Appeal
Seeks To Establish Right to Trespass on Clinic Property To Stop
Involuntary Abortions
ANN ARBOR, MI — In an
appeal filed last week, a Wisconsin Appellate Court is being asked
to recognize under State law a “necessity defense,” which would give
pro-life demonstrators the right to trespass on clinic property in
order to stop involuntary abortions. The controversial position is
based on the common law rule that that one is privileged to enter on
another’s property if it is or reasonably appears to be necessary to
prevent serious harm to a third person. According to the Wisconsin
State Constitution, the common law is preserved in the State until
it has been altered or changed by the
legislature.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national,
public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is seeking to
have this common law defense recognized in the abortion context on
behalf of William Goodman. According to Robert Muise, the Law Center
attorney handling the case, “We acknowledge that this appeal is
controversial because of the politically charged nature of the
abortion debate. However, we are not asking the court to determine
the legal status of abortion. Rather, we are asking the court to
determine whether the common law privilege of necessity is available
to pro-life demonstrators as a defense against a claim of civil
trespass. ”
The controversy began in
December 2000, when William Goodman peacefully entered the Madison
Abortion Clinic to help the mothers scheduled for abortions that
day. He believed that there were women present at the abortion
clinic who were under duress and had not given their voluntary and
informed consent to have an abortion. Shortly after entering the
clinic, he was assaulted by a worker and handcuffed by a security
guard. Police arrived and escorted him from the building.
Goodman was eventually sued by Meriter Hospital,
the landlord of the Madison Abortion Clinic, for trespass. The
Thomas More Law Center defended Mr. Goodman and successfully
defeated on free speech grounds the Hospital’s attempt to get a
“buffer zone” in place that would have kept the pro-life
demonstrator more than 100 feet away from the clinic entrance.
Goodman counter-sued the hospital and the abortion clinic for
assault and battery and received a judgment in his favor against the
abortion clinic, its owner, and the worker who attacked him. An
appeal was filed on Goodman’s behalf because the court entered an
order that enjoins him from trespassing.
Carol Everett, a former abortion clinic operator,
gave sworn testimony in favor of the Law Center’s position. She
noted that it was her experience that women were never told the
truth about their baby or what might happen to them as a result of
the abortion; that women were never given adequate truthful
information to make an informed decision about the abortion; and
that many women who sought abortions were under duress or coercion
to terminate the life of their “unwanted child.”
Based on evidence such as this, the Law Center’s
brief argued that if it reasonably appeared necessary for Goodman to
enter the Madison Abortion Clinic in order to prevent serious harm
to third persons, namely the women and their unborn children who
would be harmed by the abortion, then the necessity defense should
apply regardless of Goodman’s politics or religious beliefs. The Law
Center pointed out that there is no constitutional right to perform
an abortion, and any medical procedure performed without voluntary
and informed consent is a battery under Wisconsin law.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes
religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of
human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It
does not charge for its services. It depends on contributions from
individuals, corporations and Foundations. It is recognized by the
IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas
More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
|
