West Virginian Antiabortion Group Contests Law On Political Ads

Main Category: Abortion
Article Date: 09 Oct 2008 - 7:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The antiabortion group West Virginians for Life last week filed a legal objection in federal court that seeks to have the state's new political advertising law ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it prevents the group from promoting its position to potential voters, the Charleston Gazette reports. The group is asking U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston to grant an injunction preventing election officials from enforcing the new laws, which went into effect Oct. 1.

Shirley Stanton, the group's president, said that the new laws wrongly define the group's efforts as "express advocacy," or overt support or disapproval of a specific candidate. "We are an issue advocacy group, and if we say vote pro-life, that's our issue," Stanton said that the group should be allowed to circulate petitions, send mass mailings and air radio ads that describe an official's or candidate's position. According to the Gazette, a provision in the new law also requires third-party groups to disclose their funding sources if they run political ads referring to a specific candidate within 60 days of an election. This includes all media except leaflets, fliers and outdoor ads that are not billboards.

James Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who is representing West Virginians for Life, said that the new law's disclosure requirements are unconstitutional and limit the organization's right to free speech, adding that the group is afraid to run ads publicizing a ruling written by former state Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman (D) -- who is running for one of two seats on the court -- that required the state to fund abortions for Medicaid recipients.

Anthony Majestro, an attorney representing Workman, said that it is improper for West Virginians for Life to file the objection before the election and that he plans to ask the judge to postpone ruling on the issue until after the election. Majestro said, "Litigation over these disclosure rules has been ongoing since before the primary, and the case has received substantial publicity, both locally and nationally," adding, "We believe [West Virginians for Life's] aim is to rush the federal court into enjoining the provisions of West Virginia law without giving the state and candidates an adequate opportunity to defend the provisions." Bopp said he filed the lawsuit last week because the organization did not have legal standing until it was "harmed by having its free speech curtailed."

The Gazette reports that a hearing is set for Oct. 8 (Clevenger, Charleston Gazette, 10/4).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.