ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
RANEY V AWARE WOMAN
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Appeal No. 99-14122-I

In The UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.,
Appellant,

vs.

AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., a Florida corporation,
EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., and
PATRICIA B. WINDLE,
Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, JUDGE PATRICIA FAWSETT,
NUMBER 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19B

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT,
MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR.

CHRISTOPHER F. SAPP
Post Office Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar Number 0097823
Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
CLICK HERE

CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE

Meredith T. Raney, Jr. the Appellant, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby certifies that the type size utilized by this document is 14 point and the style which is utilized is Times New Roman.

Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Omitted from Internet version)

Page 2

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Page 3

ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY

The heritage for this case can be traced back past the birth of Western Civilization, back to the first day of Creation: "Ab initio". The debate concerning what sort of counselors will help pregnant women make life-and-death decisions about their pregnancies has origins as recent as January, 1973.

It was then that the United States Supreme Court wrestled with the legal justification for abortion in Roe v. Wade, 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973), before concluding at page 177:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. (emphasis added)

This initial conclusion provides for a unilateral decision solely by the pregnant woman herself when determining whether or not to have an abortion. Yet, after listing all of the pressures on a woman in such a situation, the Supreme Court, on the same page, modified the proposed decision-making process to include, necessarily, the counseling by another:

All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician will consider in consultation. (emphasis added)

By the end of the Roe (supra) ruling, the United States Supreme Court had

Page 4

turned further from the concept of the pregnant woman unilaterally making the decision by herself as to whether or not to undergo an abortion, even abandoning the proposition that "her responsible physician" is to share in the abortion determination, when it declared at page 184:

The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available. (emphasis added)

Additionally, the Supreme Court reviewed in Roe (supra) some recommendations of professional organizations concerned with the decision-making process and quoted recommendations of the American Public Health Association as to standards for abortion at page 172. One of the five positions urged by this prominent health organization was:

A wide range of individuals from appropriately trained, sympathetic volunteers to highly skilled physicians may qualify as abortion counselors. (emphasis added)

Two of the three factors pertinent to consideration of important life and health risks supplied by the American Public Health Association were:

a. the skill of the physician,
b. the environment in which the abortion is performed.

Page 5

While the United States Supreme Court obviously considered the role of sympathetic volunteers as potential counselors to pregnant girls and women in the decision-making process and as potential objective commentators on the skill of the individual abortionist and the environment where the particular abortion was to be performed, the Supreme Court basically left the abortionist in control of the decision and restricted the pregnant woman to the alternatives of seeking post-abortion judicial remedies and intra-professional justice for botched abortions - assuming that she survived the ordeal.

As the ink was drying on Roe v. Wade (supra), the United States Supreme Court issued their ruling in Doe v. Bolton, 35 L Ed 2d 201 (1973).

In this second case, the Appellant, Mary Doe, expressed her mistrust of physicians. She did not believe that they were generally reliable in counseling pregnant women about abortions on account of their own personal interests and prejudices. The United States Supreme Court chided Mrs. Doe for this attitude, telling her:

This approach obviously is one founded on suspicion and one that discloses a lack of confidence in the integrity of physicians.... The appellants' suggestion is necessarily somewhat degrading to the conscientious physician, particularly the obstetrician, whose professional activity is concerned with the physical and mental welfare, the woes, the emotions, and the concern of his female patients. He, perhaps more than anyone else, is knowledgeable in this area of patient care, and he is aware of human frailty, so-called "error", and needs. The good

Page 6

physician - despite the presence of rascals in the medical profession, as in all others, we trust that most physicians are "good" - will have a sympathy and an understanding for the pregnant patient that probably is not exceeded by those who participate in other areas of professional counseling. (Page 215). (emphasis supplied)

The Supreme Court gave pregnant women no guidance as to how to tell - in advance - whether the abortionist was a good doctor or a "rascal".

