Life Legal attorneys appeared in California Superior Court for Shasta County on December 19 and on January 2 in defense of long-time pro-life activist Chad Hunt. At issue was a pro-abortion petition to banish Chad from the public sidewalk adjacent to Women’s Health Specialists (WHS), an abortion mill in Redding that claims to be “fighting for women’s lives” by killing babies. Unfortunately – and, in our estimation, inexplicably – the Court granted the petition so thoroughly that Chad’s First Amendment rights were effectively negated in the vicinity of the murder mill.
The case stemmed from an incident on September 25, 2024. A car was exiting the WHS parking lot and was in fact on public property. A pro-life sidewalk counselor attempted to talk to a woman in the passenger seat, and the driver rolled down the passenger window to allow for conversation. WHS employee Linda McCrea, whose responsibilities include directing the abortion business’s “volunteers,” rushed toward the scene to interfere with and terminate all pro-life communication. The general pattern at this site was well established: pro-aborts were determined not to let pro-lifers address the customers.
Chad interposed himself between car and free speech opponent, then walked along when she altered her route toward the driver’s side. During their proximity to the disputed vehicle, inadvertent physical contact occurred three times. Pro-abort McCrea interpreted these three bumps as “assaults” and called the police. An officer came, but Chad was not arrested. No allegation of injury was made.
The abortion mill petitioned for an order against Chad under a California statute that addresses workplace violence.
In response, Life Legal argued that the very statute cited explicitly excluded constitutionally protected free speech from the actions that could be enjoined. We also argued that McCrea’s complaint was part of a pattern of false accusation at the WHS site and that she herself deliberately instigated the incident. We upheld Chad’s First Amendment rights against overbroad retaliatory measures sought by the abortion mill. Video evidence provided by Chad supported our account of the facts.
Nevertheless, the Court granted everything that the pro-aborts sought. Chad was ordered to stay 100 feet away from the murder business for three years. Free speech in a public forum? Not for Chad Hunt!
The Court’s reasoning struck us as counter-factual to the point of being incomprehensible:
- The Court ruled that McCrea had suffered “workplace violence” even after she exited her workplace to interrupt a consensual conversation. McCrea admitted on the stand that her purpose was not to participate but to terminate.
- Incredibly, the Court ruled that there was “clear and convincing evidence” of a risk of irreparable harm if Chad was not enjoined – precisely because there had been no previous incidents. According to this standard, an oft-convicted repeat offender is a safer bet than someone merely accused for the first time. How could Chad possibly havemaintained his free speech rights in the face of such a rationale?
- The Court did not merely prohibit physical contact on site, but imposed a 100-yard stay away order that completely annihilated Chad’s First Amendment rights in the public space where the U.S. Constitution most seeks to protect them – and did so under a statute that specifically excludes injunctions against constitutionally protected rights. It’sas if the language of the statute was swept aside and another, broader statute plopped down in its place.
Sadly, unfavorable rulings are a common outcome for right-to-lifers. Despite the collapse of Roe v. Wade, the abortion distortion is still squirming, hissing, and striking in America’s courtrooms. But this order is so lacking in legal justification that we cannot let it stand unopposed. Life Legal will be filing an appeal. However, overturning the ruling won’t be easy. A long and arduous road lies ahead for Chad – and for us.