As an organization, however, it is rooted in criminality and has flowered into approval and praise for some who advocate killing abortion providers -- and who cooperate with those who do so. Its public apologetics for them include deliberate dishonesty about their murderous statements.
LLDF does not simply represent the extreme fringe that the mainstream pro-life movement repudiates. It is part of the extreme fringe.
LLDF began as the legal arm of the often-violent and always-disruptive "rescue" movement that blockaded, invaded and vandalized women's health clinics.
"The origin of LLDF is inseparably linked to Operate Rescue West Coast and the rescue movement that began in 1988. I was the San Francisco Bay Area Director of Operation Rescue at the time. " -- LLDF founder Steve Lopez, quoted in the Summer, 2001 issue of the LLDF newsletter Lifeline.
It did not stop there.
More recently, it provided legal and financial support and public cheerleading for Paul deParrie and others in deParrie v. Hanzo. DeParrie was an original signer of the Army of God's Defensive Action Statement and of the Second Defensive Action Statement justifying the murders of Dr. David Gunn and Dr. John Britton.
If anyone doubts that LLDF not only defended deParrie in court, as any legitimate lawyer might do, but approved of his murderous beliefs, they should read an LLDF interview with him Stalking Law Can't be Used to Silence Free Speech. It quotes with approval "a public statement signed by deParrie and others" advocating "the use of force" to stop abortion. Could LLDF simply have overlooked the fact that the statement did not just advocate "the use of force" but explicitly supported murders of Dr. Gunn and Dr. Britton and the wounding of Mrs. Britton and the murder of escort James Barrett?
No. The "public statement signed by deParrie and others" that LLDF quotes so approvingly is the Defensive Action Statement, and the unnamed "others" include Paul Hill, the convicted murderer of Dr. Britton. LLDF obviously knew this damning fact, never criticized or even questioned deParrie about it, and tried to conceal it.
The LLDF newsletter also devoted front-page space to Planned Parenthood v. ACLA, the so-called "Nuremberg Files" case in which deParrie and others were defendants.
"There was considerable evidence that the abortionists were frightened not because they understood the defendants [deParrie et al] to be threatening them with harm, but because they feared that the publication of their names had made them targets for 'the John Salvis of the world. '", as quoted from Ninth Circuit Overturns $107 Million 'Nuremberg Files' Verdict in LLDF's online newsletter Lifeline.
The LLDF article contain no hint of criticism of deParrie or the other defendants for creating this fear, which is well-founded in light of the murders that deParrie's associates have committed and he has condoned. LLDF evidently believes not only that vile and dangerous publications like the Nuremberg Files are protected speech -- as any First Amendment advocate might believe and any good lawyer might argue -- but that they are also laudable.
The LLDF's deParrie interview notes proudly that LLDF was "the only pro-life organization that helped in deParrie's case. " DeParrie said that "other pro-life support groups hesitated to get involved because he has an 'aggressive' attitude. "
It would be more accurate to say that the mainstream pro-life movement wants nothing to do with deParrie and his associates because of their pro-murder attitude and actions. The Life Legal Defense Foundation has no such scruples.