Planned Parenthood Assoc. v. Holy Angels Catholic Church

• Decision Date: 29 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. C-91-0580 SAW.,C-91-0580 SAW.
• Citation: 765 F. Supp. 617
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. HOLY ANGELS CATHOLIC CHURCH, Northern California Operation Rescue, James Robinson, Dorothy Ann Connolly, Charles Metzger, Nancy Murray, and Does 1 through 100, Defendants.

765 F. Supp. 617

PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, Plaintiff, v. HOLY ANGELS CATHOLIC CHURCH, Northern California Operation Rescue, James Robinson, Dorothy Ann Connolly, Charles Metzger, Nancy Murray, and Does 1 through 100, Defendants.

No. C-91-0580 SAW.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

May 29, 1991.

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, William D. Kissinger, Enid Van Hoven, Caroline Zander, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.

Scott Thomas, Thomas & Porrazzo, San Jose, Cal., Nikolas Nikas, American Family Assoc. Law Cent., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM ON ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

WEIGEL, District Judge.

Summary of Decision

At this preliminary point in this case, the Court acts to protect the rights of all parties guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California.

Under both Constitutions, women have the right to seek counseling and medical services, including abortion. They are entitled to exercise this right without unlawful interference or intimidation by defendants.

Planned Parenthood Association of San Mateo County operates a clinic providing such services. The Association sues on behalf of women who desire the services of the clinic.

Under both the state and federal Constitutions, defendants have the right to freedom of speech, assembly and protest. These rights must be protected against invasion by plaintiff.

The rights of both parties are subject to lawful limitations. The rights asserted by Planned Parenthood may not transcend limitations delineated by law as, for example, legal prohibition against abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy.

The rights of defendants to freedom of speech, assembly and protest are limited to conduct which does not violate the law as, for example, that against disturbing the peace.

The evidence before the Court in this case discloses no violation of law by plaintiff.

On the other hand, while the evidence is not free from conflict, credible evidence shows that defendants have unlawfully attempted to intimidate women into abandoning planned abortion, blocking entrance to plaintiff's clinic, threatening staff members with bodily harm, shoving plastic replicas of fetuses into the faces and cars of clinic staff and patients, as well as other action which transcends the rights of peaceful protest, assembly and free speech.

However zealous and genuine persons may be in their convictions on moral, philosophical and religious issues, no person has the right to act unlawfully in furthering such convictions. Defendants have violated the limitations upon their claimed constitutional rights and must be stopped from violating the law.

Therefore, the Court has issued a preliminary injunction which, while protecting the rights of Planned Parenthood, has been carefully tailored so as not to interfere with any right of free speech, assembly or protest. As can be seen upon inspection of the precise terms of the preliminary injunction, the Court cannot and does not condone preventing, threatening or intimidating women who wish to avail themselves of the services offered by the clinic. Nor can the Court condone preventing, threatening or intimidating staff members of the clinic.

Finally, in this summary, it should be noted that the injunction does not run against defendant Holy Angels Catholic Church. This is because the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, a corporation sole (the "Archdiocese") has entered the case with a sworn declaration that the Archdiocese is the owner and operator of the Holy Angels Catholic Church which is not a separate legal entity. The declaration, moreover, is unambiguously specific, stating:

The ARCHDIOCESE does not condone, encourage or approve of any interference with access to or travel to or from any abortion clinic, including those operated by plaintiff and specifically the clinic located at 219 Southgate Avenue, Daly City, California (the "CLINIC"), nor does it condone, encourage or approve of blocking ingress to or egress from any clinic; harassing any individual whether a patient at any such clinic or not; approaching or speaking to any individual at or near any such clinic for purposes of harassment, threats or persuasion; making any excessively loud sound at any Clinic such as chanting or shouting; offering literature to any Clinic worker or patient; disturbing the public peace in any way or otherwise violating any local or state laws governing behavior in public places.

No person is authorized, instructed or encouraged by the ARCHDIOCESE, tacitly or overtly, to engage in any of the behavior referred to above.

The ARCHDIOCESE has no connection, formal or informal, tacit or overt, with defendant OPERATION RESCUE or any other defendant in this action, with the exception that some of the individual defendants may or may not be Roman Catholics. The ARCHDIOCESE has no direct or indirect, formal or informal, control or right of control over the activities of any other defendant in this action. The actions of any other defendant, if any, are done without the knowledge, approval, encouragement or ratification of the ARCHDIOCESE.

