

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 6/11/13 3:46 PM


Yesterday, LifeNews broke the news that an IRS agent was caught on tape telling a pro-life group attempting to obtain nonprofit status that it had to keep its faith views to itself.



Now, the lead attorney in the case has given a new interview in which he explains the IRS agent in question was ideologically opposed to the pro-life group’s mission and that the targeting came a result of that rather than the agent’s not understanding laws or IRS rules related to nonprofits.

From the interview with National Review:

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: “You have to know your boundaries,” an IRS agent told Ania Joseph of Pro-Life Revolution. How did you interpret that when you first heard it? What are the boundaries of a pro-life group like theirs?


LOPEZ: What was most worrisome about what Pro-Life Revolution was told by an IRS agent?

STANLEY: What was most worrisome was that the IRS was imposing an unconstitutional standard on Pro-Life Revolution. It attempted to say that Pro-Life Revolution could not be considered educational for exemption purposes unless it met the “full and fair exposition” standard that requires an exempt organization to present a “full and fair exposition” of the facts to allow a person to make up their own mind on the issue. This standard was held to be unconstitutional by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980. The D.C. Circuit said the standard was unconstitutionally vague and could mask viewpoint discrimination. It was very troubling in this case that the agent in charge of granting or denying the exemption request was using a standard held to be unconstitutional over thirty years ago.
LOPEZ: Could it be that this was just a mislead agent doing what she understood to be her job?

STANLEY: No, I don’t think that could be the case because I pointed out to her in a letter that her standard was unconstitutional. In response to my letter, she doubled down on the standard and even made up an additional standard that is found nowhere in the case law or the IRS regulations. This agent seemed ideologically opposed to the pro-life position and was intent on ensuring that Pro-Life Revolution not be able to advocate its viewpoint on the issue of abortion.





