A Catholic law firm representing one of the pro-life activists in an abortion clinic blockade case this week believes that since Roe v. Wade was overturned, the law broken by the pro-lifers is unconstitutional.
A federal jury convicted seven activists Wednesday of federal civil rights offenses arising out of their blockade of an abortion clinic in Sterling Heights, Michigan, in August 2020. The defendants were each convicted of a felony conspiracy against rights and a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act offense. Two defendants were convicted of a second FACE Act offense arising out of a blockade of an abortion clinic in Saginaw, Michigan.
In pre-trial proceedings, attorneys with the Thomas More Society in Chicago filed a Motion to Dismiss the felony Conspiracy Against Rights charge, arguing that the US Supreme Court’s June 28, 2024, decision in Fischer v. United States prevents the Department of Justice’s use of the statute to multiply the potential prison time associated with non-violent, first-time FACE Act charges.
“Yet again, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice has decided to characterize the actions of peaceful pro-lifers as a felony ‘Conspiracy Against Rights,’ punishable by over a decade in federal prison,” said Steve Crampton, Thomas More Society Senior Counsel, in a statement.
“After the overturning of Roe v. Wade, we believe the FACE Act to be unconstitutional, and we will continue to advocate on behalf of peaceful pro-life citizens like Chet Gallagher, Lauren Handy, and Paul Vaughn, who have been targeted with harsh prosecution by this Department of Justice.”
Crampton was referring to some of the pro-life advocates who were sentenced in a similar case in Washington, D.C., earlier this year.
Concentration camp survivor
The Michigan defendants included Calvin Zastrow, Chester Gallagher, Heather Idoni, Caroline Davis, Joel Curry, Justin Phillips, Eva Edl, and Eva Zastrow, who participated in a pro-life multi-week event called the Michigan Holiness Revival Tour. The Justice Department’s statement said:
”During the blockade, the defendants sat or stood in front of the entrances to the clinic so that patients and employees could not enter. Evidence at trial further proved that the defendants blocked a patient, S.S., from entering. The evidence showed that S.S. and her husband had made an appointment at the clinic after learning that their fetus suffered fatal abnormalities, and that attempting to continue carrying the pregnancy carried serious risks to S.S.’s health and fertility. The defendants blocked S.S. from obtaining reproductive health care.”
Catholic News Agency pointed out that Eva Edl, 89, is a survivor of a communist concentration camp who fled Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe.
The prosecution said that Edl and Idoni also obstructed access to a second clinic, in Saginaw, Michigan, on April 16, 2021.
A sentencing hearing will be set at a later date.
“Entitled to their views”
Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, in a statement, said the Michigan defendants “intentionally broke the law.”
“These defendants orchestrated an unlawful clinic blockade and physically obstructed patients seeking access to their doctors, without regard to the serious medical needs of the women they blocked from accessing reproductive health care,” Clarke said in a statement Wednesday. “One woman’s fetus experienced fatal abnormalities and the defendants' coordinated campaign of physical obstruction posed a grave and real threat to her health and fertility. Make no mistake: every American enjoys the right to obtain and provide reproductive health services free from physical obstruction, and the Justice Department will continue to hold accountable those that oppress the free exercise of that right.”
U.S. Attorney Dawn N. Ison for the Eastern District of Michigan, said the defendants sought to interfere with the “right to access reproductive health care” by physically blocking the doors of clinics providing such services.
“These defendants are entitled to their views, but they are not entitled to prevent others from exercising the rights secured to them by the laws of the United States. This case is about the rule of law, and today’s verdict is a victory for that principle,” Ison said.