Thus the Age of Abortion dawned in this Nation with the United States Supreme Court placing the abortionist in charge of the decision as to whether or not to end the pregnancy. Pregnant women were told by the United States Supreme Court that not all abortionists were "rascals" (Doe, supra) but were mostly "good physician(s)" (Doe, supra), "conscientious physician(s)" (Doe, supra), "highly skilled physicians" (Roe, supra) and "her responsible physician(s)" (Doe, supra). The Supreme Court did not advise pregnant women how to survive the devastating abortions done by "rascals" other than to file a medical grievance or lawsuit after their death or mutilation at the hands of these "rascals". There was no mention of any pre-abortion counseling or referral services by anyone with an independent or not-pro-abortion viewpoint who would tell the pregnant woman the truth about the lack of skill of the particular abortionist or the unsafe environment in which the specific abortion was to be performed. When it legalized abortion, the United States Supreme Court ignored the recommendations for the protection of pregnant

Page 7

girls and women presented to it by the American Public Health Association, (Roe, supra),

The following years saw continuing efforts to protect abortion-minded pregnant women. In 1979, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Thornburgh v. American Coll. Of Obst., 106 S.Ct. 2169 (1985) that it approved the concurring opinion of Justice Stevens in Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 99 S.Ct. 3035, 61 L.Ed.2d 797 (1979) where it was observed:

It is inherent in the right to make the abortion decision that the right may be exercised without public scrutiny and in defiance of the contrary opinion of the sovereign or other third parties. Id, at 655, 99 S.Ct., at 3054.

Yet, as of Thornburgh, (supra) the United States Supreme Court still included the abortionist in the decision-making equation for it then wrote:

A woman and her physician will necessarily be more reluctant to choose an abortion if there exists a possibility that her decision and her identity will become known publicly. 106 Supreme Court at page 2182. (emphasis added)

While the United States Supreme Court now made the pregnant woman a partner with her abortionist in this intensely private decision, there was not yet any Court- approved assistance by any counselor independent of the particular abortion business. And there was no federal protection of those pro-life counselors volunteering their services to these desperate young women. It was not until the 1990's that there were significant legal breakthroughs which would result in truthful

Page 8

and independent counseling help for pregnant women and federal protection for their benefactors.

By 1992, interest in providing the pregnant woman with general information about abortion resulted in state legislation, often known as informed consent laws, and the United States Supreme Court ruled that the abortionist could be required to provide such information. This ruling occurred in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992), where at page 2823 it was stated:

To the extent Akron I and Thornburgh find a constitutional violation when the government requires, as it does here, the giving of truthful, nonmisleading information about the nature of the procedure, the attendant health risks and those of childbirth,and the "probable gestational age" of the fetus, those cases go too far, are inconsistent with Roe's acknowledgment of an important interest in potential life, and are overruled. This is clear even on the very terms of Akron I and Thornburgh. Those decisions, along with Danforth, recognize a substantial government interest justifying a requirement that a woman be apprized of the health risks of abortion and childbirth. E.g. Danforth, supra, 428 U.S., at 66-67, 96 S.Ct., at 2840. It cannot be questioned that psychological well-being is a facet of health. Nor can it be doubted that most women considering an abortion would deem the impact on the fetus relevant, if not dispositive, to the decision. In attempting to insure that a woman apprehend the full consequences of her decision, the State furthers the legitimate purpose of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed. If the information the State requires to

Page 9

be made available to the woman is truthful and not misleading, the requirement may be permissible. (emphasis supplied).

In Casey, supra the United States Supreme Court not only acknowledged the permissibility of the pregnant woman to receive at least general information about abortion before her decision was finalized, the Court placed the pregnant woman in a role superior to the abortionist in making the decision itself:

The doctor-patient relationship does not underlie or override the two more general rights under which the abortion right is justified: the right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy. On its own, the doctor-patient relation here is entitled to the same solicitude it receives in other contexts. Thus, a requirement that a doctor give a woman certain information as part of obtaining her consent to an abortion is, for constitutional purposes, no different from a requirement that a doctor give certain specific information about any medical procedure. page 2824.

Certainly it was helpful to pregnant women to receive some general information about abortion in order to more fully comprehend the horrible consequences of bad choices.

