From http://lifenews.com/state3538.html
West Virginia Pro-Life Group Takes on State Election Law Limiting Free Speech
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 8, 2008
Email 
RSS 
Printer
Charleston, WV (LifeNews.com) -- The leading pro-life group in West Virginia is taking on a campaign finance law that it says makes it harder to get out the pro-life message. West Virginians for Life is asking a federal court to prevent West Virginia from enforcing unconstitutional parts of the law.
A hearing on a preliminary-injunction motion is set for this morning at the federal courthouse in Charleston.
Between now and Election Day, the pro-life group plans to run a radio ad, mass mailing, and petition about a 1993 West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decision requiring West Virginia to pay for abortions for Medicaid recipients.
Yet the communications mention the author of the decision, who is a candidate in the 2008 election for a seat on the court. So WVFL fears the communications will bring serious consequences under West Virginia law.
West Virginia law bans corporations from doing “express advocacy.” Because the express-advocacy definition is vague, WVFL cannot know for sure whether its communications are banned.
Therefore, the pro-life group asks that the federal court hold that it is the type of nonprofit corporation that has a First Amendment right to do express advocacy. This will allow WVFL to do its communications no matter how West Virginia defines express advocacy.
WVFL also asks the court to hold that the vagueness of the express-advocacy definition makes the express-advocacy reporting requirements vague, and therefore unconstitutional.
The pro-life organization also fears that doing any of its planned communications would convert it into a political committee under West Virginia law. That means WVFL would have to bear all the burdens West Virginia places on political committees.
WVFL asks that the court hold that these burdens are unconstitutional. The reason is that WVFL is not under the control of, nor does it have the major purpose of nominating or electing, one or more candidates for state or local office in West Virginia.
The group claims these requirements violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.
______________________________________
From http://lifenews.com/int950.html
Canada Pregnancy Center Settles Lawsuit After Planned Parenthood Attacks
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
October 8, 2008
Email RSS Printer
Ottawa, Canada (LifeNews.com) -- A Canadian pregnancy center that came under attack from Planned Parenthood after the wives of the Ottawa Senators hockey team designated it as a charity recipient has settled a lawsuit it filed against the abortion business. The suit came after Planned Parenthood attacked First Place Pregnancy Centre.
The hockey players' wives formed a charitable group called "The Better Halves" and named the pregnancy center as one of three groups to receive proceeds from a raffle of players' items and memorabilia.
Planned Parenthood officials objected to the group that helps pregnant women and publicly attacked First Place with claims that it misleads women.
The center voluntarily withdrew from the fundraiser -- forfeiting $25,000 -- but filed a claim against Planned Parenthood Ottawa and two of its representatives before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in May.
First Place alleged Planned Parenthood Ottawa interfered with critical funding and defamed their charity putting the charity and the women they serve at risk.
Terri Mazik, the group's director, said at the time: "Why did Planned Parenthood
Ottawa interfere in this way? While we do not refer for abortion we provide and have always provided nonjudgmental support to women facing an unintended pregnancy in order for them to make an informed decision."
The two sides have reportedly settled the lawsuit out of court, according to a joint press release.
The release doesn't say whether Planned Parenthood forked over any of the money the pregnancy enter lost and neither side can share more than what is contained in the press release as a “no comment” confidentiality agreement accompanied the settlement.
The release says First Place and Planned Parenthood met together for discussion “in a spirit of mutual respect" and that Planned Parenthood “did not intend any harm to First Place.”
“Each of them acknowledge that the other represents an organization acting in good faith in accordance with its own mission to provide support services for people facing unintended pregnancies," the release says.
It describes First Place as “a respected community organization" but does not describe Planned Parenthood in such terms.
It concludes saying, “First Place and PPO will have no further comment with respect to the allegations raised in the legal proceedings.”
Don Hutchinson, the vice president of the Centre for Faith and Public Life and legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, commented on the settlement in a recent editorial and says he thinks the language of the press release makes it appear First Place got the better end of the settlement.
"Mutual respect is not how one would generally characterize the history of Planned Parenthood’s dealings in regard to crisis pregnancy centers. These words alone are a giveaway that whatever was determined in the settlement discussions was strongly in favor of First Place," he says.
The wording, "is as close to 'we were wrong' as most legal settlements ever get," Hutchinson added.
"It is unheard of that Planned Parenthood, or any self-described pro-choice organization, would describe a pro-life crisis pregnancy center as acting in good faith in its provision of support for pregnant women," Hutchinson continued.
"The only allegations raised in this process were that Planned Parenthood had called First Place untrue names and defamed them," he concludes.
"The wording of the press release, taken as an entirety, tells me that Planned Parenthood is no longer permitted to criticize the work of First Place as being anti-choice or otherwise inappropriate so long as First Place is conducting itself in accordance with its current stated mission."
Related web sites:
First Place - http://www.first-place.ca
_____________________________
http://lifenews.com/state3539.html
____________-
No comments:
Post a Comment