservative columnist Mark Steyn has spent $1.5 million fighting hate speech charges for criticizing Islam.

Updated  For Colorado: This law was so overbroad, it could have been used to send those

Co-Blogger Steffi Q., head of the Colorado Freedom to Bark Foundation, comments: "I support the right of humans to photograph me with a dead pheasant in my mouth."

who photograph or video hunting scenes to prison. When President Clinton signed the law in 1999, he recognized it was constitutionally overbroad but signed it anyways. The founding fathers recognized that all branches of government, not just the judicial branch, have a responsibility to  pass and enforce only laws that are constitutional.

That doesn’t mean they will attain perfection in attempting to do so,  and SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter – but they need to try very hard.  Clinton issued a “presidential signing statement” on how he wanted the order to be enforced.  But it wasn’t binding on his own US Attorneys or future US Attorneys.  He simply should have vetoed the law, but of course liberal “animal rights” Dem constituents wouldn’t have liked that.

This same problem exists in spades in Colorado, where a lot of unconstitutional laws sit on the books and are applied, or not, depending on law enforcement, depending on the DA, depending on local judges, depending on whether the defendant is popular or has money.  The law in the Stevens case was applied against people for 10 years, and undoubtedly exerted a chilling effect on free speech rights during that period.

And of course, who can forget the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases that clearly violated the Colorado Constitution’s TABOR provision,  and where all three branches of government ignored the law.

Speech harassment laws that are unconstitutional unless very narrowly applied sit on the books now in Colorado, as observed in this Glenwood Springs incident I reported on in March.  Hopefully we’ll have a big legislative and gubernatorial shakeup in Colorado in November, and I pledge to ask every candidate whether they will make ridding the books of unconstitutional statutes (as well as merely stupid and/or outdated laws) a priority, and whether they unequivocally support Clear the Bench and will vote no-retain on the four justices targeted this November.

Links of the Day: Colo. Sen. Shawn Mitchell, Flipping off Cops, Glenwood Springs Police Abuse, Starbucks and Teachers Unions, Federal Hwy. Funds

Republican Colo. Sen. Shawn Mitchell calls a Dem” Senator OneYear”-Dems squeal like pigs, cry like babies-Lynn Bartels brings the public into the junior high lunchroom that is the Dome.  Dems apparently think it’s ok to call GOP members uncaring about “THE CHILDREN” if they don’t vote to fatten already bloated teachers unions, but it’s not OK to joke about the statehouse’s own Appointed One,  Sen. Bruce Whitehead. He faces a tough challenge from Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, in November.  Let’s hope Mitchell’s prediction is on The Spot.

Lynn B. vividly captures every overwrought, hand wringing moment from the Dems.  Oh, Mitchell had a prior conviction of violating boys-club protocol, when he called Dems “cowards” for turning off his mike during a debate about tax increases.  Mitchell would make a great visitor to B-Ho’s next SOU address.  Maybe the teachers union members could hand over one of their taxpayer-funded Starbucks gift cards to keep Mitchell awake.  Sorry “educators,” I forgot it’s not PC to say junior high anymore.

Flipping off Cops is Legal, Not Advised-so advises  David Kravets in Wired, in this constitutionally accurate and practical piece.  Links to everything you ever wanted to know about the insulting gesture the ancient Greeks dubbed digitus impudicus.

Colorado Won’t Be Outdone in Proving Police Egos outweigh the First Amendment (or in wasting taxpayer dollars)-as this Aspen Daily News article by Editor Troy Hooper sadly shows about an incident involving Glenwood Springs Police. Michael McDonnell, a 23-year old Carbondale man, is running around Pitkin County getting signatures about police abuse to present to the judge when what he should be getting is an attorney appointed by the judge.  Then he might wind up getting the charges dismissed, as they should be.

