Complaint Sisters For Life

Case 3:21-cv-00367-RGJ Document 5 Filed 06/07/21 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 71
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
(Louisville Division)
Electronically Filed
Sisters for Life, Inc. : 3:21-cv-00367-RGJ
c/o Christopher Wiest, Esq.
25 Town Center Blvd, Ste. 104 :
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
:
AND
:
Angela Minter
c/o Christopher Wiest, Esq. :
25 Town Center Blvd, Ste. 104
Crestview Hills, KY 41017 :
AND :
Kentucky Right To Life Association, Inc. :

c/o Christopher Wiest, Esq.
25 Town Center Blvd, Ste. 104 :
:
Plaintiffs
:
v.
:
Louisville-Jefferson County Metro
Government :
c/o Mayor Greg Fischer
527 W. Jefferson Street :
Louisville, KY 40202
:
AND
:
Mayor Greg Fischer
527 W. Jefferson Street :
:
AND
:
Erika Shields, Chief of Police
Louisville Metro Police Department :
633 W Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202 :
1
AND
:
Mike O’Connell
600 W Jefferson St :
:
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF,

NOMINAL DAMAGES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Introduction
1. Almost every day in Kentucky a young woman in crisis because of an unplanned
pregnancy considers terminating her pregnancy through abortion. In plain English,
she considers killing the unborn human being in her womb because she believes she
has no other choice. To do so, she travels to the abortoria in Louisville. She may be
unaware that there are alternatives to abortion, that resources exist, and that others
care. Until a few days ago, and every single day that the Louisville abortion facility
operated since 2003, she would be met on the sidewalk outside that facility by the
Plaintiffs, who operate a Christian ministry on that sidewalk. They walk with that
young woman, who is often a person of color, and minister to her, telling her that she
has actually does have a choice. They let her know there are people who care about
her, love her, and will help her and her unborn child. But now, that can no longer
happen. Because Defendants made this interaction and sidewalk ministry illegal, this
sidewalk ministry. This case seeks to restore the constitutional right of Plaintiffs to
conduct their life-saving sidewalk ministry within a traditional public forum.
2
Parties
2. Plaintiff, Sisters for Life, Inc. (“Sisters for Life”), is a Kentucky non-profit
corporation, with its headquarters located in Louisville, Kentucky.1 Formed in 2003,
Sisters for Life is a Christian, non-profit organization and ministry inspired by God to
put into action a comprehensive advocacy for preborn babies, and their mothers and
fathers who are faced with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy. They also advocate for
God’s family values. They believe God has a good plan and purpose for every life
and family, and they see it as their mission to help God’s family have hope and a
future. As such, they believe it is their assignment to serve and assist God’s family in
fulfilling God’s plan. Jeremiah 1:5, Jeremiah 29:11.
3. Angela Minter is the founder of Sisters for Life, and is also its President, who
regularly engages in evangelism associated with intervention with pregnant women
entering abortion clinics, and specifically EMW Women’s Surgical Center (“EMW”),
which is the abortion clinic located at 136 W Market St, Louisville, KY 40202. For
almost two decades, Angela has personally ministered to mothers and fathers outside
EMW, sharing her own experiences and regrets with abortion, connecting with them
and telling them about her experience as a teenager who aborted two of her children,
and her lifelong regret from having done so. Outside of sidewalk ministry, Angela
ministers in the community, reaching out to Louisville’s black churches, engages in
all forms of outreach, and seeks to end the cycle of death brought on by the abortion
industry, including its disproportionate impact to her black community.
1
https://www.sisforlife.org/ (last visited 6/6/2021).
3
4. Plaintiff, Kentucky Right to Life Association, Inc. (“KRLA”), founded in 1973,
serves as the state coordinating body for local Right to Life Chapters representing
tens of thousands of Kentucky citizens. It is a volunteer, non-profit organization
composed of grassroots people of different political persuasions, faiths, and
economic, social and ethnic backgrounds. KRLA exists to protect life. Its members
frequently conduct sidewalk ministry outside EMW in furtherance of the KRLA
mission, and KRLA and its members are harmed by the challenged ordinance, and,
further, the ordinance impairs the KRLA’s mission.
5. Defendant Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (“Louisville Metro”) is a
duly organized combined municipal and county government under KRS Chapter 67C,
governing Jefferson County. Its legislative body is the Metro Council, and its
executive is the Mayor.
6. Defendant Mayor Greg Fischer is the duly elected Mayor of the Louisville-Jefferson
County Metro Government. Pursuant to KRS 67C.105, “[a]ll executive and
administrative power of the government shall be vested in the office of the mayor.”
Further, pursuant to KRS 67C.105(5)(d), the Mayor is charged to, and does,
“[e]nforce the ordinances of the consolidated local government.”
7. Defendant Ericka Shields is the duly appointed Chief of the Louisville Metro Police
Department, who, among other things, has primary responsibility for the enforcement
of city ordinances and other Kentucky laws within the City of Louisville.
8. Defendant Mike O’Connell is the Jefferson County Attorney. In that capacity, and
pursuant to KRS 15.725(2), he is commanded to, and does, “prosecute all violations
4
whether by adults or by juveniles subject to the jurisdiction of the regular or juvenile
session of the District Court of criminal and penal laws.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. Subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs
in this action is conferred on this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §
1988, 28 U.S.C. §1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and other
applicable law.
10. Venue in this District and division is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 and other
