From the San Francisco Gate (and via Bush v. Choice).
The suit was dismissed in 2002 by a San Diego judge who rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that a connection between abortion and cancer was scientifically established. The three plaintiffs were ordered to pay the organization $130,000 to cover legal fees under a state law that provides attorneys’ fees to targets of merit-less suits that seek to thwart free expression.
Actually, I’m not sure if I should be feeling schadenfreude or not. It’s possible that the three women suing are actually such idiots that they didn’t think it was possible for Planned Parenthood to disagree in good faith about the issue (which is what they’d have to believe to think that PP had engaged in false advertising). In that case, they’re three fools fooled by the pro-life movement, and I feel sorry for them.
But it’s also possible that they knew full well that their suit was a nuciance suit with no merit, in which case they’re three jerks who deserved what they got.
I dunno, I’ve seen quite a few right-to-lifers who have swallowed the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer hook, line, and sinker. This really doesn’t excuse them from responsibility, because the information is there. Those supposed links have been disproven by scientific communities (translation: non-biased, non-partisan groups).
Let their supporters bail them out, as we do for our institutions. I won’t feel sorry for them until none of their erstwhile supporters comes to their financial aid AND one of them with dependent children loses their home or otherwise disrupts the life of the children.
The abortion-breast cancer theme has been debunked so many times and for so long that I fail to feel sympathy for someone who can’t exert themselves to get on the web and download a free article from the New England J. Medicine. If you can’t properly research a lawsuit of this nature, you have no business bringing it.
They may believe it wholeheartedly, but a suit to force PP to make a statement like that is frivolous. It’s just not the public’s place to regulate things like this directly.
I think it’s pretty clear, even from the article, that the three women who sued were simply proxy plaintiffs for a lawsuit that was cooked up by the Thomas More Law Center. Don’t feel too sorry for them.
Can we sue to force them to advise women about the new studies that link completed first pregnancies to breast cancer? Link to story
i don’t feel sorry for them either.. it’s kinda their fault they’re stupid. But i guess stupidity sometimes is also called “faith” so maybe they had “faith” that this was true?? :)
— Say, kids, what time is it?
— It’s Schadenfreude time!
— It’s Schadenfreude time,/ It’s Schadenfreude time/ Let’s give a rousing cheer/ ‘Cause Schadenfreude’s here!
Sorry… that’s been running through my head ever since I saw the title of this entry.
Ironically there is actually a link between birth control pills and breast cancer. They should have sued for that, because Planned Parenthood is not so shy on the recommendation of contraception. Or do they already mention a link?
“a suit to force PP to make a statement like that is frivolous. It’s just not the public’s place to regulate things like this directly.”
Hmmm, I dunno how far I agree with that one. I mean, yes, bringing nuisance suits is definitely a practice that should be abolished, but if it’s a situation where a corporation or agency really *isn’t* being upfront about dangers its services/products can cause, and the government is doing nothing to oblige them to be (as usual), then I think members of the public should have every right to sue.
Obviously, I think concerned people should try official channels first, but as far as I’ve seen, that tactic doesn’t often get results.
Yes, they mention the link. Quite openly, too.
Yeah, I think that has something to do with their mission of providing accurate and useful information about all methods of birth control (as opposed to, say, trying to tell women what to do).
Crys, I think what the judge meant was that since there is no scientifically proven causal link between abortion and breast cancer, there is no reason to forcibly compel PP to mention one. In cases where there is a scientifically proven causal link, like with the side effects of certain drugs, there is a reason for the public to step in, and it does. That’s kind of what I got out of it, anyway.