A prominent pro-life organization has delivered a resounding "No" to aggressive demands from abortion-rights activists who sought to silence and censor years of vital reporting, including the organization's use of the term "killing" to describe abortion.
Live Action, represented by the Thomas More Society, issued a fiery response, obtained exclusively by Fox News Digital, rebuffing attorneys for 13 abortion-rights advocates who had accused the pro-life group of publishing "false and defamatory claims" about their pregnancies.
"The answer is ‘No,’" the attorneys for Live Action declared, making it unequivocally clear that the America First movement will not bend to attempts at ideological coercion and censorship.
The Thomas More Society forcefully argues that much of the disputed coverage, including Live Action's use of terms such as "killing" to describe abortion, is constitutionally protected speech. This legal team stands ready to defend Live Action in court, signaling a powerful stance against those who seek to weaponize the legal system to stifle free expression.
"Live Action will not cease reporting on abortion," the response states, outright rejecting demands to delete its extensive archive, issue sweeping retractions, or agree to any restrictions on its future coverage. This is a clear victory for truth and free speech against an increasingly emboldened abortion lobby.
Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of litigation at Thomas More Society, highlighted the fundamental free-speech issue at stake. "The other side's argument is that somehow, by using the word kill or calling abortion killing, that you have a problem that you can create that could then be remedied in court," Breen noted, exposing the absurd premise of the activists' demands.
"The issue is every single final court decision to deal with this has previously said that's not defamatory," he added. "It's not legally wrong to call abortion killing." And somehow, they still expect Americans not to notice.
The July 15 cease-and-desist from Amplify Legal, however, attempted to broaden the dispute beyond the simple use of terms like "killing." Amplify, representing 13 individuals featured in Live Action's coverage, accused the outlet of publishing "false factual claims" about their pregnancies, fetal diagnoses, and medical circumstances. They demanded Live Action remove articles and social media posts, issue a public apology, and publish retractions.
Amplify Legal doubled down, telling Fox News Digital that their objections concern statements they claim Live Action made about "families facing wanted pregnancies." "Live Action has repeatedly accused grieving families with wanted pregnancies of ‘wanting to kill’ their babies. These statements are both inaccurate and cruel," Amplify Legal's statement asserted, attempting to frame legitimate reporting as malicious defamation.
Asked whether Amplify intends to sue following Live Action's steadfast rejection, the group stopped short of committing to litigation, merely stating they would be "weighing all of their options." This legal saber-rattling is a transparent attempt to intimidate a conservative voice.
Among the examples cited by Amplify is Kate Cox, a Texas woman who sought an abortion after her unborn child was diagnosed with Trisomy 18. Amplify claims Live Action repeatedly disputed whether the diagnosis meant Cox's daughter was certain to die. Cox, whose case made national headlines and who later left the state for the procedure, was controversially a guest of former first lady Jill Biden at the 2024 State of the Union Address, illustrating the politicization of such tragic cases.
Amplify further claimed Live Action failed to contact its clients or their medical providers for comment before publication, a procedural complaint often used when substantive arguments fail. "The lying, bullying, and complete disregard for the truth must end now," Amplify Litigation Director Molly Duane dramatically announced in July. "What they are doing is not only cruel — it's illegal." Such rhetoric seeks to criminalize deeply held moral beliefs and factual reporting.
Live Action's attorneys dispute Amplify's broad allegations but have indicated that the organization remains willing to consider specific factual challenges through its normal, ethical editorial corrections process. This demonstrates a commitment to accuracy, not capitulation.
Courts have previously confronted similar rhetoric in the abortion debate, consistently upholding the robust protections for political speech. In a 2023 case cited by the Thomas More Society, the Texas Supreme Court considered statements by an anti-abortion activist who characterized abortion-rights organizations as criminal and equated abortion with murder. The court held that the challenged statements were "protected opinion about abortion law made in pursuit of changing that law," placing them "at the heart of protected speech under the United States and Texas Constitutions."
The court also cited a 1988 Illinois appellate decision, Van Duyn v. Smith, which definitively rejected a defamation claim involving a poster that used the term "prenatal killing" to describe abortion. The legal precedent is clear: truth and opinion in political debate are protected.
Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, unequivocally told Fox News Digital that he believes Amplify's demand runs headlong into First Amendment protections for political debate. "Amplify Legal's demand letter is legally frivolous activism," Shapiro stated. "One side says ‘abortion is murder.’ The other side says denying women the right to abortion takes us to a dystopian Handmaid's Tale. These are opinions, and opinions by definition aren't defamatory."
Shapiro went further, arguing that describing an abortion as "killing" does not become defamatory merely because the terminology is fiercely disputed by those who wish to obscure the reality of the procedure. "In short, you can't criminalize or make someone civilly liable for the standard give and take of heated political debate," he concluded. That part should not be complicated.
Lila Rose, Live Action founder and president, reaffirmed her organization's unwavering stance, telling Fox News Digital that Live Action would not change its language in response to such blatant legal threats. "Abortion is an act of killing. It deliberately ends the life of a living human child," Rose declared. "Americans have every right to say that openly and forcefully, without fear of being dragged into court for refusing to adopt the deceptive language preferred by abortion activists."
Rose emphasized that Live Action would continue using such precise and accurate language, regardless of the legal intimidation. "Threats will not stop us from calling abortion what it is or from fighting for the right of every child to live," she asserted. "We will keep fighting, and we will win." This is the spirit of courage and conviction that defines the America First movement.
The Thomas More Society's letter warns that Live Action could seek attorneys' fees and sanctions if a lawsuit is filed, and it proactively directs Amplify and its clients to preserve potentially relevant records and communications. This is not a group backing down.
Asked whether the Thomas More Society was effectively telling Amplify and its clients, "Go ahead, sue us," Breen stopped short of an explicit invitation but certainly did not back away. "Certainly, the courthouse door is open," Breen told Fox News Digital.
Breen stated the Thomas More Society does not want its clients dragged into litigation but expressed full confidence in Live Action's legally sound position. "We're not going to back down from that," he said. "If it comes, we will be very, very well-prepared." The ball, Breen noted, is now in Amplify's court.
This decisive stand by Live Action and the Thomas More Society is a powerful affirmation of First Amendment rights and a bold rejection of attempts to censor and intimidate conservative voices. It underscores the ongoing fight for truth and freedom against those who seek to control language and thought, a battle central to preserving American values and the America First agenda.