applicable law, because much of the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights
occurred in counties within this District within Kentucky, and future deprivations of
their constitutional rights are threatened and likely to occur in this District.
FACTS
11. As part of the practice of their faith, Angela and Sisters for Life engage in sidewalk
ministry outside 136 W Market St, Louisville, KY 40202, which is the location of
EMW, the last abortion clinic located in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and the
most prolific provider of surgical abortions within the Commonwealth, having been
responsible for 3,645 abortions in 2019, or 99.5% of all abortions in Kentucky in
2019.2 Angela and Sisters for Life have engaged in their ministry since 2003.
12. In the same vein, KLRA members frequently engage in similar sidewalk ministry
outside of EMW, in the same manner that Angela and Sisters for Life do.
2
https://chfs.ky.gov/agencies/dph/dehp/vsb/Forms/2019KYAbortionAnnualReport.pdf (last
visited 6/6/2021).
5
13. Sidewalk ministry involves offering both verbal and written materials outlining
alternatives to abortion and help for anyone wishing to pursue those options.
14. Angela and Sisters for Life inform women and their partners of other life choices
available to them for their child other than abortion, including adoption, free housing
during and after the pregnancy, free child care, free help with college tuition if they
choose not to abort their child, parenting resources including diapers, formula,
clothes, parenting classes, counseling and more, including information about child
development that shows parents how developed their child is at the particular stage of
their pregnancy.
15. Angela and Sisters for Life typically will initiate a conversation by, among other
things, asking would-be patients if they would like some literature.
16. During these exchanges, Angela and Sisters for Life consider it essential to maintain a
caring demeanor, a calm tone of voice, and direct eye contact. Such interactions,
Plaintiffs believe, are a much more effective means of dissuading women from
having abortions than confrontational methods such as shouting, brandishing signs,
blocking access, loud speakers, or other methods which, in Plaintiffs’ view, tend only
to alienate their intended audience.
17. Some of the things Plaintiffs are called to do (and do) are make efforts to engage
women and hand them literature, walk alongside and talk to women headed towards
the clinic who, presumably, want to procure an abortion, and pray for the women who
start to enter the abortion clinic.
18. Angela will often, as part of this ministry, tell these women about her own harrowing
experience with abortion as a teenager and the lifelong regret she has suffered as a
6
result. And, as part of this experience, she will tell the women that God loves them,
and their baby, regardless of the decision they make.
19. Necessarily, this sidewalk ministry is not loud, obnoxious, or confrontational;
experience has shown Plaintiffs that those tactics are counter-productive. Nor is the
sidewalk ministry a protest or meant or intended to block access to the clinic – the
message and ministry are a final intervention with women who often are in crisis and
believe they have no alternative to abortion. Plaintiffs deliberately walk along with
the women who are in the process of walking into EMW, and deliberately do not
block them.
20. Spectacularly, the ministry and interventions of Angela and Sisters for Life have been
responsible for saving over 800 babies outside EMW. Those 800 children are alive
today, thereby saving their mothers, fathers and families from the guilt and grief of
having a hand in their death.
21. For the avoidance of all doubt, the sidewalk ministry and counseling are part of the
sincerely held religious beliefs of the Plaintiffs, and are undertaken in accordance
with those same beliefs.
22. Given this success, it is not surprising that, at the insistence of EMW, which
substantially profits from the abortion trade, the Metro Council of Louisville Metro
passed legislation substantially restricting activities on the sidewalk outside EMW.
23. On May 20, 2021, the Metro Council passed Ordinance O-179-21 (the “Ordinance”),
in a 14-11 divided vote. A true and accurate copy of that Ordinance is attached as
Exhibit 1.
7
24. Thereafter, Mayor Fischer signed the Ordinance on June 2, 2021, and, upon
information and belief, it has been published in accordance with law or is in the
process of being so published.
25. The Ordinance, while perhaps appearing modest at first blush, is actually remarkable
in both its overbreadth and scope. First, it provides: “(1) No person shall knowingly
obstruct, detain, hinder, impede, or block another person’s entry to or exit from a
healthcare facility.”
26. It further provides that “(2) No person shall knowingly enter, remain on, or create any
obstruction within the driveway of a healthcare facility or within a ‘buffer zone’ on
the public way or sidewalk extending from the entrance of a healthcare facility to the
closest adjacent sidewalk curb and 10 feet from side to side, during the facility’s
posted business hours, except: (a) persons entering or leaving such facility; (b)
persons using the public sidewalk or street right-of-way adjacent to such facility
solely for the purpose of reaching a destination other than such facility; or (c) law
enforcement, ambulance, firefighting, construction, utilities, public works and other
municipal agents acting within the scope of their employment; or (d) employees or
agents of such facility acting within the scope of their employment.”
27. The Ordinance defines “Entrance” as “any door to a healthcare facility that directly
abuts the public sidewalk; provided, however, that if the door does not directly about
the public sidewalk, the ‘entrance’ shall be the point at which the public sidewalk
intersects with a pathway leading to the door.”
28. We have denoted, for purposes of this Complaint, the “buffer zone” as that area on
the public way or sidewalk extending from the entrance of a healthcare facility to the
8
closest adjacent sidewalk curb and 10 feet from side to side, where the “entrance”
