Pro-Lifers' Free Speech Rights Affirmed By Court

Written by Michael L. Betsch

(CNSNews.com) — When two Minnesota women were prohibited by the City of St. Paul from offering their "prayer" and "counsel" to women entering a local abortion clinic last August, they sued the city for violating their First Amendment rights. Their case, which recently was settled outside of federal court, forced local officials to review the city code for additional free speech violations.

According to Bonnie Holliday, a pro-life activist who brought the joint suit against the city, police threatened to fine her for offering prayer and counsel to women entering a St. Paul Planned Parenthood clinic. Co-plaintiff, Sally Kolb, said she was also told by police to leave the public sidewalk in front of the abortion clinic.

Both women were told by police in August that unless they left the premises, they would be cited for "failing to obtain a permit" under a section of the city code. Holiday and Kolb said they had been offering their counsel and prayer to women entering the Planned Parenthood location for years without incident.

In reprimanding the pro-life activists, police cited Chapter 366A.01 of the city code, which stated, "No person or organization shall use any public street, sidewalk or alley for a march, demonstration or public gathering in the city without a permit."

The ordinance defined the term "public gathering" as "a public assembly of persons, in a location which can be fixed or predetermined, for the purpose of conducting activities which are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Francis J. Manion, senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), said the ordinance was a "sweeping restriction" on Holliday's and Kolb's constitutional right to free speech.

"This is an unconstitutional attempt to punish our clients who wanted to legally share a pro-life message on a public sidewalk," Manion said prior to filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in St. Paul last August.

In his argument against the City of St. Paul, he said the city ordinance went well beyond the city's legitimate desire to regulate parades and large-scale demonstrations.

"There is no conceivable governmental interest which justifies such sweeping restrictions on free speech," Manion said.

In a recent out-of-court settlement agreement signed by the City of St. Paul and the ACLJ, the city and its police department agreed not to subject "any person or group to citation, arrest, prosecution, or threat of citation, arrest, or prosecution for failing to obtain a permit required by the 'demonstration' or 'public gathering' provisions" of the city code.

"The settlement was a no-brainer," said Assistant City Attorney, Peter Mikhail. "In fact, if they had contacted me before they started the lawsuit, we could have gotten the same result."

Mikhail credited the ACLJ's lawsuit for exposing an obvious hole in the drafting of the city code that needed to be fixed. "We will still have all of the enforcement tools available that we've always used to maintain public order," he said. "This permit provision is never something that the police have needed for the purposes of maintaining order in the city."

Per the agreement reached between the city and the ACLJ, Mikhail said his office is currently reviewing the entire ordinance that pertains to permits for marches, parades, and public gatherings and making recommendations of amendments to the code to the city council to ensure that it complies with the free speech requirements of the First Amendment. Both parties petitioned the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Share your thoughts with other readers:  Post Comments   Rate this Article