Pro-lifers’ New Legal Nightmare

The shooting of two abortionists provided the political cover for an insidious attempt to silence all but the bravest pro-lifers.

The shooting of two abortionists provided the political cover for an insidious attempt to silence all but the bravest pro-lifers.

With so many abortion-rights activists in the Clinton administration, it should be no surprise that the United States government has turned up the heat against the pro-life movement. The recently enacted Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994 may force all but the most courageous to keep their pro-life opinions to themselves, raising serious questions about this administration’s regard for the First Amendment.

On the surface, FACE looks good. It is being sold as an effort to control the most outrageous acts committed in the name of the pro-life movement. Yet this plainly is not the act’s primary purpose, and it certainly will not be its sole effect. With rare exceptions, states were already adequately prosecuting crimes committed against abortionists. Furthermore, the act itself is not limited to such extreme cases. The shooting of abortionists in Florida and Kansas provided the necessary political cover for a far more ambitious project to silence by intimidation all but the bravest in the pro-life movement.

Supporters of FACE will respond that it has nothing to do with free speech—that it targets only the more extreme and violent tactics used by some elements of the pro-life movement. Yet the wording of the new statute (despite some improvement over earlier versions) permits its application to a broad array of situations far removed from its alleged focus.

FACE promises severe criminal penalties and civil liability judgments against anyone who (by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction) “intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes” with someone obtaining or providing an abortion. Just about anything a pro-life protester might do on a sidewalk outside an abortion clinic could be construed as violating the act. Carrying a sign, trying to talk to a would-be patient or clinic worker, or even kneeling or pausing for prayer could “interfere” by “physical obstruction.” To convict or impose liability, a judge need only believe that the presence of a protest makes it “unreasonably difficult” to enter or leave the abortion clinic. Similarly, the very sight of protest is inherently intimidating for some. If the presence of peaceful demonstrators is emotionally disturbing to a patient inside the clinic, her mental distress could be sufficient “intentional injury” on which to sue the protesters under the act.

Just as numerous as the potential violations are the potential “victims” and crime sites under the act. The crime need not occur at the abortion clinic, and the complainant need not be an abortion worker or patient in order for federal or state authorities to be called in—facts that might surprise those who voted for FACE in Congress. For example, authorities could seek a gag order against a pastor whose sermon advocates peaceful blocking of access to an abortion clinic, because the message might intimidate someone who is thinking about going to a clinic.

The act’s drafters apparently recognized that some “victims” bringing such lawsuits would not be able to demonstrate that they suffered legally recognizable harm. So Congress declared that litigants could recover $5,000 in compensation without even having to prove that they suffered actual damages. Moreover, FACE allows juries to punish protesters by imposing huge, punitive damage awards. Congress also reversed the normal presumption that each side pay his or her own attorney’s fees, imposing the obligation for costs and fees upon a losing defendant. However, a successful defendant can recover her fees only if she can demonstrate that the plaintiff’s suit was utterly frivolous, which is virtually impossible to do. This is a plaintiff lawyer’s paradise!

Finally, the act also grants draconian powers to the Justice Department. A first-time offender can get up to a year in prison and a $10,000 fine; if anyone is injured (for example, from a scuffle with pro-choice counter-demonstrators), the sentence can go up to ten years.

REGULATING FREE SPEECH

When the government seeks to regulate free speech protected by the First Amendment—which includes a pro-life protest—courts require that the law’s wording be highly precise. Vagueness of the kind permeating FACE presents three major dangers: lack of fair notice of what is prohibited; a chilling effect on free speech; the risk of discriminatory enforcement against an unpopular viewpoint. This creates ideal conditions for the government to suppress politically incorrect speech in public.

The FACE Act raises the stakes in abortion protest, muting by self-censorship America’s prophetic voices of protest. To prevent this tragedy, the law must be challenged in court until free speech is vindicated or Congress realizes what it hath wrought.

********************

Steven T. McFarland is director of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom, the legal advocacy arm of the Christian Legal Society.

Copyright © 1994 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Also in this issue

Making Radio Waves: The tumultuous rise of Christian talk radio

Cover Story

Mixing Politics and Piety

The Upside of Pessimism

German Reunification: One-Way Street?

Martyrs' Lost Plane Recovered in Ecuador

A Russian Call to Repentance

Christians Blamed for Temple Arson

Global Praise Event Draws 12 Million Believers

Prominent Iranian Church Leaders Slain

'Credibility' Gap Worries Evangelists

CRC Vote Overturns Women's Ordination

Church, Synagogue Build Together

Sexuality Draft Draws Criticism

Judge Finds Evangelist Degrauded Heiress

War Chest Adds Funds Quickly

Tainted Funds Must Be Returned

Soccer Outreach Has Higher Goal

News

News Briefs: August 15, 1994

Classic & Contemporary Excerpts from August 15, 1994

Paul's Prayer Priorities

Homosexual Healing

Refocusing the Family

Abortion and the Failure of Democracy

Why Christ Was Expelled

Dr. Death's Dreadful Sermon

Why Jesus' Disciples Wouldn't Wash Their Hands

Networking for Peace

America the Brutal

Behind South Africa's Miracle

Stop Bashing the Christian Right

ABC's Peggy Wehmeyer: On the Faith Beat

View issue

Our Latest

News

Died: Jack Iker, Anglican Who Drew the Line at Womenโ€™s Ordination

The Texas bishop fought a bitter legal battle with the Episcopal Church and won.

Why Canโ€™t We Talk to Each Other Anymore?

Online interactions are draining us of energy to have hard conversations in person.

Church Disappointment Is Multilayered

Jude 3 Project founder Lisa Fields speaks about navigating frustrations with God and fellow believers.

The Robot Will Lie Down With the Gosling

In โ€œThe Wild Robot,โ€ hospitality reprograms relationships.

How Priscilla Shirer Surrenders All

The best-selling Bible teacher writes about putting God first in her life and how healthy Christian discipleship requires sacrifice

The Bulletin

Second Hand News

The Bulletin talks presidential podcasts, hurricane rumors, and the spiritual histories of Israel and Iran.

Which Church in Revelation Is Yours Like?

From the lukewarm Laodicea to the overachieving Ephesus, these seven ancient congregations struggled with relatable problems.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube