Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Abortion Toady Rep Clibborn Humiliated by Testimony at 'More Dead Babies' Act Hearing

It's a wonder Washington State Rep. Clibborn didn't crawl under her desk and cry like a baby. Clibborn is the prime sponsor of HB1366, the bill given to her by the abortion industry to destroy the pro-life pregnancy centers that cut their business by 6% last year. On Monday afternoon, the House Health Committee held a hearing on the bill. Supporters of the state's pregnancy centers turned out by the hundreds, packing the room, and filling the hallways.

The bill imposes some ridiculous requirements on pregnancy clinics that don't kill unborn babies, and then sets up a legal open season on them by creating unprecedented grounds for them to be sued, by almost anyone, with crippling damages.

We present a transcript of one particularly noteworthy testimony that exposed Clibborn's diabolical agenda and laid it bare for all the world to see.

I'm John Panesko. I'm just an attorney from the community. I'm a former prosecutor. I'm not affiliated with either side, but I was asked to read a copy of this bill, and it made an impression on me, and that's why I'm here.

I'm glad as a lawyer I don't have to post on my door all the things I don't provide, but if somebody asked me if they wanted a divorce, I'll tell them, 'No, I don't do divorces; go somewhere else'

What's the harm? But back to this bill...

I read it and I believe the enforcement part of this bill will put pregnancy centers out of business and I'll tell you five reasons why..

First, it's in Superior Court. Not small claims or District Court, but in the big court, the most expensive one. So that the pregnancy centers have to hire the most expensive lawyers to defend themselves.And can you imagine yourself sitting in a courtroom, and ask the person next to you (turning to his right):

'What are you here for?'

'Oh, I killed a couple cops.'

(Turning to his left) 'What are you here for?'

'Oh, I embezzled a couple hundred thousand from the ferry system.'

'What are you here for?'

'Well, the font on the sign on my front door was 1 pica size too small'.

What doesn't fit here? This doesn't belong in Superior Court.

Secondly, attorneys fees. That's the Pavlov's bell for every attorney who's looking to make some money. He can collect the fees not from the poor client, but from the pregnancy center. There's one more reason they're not going to be able to afford these fees. If they lose the case, they have to pay not only their own attorney fees, but the other side's.

Third, burden of proof. What's the burden of proof? It's the easiest burden of proof in the land: "more likely than not". And if you have a situation where a woman's saying 'Well, I wasn't told on the phone that they didn't do abortions,' how do you disprove that?

'Well yes you were told on the phone?' 'Well, no I wasn't.' You've got an equal case. So if you've got a sympathetic plaintiff, the mother with her baby, and the judge believes her? Bang! The pregnancy center loses the case.

Fourth, damages. And here's where I disagree with staff and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I believe there's unlimited damages to be claimed. Emotional distress? Well there's a million dollars right there.

And not only damages, but triple damages. That's something we save for tree thieves, triple damages. So the damages could be substantial, again putting that pregnancy center out of business.

And the last thing, the final thumb in the eye, a $1,000 fine for anyone who's successful in this case. What's the point in the $1,000 fine except for a final push? Now these pregnancy centers are staffed by volunteers, but people who work for donations. They're not armed robbers, they're not timber thieves. They're volunteers like you and me. They're epitome of the Good Samaritan. Are they going to make mistakes? You bet they are. They're human. But they're trying to do their best. This legislature has a history of protecting Good Samaritans, giving them insulation from the mistakes they make, because we want to encourage them to keep doing this.
You'll hear the numbers. It's amazing what they're doing. We should be protecting them, not subjecting them to chances to be taken into Superior Court for big penalties, triple damages, attorneys' fees, and all that. That's why I conclude that the enforcement language in here is designed to sue the pregnancy centers out of existence.


DK said...

government-sponsored discrimination

Anonymous said...

"DK said...
government-sponsored discrimination

1/26/11 1:39 PM"


Cecilia said...

A law against CPCs in Baltimore was thrown out by a judge as unconstitutional. We should go for the same thing here if the law against the CPC passes here.