The Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled unanimously last month that anti-abortion protesters cannot be cited for disrupting traffic even though their signs were, by all accounts, graphic. And that ruling has earned support from what might seem an unlikely group.

"We support and fight for First Amendment rights. This case is about that," said Kathi Di Nicola, director of media relations for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. In an interview with Minnesota Monitor, Di Nicola said that the organization was generally supportive of the ruling in State of Minnesota v. Otterstad.

The defendants in the case, Luke Otterstad and Robert Rudnick, were cited by Anoka police for endangering public safety. According to court records, the two were displaying "two signs on the public sidewalk of the Ferry Street bridge above Highway 10 in Anoka. Both signs were about four feet high, and when displayed side-by-side the two signs looked like one sign about 13 feet long." The signs carried a message saying that former congressional candidate Patty Wetterling supported abortion, and according to the court records, included a "graphic picture of an aborted fetus above the highway."

While the state contended that the signs had posed a threat to public safety, Justice Barry Anderson, writing for the majority, disagreed. Even though there had been an accident reported at the site of the protest, Anderson noted that "the accident on Ferry Street involved drivers who could see only the blank backs of appellants' signs. While Sergeant [Michael] Goodwin characterized the accident as 'gawker-related,' whatever gawking occurred was apparently the result of the police investigation, not appellants' signs."

Anderson also said that the protesters had been unconstitutionally targeted for their message.

"The record makes clear … that the anonymous phone call was prompted by the content of the signs, not their effect on traffic," said Anderson.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Alan Page disagreed that the signs were similar to those usually posted on the road, noting, "I would not equate appellants with 'road authorities, their agents, employees, contractors, and utilities.'" But Page said that "would reverse the convictions under the public nuisance statute simply because it is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under the statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment."

Charles Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, hailed the ruling.

"Fundamentally, that is a free and political speech case," Samuelson told the Minnesota Monitor. He cited the "ongoing problem" of police "busting people, especially over the interstate, who have signs that say, 'Vote for Joe Schmoe,' or 'Vote Against Proposition 101.'"

"We're happy about this ruling," he said.

And naturally, pro-life activists were pleased as well. Joe Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League, called the ruling a "big victory for pro-life activists" in a posting on the group's website. "This ruling is particularly important to the Pro-Life Acton League and those who have taken part in any of our nearly two-hundred Face the Truth Tours, because we have been likewise threatened with arrest and confiscation of our signs by police in two jurisdictions, Mundelein IL a year ago and Bridgeview IL this year," Scheidler said.

Di Nicola, however, suggested that anti-abortion activists could take a different tack.

"We would hope that folks that felt so strongly about abortion would do more to provide health care for women – birth control, reproductive health care, concrete things that help women avoid unwanted pregnancy," she said.