Appeal Seeks To Establish Right to Trespass on Clinic Property To Stop Involuntary Abortions

TMLC ^ | 2-12-2003 | staff

[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.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The funny part is that the TMLC is responsible for getting a FReeper, Saundra Duffy, sanctioned to the tune of $75,000 for a frivolous filing on a breast cancer/abortion link, when she hadn't had an abortion or breast cancer, but was the plaintiff. Some really stupid nonsense comes out, and they all sound like their poster boy, Atomic Dog, the guy who murdered Slepian.

[Poohbah]

His intent was to try to save babies and assist mothers to avoid being tricked into aborting (as is so often the case).

Fine. Trespassing does not accomplish this.

But his actions - the actions encountered by the abortuary workers - were simply talking to them about what was going on at the clinic very calmly. I understand that the workers are on record swearing to that. TMLC is correct in its article and I am also correct. No variance.

Sorry, but if he's talking to the workers and not the customers, there is a significant delta--spinning does not change that FACT.

His success or failure in accomplishing waht he intended does not change his intent, and his tactic in first talking calmly to the workers was his way to embark upon achiving his stated goal (eventually preventing moms from being hoodwinked into allowing the abortionist to kill their babies).

Again, he's talking to the wrong people.

There is no variance.

There is a BIG variance.

And as to your contention about what is allowable when it comes to ejecting trespassers, the judge disagreed with you.

Sorry. The law is pretty clear--once you are notified of the fact of trespass, your one single duty is to leave. Anything else, and force may be used to ensure your departure.

The facts are that the daughter went crazy - irrationally and with no reasonable belief - thinking that this very very peaceful man

Trespassing on private property is, in no way whatsoever, peaceful.

- who was simply talking and exhibited no violent behavior and who she KNEW to be a man of prayer and kindness (she is on record admitting that her only prior contact was seeing him praying for her and him talking to her calmly about how he was praying for her and her dad) -

The Kingdom is full of idiots whose first words to St. Peter were "but he seemed so kind and prayerful..."

was going to attack her abortionist dad.

Multiple trespassing convictions have a tendency to convince people of this.

She jumped on him extremely violently and he immediately went all passive and limp. (Witnesses who work there confirmed all this).

He was told to leave. He didn't. Them's the breaks.

She then knelt on his head and back with all her weight.

If you do NOT leave when you are told, I can employ force to MAKE you leave.

(All in front of several other clinic workers who confirmed that he was absolutely passive and prayerful and calm and extremely reasonable - even though the daughter was the one who was nutso and scary the whole time).

Sorry. The only way that Goodson would be "extremely reasonable" is if he showed extreme obedience to the law and didn't trespass, or left extremely rapidly once he was told to get out.

The clinic worker even told the daighter to stop being such an idiot.

The clinic worker's lack of respect for property rights is immaterial.

Facts are great things.

And, somewhere, the facts as described by you and the facts as described by the TMLC are at variance.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Last I saw, TMLC was going to leave her holding the sanction bag. I suppose on reflection, they weren't going to find any more willing dupes to act as Plaintiffs unless they ponied up for their foulups.

I sure hope donations aren't tax deductible - it would be a shame to think that revenue would be forgone for such silliness.

[Poohbah]

I'm pretty sure that Kopp isn't Saundra Duffy's hero.

There is a law that allows the unharmed to sue on behalf of the harmed in CA--it has been grossly abused by some shysters of late to shake down auto repair shops for trivial stuff that had already been adjudicated by the state government (fines, et cetera). My understanding is that the TMLC didn't use that law.

[Notwithstanding]

Please clear the air.
Has something changed?

[APBaer]

Thank you for reevaluating Chancellor Palpatine, and I am happy to see that he is advancing in your estimation.

In Post 28 you thought he was Satan himself:
"Palpy = Hater = Satan:"

Whereas in this post, per your tag line, Chancellor Palpatine is a mere minion, a lowly toiler in Satan's workshop:

"(Satan is real. So are his minions. Palpy is one of them.)"