The Archdiocese was not named by plaintiff as a defendant. Based upon the foregoing declaration, there is no reason why it should be. The declaration appropriately recognizes the lawful limitations upon freedom of speech, assembly and protest.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Plaintiff operates a medical clinic at 619 Southgate Avenue in Daly City, California ("the clinic"). Complaint, ¶ 12. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit corporation which provides information counseling and medical services to individuals concerning reproduction, contraception, and reproductive rights. Colby Decl., ¶ 2. The clinic provides a full range of reproductive health services for men and women, including family planning and reproductive counseling, medical exams, laboratory testing, and abortion services performed by licensed healthcare professionals. Abortion services are offered for women in their first fourteen weeks of gestation on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. until approximately 1:00 p.m. Id., ¶ 4. Patients reserve appointments in advance. Among the clinic's patients are pregnant women who have traveled from out of state to obtain abortions. Id., ¶ 2.

Planned Parenthood rents the space for the clinic from the Westlake Development Company. It is one of approximately fifteen tenants in a mini-mall known as the Westlake Shopping Center. All tenants share two parking lots, one located in front of the building housing the clinic, and one located behind the building, indicated on the diagram attached to the Preliminary Injunction as Parking Areas A and B, respectively. Id., ¶ 3. Two signs are posted near these parking areas indicating that they are reserved for shopping center tenants, employees, and guests of tenants. Shaughnessy Decl., ¶ 14. In addition, there is a walkway in front of the shopping center, leading from Parking Area A to the clinic and other businesses. Colby Decl., ¶ 3. The parties dispute whether this walkway is public or private.

Picketers gather, primarily on Saturdays, in Parking Areas A and B and on the walkway in front of the clinic to protest abortion. Id., ¶ 5. On an average Saturday, eight to ten picketers march in front of the clinic. Plaintiff accuses these picketers of intimidating and harassing Planned Parenthood's staff and patients. Specifically, plaintiff claims that the protestors have engaged in the following activities: trespassing onto the allegedly private walkway and Parking Areas A and B (Colby Decl., ¶ 5; Kelly Decl., ¶ 12; Shaughnessy Decl., ¶ 14), thrusting lurid literature at the patients (Shaughnessy Decl., ¶ 11), accusing patients and staff of being "baby killers" and "murderers" (id.), attempting to intimidate patients into abandoning their planned abortions (Shaughnessy Decl., ¶¶ 7, 11; Kelly Decl., ¶ 7), rushing cars (Shaughnessy Decl., ¶ 7; Kelly Decl., ¶ 7), blocking the entrances to the clinic (Colby Decl., ¶ 6; Kelly Decl., ¶¶ 7-9; Gibson Decl., ¶ 5; Gibson Supp.Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 9; Vlahakos Decl., ¶ 3), threatening staff members with bodily harm (Kelly Decl., ¶ 10; Gibson Supp.Decl., ¶ 9), impeding patients' ability to walk to the clinic (Gibson Supp.Decl., ¶ 7; Kelly Decl., ¶ 8), and chanting so loudly as to interfere with the operation of the clinic. Gibson Supp.Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 10; Shaughnessy Decl., ¶ 11. The protestors have even shoved plastic replicas of fetuses into the faces and cars of Planned Parenthood patients and staff. Shaughnessy Decl., ¶ 8. Plaintiff contends that protestors persist in following patients, shoving leaflets at them and harassing them despite patients' frequent requests that the protestors leave them alone. Gibson Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 8.

The protestors' conduct causes plaintiff's patients and staff extreme emotional distress. Shaughnessy Decl., ¶¶ 12-13; Rosenthal Decl., ¶¶ 4-7. The patients are often so upset by the picketers' conduct that they are forced to reschedule their appointments, requiring more advanced, and therefore more dangerous, medical procedures. Shaughnessy Decl., ¶ 10; Rosenthal Decl., ¶ 7. Plaintiff has been forced to obtain the services of volunteer escorts to shuttle patients between their cars and the clinic because of the aggressive and invasive protesting. Colby Supp.Decl., ¶ 5; Gibson Decl., ¶ 3; Kelly Decl., ¶ 3; Shaughnessy Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5-6. Plaintiff has sought police assistance in dealing with the protests, but the police have done little to remedy the situation, stating that they require an injunction to take action. Colby Decl., ¶ 8.

The evidence with respect to the various defendants is in conflict. No single defendant is accused of engaging in all of the above activities. Defendant James Robinson is allegedly the most vocal protestor. He purportedly blocks the walkway and intimidates staff and patients. For example, he has told a...