From the viewpoint of the pregnant woman, she was now officially in charge of the abortion question and the United States Supreme Court now approved of her being "fully informed" before this determination. Regrettably for the many women who had been killed or mutilated by unskilled abortionists or died of infections and

Page 10

diseases incurred in unsanitary abortion mills, the concept of "fully informed" did not include the concerns raised by the American Public Health Association about specific persons and places in the abortion scenario, and reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, supra. Nor did it address the concerns of Mrs. Doe in Doe v. Bolton, supra about abortionists acting for their self-interest, for which she was criticized by the Supreme Court for having "a lack of confidence in the integrity of physicians". As of 1992, there was no workable mechanism for providing pregnant young women with the truth about specific "rascals" and abortion clinics or local alternative resources, essential factors if a woman was truly to be fully informed.

Once pregnant girls and women were emancipated and were no longer subject to the dictates of the abortionist with whom they were dealing, there were more problems and concerns confronting them than were initially envisioned by the Supreme Court. And with so many pregnant young women being taken long distances, in interstate commerce, to abortion mills bearing non-informative business names, the need for on-site truthful information became even more critical.

Who was to tell a pregnant teenage girl of the casualty rate - the dead and wounded women - at an abortion mill of which she had never heard before being brought there from hundreds of miles away? Who would tell her of the incidence of AIDS infections because of the repeated use of unsterile instruments at that particular

Page 11

abortion mill? Who would intercede for her when she was being dragged against her will into the mill for a forced abortion? Who would tell her the truth about the sadistic practices of the particular abortionist? Who would inform her that the abortionist, when paid by the rapist who got her pregnant in the first place, or by the brutal husband who threatened to kill her if she did not go through with the abortion, or by the incestuous relative or by the child molester trying to conceal the evidence of his evil activity, may not have her best interest at heart? The pregnant young woman needed one or two sympathetic volunteers working independently of the abortionist, while standing on the sidewalk near the entrance to the abortion clinic to provide this life-saving advice and information.

Such volunteers have been traditionally called sidewalk counselors. However, as recently as 1994 in the Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 2516 (1994) decision, the United States Supreme Court has included these counselors together with other pro-life activists under the generic label "protestors".[1]

Page 12

Three years later, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the difference between pro-life counselors and demonstrators in the case of Schenck v. Pro Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). This distinction was utilized by U.S. District Judge Coar in his Injunctive Order of July 16, 1999, which has nationwide application, in National Organization For Women, Inc., v. Scheidler, case number 86 C 7888, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Quoting the United States Supreme Court in Schenck (supra), Judge Coar approved of sidewalk counseling of pregnant women approaching abortion clinics, writing:

This activity is also referred to as "sidewalk counseling". Sidewalk counseling has been defined by the Supreme Court as "... a converation of a non-threatening nature by not more than two people with each person or group of persons they are seeking to counsel ..."

In the Schenck (supra) case, two sidewalk counselors were allowed within the 15 foot buffer zone around the clinic entrances from which protestors were excluded. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the appeal based primarily on its Madsen (supra) ruling and determined that a buffer zone was necessary to protect ingress and egress to the facility. There is no special description in Schenck (supra) of the sidewalk counselors' activities, except to say that these actions did not involve picketing, carrying signs, praying, singing or chanting. It was primarily non- threatening conversation.

Page 13

The sidewalk counselors' conversations with the pregnant women were to be quiet and private and, presumably, often resulted in the choice of childbirth instead of abortion. Abortionists viewing this last minute change of heart by prospective customers would obviously not be pleased with the loss of revenue. It would be expected that they would defend their pocket books and so would interfere with and threaten the counselors, trying to obstruct their services. The pro-life counselors needed legal protection if pregnant young women considering abortion were to be told the truth and given the opportunity to be fully informed.

Fortunately three years before the issuance of the Schenck (supra) opinion, Congress had enacted Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (F.A.C.E.), 18 U.S.C. § 248. This federal statute protected providers of reproductive health services and permitted civil actions for damages and other relief for those providers in, or seeking to be in, facilities defined by the Act. By definition, some of the protected services included counseling and referral activities relating to pregnancy and its termination. The 1973 proposals by the American Health Association in Roe (supra) now had a prophetic character: effective counseling about the abortionist and his clinic were now on the horizon. But was the F.A.C.E. Act lawful? Would it protect pro-life counselors or only the abortion industry?

One year later an action testing the validity of this Act resulted in Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517 (11th Cir. 1995). In that case, this Court of Appeals upheld the

Page 14

constitutionality of F.A.C.E. based on Congress' commerce clause power, declaring at page 1520:

Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.

Thus not only is F.A.C.E. lawful, but access to F.A.C.E. facilities are part of interstate commerce and so are open to the public.

Sidewalks which are part of the interstate commerce system are traditional public fora. Marsh v. Alabama, 66 S.Ct. 276. That the sidewalk at the Aware Woman abortion clinic buffer zone was a traditional forum area was clearly stated by Chief Justice Rehnquist in the Madsen (supra) opinion, where protection of ingress and egress to the facility, including the clinic and its parking lot, was secured by way of a buffer zone.

The counselor/appellant has shown that the original Aware Woman clinic property together with the buffer zone and its sidewalk comprise the facility protected by F.A.C.E. And so it was within the boundaries of the facility on the sidewalk that the counselor/ appellant sought to provide F.A.C.E.-protected services counseling and referral.[2]

Page 15

A recent District Court judgment in New Jersey concerns protection of a pro-life referral counselor by F.A.C.E. Though certainly not authoritative, the case contains some logical applications to the present situation. In Greenhut v. Hand, 996 F.Supp. 372 (D.N.J. 1998), the counselor who provided written referral information about adoption and foster care agencies, medical facilities affording pre-natal care, day care providers maternity homes, and lamaze and exercise classes, was threatened with murder by an abortion advocate:

"Hello Janet. Get your murderers away from abortion clinics now or you will be killed". . .Then at 12:57 AM defendant left the message, "Janet, get your pro-lifers away from our clinics or we will kill you." page 374.

This abortion proponent defended the F.A.C.E. action brought against her by the counselor claiming that F.A.C.E. was not intended to protect services provided by volunteers untrained in the field of counseling or reproductive care. The District Judge determined that, while this pro-life counselor was not a doctor, nurse or social worker, her ability to supply written referral information about local resources such as medical and mental health professionals and free pregnancy testing was clearly a service within the definition provided by F.A.C.E. Janet Greenhut, the referral counselor, was found to be protected by F.A.C.E. Thus those sympathetic counselors who risked their lives to offer love and help to pregnant young women at abortion facilities are now entitled to the protection of F.A.C.E. in

Page 16

the federal courts.

The Appellees have, for all intents and purposes, conceded liability in this case. They have ignited a thin smoke screen by manufacturing issues and claims which are not relevant to this appeal: this is not a false arrest case; this is not a Section 1983 Civil Rights action; the counselor is not attacking any federal court decision, nor state court decision, nor any legislation enacted by any governmental entity. No re-litigation of any case is sought by the counselor. While appellant was once a protestor at Aware Woman, he became a convert to counseling thus offering help instead of opinions to pregnant women. He seeks redress only under F.A.C.E.

The Appellees admitted to instructing the police, who were clearly their instruments, their thin blue line, to keep the counselor/appellant away from the pregnant young women who needed his help. The police were part of a premeditated program and were not carrying out official duties in isolated patrol situations; the police had no immunity of any kind to violate F.A.C.E., a federal law declaring certain proscribed activities to have both civil and criminal consequences. While there were conviction-less arrests of the counselor, violations of F.A.C.E. occurred even prior to the arrests, when the counselor was threatened and intimidated. Their badges gave the police no license to engage in felonious activities with impunity and, having no immunity themselves, the police provided no legal

Page 17

shield for Appellees to hide behind. On its face, 18 U.S.C. §248 restricts the actions of all persons, creating no sacred cows among the police or the abortion industry. Further, Appellees claimed not to know the dimensions of the facility; they know only the dimensions of the building in the facility. Lastly, since Appellees are not entitled to prevail, their request for any sort of costs or attorneys' fees are fruitless.

