Life Legal attorneys are currently completing their opening brief in the appeal of an order issued against pro-lifer Chad Hunt, who may justly be charged only with the offense of facilitating the free exchange of ideas. We intend to do everything possible toward restoring Chad’s First Amendment rights on public property adjacent to the Women’s Health Specialists (WHS) abortion mill in Redding, California.
The incident on which the unjust order is based occurred on September 25, 2024. A vehicle was leaving the abortion business’s parking lot and turning onto the street. A pro-life sidewalk counselor indicated by hand gesture a desire to speak with the driver. The driver stopped the car and engaged in free and voluntary communication.
Then along came mill employee Linda McCrea, whose duties include coordinating the activities of the abortion outfit’s “volunteers.” She did not approach the car in restrained fashion but instead, as is the custom of such abortuary agents, charged in, intent on preventing any conversation between pro-lifer and willing audience.
Chad Hunt – who typically does not interact with customers or staff – stepped between pro-life sidewalk counselor and advancing pro-abort. When McCrea altered her path to reach the driver’s window of the car, Chad headed in the same direction.
It’s important to understand that, by the time that these maneuvers occurred, the car was already well clear of the abortion mill’s privately owned parking lot and squarely on public property.
Linda McCrea claimed that, while she was by her own admission trying to get past Chad and interrupt the conversation, he bumped her three times, as might occur in any crowded space, even if no one is moving at her rapid and aggressive pace. McCrea interpreted these bumps as “assaults” and called the police. An officer arrived, but Chad was not arrested. No injury was alleged.
In any other context, the matter would have ended there. But abortion mills are a context unto themselves. WHS petitioned for an order against Chad under a California statute addressing workplace violence – even though there was no violence, and the incident did not occur in a workplace.
Incredibly, at trial, despite the First Amendment, and despite language in the California statute that explicitly exempted free speech from the actions that could be enjoined, the court granted everything sought by the other side, ordering Chad to stay 100 yards, the length of a football field, from WHS for three years. The convoluted and sometimes backward reasoning needed to produce this conclusion flung the U.S. Constitution to the ground and danced upon it.
Hence, Life Legal’s appeal.
Often enough, I point out that Life Legal attorneys have a higher motivation for defending pro-life free speech at abortion mills. Yes, we believe in the First Amendment. Yes, we believe in free speech as a civic principle. But we also know from long practical experience that pro-life free speech saves lives from abortion on a regular basis. America’s abortion death toll is horrific – but it would be even more horrific without the activities not just of sidewalk counselors but also of people who, like Chad Hunt, stand in witness.
Often enough, I present these considerations as two distinct purposes. However, viewed in another light, they are actually one purpose. The abortionists understand this very well. In their minds, the high-speed disassembly line that slaughters children and the suppression of free speech are inexplicably linked. What they do every day is so manifestly evil that they can’t allow free discussion of its nature.
That’s why abortion mill lackeys like Linda McCrea charge at pro-lifers who are exercising their First Amendment rights, then report any accidental physical contact as an “assault.”
And that’s why we need to do our utmost to protect Chad Hunt’s pro-life presence on public property next to the WHS child murder business. We can’t give WHS permission to carry out its daily atrocities in silence, in the dark, without reproach.