Posted on 02/12/2003 2:46:51 PM PST by Notwithstanding
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 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.
I must have been absent that semester. Actually, the common law does not permit the use of deadly force in defence of real property (i.e. real estate).
Mere belief that any of the women were under duress is insufficient. One must have specific evidence to support the claim with respect to a specific person--the belief must be "reasonable."
And the act of trespassing is considered sufficient evidence to create a "reasonable belief" that a person is intent on causing bodily harm to the owner or tenant of the property being trespassed on, and, depending on the demeanor of the trespasser, that "reasonable belief" may extend to the belief that the application of deadly force is warranted.
As a pro-lifer I have to say "OUCH." That one hurts. But it's not as if the nutballs in our movement haven't worked overtime to make folks think that...
...are apparently a figment of Goodman's imagination at this point.
If any women come forth who allege such a thing happened to them, the proper way to handle it is for them to take the issue to court themselves against the alleged violators.
It is *not* appropriate for some self-appointed commando to crash a clinic on a personal mission to "protect" patients from what he *thinks* might be taking place that day.
His lawsuit should be booted immediately, and he should be fined for wasting the court's time with his frivolous lawsuit.
What'll be amusing is when the Thomas More lawyers (who seem to have a bit of difficulty with notions of standing and real causes in dispute) get their little ying yangs slapped off - especially when it is shown there is no basis for the belief on consent.
How's that again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.