Judge hits pro-lifers with harsh sentence

A Michigan judge handed out an unusually harsh sentence last week to a group of pro-life activists, ordering them to stay away from every abortion center in the United States. The activists’ attorney called the ruling unnecessarily punitive, as well as a violation of his clients’ constitutional rights.

In December, the five activists—Monica Migliorino Miller, Robert Kovaly, Patrice Woodworth, Will Goodman, and Matthew Connolly—walked into the Women’s Center in West Bloomfield, Mich. They prayed, sang, and offered red roses to women in the waiting room. When workers asked them to leave, they refused. Police eventually dragged them out.

Last September, during a coordinated "Red Rose Rescue" in three states, Miller and other pro-life advocates entered abortion centers to talk to women in waiting rooms and hand them flowers. A judge dismissed their obstruction charges and suspended their fines, on condition they stay away from the abortion centers and refrain from criminal activity.

But this time, a Michigan jury found the activists in West Bloomfield guilty of trespassing and obstructing justice. During the trial, the judge prohibited the defendants from mentioning abortion or their pro-life views, something Miller told me is “standard practice” for trials involving pro-lifers at abortion centers: “As long as the unborn are not recognized as persons, pro-lifers who defend them are basically hung out to dry.”

The trial offered few surprises, but the sentencing had plenty, Miller said.

Michigan District Judge Marc Barron sentenced the activists on Wednesday to 12 months probation, eight days of community service, court fines, and restitution to the abortion center. He also ordered them to stay 500 feet away from every abortion center in the United States and refrain from contacting each other.

Prosecutor Larry Sherman said he couldn’t advocate leniency for the activists: “They’ve shown no remorse, demonstrate no potential for rehabilitation, and continue to pose a threat. … The community needs to be protected from them.”

Miller told me in her decades of pro-life activism, she’s faced charges against her at least 50 times and even spent time in jail. But she’s never seen a sentence so “overreaching.”

“It would be one thing for the judge to impose that kind of restriction on the very clinic where we did the rescue,” she said of the mandated buffer zone. “But every clinic? Everywhere? In the United States of America? How is that even in his jurisdiction, one would wonder.”

The activists’ attorney, Robert Muise, called the sentencing “a violation of their constitutional rights.” He plans to appeal.

CareNet Pregnancy Center of Northern California Facebook

California pregnancy centers at the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in a case challenging a California law requiring pregnancy care centers to post signs or distribute flyers telling women the state provides free or low-cost contraception and abortion, along with a local abortion provider’s phone number.

The suit, filed in October 2015 by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), states California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act violates free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution. The state argues the law simply requires “a truly minimal disclosure.”

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed last year to take NIFLA’s case to settle the dispute that has volleyed multiple times between the state and pro-life organizations. Liberty Counsel, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Pacific Justice Institute have also appealed to the Supreme Court, and their cases are pending. Other states and cities have tried to implement mandates similar to California’s but with little success.

“No one should be forced to provide free advertising for the abortion industry—least of all pro-life pregnancy centers,” ADF president Michael Farris said in a statement. Farris will argue the case before the high court Tuesday.

“California argues that this law is needed because pregnant women are unaware of all of their options, which include abortion. That’s simply not true,” he said. “Information about abortion is widely available, and the government has many other ways it can do what it wants to without trampling on the First Amendment protected freedoms of pro-life advocates.” —S.G.

CareNet Pregnancy Center of Northern California Facebook

State legislative update

Here are brief updates on state pro-life laws we’re following:

Biased abortion safety reporting

A report released last week by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine raised the ire of pro-life advocates over its claims that women who have abortions rarely endure complications involving infection or hospitalization.

Panel co-chairman Ned Calonge claimed “abortions do not increase the risk of breast cancer and abortions have no effect on future mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, or PTSD.”

Pro-life experts note inadequate reporting makes those assertions impossible to prove.

“You have to wonder how they made the determination, since there is no national abortion reporting law requiring that the outcomes of abortion be tracked,” Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins said in a statement. “We can’t determine all the harms of abortion in the United States because we only know what abortionists want to tell us.”

Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood facility director and current president of And Then There Were None, said the report never addressed the state-conducted safety reports that show “a complete lack of focus on basic medical standards,” including the frequent failure to disinfect tools and calibrate equipment. —S.G.