I’m assuming of course he can’t afford an attorney or would have gotten one by now on his own.  The publicity is good, though, and maybe a good attorney will take Michael McDonnel’s case on at a reduced rate or pro bono. The harassment charges cannot possibly be constitutionally applied to the situation, and the filing a false report charge contains an intent element that would be very hard to prove.  Read the story for the stunning tale of what went down.  Hooper interviewed a local bus driver, who said the local cops are turning into the Gestapo.

A Sensible Approach to Fed Highway Taxes – Summed up nicely by Robert Poole at Reason. Federal taxes should go for what they were originally intended-interstate highways.  They should not go for transit projects, roads, or  bike paths. Similarly, the feds should not impose mandates on states for speed limits or DUI blood alcohol mandate or use of union workers.  Get it: federal means between the states, state governs and pays for what is solely inside the state.  So simple and basic, I don’t look forward to it within my lifetime.

Links of the Day: Ritter and Hurlbert on MMJ; Hasan Wants Bankers Jailed; Volokh on Reason TV; Stossel

Today’s posts are late as I had to go get blood pressure checked after the false alarm this morning about Chief Justice Roberts’ impending Supreme Court resignation and the harrowing possibility that the likes of  Deval Patrick or Eric Holder might be on SCOTUS.  Also, consulted with a class action specialist about suing Radar Online for negligent infliction of emotional distress.  We’ll probably hear soon from B-HO about spikes in health care costs among Republicans.

Bill Ritter to take Medical Marijuana? – The Colorado governor suffered 5-6 broken ribs in a bicycle crash. Ouch! Lynn Bartels at The Spot speculates against it, noting his DA background and “law and order” reputation.  Too bad these “law and order” type former DAs don’t want to enforce laws like TABOR.  Click on the article to see which state Senator teased Ritter about this.  Hint, he is no supporter of  DA Mark Hurlbert “Hurlritter.”  No spoiler alert necessary because that could be one of at least eight Republicans who support opponent Tim Leonard.  Ok, one hint.  Like Ritter, he’s an avid cyclist, according to LB.

My take is that any of CO’s  three political Rittercritters should be able to intake what he feels is best for his pain and suffering–be he Bill, Hick, or Hurl.  My Rx, though, would be not to smoke anything, as breathing with injured ribs is difficult enough.  My doc would likely recommend Percocet combined with ibuprofen, which is likely what Bill was prescribed.  He should then take lots of time off to rest–broken ribs are slow to heal.  His Dem colleagues in the legislature should do the same in a show of support.

DA Mark Hurlbert, a Republican Candidate for the Colo. State Senate, and one of the aforementioned Colo. triumvirate of “Rittercritters,” apparently believes MMJ should be reserved for the “truly sick” among us.  Under current voter-prescribed law, physicians determine who qualifies as “truly sick” enough for them to prescribe MMJ . Hurlbert then states that the “Frankenstein” beast that is Obama care must go (no argument there).

The Frankenstein line struck me as something GOP boss Dick Wadhams might come up with, but Hurlbert didn’t limit his attack on government interference with the doctor-patient relationship to the feds.  To his credit, Hurlbert went on to argue Colorado shouldn’t “get involved with healthcare and other nanny-state things .”

I’m confused, though.  If government shouldn’t interfere and you’re opposed to the nanny state, then the MMJ decision should be between  the doctor and patient, and they should determine if the patient is “truly sick” enough for MMJ, right?   More later.  (Corrected and updated 3-5-10 at 6:34 a.m.)

Ali Hasan, GOP candidate for Colo. Treasurer, calls bankers crooks who should be jailed more on this from The Donald L. Johnson at  The lines between Hasan, Stapleton, and Ament in this three-way primary race are getting clearer, as Hasan has clearly staked out the populist position in the campaign.

Reason TV interviews First Amendment Guru Eugene Volokh-and Eugene discusses at length on video various constitutional rights, including the First.  His view of the greatest free speech threat?  Content-based speech harassment laws.

