Legal team challenges judge’s ruling that strikes two constitutionally protected rights

A California abortion business has found a way to circumvent the Supreme Court’s constitutional rights precedents and has obtained a ruling from a radical judge that terminates two rights protected by the Constitution for a pro-life advocate.

And the American Center for Law and Justice said it is joining the fight on behalf of Chad Hunt, who is represented by the Life Legal Defense Foundation, by filing a friend-of-the-court brief in his case.

The focal point is that the trial court simply refused to use the precedents that already exist for First Amendment protections.

The case is Women’s Health Specialists (WHS) v. C.H. and many parts of the case are familiar already.

“The plaintiff WHS is an abortion facility, i.e., a place that kills babies for money before they are born. The defendant, Chad Hunt, is a pro-lifer who opposes such killing. WHS has ‘escorts’ whose job is to disrupt pro-life advocates who are reaching out to abortion ‘customers’ with life-giving alternatives. One of those escorts accused Chad of bumping her three times with his stomach when she tried to interfere with other pro-life counselors outside the abortion clinic,” the ACLJ explained.

While such claims routinely would involve a police citation or a civil suit, the abortion business went another direction.

“Instead, it filed for a ‘Workplace Violence Restraining Order’ (WVRO). That is, WHS argued that their escort was at work, that Chad’s alleged bumping of her constituted ‘violence,’ and, therefore, a WVRO should be issued,” the ACLJ said.

“Sadly, the California superior court bought WHS’s arguments — and did not apply the Supreme Court standards for protecting free speech rights. In effect, the superior court let WHS use the WVRO as an end-run around the First Amendment. And the result was an order that banished Chad 100 yards from WHS, forbade all contact with the escort of any kind, and — to add injury to injury — barred Chad from owning or possessing any firearms, even at home for his own self-defense.”

The ACLJ noted that the court provided that the banishment of constitutional rights lasts for three years, “and can be renewed.”

“Not only is the court violating his First Amendment rights, but it’s using that violation to justify violating his Second Amendment rights as well – a two-for-one evisceration of his rights. Free speech rights limit what a court can do to stifle your expressive freedom. Such rights do not evaporate just because a litigant pulls a different legal tool out of the toolbox,” the legal team explained.

The organization argues, “Many Left-leaning states stand ready to crush pro-life advocates if they dare speak out for the unborn – even if that means censoring or suspending the constitutional rights of advocates. We have previously written of our recent efforts in Maine, Illinois, and Ohio to defend advocates targeted by government officials. California appears ready to simply erase freedom of speech and the Second Amendment rights of a pro-life advocate.”

Hunt has appealed the egregious ruling, with the Life Legal Defense representing him, and the ACLJ is filing an additional briefing for the court.

“WVROs are supposed to protect employees from creepy or hostile colleagues or supervisors, not provide an excuse to stifle public free speech rights,” the ACLJ said.