Meredith T. Raney, Jr., the counselor, is a sympathetic volunteer with appropriate training. He passes the Roe test as an abortion counselor. He attempted to speak to the pregnant young women in a quiet and private manner on the sidewalk at Aware Woman. He passes the Schenck test as a sidewalk counselor. He attempted to provide pregnant young women with written referral information about local resources concerning crisis pregnancies and to give them information about the lack of skill of the particular abortionist and the problems at Aware Woman. Thus, he passes the Greenhut referral counselor test.

By all standards, Meredith T. Raney, Jr. is a reproductive health service provider. As such, he was lawfully inside the boundaries of the Aware Woman facility where his rights under F.A.C.E. were violated by the Appellees. The greatest pity of this whole case is the lack of justice for all the nameless pregnant women whose lives were mangled or destroyed at Aware Woman because this counselor was illegally prevented from offering them needed facts, trying to have them fully informed, in a way that was both lawful and loving.

Page 18

CONCLUSION

This United States Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated by Meredith T. Raney, Jr., should reverse the judgment entered in the District Court, providing him with all appropriate relief, and should deny all relief sought by the Appellees.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher F. Sapp (signed)
P. O. Box 1012
Lehigh Acres, Florida 33970
(941) 368-3922
Florida Bar Number: 0097823
Attorney for Appellant

Page 19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I HEREBY CERTIFY that two true and correct copies of the foregoing have been furnished by U.S. Mail (priority service), postage prepaid,sent this 24th day of April, 2000 to Roy Lucas, Esquire, Post Office Box 141064, Orlando, Florida 32814-1064 and the original and six copies were dispatched to the Clerk this date by Federal Express.

Christopher F. Sapp (signed)
Attorney

Page 20

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Complaint contains background information explaining how pro-life counselors have substantially different agenda from protestors and demonstrators: the counselor seeks to help and protect the pregnant young woman much the same way that the Samaritan cared for the Jewish victim along the Jericho Road. Protestors and demonstrators, on the other hand, focus on the legality of abortion and the consequence of abortion to the unborn child. The counselor seeks to help the mother; the protestor is concerned that a wrong is being done. There is a major shift in pro-life activity, from protesting to counseling, occurring in this nation.

[2] Appellees now question, at least by implication, the dimensions of the facility. However, early in the case, Patricia B. Windle, as president of Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc. swore on February 11, 1998: "The building is approximately 3000 square feet. I do not know the actual dimensions of the facility." This sworn statement was provided in response to PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS, interrogatory number 13: "What has been the physical dimension of the facility at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida during the past five years?"

Adams, Henry Lee, Jr., U.S. District Judge presiding in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[6]

Allstate Floridian Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Allstate Insurance Company, Plaintiff in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] and in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]; also, Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], along with other Plaintiffs with fictitious names, proceeding anonymously, and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and also a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Babyack, Jill, Manager of Ft. Myers Women's Health Center, Inc., Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[6]

Block, Jack, Esquire, Attorney for Appellees/Defendants in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Branin, Sharon, Individually and on behalf of the classes of patients, staff, physicians, invitees, guests, and independent contractors of Manhattan Magnolia Corp., Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Brejcha, Thomas, Esquire, of the Thomas More Society, attorney for Appellants/Defendants in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Clayton, Fay, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs/Appellees in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Clinton, William J., President of the United States and Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[6]

Compuserve, Incorporated, a corporation doing business in Florida. A Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Coar, David H., U.S. District Judge presiding in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Dean, Horace "Ed", Sheriff-Marion County, Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Dean, Ringers, Morgan and Lawton PA, Law firm of Lamar D. Oxford.