John Stossel on Keep your Laws off my Body-Just when I thought I was done for the night, Reason released this classic, which has been teased all week on Fox.  The piece starts with a maxim that has now become a part of the distant past for us baby boomers:  “It’s a free country, right”?  Wrong.  Hopefully this will change by getting conservative/libertarian Republicans elected this November.

Colorado Theatre Company Will Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Snub Out Farcical Theatrical Smoking Ban Decision

In an opinion issued last month that gave short-shrift to almost every freedom of expression issue raised, the Colorado Supreme Court, in an en banc 6-1 decision, voted to uphold Colorado’s ban on indoor smoking even in the context of a an actor  smoking a tobacco substitute on stage.  Here’s the complete opinion in Curious Theatre Company v. Colorado Dept. of Public Health, including a fuming dissent by a more artistically informed Justice Hobbs.  I can’t blame the Colorado Supremes for going en banc.  I wouldn’t want to sign my name to this opinion either.

The decision is the first in the nation to address the issue to what extent the First Amendment protects theatrical smoking.   If the U.S. Supreme Court were to grant the Petitioner’s sought after review, the case could become a landmark free expression decision.

A candy cigarette and a beaker of dry ice are what actors in Denver have been reduced to, thanks to politically correct application of the indoor smoking ban by Colorado's Supreme Court. (Photo: Todd Webster)

The majority opinion failed to lend a breath to the principle that theatrical smoking is protected expressive conduct, and inserted its inexpert literary judgment that a fake cigarette and a beaker of dry ice would do just fine to convey the intent of the script and director. This photo demonstrates otherwise.

Justice Hobbs’ 20-page dissent smokes out the errancy of the majority’s reasoning.  He points out that  plays such as Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? would suffer serious distortion of their expressive intent if smoke could not hang over the stage or be expelled from a character’s mouth.  In the stage production of The Graduate, for example, “the exhale of smoke shows Mrs. Robinson’s power over young Benjamin.”   The script directs Mrs. Robinson to take a drag, kiss Benjamin, and then exhale after their lips part.  She then begins to take off her clothes and jewelry.

But when Mrs. Robinson “smoked” a fake cigarette in a Colorado production of the play, the audience burst out laughing.  This judicially altered script distorts the meaning of the dramatist and creates a play within a play, where Colorado’s  smoking ban becomes an unintended farcical secondary theme.

And of course theatrical smoking can become a political statement about smoking and smoking bans itself, as in Smoking Bloomberg the Musical. All the artistic expression arguments, however,  seemed to just waft over the heads of the statist and philistine Colorado justices.  Elizabeth Taylor will probably be as upset as I am when she gets a whiff of this ruling.

Colorado is one of only three states in the U.S. whose ban on indoor smoking both extends to theatrical productions and also bans non tobacco clove or tea leaf cigarettes as less restrictive alternatives.  Ohio is another one, but there play producers are disregarding the ban and taking their chances.  Cleveland Plain Dealer theatre critic Tony Brown has a great take on the issue.

Curious Theatre Company was joined in the case by several amicus parties, including the ACLU, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, and the National Dramatists Guild.  Presumably these parties and more will join in the cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court urging that this ruling goes down in flames.

Money and Speech: Eugene Volokh

At he does masterfully and consistently, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh points out that while  money doesn’t equal speech, restrictions on it certainly curtail it as do money restrictions on other constitutional rights:

“People continue to characterize the Court’s campaign finance decisions as resting on the theory thatmoney is speech. And of course money isn’t speech.

But, as I wrote a few years ago, money isn’t abortion, either. Nonetheless, a law that banned the spending of money on abortion would surely be a serious restriction on abortion rights (whether or not you think that the Court was right to recognize such rights). A law that capped the spending of money for abortions at a small amount, far smaller than abortions often cost, would likewise be a burden on abortion rights, and dismissing this argument as “it is quite wrong to equate money and abortion” would be unsound.”