described herein as the point at which the public sidewalk intersects with a pathway
leading to the door.
29. All told, the Ordinance prohibits anyone other than those coming within one of the
four secular exceptions to the Ordinance, including Plaintiffs herein, from being
located in a buffer zone. This buffer zone extends out to the street and, given the
width of the pathway that leads from the clinic to the sidewalk (which is 8 feet in
width) is approximately 73 feet long, and ten feet wide (blocking a total of some 730
square feet), and in terms of what has been marked and demarked as EMW property,
totals approximately half a city block of sidewalk that is now restricted.
30. More particularly, there is a pathway on EMW’s property that extends in two
directions from the door to the EMW facility. The EMW pathway, which totals
approximately 73 feet in length and approximately 8 feet in width, intersects and
connects with the public sidewalk running parallel to Market street. Therefore, all of
those points on the pathway that touch the public sidewalk constitute an “entrance”
under the Ordinance.
31. A true and accurate aerial depiction of this layout is depicted below. The white area
depicted below is EMW property that is adjacent to the public sidewalk property,
which EMW now has marked with “no trespassing” markers:
9
32. But that is not all. EMW is also bordered by two other “Healthcare facilities” under
the Ordinance. As a result of the Ordinance, there is now a buffer zone around both
of those facilities. Using the map depiction above, to the left of EMW is BSideU for
Life Pregnancy Center (“BSideU”) at 140 West Market Street, Louisville, KY 40202,
which happens to be a pro-life center that provides pregnancy related services other
than abortion. BSideU permits Plaintiffs to conduct their sidewalk ministry from
BSideU’s property, but this is now explicitly prohibited by the Ordinance.
33. Using the map depiction above, to the right of EMW is an Optometrists’ office,
namely the offices of Drs. Vance and Stovall, at 120 W Market St, Louisville, KY
40202 (“Stovall”).
34. The effect of these healthcare facilities being located where they are, in terms of the
Ordinance, is a buffer zone that practically completely envelopes the entire city
block:
10
35. Louisville Metro, in enacting the Ordinance, included all healthcare facilities within
its ambit, even though there were no material instances of any issues other than at
EMW, only because it intended to restricting the entire block above from being
accessed by the Plaintiffs and others seeking to dissuade women from obtaining
abortions. In other words, and as the photo above depicts, it was a not-so-clever
gerrymander to restrict an entire city block from being accessed by opponents to
abortion.
36. In the photo above, the yellow area approximately depicts the EMW property, and
specifically the parking lot and pathways that lead to the door, all of which are
“driveways” or “entrances” under the Ordinance. The orange depicts the pathways
that lead to the door and the parking lots of BSideU and Stovall, all of which are also
“driveways” or “entrances” under the Ordinance. And, the red area approximately
11
depicts the buffer area under the Ordinance, which covers substantially all of the
public streets and sidewalks accessing EMW.
37. As depicted, the buffer area expands across an entire city block.
38. The buffer zone effectively prohibits persons from walking through it, or into it,
except as expressly permitted under an exception to the Ordinance.
39. The Ordinance is enforced with fines of up to $500 for each violation.
40. As it turns out, the buffer zone Ordinance prohibits the Plaintiffs and other sidewalk
ministers from speaking, praying, or interacting with those entering the EMW clinic,
including, without limitation, even with those entering who invite or otherwise
solicits contact with Plaintiffs.
41. The buffer zone compromises the Plaintiffs’ ability to initiate the close, personal
conversations that Plaintiffs view as essential to their sidewalk ministry.
42. Another pernicious effect of the buffer zone is to relegate the Plaintiffs to raising their
voices at parents from outside the zone – and as a practical matter, requires this to
occur from across the street – a mode of communication sharply at odds with the
compassionate message Plaintiffs wish to convey.
43. The buffer zone also makes it substantially more difficult for Plaintiffs to distribute
literature to arriving parents, again even where the parents wish to receive the
literature.
44. At the same time, the Ordinance explicitly permits EMW staff and volunteers to
escort those seeking an abortion into the buffer zone and into the clinic, where those
staff and volunteers regularly, and within the scope of their employment or volunteer
status, escort, encourage, and counsel the women seeking to enter the clinic to follow
12
through with an abortion, thus providing speech in the buffer zone, but on only one
side of the abortion debate.
45. For the avoidance of all doubt, volunteers and employees of EMW will, within the
scope of their employment or volunteer status, and within the buffer zone, thwart or
attempt to thwart or block Plaintiffs’ efforts to speak or hand literature to those in the
process of walking to the EMW clinic property, regularly disparage Plaintiffs to those
seeking to enter the EMW clinic property, and will offer encouragement of those
seeking to obtain an abortion to do so, again providing speech on only one side of the
abortion debate.
46. Again, for the avoidance of all doubt, EMW authorizes its escorts to have these
conversations, with those being escorted, within the buffer zone.
47. The Ordinance is an insidious content and viewpoint-based speech gerrymander,
designed to squelch dissenting speech, and the practice of sincerely held religious
beliefs, in the vicinity of EMW.
48. It should be noted that prior to the passage of the challenged Ordinance, Louisville
Metro already had ordinances on the books to prevent blocking sidewalks.
Specifically, the City has had, at all times relevant hereto, ordinance 97.072, which
provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person in or on any sidewalk or any premises in or

