The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Settlement in Heartbeat of Miami v. Jane's Revenge Pro-Life Pregnancy Center Vandalism Lawsuit
The settlement of the civil case follows guilty pleas or convictions in related criminal cases.
The judgment was just entered today, and it provides, in relevant part:
All four Defendants—Caleb Freestone, Amber Marie Smith-Stewart, Annarella Rivera, and Gabriella Victoria Oropesa—are ENJOINED for a period of ten years from coming within 100 feet of the facilities that Plaintiff alleges were victimized in this case: South Broward Pregnancy Help Center in Hollywood, Florida; the Life Choice Pregnancy Center in Winter Haven, Florida; and any of the five facilities owned by Plaintiff. The parties agree to mutual general releases of any claims they may have against any opposing party arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the claims in the operative complaint. Each party shall bear their respective fees and costs.
The clerk must enter a JUDGMENT for the plaintiff and against Defendant Gabriella Victoria Oropesa for $13,000. Defendant Oropesa will pay $1,000 to each of the three facilities (South Broward Pregnancy Help Center, Life Choice Pregnancy Center, and Plaintiff) for a total of $3,000. Defendant Oropesa will pay a $10,000 civil penalty directly to the State of Florida. Defendant Oropesa's $13,000 payment of the civil judgment in the related civil action, No. 8:23-cv-701-SDM-AAS (Related Civil Action), satisfies the judgment in this action. Defendant Oropesa will also, within 30 days of sentencing in her related criminal case, No. 8:23-cr-25-VMC-AEP (Related Criminal Action), send a letter of apology to each facility similar to the apology the other three Defendants made at their sentencing hearing.
The clerk must enter a JUDGMENT for the plaintiff and against Defendants Freestone, Smith-Stewart, and Rivera for a restitution amount of $600.00 jointly and severally, the amount equal to the restitution the trial court ordered Defendants Freestone, Smith-Stewart, and Rivera to pay Plaintiff in the Related Criminal Action. Defendants' payment of the restitution order in the Related Criminal Action satisfies the judgment in this action.
For more on the guilty pleas in related criminal cases, see this June 2024 post; an excerpt:
Three Florida residents pleaded guilty today to conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate employees of pregnancy resource centers in the free exercise of the right to provide and seek to provide reproductive health services. The defendants selected reproductive health facilities that provided and counseled abortion alternatives and vandalized those facilities with threatening messages.
According to court documents, between May and July 2022, Caleb Freestone, Amber Smith-Stewart and Annarella Rivera engaged in a series of targeted attacks on pro-life pregnancy help centers in Florida. The defendants admitted they participated in the attack in the dark of night and, while wearing masks and dark clothing to obscure their identities, spray painted the facilities with threatening messages, including "If abortions aren't safe than niether [sic] are you," "YOUR TIME IS UP!!," "WE'RE COMING for U" and "We are everywhere."
The fourth defendant (Gabriella Victoria Oropesa) was convicted in December, though she is still challenging the conviction.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Abortion rights supporters who vandalize property should be called to account just as abortion opponents should be. Of course, the latter group has historically caused much more severe harm, so I hope that the accountability is proportionate to the harm.
I think what you meant to write is that those commiting violent criminal acts are an insignificant minority and are in no way representative of the pro-life movement.
I think that's a fair point, and I have zero problem with you (or others) reminding of this. When members of "our" group (whatever issue that might be, or on whatever side) do horrible things, we should [a] thoroughly condemn those actions, and [b] remind society at large that those people are not representative of Group X.
"the latter group has historically caused much more severe harm"
Pro-life advocates have killed >millions of people?
"Defendant Oropesa will pay a $10,000 civil penalty directly to the State of Florida."
Was the State of Florida a plaintiff?
It looks like that payment is related to the criminal case - the full agreement says that satisfying that judgment also satisfies the settlement. Several of the other specific payments are similarly for restitution from the criminal case. I presume these clauses give the plaintiffs more power if the defendants don't pay up.
Good decisions and they should have used their talents and resources to legally make their voices heard.
"their talents"
They probably were using their talents.
Leftoids: Women should have a choice
Woman chooses to go to a particular pregnancy center and talked to by another woman who makes the choice to advise her about prolife options
Leftoids: NO not that choice!
Women should have a choice. If they are told that a pregnancy center will provide information about abortions, but when they get there the information is not provided, that is a problem. If that were the case, it would call into question the advice given at the center, because if they lie about what services they are providing, what else would they lie about. Of course, if the woman does not have to pay anything, there is nothing lost except for time (which may be an issue depending how along in the pregnancy she is).
If they demonstrably lie sanction the particular offenders but I've really seen no substantial evidence progs dislike them for any primary reason other than they give prolife oriented advice. Which is why they're trying to shut down the entire category rather than targeted enforcement.
They cannot be sanctioned. The first amendment protects them (and rightly so).
The pregnancy center's around here have pretty clear advertising. They help you with your pregnancy, the billboards don't claim to help you with ending it.
I agree that they rarely, if ever, explicitly lie. I do think that they typically try to obscure how they feel about abortion, and would be happy to explain further if you point me to one.
(That said, they’re obviously entitled to protection from criminal victimization and covered under the FACE Act, so I have no problem with this result.)
I believe the "lies" are the same as the 51 former intelligence officers writing a letter that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation in an attempt to interfere with our elections.
Yes, they qualified everything with "could be" or "seems like." They implied a lot of sh!t they knew to be false, but didn't state it as fact.
I doubt a single one of the pregnancy crisis centers explicitly stated they offer abortions. I don't see the difference.
...pregnancy center will provide information about abortions, but when they get there the information is not provided, that is a problem.
What if they provide information that abortions are bad, citing stats of complications, and the mother is killing an unborn child? Are you now in the business of deciding what "good" information is?
NO not that choice!
What! That doesn't even make sense.
Just like the slavery issue. ANd will plunge us into horrors if not resolved. Lincoln said of pro-slave groups : They don't want you to say it is legal, they deman you say it is GOOD