As far as I know, the producers of shows like these scan the filings of court complaints in various geographical areas and approach litigants who have interesting cases. Here’s the rub: As far as I know, the producers basically pay both sides, and/or pay the tab if the plaintiff wins, as an inducement to get the parties to dismiss their actual complaints in advance, and, critically, to be on the show. The parties agree to basically let the judge (and if you think about it, it’s never a “sitting” judge, but it may be a retired judge, etc. — in other words, someone outside the actual court system,) to essentially arbitrate the dispute. If you “lose,” you don’t appeal because someone else picks up the tab. If you check various web encyclopedias for shows like these, you’ll see what I mean.

These shows are for entertainment. They exist for one side to get yelled at because that’s what the audience likes. The audience doesn’t want a serious reasoned opinion, they want someone to get blasted. Quite frankly, I think the judges on this show are there to perform exactly that function. Some people would probably love to have Judge Judy blast them, just to say they were on the show. If you have a serious dispute with someone you stay far away from these shows IMHO. In fact, IMHO I think putting Tiller on these shows makes a mockery of the entire legal system.

Anyway, I support Mark taking this case to court. However, in my opinion it’s best not to go on either television court. Even if the producers do not deliberately try to use it against the prolife cause, either show WILL sensationalize it. They do that with every case to make it seem interesting. The sensationalism likely could backfire on the prolife cause. These court shows are ultimately entertainment; they are not like cable news shows which can seriously examine a particular issue.