abutting thereon to make any speech or harangue; to demonstrate, sell, or offer for
sale goods, wares, or merchandise; or to display any signs, device, information, or
exhibition in consequence of which there is caused or created such a gathering of
persons on the sidewalk as to interfere with pedestrian traffic thereon.
49. Louisville Metro has not seriously attempted less restrictive measures to combat the
purported ills that it contends required the passage of the Ordinance, including
13
individual prosecutions, injunctions, ordinances against following and harassing
people within a certain number of feet of a health care facility, passage of legislation
similar to the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (18 USC
481(a)(1)), or ordinances requiring, at the directives of the police, the dispersal of
individuals blocking entrances to healthcare facilities.
50. The Ordinance in question provides a number of secular exceptions to the buffer zone
requirement, but makes no allowance for the practice of sincerely held religious
beliefs, such as those engaged in by the Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Ordinance allows
persons within the buffer zone who are (a) entering or leaving such facility; (b)
traversing the sidewalk but only if they are reaching a destination; (c) law
enforcement, ambulance, firefighting, construction, utilities, public works and other
municipal agents acting within the scope of their employment; and (d) employees or
agents of such facility acting within the scope of their employment.
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING STANDING
51. For the purposes of removing all doubt, Defendants Fischer, Shields, and O’Connell
are charged with enforcing, and actually do enforce, city ordinances, including the
ordinance challenged in this action.
52. Defendants Fischer and Shields made public statements demonstrating their intention
to regularly and systemically enforce the challenged ordinance, including statements
to public media, and threatened having the police charge people with violations of the
challenged ordinance. For his part, O’Connell’s office systemically prosecutes
violations of city ordinances.
14
53. Plaintiffs, for their part, intend to violate the ordinance on a regular and systemic
basis, each and every day that EMW is open for business, including engaging in their
sidewalk ministry within the buffer zone, each and every one of those days.
COUNT I – 42 USC 1983, Violation of the First Amendment – Freedom of Speech
54. Plaintiffs reincorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully written herein.
55. The First Amendment guaranties, among other things, that government may make no
law “abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const., Amend. I. It has been
incorporated against the states. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
56. Public streets and sidewalks comprising the buffer zone under the Ordinance are
traditional public forums, triggering the traditional public forum analysis under First
Amendment analysis and scrutiny. McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 476-477
(2014). The Government’s ability to restrict speech in such locations is “very
limited.” Id.
57. Restrictions in such areas can be upheld only if they are “reasonable restrictions on
the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified
without reference to the content of the regulated speech, they are narrowly tailored to
serve a significant governmental interest, and they leave open alternative channels for
communication of the information.” Id. at 477.
58. The restrictions here are not content neutral (and, in fact, constitute viewpoint
discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional) because they permit EMW
and its staff and volunteers to engage in pro-abortion speech within the buffer zone,
while foreclosing Plaintiffs from engaging in pro-life speech. For the avoidance of all
doubt, EMW staff and volunteers do speak, within the scope of their employment or
15
volunteer status, within the buffer zone, encouraging would-be patients to obtain
abortion services at EMW. Id. at 484-485. Thus, because the Ordinance does not
satisfy strict scrutiny in that it is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling
governmental interest, the Ordinance is unconstitutional on that basis alone.
59. Even if the Ordinance did not amount to content and viewpoint discrimination, it also
is not narrowly tailored under the less exacting narrow tailoring in a content-neutral
forum analysis, and it fails to leave open alternative channels for communication of
the information. Specifically, in application, it restricts an even greater area than the
U.S. Supreme Court struck down in Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, and, as in Coakley,
Louisville Metro has not undertaken less restrictive measures to achieve its purported
ends.
60. The Ordinance thus violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech guaranties.
61. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and nominal damages
for the foregoing violations, as well as reasonable attorney fees and costs under 42
USC 1988.
COUNT II – 42 USC 1983, Violation of the First Amendment – Freedom of Assembly
63. The First Amendment also guaranties the right “of the people peaceably to assemble.”
This guaranty has also been incorporated against the states. DeJonge v. Oregon, 299
U.S. 353 (1937).
64. Assembly on public streets and sidewalks is among the guaranties protected by the
First Amendment. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
16
65. These rights, being fundamental rights, trigger strict scrutiny. Clark v. Jeter, 486
U.S. 456, 461 (1988).
66. The Ordinance is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental
interest. It is thus also a violation of the Freedom of Assembly guaranty of the First
Amendment.
USC 1988.
COUNT III – 42 USC 1983, Violation of the First Amendment – Free Exercise of
Religion
69. The First Amendment also provides that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This clause, too,
has been incorporated against the states. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296
(1940).
70. “[A] law that discriminates against religious practices usually will be invalidated
because it is the rare law that can be ‘justified by a compelling interest and is
narrowly tailored to advance that interest.’" Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 413 (6th
Cir. 2020). That is because a “a law might appear to be generally applicable on the
surface but not be so in practice due to exceptions for comparable secular activities.”3
Id. “Do the four [categories] of exceptions in the [ordinance], and the kinds of
[exceptions] allowed, remove them from the safe harbor for generally applicable
3
This case also presents hybrid First Amendment rights, which also triggers strict scrutiny under
Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881-882 (1990).
17
laws? We think so.” Id. "At some point, an exception-ridden policy takes on the
appearance and reality of a system of individualized exemptions, the antithesis of a
neutral and generally applicable policy and just the kind of state action that must run
the gauntlet of strict scrutiny." Id. at 413-414.
71. The Ordinance thus constitutes a violation of Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise rights.
USC 1988.
COUNT IV – KRS 446.350 – Violation of the Kentucky Religious Freedom

