An eight-member jury in Wichita, Kansas, found Friday that an anti-abortion activist did not intend to threaten a doctor in 2011 with a letter mentioning the possibility of someone placing a bomb under the doctor’s car. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] filed the suit [complaint, PDF] against Angel Dillard for sending a letter to Dr. Mila Means, who had expressed her intention to perform abortions in the city two years after a well-known abortion provider was murdered. The DOJ filed the complaint pursuant to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act [text], which “prohibits threats against abortion providers or interference with access to abortion clinics” [Rewire report]. Dillard, who has been quoted as supporting the man who killed the previous abortion doctor, sent the letter to Means, which stated in part:

Thousands of people are already looking into your background, not just in Wichita, but from all over the US. They will know your habits and routines. They will know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live. You will be checking under your car everyday-because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.

While the jury found that a reasonable person would believe the letter expressed a true threat of force, they did not find that Dillard intentionally sought to intimidate Means. The foreman of the jury stated that the decision was difficult but based on the language of the law requiring a physical threat, and the jurors found this to be “a more spiritual threat, a more emotional threat.” Dillard’s lawyer had argued that this was merely protected speech under the First Amendment [text].

Dillard’s case had previously been dismissed by the US District Court for the District of Kansas [official website], stating the DOJ failed to demonstrate the existence of a true threat and qualified the letter as protected speech as a matter of law. However, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit [official website] overturned this decision [JURIST report], ruling the status of the letter is not clear and must go to a jury. Abortion procedures and reproductive rights issues [JURIST backgrounder] are controversial topics throughout the US. Last week Louisiana’s Senate voted [JURIST report] 34-4 to approve legislation [HB 386 materials] that would extend the current 24-hour abortion waiting period to 72 hours. In April the Florida Supreme Court [official website] granted a motion to suspend the state’s mandatory 24-hour waiting period for abortions [JURIST report]. Earlier in April the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood filed suit [JURIST report] against the state of Indiana, challenging the constitutionality of a recently signed abortion law. In March Utah became the first state to require doctors to administer anesthesia [JURIST report] to women receiving an abortion after 20 weeks. In March a district court judge blocked [JURIST report] Arkansas from enforcing a bill mandating abortion pill providers follow US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and requiring hospital admittance privileges to handle complications. Also in March West Virginia lawmakers overrode the governor’s veto to enact a new law [JURIST report] that prevents the dilation and evacuation abortion procedure, widely held to be the safest second-trimester abortion method. The same day, South Dakota’s governor signed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protections Act, which bans abortions after 20 weeks.