Article: Federal law enforcement officer questions basis for lawmakers’ abortion letters | News, sports, activities | Media Pyro

1 / 3

Alvaro Zilleruelo, third from left, talks with Daryl Bennett, center, and Tyler Ockey, right, outside the Utah State Capitol as other supporters enter the building at the March 4 Life on Saturday, January 28, 2017 in Salt Lake City.

Isaac Hale, Daily Herald file photo

2/3

The Rep. Kera Birkeland, R-Morgan, poses for a photo at the Utah State Capitol Wednesday, March 2, 2022, in Salt Lake City.

Rick Bowmer, Associated Press

3 / 3

Karianne Lisonbee Rep

By Wikimedia Commons

❮ ❯

Cease-and-desist letters sent by two Utah lawmakers to abortion providers in mid-September sparked controversy and questions about the legal basis they used to threaten abortion.

Karianne Lisonbee (Davis County) and Kera Birkeland (Daggett, Duchesne, Morgan, Rich and Summit counties) sent the letters, dated Sept. 15, to eight state and national recipients, including to the doctor, the health center. and various abortion rights organizations. Twenty House GOP colleagues and two candidates signed up among themselves.

But what they didn’t do was get legal advice from the Office of Legal Research and General Counsel, or OLRGC, about the position they took on government letterhead.

As a result, several House members sought legal advice from the OLRGC after the letter was published. The Standard Observer recently obtained a copy of that detailed response.

How it started

On June 24, Utah’s emergency law banning all abortions went into effect in response to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson.

But that law was challenged in the Third Circuit Court by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Utah, which blocked the ban from going into effect while the case went through court.

So for now, abortions are still legal in Utah up to 18 weeks of pregnancy – which apparently didn’t sit well with Lisonbee and Kirkeland.

Citing two cases (Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson and Edgar v. MITE Corp.) as precedents, their letter warned that the order “does not protect (letter recipients and their consumers and their supporters) from future prosecution or punishment (for abortions. ) … if the preliminary injunction is vacated or reversed on appeal.”

The letter continued, saying that abortion providers “must preserve all evidence of criminal abortions and all violations of (US Code) you have participated in” — including information about individuals, about or entities that “aided or assisted in illegal abortions,” including workers, volunteers, donors, employers, or abortion funds that paid for the procedures, some outlets say of the letter is a “criminal act.”

The letter also warned that the sale of abortion pills across state lines could be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO, if Republicans win the presidency.

“We will also introduce legislation to give the Utah Attorney General parens patriae standing to prosecute unborn Utahns,” they wrote, saying the state would allow the alleged RICO violations.

While questions remain about the legal framework they used for their letters, Lisonbee declined requests for comment, saying he and Birkeland had agreed to be interviewed only together — and there was no time for that.

Separating fact from fiction

The OLRGC analysis, written by Managing Associate General Counsel Thomas Vaughn, exploded in a heated argument made by Lisonbee and Birkeland.

According to Vaughn, the current order suspending the abortion ban does not only apply to the procedures provided while the court order remains in place, but also includes the implement future actions in the same period.

In other words, abortions performed in the future cannot be prosecuted – if the new law goes into effect.

However, in regards to the interstate transfer of abortion pills, Vaughn said their letter may be correct – the state can be prosecuted within the five-year statute of limitations.

“While it is true that this law may not be passed during the administration of President Biden for a drug that is supposed to produce abortion … a new administration could decide to pass this law and government in the five-year statute of limitations,” Vaughn said.

Vaughn said the proposals made by Lisonbee and Birkeland were mere rhetoric, as their elected positions were to make laws and not to enforce laws.

Citing statutes related to abuse of position and breach of trust, Vaughn wrote that the Lisonbee and Birkeland actions are subject to interpretation because the terms are not clear. words.

“There can be (a) dispute between both parties about the validity of the letter under this requirement,” Vaughn said.

It’s political

Attempts to reach House Speaker Brad Wilson by phone for comment were unsuccessful.

House Minority Leader Brian King — an attorney by profession and one of the House members who sought the OLRGC’s legal opinion — drew attention to Lisonbee and Birkeland’s letters.

“You have some legislators who don’t do their job as a lawmaker but as a judge or an executive,” said King.

Noting how strongly they felt about the issue, King said that an “emotional response is not appropriate for one side of this issue over the other.”

In a September opinion piece published in the Salt Lake Tribune, University of Utah law professor Teneille Brown slammed Lisonbee and Birkeland’s letter, saying that their “wacky” view violated the ban of the Retrospective law – refers to criminal laws that punish retroactive acts.

“In all circumstances, the legislators and candidates who signed this letter do not have the authority to pass any of the laws they mention,” Brown said. “You could almost forgive them for their recklessness, if they weren’t infringing on our rights and putting the public at risk in the process.”

Reached by phone, Brown said she has received several threatening emails and online attacks in response to her writing, saying they have concealed carry permits and know where she lives.

“When you write in this space you expect people to write really bad things – and they do,” Brown said. But he also confirmed why he spoke.

“There needs to be accountability for defrauding the public,” Brown said, “and for using the government’s letter of intent to do so.”

Read