Deen, Morrey, Chief of Police of City of Ocala and a Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Delaware Women's Health Organization, Inc., Plaintiff in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Doe Corporations 1-X, their agents, assigns, collaborators, accomplices, confederates, aiders & abbettors, successors in interest, those acting in concert or participating with them, and the class of individuals and entities similarly situated as to the named defendants, Defendants in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Doe, Jane & Moes 1-X, Defendants in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Doe, John & Moes 1-X, Defendants in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Does, Jane 1-X, Defendants in Ocala's Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Does, John 1-X, Defendants in Ocala's Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Doyle, Conal, Attorney for Sheriff of Lee County, Defendant in Smith v. McDougall[5]

Egherman, William P., M.D. Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3], potential member of Plaintiff Class in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], together with other Plaintiffs who are proceeding anonymously, and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

England, Susan, Attorney for Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Ergle, Ken, Former sheriff of Marion County and a Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Falvey, Carol A., Attorney for Horace "Ed" Dean, Sheriff of Marion County, in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Fawsett, Patricia C., U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida, presiding in Raney v. City of Melbourne[10], Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] and also Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]

Fort Myers Women's Health Center, Inc, Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[6]

Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Law firm of Conal Doyle.

Frese, Nash & Torpy, P.A., Law firm of Vincent G. Torpy, Jr. and Lisa Hogreve.

Gilligan, Patrick G., Attorney for City of Ocala and Morrey Deen, Chief of Police of the City of Ocala, in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Hart, Larry, Police Chief of Fort Myers, Florida and Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[6]

Herzog, Michelle, A Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Hirsh & Heuser, Law firm of Michael R. Hirsh.

Hirsh, Michael R., Attorney for Plaintiff in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Hodges, William Terrell, U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida presiding in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Hogreve, Lisa, Attorney for Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]

Hurley, Daniel T.K., U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of Florida, presiding in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Jolly, John W., Jr., Attorney for Ken Ergle, former Sheriff of Marion County, in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

LaVigna, Wendy, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney and Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

LeStourgeon, William, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Love, Sara N., Of the Feminist Majority Foundation and attorney for Appellees/Plaintiff in NOW v. Scheidler[2]

Lucas, Roy , Attorney for Appellees/Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]; for Plaintiffs in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], and all Defendants other than Meredith T. Raney, Jr., in Allstate v. Raney[1] also attorney for Plaintiffs in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8] and attorney for Manhattan Magnolia Corp. et al. in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

McEwen, Patricia, A Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Marion, County of, A Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Manhattan Magnolia Corp., A Florida corporation, t/a Aware Woman Medical Center, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Marino, John P., Attorney for TML Services, Inc. in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Martin, James Edward, Sr., A Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc v. City of Ocala[8]

Maxwell, George W., Florida Circuit Judge presiding in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Melbourne, City of, Appellee/Defendant in Raney v. City of Melbourne[10]

Menyhart, Andrew, Attorney for Appellees/Defendants Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., Patricia B. Windle and Edward W. Windle, Jr. in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] and all Defendants other than Meredith T. Raney, Jr. in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Moritz, Ellen, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Murphy, Timothy , Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), Plaintiff in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), Florida Chapter.

Nelson, Frederick, Attorney for Defendants, Raymond Unterburger, Cheryl Unterburger, Eric Olson, Meredith Raney, Patricia McEwen, William LeStourgeon, John "Jay" Rogers, Richard Vanderbilt, Patricia Vanderbilt and Michelle Herzog in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9] and Defendant Meredith T. Raney, Jr. in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Nimmons, Ralph W., Jr., U.S. District Judge presiding in Smith v. McDougall[5]

Ocala Women's Center, Inc., A Florida corporation and Plaintiff in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

O'Connor & Meyers, P.A., Law firm of Lawrence M. Siff.

