A San Diego appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by an anti-abortion group against Planned Parenthood that demanded the organization inform women of a possible link between abortion and breast cancer.In a unanimous and lengthy 67-page opinion, the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled the suit was properly dismissed because it violated a state law that prohibits lawsuits that curtail someone else's free-speech rights.
Yesterday's decision was certified for publication, meaning it can be cited as precedent in other cases.
James McElroy, the attorney for Planned Parenthood, said the decision was welcome and important.
"The real impact here is that using litigation as a club to beat a nonprofit into submission is not going to be tolerated by our trial courts or our appeals courts," he said.
The Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of three women, including one from Chula Vista. It contended that Planned Parenthood was violating the state's unfair competition laws and was engaging in false advertising because its Web site contained "confusing and misleading" statements about the safety of abortion and a purported link between abortion and breast cancer.
Planned Parenthood and others say the scientific evidence for such a statement does not exist. Nonetheless, the Web site had a link outlining the debate.
The organization moved to have the suit dismissed, contending it was intended to infringe on its First Amendment rights to free expression. Planned Parenthood also contended that there was little likelihood the suits would prevail at a trial.
Superior Court Judge Ronald S. Prager agreed and dismissed the lawsuit and awarded $77,000 in legal fees to Planned Parenthood. The appeals court in a decision issued Wednesday affirmed Prager's decision.
Associate Justice Gilbert Nares wrote that the statements on the Web site challenged by the group were non-commercial speech and "expressions of opinion about an issue of genuine scientific debate," both of which are protected under the First Amendment.
Moreover, even if the statements were to be considered commercial speech, Nares wrote that the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of winning by proving they were unlawful, unfair or fraudulent.
Patrick Gillen, the lawyer who filed the suit, said he was disappointed in the decision. The original lawsuit sought a court order that would have required Planned Parenthood to inform women about possible links between breast cancer and abortion. Several states have such a requirement.
This was the first suit of its kind seeking such relief that the group has filed in the country, Gillen said. He held out the possibility that, after conferring with his clients, he may ask the state Supreme Court to review the case.
