BY MIKE CETERA
Planned Parenthood Aurora, in a recent response to a defamation lawsuit filed by the Pro-Life Action League, suggests it has no liability in accusing anti-abortion activists of violence. The women's health care agency, which provides abortions, says it should be protected by a new state law that strengthens First Amendment rights.
PP is arguing, in essence, when it comes to trying to sway a government body, anything goes. To be clear, the agency also is suggesting what it said is true.
The Chicago Reader was the first to report on PP's use of the Citizen Participation Act. Find more about the lawsuit here and here.
Here's the meat of the Citizen Participation Act, approved last year:
Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome. (emphasis added)
Find the legislation here.
The legislation, which was co-sponsored locally by State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia, received no opposition in the General Assembly. Not a single lawmaker voted against it when it came up for a vote last year.
This legislation tries to thwart so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, litigation meant to "intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense..." It sounds to me this is meant to protect the little guy from paying huge court fees -- the Pro-Life Action League would be a good example -- not an organization with deeper pockets, like, say, Planned Parenthood.
Read more on SLAPPs here.
The General Assembly's intent is made clear, I think, by the chief sponsor, Sen. John J. Cullerton, who said this on the Senate floor:
...(L)et's say a community organization makes recommendations to a local alderman concerning zoning changes. They just give advice, then the party that might not agree with the decision, the vote of the alderman, they -- that person, that landowner would file a lawsuit, not just against the municipality, but also against the community organization that gave the advice. Even though all they were doing was giving advice to their elected officials. So, that's what the purpose of the bill is.
Planned Parenthood was clearly trying to shift or solidify public opinion with its approach. I guess you can call that giving advice. But, I wonder, once the courts get done with this, will this legislation really be the friend of the little guy? I'm also not so sure it's a good idea to give anyone with a chip on their shoulder the ability to say anything they want -- whether it's true or not -- without fear of repercussion.
So using their logic the other side can say just about anything they want to as well.
Also using their logic it could be argued that just about anything said about Mayor Weisner is ok as long as it is trying to get a 'favorable action'
Also using their reading of the law, it seems as if it can give you a right to lie. So I can say that a given project will give everyone three heads and as long as stopping the project is a 'favorable act' then that is cool
It's going to be an entertaining summer.
I think this is just PP playing games. They spread bold face lies; there was nothing the City Council could do. It was a done deal. They are just lying to the judge to spin things their way and that is just not right. Someone should stop this deceptive organization.
So, if I took out a full page ad in the Beacon and depicting Mayor Weisner as an executioner (complete with a pitchfork, fire, and brimstone) and responsible for committing thousands of acts of murder –- for all of the unborn babies which were killed by the staff at the Aurora Planned Parenthood clinic -- then I’m well within my rights. Since this is “aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome,” then I’m in the clear. Excellent! Let me know how much the full page ad will be and which day has the greatest circulation!
So where does liable begin? If you’re a public figure, such as the Mayor, then even lies are fair game, if you are attempting to at procuring favorable government action? If that’s the case, then let the Mayoral elections begin. This should be a fun one!
I'm with PP on this one. They wouldn't have gone to such lengths to protect themselves and their clients if it wasn't for the plain hard fact that they are targeted by bona fide domestic terrorists. PP has done nothing wrong; it's their detractors and the ignorant protesters that are crying sour grapes.
Jameson, let me know when I can take a full page ad out in the paper which makes slanderous untrue statements about you and your family. If that's okay, then you position is sound.
A casual reading of the article suggests that PP painted with a pretty broad brush. It is probably clear to an unbiased observer that such statements are inflammatory rather than informative.
As to the heart of the issue; the lives of unborn children, the Constitution was created in part to acknowledge that "We the People" have an inalienable right to life. This life is a gift from our Divine Creator and was not to be taken without due process of law. No matter how much case law or precedent we stack on a table, doctors and technicians in a PP facility do not constitute due process in the taking of these precious lives. Further, it is apparent from a review of history that the death knell of a culture was intoned through the sacrifice of its children.
My four year old daughter was exposed to the horrible and sickening posters that were displayed at the Naperville protest. I am considering a possible lawsuit for the emotional distress that my daughter endured. Is anyone familiar with a class action lawsuit pending?