A federal judge has issued a "stipulating order" that allows an activist to display pro-life messages inside his car in front of a Planned Parenthood facility in Michigan.
U.S. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the Eastern District of Michigan granted the stipulated motion on behalf of Paul Dobrowolski last Friday in his suit against the City of Ann Arbor.
Last month, Dobrowolski opted to file a lawsuit against the City of Ann Arbor and Ann Arbor Chief of Police John Seto over a city code that the pro-life activist believed violated his freedom of speech.
Dobrowolski regularly parked his car outside a Planned Parenthood facility, having pro-life signs displayed in the automobile's windows. Posters present included "Abortion hurts Women," "Planned Parenthood 2300 Abortos Por Año," and a sign that provided contact information for a pro-life pregnancy facility that gives free ultrasounds.
According to local media, Dobrowolski was twice ticketed last year for violating a city code against "parking a vehicle on a street for the purpose of displaying advertising."
Dobrowolski is represented in his lawsuit by Robert J. Muise and David Yerushalmi of the American Freedom Law Center.
"While this court order restores Mr. Dobrowolski's constitutional rights while the case proceeds, the greater victory is the untold number of babies whose lives will be saved now that he can resume his pro-life advocacy free from government interference," said Muise in a statement.
"AFLC is committed to protecting the right to life and the right to freedom of speech of pro-life advocates such as Mr. Dobrowolski, who provide a necessary voice for the unborn," said Yerushalmi in a statement.
"In this day and age, when the atrocities of the abortion industry – and it is an industry – are front and center in the Gosnell murder trial conviction, the battle in the courts is all the more critical."
Stephen K. Postema, attorney for Ann Arbor City, told The Christian Post the details of the stipulated order as it pertained to the lawsuit.
"The parties disagree on the merits of the lawsuit, but during the pendency of the lawsuit, the city has agreed not to take further action against this plaintiff under this specific ordinance. This is a routine order," said Postema.
"The city was just served a copy of the complaint and will enter an answer within the time allowed to answer. As to the merits, the city doesn't comment on matters in litigation."