Restoration Act
74. KRS 446.350 provides:
Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to
act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not
be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing
evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act
or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A
"burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing
penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
75. Defendants have substantially burdened Plaintiffs’ freedom of religion, including
their right to act in a manner motivated by their sincerely religious beliefs, i.e.
sidewalk ministry. Defendants cannot overcome, by clear and convincing evidence,
that they have a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or
refusal to act and have used the least restrictive means to further that interest.
76. Plaintiffs therefore seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for the foregoing
violations.
18
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs’ demand judgment against Defendants:
• For nominal damages, as prayed for;
• For declaratory and injunctive relief, including a restraining order, preliminary
injunction, and permanent injunction;
• For reasonable attorney fees and costs under 42 USC 1988; and
• For such other relief as this Court may find just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Christopher Wiest___________
Christopher Wiest (KBA #90725)
25 Town Center Blvd, Suite 104
513-257-1895
(859) 495-0803 (fax)
chris@cwiestlaw.com
/s/ Thomas B. Bruns_____________

Thomas B. Bruns (KBA #84985)
Bruns, Connell, Vollmar & Armstrong, LLC
4750 Ashwood Drive, Suite 200
Cincinnati, OH 45241
(513) 312-9890
(513) 800-1263 (fax)
tbruns@bcvalaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing in the Court’s CM/ECF system, this 7th day of
June, 2021, and that I will serve same with the summons in this matter.
/s/Christopher Wiest___________
Christopher Wiest (KBA #90725)
19

