In Twisted Ruling, California Court Buys Into the Left’s “Speech Is Violence” Mantra To Strip Away Multiple Constitutional Rights of a Pro-Life Advocate

For years, we’ve heard the refrain from the Left that “speech is violence” in order to justify all kinds of censorship of conservative and pro-life Americans. Now a court has essentially bought into this unconstitutional trope in order to strip away the rights of a pro-life American.

Many Left-leaning states stand ready to crush pro-life advocates if they dare speak out for the unborn – even if that means censoring or suspending the constitutional rights of advocates. We have previously written of our recent efforts in Maine, Illinois, and Ohio to defend advocates targeted by government officials. California appears ready to simply erase freedom of speech and the Second Amendment rights of a pro-life advocate.

Join us and take action, add your name to the petition: Stop Criminalizing Saving Unborn Babies.

The ACLJ is filing an amicus brief in an important case in California, Women’s Health Specialists (WHS) v. C.H. We will be supporting the constitutional rights of a local pro-life advocate.

Many aspects of this case reflect a familiar pattern. The plaintiff WHS is an abortion facility, i.e., a place that kills babies for money before they are born. The defendant, Chad Hunt, is a pro-lifer who opposes such killing. WHS has “escorts” whose job is to disrupt pro-life advocates who are reaching out to abortion “customers” with life-giving alternatives. One of those escorts accused Chad of bumping her three times with his stomach when she tried to interfere with other pro-life counselors outside the abortion clinic.

Normally, this would lead to either a possible police citation or perhaps a civil suit by WHS against the pro-life advocates, seeking an injunction against any future misconduct (assuming WHS could prove that someone had in fact misbehaved). In the case of an injunction, the restrictions in any such order would have to comport with the First Amendment free speech standards articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The twist in this case, however, is that WHS did not go the usual route. Instead, it filed for a “Workplace Violence Restraining Order” (WVRO). That is, WHS argued that their escort was at work, that Chad’s alleged bumping of her constituted “violence,” and, therefore, a WVRO should be issued.

Sadly, the California superior court bought WHS’s arguments — and did not apply the Supreme Court standards for protecting free speech rights. In effect, the superior court let WHS use the WVRO as an end-run around the First Amendment. And the result was an order that banished Chad 100 yards from WHS, forbade all contact with the escort of any kind, and — to add injury to injury — barred Chad from owning or possessing any firearms, even at home for his own self-defense. Worse, these restrictions apply for three years and can be renewed!

It’s egregious. Not only is the court violating his First Amendment rights, but it’s using that violation to justify violating his Second Amendment rights as well – a two-for-one evisceration of his rights. Free speech rights limit what a court can do to stifle your expressive freedom. Such rights do not evaporate just because a litigant pulls a different legal tool out of the toolbox.

Chad has appealed, represented by our friends at the Life Legal Defense Foundation. The ACLJ is drafting a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Chad, aimed directly at the failure of the trial court to apply the governing First Amendment protections.

This is a “square peg in a round hole” case. WVROs are supposed to protect employees from creepy or hostile colleagues or supervisors, not provide an excuse to stifle public free speech rights. WHS has weaponized the WVRO statute for use against pro-lifers, never mind the First and Second Amendments.

Take action with us as we defend pro-life advocates to ensure states aren't permitted to trample on anyone's constitutional rights. Sign the petition: Stop Criminalizing Saving Unborn Babies.

UPDATE 09.23.2025: We just filed our amicus brief supporting Chad’s rights. We contend that the Supreme Court’s decision in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center sets the constitutional rules for injunctions restricting free speech activities, and that the California trial court utterly failed to apply the Madsen standard.

We were delighted to be joined on our amicus brief by the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project (AALDP), which operates out of the University of Denver’s law school. Having AALDP sign onto our brief helps show the California Court of Appeal that protection for free speech should have appeal across the spectrum of issues and politics. Every movement has reason to fear the manipulation of workplace violence restraining orders to hamstring free speech rights.

We also make a point to tackle the abortion facility WHS’s excuses for ignoring the First Amendment. As we explain:

WHS emphasizes that the superior court granted the WVRO in response to [Chad]’s alleged misconduct. . . . But every injunction issued in abortion protest litigation (or other demonstration cases) will invoke incidents of alleged misconduct or illegality as justification for its issuance. . . . Madsen, like the First Amendment right to free speech in general, does not apply only to the angelic. Rather, Madsen sets limits on how far a court can go in response to bad behavior.

We also hammer the overreach of the order imposed on Chad:

[T]he current restrictions should be overturned. The alleged offense here is three belly bumps in one interaction on one day. The WVRO, however, imposes a laundry list of restrictions having no focused connection to the alleged offense. For example, the WVRO orders the defendant to stay “at least 100 yards away from” the plaintiff abortion facility. . . . The interposition of a football field-long buffer zone is obviously far more than is “necessary” (Madsen) for the prevention of belly bumps. Instead of being a tailored remedy, the WVRO order is simply a check-the-box, one-size-fits-all form. . . . Virtually none of the restrictions contained in that form order respond to what actually is alleged. This is presumably because the aim of the WVRO law is to protect employees from creepy or menacing colleagues or supervisors, not to police public demonstrations.

. . . [T]he current WVRO is the antithesis of the required narrowness. Signing off on a standard form here is not an order “tailored by a trial judge to afford more precise relief,” Madsen.