[Catspaw]

Where did Goodman file the case in which he won damages? Was it in state or federal court? If it's in a state court, which county in Wisconsin? If it's in federal court, where did he file? EDWI, WDWI, or somewhere else?

[WaveThatFlag]

This is an outrage. Any good liberal knows that women are only free in this country today because we are killing the maximum sustainable number of babies.

[victim soul]

Are customers the property of the proprietor?

[wonders]

So if you "have reason to believe" something is wrong, you can trespass? Gosh, that's an interesting question. If my neighbour called me up and told me her toddler got his head stuck in the stair railing and could I please come over and help her extricate the poor little tyke (this actually happened to me), well, wouldn't I "have reason to believe something is wrong" and then have the right to trespass on my neighbour's property? Well, the "reason to believe" could easily be established through my neighbour's invitation to enter her property. How do these folks plan to establish the "reason to believe"?

[concerned about politics]

My vote goes to the law center. Most teens have no idea what they're doing, and no one tells them. They just feel pressured by adults. I feel sorry for them.

[victim soul]

Amazingly in all these posts not a word was mentioned about the pregnant women oftentimes threatened with abandonment if they don't abort and their children in the womb.

Why do you suppose that the abortion mills lobby for no waiting periods or informed consent laws? Could it be that is is about $$$?

They have their client just where they want her -- emotionally distraught and in their building. IF she were offered another alternative than to abort by the trespasser - the abotionists should rejoice -- because isn't abortion supposed to be rare and a hard decision to make?

How many times have we heard the abortion industry say that we should trust women to make a their own decisions? So why are they refusing others to to present another choice that they aren't willing to "provide"?

The necessity defense sounds good to me.

Several states are now debating whether a person should be charged with two murders when a woman pregnant with child is murdered.

If Mr. Goodman had protected a pregnant woman in a parking lot from being attacked, he is a hero.

If he does the same thing at an abortion mill, he is a trespasser.

Here lies the conundrum:

Today, A woman can choose to kill her "unwanted" child.

Today, An abortionist can choose to cooperate with the woman and kill her "unwanted" child.


Why should anyone's ability to live be dependent on their state of "wantedness"?

What kind of lawmakers would even consider never mind "choose" to pass a law that allows protection only for a "wanted" child and allowing the death penalty for "unwanted" children?

Either we believe that No one has the right to kill -- no woman, no abortionist, or we believe that every life is dependent on its "wantedness".

A dangerous precedent is being set with a rapidly aging boomer population reaching retirement years. Will their "wantedness" or "usefulness" be used as an excuse to require a Right to Die to be determined by their families, doctors or lawmakers' choices?

And who will be accused of being a trespasser then?

[Siobhan]

Chancellor Palpatine is the banned Freeper one-particular-harbour. His anti-Catholic vitriole boileth over time and again.

[Siobhan]

Chancellor Palpatine is the banned Freeper one-particular-harbour. His anti-Catholic vitriole boileth over time and again.

[Kryptonite]

From reading http://www.thomasmore.org/index.cfm?location=5&subsectionid=1&release=152&pageid=1

it appears that this gentleman received a confidential sum in settlement.

From the release: "Damages  of an unspecified amount were paid directly to Goodman, and the Thomas More Law Center was awarded costs."

[Lord_Baltar]

OK Not, so you'd have no problem If I walked into your Place, uninvited, provided all I want to do is calmly talk about my views?

[The Old Hoosier]

Perhaps he became a lawyer because he couldn't qualify as a sniper?

[The Old Hoosier]

[Notwithstanding]

First of all, this is a business facility open to all people, located within a hospital open to all. So it is not like a private home.

Second, if you had some "necessity" then you actually could trespass even in a private home. If you knew I was about to kill a baby after tricking the mom into thinking its a blob of tissue, etc. etc. (insert the litany of lies abortion lovers tell pregnant moms), and that I had a track record of doing so, then you would have a good case for legal necessity. Same as if you knew I was going to chop the toes off my dog.

[Notwithstanding]

I think he is satan - or at least one of his minions - as one poster pointed out, he can't be both.