Complaint Sisters For Life

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Sisters For Life

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Sisters For Life

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:21-cv-00367-RGJ Document 5 Filed 06/07/21 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 71

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Kentucky Right To Life Association, Inc. :

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF,

1. Almost every day in Kentucky a young woman in crisis because of an unplanned

pregnancy considers terminating her pregnancy through abortion. In plain English,

conduct their life-saving sidewalk ministry within a traditional public forum.

corporation, with its headquarters located in Louisville, Kentucky.1 Formed in 2003,

fulfilling God’s plan. Jeremiah 1:5, Jeremiah 29:11.

regularly engages in evangelism associated with intervention with pregnant women

ministers in the community, reaching out to Louisville’s black churches, engages in

industry, including its disproportionate impact to her black community.

4. Plaintiff, Kentucky Right to Life Association, Inc. (“KRLA”), founded in 1973,

tens of thousands of Kentucky citizens. It is a volunteer, non-profit organization

composed of grassroots people of different political persuasions, faiths, and

frequently conduct sidewalk ministry outside EMW in furtherance of the KRLA

further, the ordinance impairs the KRLA’s mission.

5. Defendant Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (“Louisville Metro”) is a

executive is the Mayor.

County Metro Government. Pursuant to KRS 67C.105, “[a]ll executive and

“[e]nforce the ordinances of the consolidated local government.”

whether by adults or by juveniles subject to the jurisdiction of the regular or juvenile

session of the District Court of criminal and penal laws.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

in this action is conferred on this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §

applicable law, because much of the deprivations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights

responsible for 3,645 abortions in 2019, or 99.5% of all abortions in Kentucky in

things, asking would-be patients if they would like some literature.

having abortions than confrontational methods such as shouting, brandishing signs,

to alienate their intended audience.

start to enter the abortion clinic.

and their baby, regardless of the decision they make.

19. Necessarily, this sidewalk ministry is not loud, obnoxious, or confrontational;

having a hand in their death.

with those same beliefs.

passed legislation substantially restricting activities on the sidewalk outside EMW.

process of being so published.

obstruction within the driveway of a healthcare facility or within a ‘buffer zone’ on

enforcement, ambulance, firefighting, construction, utilities, public works and other

agents of such facility acting within the scope of their employment.”

intersects with a pathway leading to the door.”

leading to the door.

totals approximately half a city block of sidewalk that is now restricted.

approximately 73 feet in length and approximately 8 feet in width, intersects and

under the Ordinance.

which EMW now has marked with “no trespassing” markers:

BSideU’s property, but this is now explicitly prohibited by the Ordinance.

gerrymander to restrict an entire city block from being accessed by opponents to

public streets and sidewalks accessing EMW.

except as expressly permitted under an exception to the Ordinance.

solicits contact with Plaintiffs.

conversations that Plaintiffs view as essential to their sidewalk ministry.

compassionate message Plaintiffs wish to convey.

side of the abortion debate.

conversations, with those being escorted, within the buffer zone.

47. The Ordinance is an insidious content and viewpoint-based speech gerrymander,

beliefs, in the vicinity of EMW.

Metro already had ordinances on the books to prevent blocking sidewalks.