It is true that the Witnesses won a series of landmark Supreme Court cases dealing with the First Amendment, freedom of speech and religion. W.Virginia v. Barnette (not certain of the spelling) was the very big one. The blood issue raises freedom issues (one person's freedom is another person's unconscionable act). I can see Phil Donohue covering that angle. People regularly post about important cases involving freedom around the globe. I'm not stating that I agree with the Witnesses claim. Merely, that they do raise the issue. My "enter" key is not working for some reason. I grew up when WWII was still fresh. I'd say the French resistance, the Brits, the Americans the Free French, etc. did zillions more for freedom. Someone should have reminded Rutherford that Jesus was Jewish.
One thing I've noticed, in passing, with JW Supreme Court litigation is that other groups find its help their own cause to ally with the similar causes of others. The Witnesses seem to care only for the Witnesses. I don't believe they care about the First Amendment unless a challenge would directly benefit the Witnesses.
I happened upon a creepy law review article in a civil rights journal that had a catchy title about Jehovah's Witnesses and persecution during WWII. It was so interesting I decided to stop my work and skim the article. I never think of Japanese Witnesses. The story of how faithful and brave individual JWs faced severe persecution within a fascist society would have been fascinating. I've never read of Japanese dissidents. Well, the author, a female lawyer, wrote some thirty pages about every single piece of paper that crossed Rutherford's desk. It triggered me deeply and wrote to her that it was wonderful she was allowed to go to law school being a woman. I explained that I had to fight to stay in high school. College was a wild dream. I told her moving a story of the individual JWs could be, even with some commentary about the Society. Needless to say, there was no reply.