Tag Archives: ZZ: Brown v City of Pittsburgh

LifeNews: “U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer, this summer, granted a request from pro-life advocate Mary Kathryn Brown and ordered the city to pay $209,276 in attorney fees and costs, mostly to attorneys from The Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-life legal group that represented Brown.”

NECN: “Brown and the Alliance Defense Fund had argued that the combination of buffer and bubble zones kept protesters too far away from clients to hand them anti-abortion leaflets and to conduct conversations about abortion without having to shout.”

Pittsburgh Post Gazette: “Judge Fischer also found that the city owed counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented Ms. Brown, $209,277 in fees and costs.”

LifeNews: “The city of Pittsburgh may have to pay attorneys fees after it lost a case regarding the buffer zone law that has been the subject of lawsuits by pro-life advocates . . . Alliance Defense Fund attorneys challenged the local law as unconstitutional for prohibiting speech and helped represent a pro-life nurse who took on the ordinance, which prohibited her from counseling and speaking with women.”

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer on Thursday granted a request from Mary Kathryn Brown and ordered the city to pay $209,276 in attorney fees and costs, mostly to attorneys from The Alliance Defense Fund, for representing Brown in federal court.”

phillyburbs.com (AP): “City Solicitor Dan Regan says the fees sought by the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz., are ‘excessive’ and is challenging the request.”

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that represents Mary Kathryn Brown in the case, wants about $244,000 for representing Brown in federal court and $115,000 for representing Brown before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

LifeNews: “David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, told the newspaper he supported the judge’s order. ‘It basically grants us all the relief that we were looking for,’ he said. He also said the order from the judge makes it clear that abortion center staff can’t stand inside the 15-foot zone and harass pro-life advocates. ‘One of the reasons that we challenged the fixed zone is that, on the face of it, it was based on content,’ he said. ‘It allowed some people to speak but not others.’”

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “Pittsburgh can ban abortion debates and demonstrations within 15 feet of a medical facility entrance, but it can no longer prevent advocates from walking up to people outside that buffer zone, a federal judge ruled Thursday . . . David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, the Christian legal organization representing Brown, commended the judge’s order. ‘It basically grants us all the relief that we were looking for,’ he said.”

ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman writing at JURIST: “In what’s commonly referred to in some circles as the ‘abortion distortion,’ the courts have abandoned their zealous protection of speech and thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Now, with the blessings of the courts, no longer are such regulations limited to prohibiting only unprotected conduct, they are prohibiting pure speech. And on a public sidewalk, no less.”

Medical News Today: “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit this week struck down a Pittsburgh law that established two kinds of buffer zones around facilities that offer abortion services . . . The Alliance Defense Fund brought the suit on behalf of an antiabortion-rights advocate.”

Ms. Magazine: “The ordinance was challenged in 2006 by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of Mary Kathryn Brown, a longtime Pittsburgh clinic protestor.”

WorldNetDaily: “‘We agree with the court’s conclusion that the ordinance violated the free speech rights of pro-life advocates by zoning them out of the areas where they have a First Amendment right to speak,’ said David Cortman, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which argued the case.”

OneNewsNow: “‘The reason is that it analyzes not only the Circuit precedent that’s in existence, but also the Supreme Court precedent,’ explains Cortman. ‘And the court reaches not only a proper decision, but one that analyzes what the Supreme Court has already held in this area. So it’s a proper application of what the Supreme Court has already held.’”

Jurist: “The ruling was the result of a lawsuit brought in 2006 by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) on behalf of Mary Kathryn Brown, a registered nurse who works in Pittsburgh and has sought to dissuade woman from undergoing abortions for more than 15 years.”

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: “David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents Ms. Brown in her case, praised the appellate decision. ‘This one finally draws the line,’ Mr. Cortman said. ‘This [ordinance], we know, goes too far. It draws a boundary line as to how far cities can go to restrict speech, and that’s important.’”

Tribune-Review: “David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, the Christian legal organization representing Brown, said the appeals court vindicated his group’s contention that Pittsburgh went too far by focusing on speech instead of illegal activities such as blocking pedestrians’ paths. ‘You can prohibit blocking without prohibiting First Amendment-protected speech,’ he said. ‘If they would have kept their restrictions to prohibiting illegal conduct, we would never have challenged it.’”

LifeNews: “[David] Cortman told LifeNews.com, ‘We agree with the court’s conclusion that the ordinance violated the free speech rights of pro-life advocates by zoning them out of areas where they have a First Amendment right to speak.’”

CitizenLink: “‘The court basically drew a well-needed line in the sand that government officials may not cross,’ [David Cortman] said. ‘The court agreed with us that it prohibited too much speech.’”

Associated Press: “‘This is an extremely important victory for pro-life speech. The court drew a well-needed line in sand,’ David Cortman, the Alliance Defense Fund attorney who challenged the ordinance, said Monday.”