Olson, Eric, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Operation Rescue, Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Oxford, Lamar D., Defense attorney in Raney v. City of Melbourne[10]

Parker, Julius F., Jr., Attorney for John McDougall, individually, Defendant in Smith v. McDougall[5]

Pendergraft, James S., M.D., Defendant and proposed class representative in Allstate v. Raney[1] also Plaintiff in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Pfau, Cheryl, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Poe, Don, Fictitious name of a Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7] and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Poe, Grandfather, Fictitious name of a Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7] and a Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Poe, Jane, 1-M (1-1,000), Fictitious name of a proposed Defendant class in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Poe, John, 1-M (1-1,000), Fictitious name of a proposed Defendant class in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Poe, Tiffany, Fictitious name of a Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], who is proceeding anonymously as are the two previous Poes and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Pro-Life Action League, Inc., Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Ramsey, Richard E., Attorney for William P. Egherman, M.D., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

Raney, Meredith T., Jr., Appellant/Plaintiff in Raney v. City of Melbourne[10], and Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4], Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1], Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9] and Defendant in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Reno, Janet, Attorney General of the United States and Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[8]

Richard & Richard, PA, Local counsel for Manhattan Magnolia Corp. et al.in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Richman, Michael, Esq., Attorney for Appellees/Plaintiffs in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Robinson, Curley, & Clayton, P.C., Attorney for Appellees/Plaintiffs in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Roe, Jane, II, Fictitious name of Appellant/Plaintiff in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

Rogers, John C. "Jay", Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Rost, Scott, Attorney for Plaintiffs in Ocala Women's Center Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Rowe, Scott P., Attorney for Plaintiff in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell P.A., Law firm of Scott P. Rowe and David B. Shelton.

Sachnoff & Weaver, Ltd., Attorneys for Appellees/Plaintiffs in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Sachnoff, Lowell, Esq., Attorney for Appellees/Plaintiffs in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Sapp, Christopher F., Attorney for Appellant/Plaintiff Raney v. City of Melbourne[10]; also for the Appellant/Plaintiff in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]; also for Plaintiffs in Smith v. McDougall[5]; also for Plaintiff in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[6], also for Defendant Meredith T. Raney, Jr. in Allstate Insurance Company v. Raney[1] and Plaintiff in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

Scheeler, Charles P., Attorney for Defendant CompuServe, Inc. in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. Center, Inc. v. Unterburger[9]

Scheidler, Joseph M., Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Scholberg, Andrew, Defendant in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Sharp, G. Kendall, U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida, presiding Aware Woman v. Raney[7]

Shelton David B., Attorney for Plaintiffs in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Sienkiewicz, Ray, Plaintiff in Smith v. McDougall[5] and in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[6]

Siff, Lawrence M., Attorney for Sphere Drake Insurance Company PLC and Westco Claims Management Services, Inc., Third Party Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Smith, Robert, Plaintiff in Smith v. McDougall[5]

Sphere Drake Insurance Company, PLC, Third Party Defendant in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Staver, Mathew D., Attorney for Defendant Edward Martin in Ocala Women's Center Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

Stevens and Menyhart, P.A., Law firm of Andrew Menyhart.

Stevens, Sheldon D., Former Defense attorney in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3]

Summit Women's Health Organization, Inc., Plaintiff in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

TML Information Services, Inc, Corporate Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Torpy, Vincent G., Florida Circuit Judge and Attorney for Defendants in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4]

Unterburger, Cheryl, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Unterburger, Raymond, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Vanderbilt, Patricia, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Vanderbilt, Richard, Defendant in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Westco Claims Management Services, Inc., Third Party Defendant in Raney v. Aware Woman[4]

Weber, Walter, Esq., Of the American Center For Law and Justice and attorney for Appellant/Defendant Operation Rescue in N.O.W. v. Scheidler[2]

Wicker, Smith, Tutan, O'Hara, McCoy, Graham & Ford, P.A., Law firm of Richard E. Ramsey.

Wilson, Charles R., Judge - United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Defendant in Sienkiewicz v. Hart[6]

Windle, Edward W., Jr., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware WomanCenter For Choice, Inc.[3], also, Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], together with other Plaintiffs using fictitious names in order to proceed anonymously. Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Windle, Edward W. (Todd), III, Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1] and a Plaintiff in Manhattan Magnolia Corp. v. Unterburger[9]

Windle, Patricia B., Appellee/Defendant in Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[3] Appellant/Defendant in Raney v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc.[4] Also Plaintiff in Aware Woman v. Raney[7], together with other Plaintiffs using fictitious names in order to proceed anonymously and Defendant in Allstate v. Raney[1]

Wright, Virgil W., III, Attorney for Marion County in Ocala Women's Center, Inc. v. City of Ocala[8]

NOTES OF RELATED CASES ON TRIAL LEVEL

[1] Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Floridian Insurance Company vs. Meredith T. Raney, Jr., et al., Eighteenth Judicial Circuit for Brevard County, Florida, Case Number 99-25178 CAD: a declaratory action regarding home owner's insurance coverage.

