In Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. 753, abortion protesters, whose activities were enjoined, argued the restrictions on their speech were content based since they applied only to the speech of anti-abortion protesters. The court noted an injunction, unlike a statute, applies only to the activities and perhaps speech of particular groups or individuals. The court stated: "It does so, however, because of the group's past actions in the context of a specific dispute between the parties. The party seeking the injunction asserts a violation of its rights; the court hearing the action is charged with fashioning a remedy for a specific deprivation, not with the drafting of a statute addressed to the general public." (Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., supra, 512 U.S. at p. 762.) The court noted in Madsen the injunction imposed restrictions affecting the protestors' speech because they had repeatedly violated prior court orders. The court stated: "That petitioners all share the same viewpoint regarding abortion does not in itself demonstrate that some invidious contentor viewpoint-based purpose motivated the issuance of the order. It suggests only that those in the group whose conduct violated the court's order happen to share the same opinion regarding abortions being performed at the clinic." (Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., supra, 512 U.S. at p. 763.)