[2] NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., and its women members and other women who use or may use the services of women's health centers that provide abortions; DELAWARE WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, INC., and SUMMIT WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, INC., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated clinics, v. JOSEPH M. SCHEIDLER; ANDREW SCHOLBERG; TIMOTHY MURPHY; PRO-LIFE ACTION LEAGUE, INC., and OPERATION RESCUE, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case Number 86 C 7888: national injunction which provides for pro-life sidewalk counselors helping women approaching the entrances of abortion clinics.

[3] Jane Roe, II v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., a Florida corporation, Edward W. Windle, Jr., Patricia B. Windle and William P. Egherman, M.D., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case Number 99-850-CV-19A: F.A.C.E. action by a young woman who was held down to keep her from leaving Aware Woman by four assistants to the abortionist who then mutilated her internally. On appeal.

[4] Meredith T. Raney,Jr. v. Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc., a Florida corporation, Edward W. Windle, Jr., Patricia B. Windle, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case Number 97-1197-CIV-ORL-19-B: F.A.C.E. action for intimidation of sidewalk counselor at Aware Woman Center For Choice, Inc. currently on appeal to this United States Court of Appeals, Appeal No.: 99-14122-I.

[5] Robert Smith and Ray Sienkiewicz v. John McDougall, individually and as Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, Case Number 99-385-CIV-FTM- 21: F.A.C.E. action against local sheriff whose violations of sidewalk counselors' rights was procured by federal officials.

[6] Ray Sienkiewicz v. Larry Hart, individually and as Chief of Police of Ft. Myers, Florida et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, Case Number 2:00-CV-0057-FTM-25D. F.A.C.E. action against Chief of Police whose violations of sidewalk counselor's rights was procured by federal officials.

[7] AWARE WOMAN CENTER FOR CHOICE, INC., on its own behalf and for the class of patients, patient companions, staff, physicians, invitees, owners, and independent contractors, PATRICIA BAIRD WINDLE, EDWARD W. WINDLE, JR., TIFFANY POE, DON POE, GRANDFATHER POE, et al. v. MEREDITH T. RANEY, JR., et al. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case Number 99-5-CV-ORL- 19C. F.A.C.E. action brought by the staff and owners of the Aware Woman abortion clinic, including a patient and her relatives who are utilizing fictitious names to protect their privacy.

[8] OCALA WOMEN'S CENTER, INC., a Florida corporation, et al. v. CITY OF OCALA, FLORIDA, et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case No.: 98-1358-CV-18C, transferred to Ocala Division, Case No.: 98-371-CIV-OC-10C. Injunction and class action relief sought by abortionist and his clinic against the City of Ocala and other government officials and pro-life persons.

[9] MANHATTAN MAGNOLIA CORP., a Florida corporation, t/a/ AWARE WOMAN MEDICAL CENTER; et al. v. RAYMOND UNTERBURGER, et al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No.: 98-8164-CIV-HURLEY. Various relief sought by abortion clinics and their owners and staff from several pro-life persons and other corporations and possible classes of individuals and corporations.

[10] Meredith T. Raney, Jr. v. City of Melbourne, Florida, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, Case Number 99-416-Civ- Orl-19B: F.A.C.E. action for intimidation of sidewalk counselor at Aware Woman by the Melbourne City Police.

|TOP OF PAGE| |HOME| |DISCLAIMER| |SEARCH| |LINKS| |NEWS|
|EMAIL US| |SUNTREE| |AWARE WOMAN| |ABORTIONISTS| |LAWSUITS|
|VICTIMS OF CHOICE| |SURVIVORS| |INVESTIGATIONS|