Trial begins for pro-life activists facing 11 years in prison

WASHINGTON — Jury selection began Wednesday in the trial of several pro-life activists facing federal charges in connection with a 2020 blockade of an abortion clinic in the nation’s capital as supporters urge Congress to repeal the FACE Act under which the defendants are facing up to 11 years in prison. 

The first group of defendants on trial for the charge of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act are Lauren Handy, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, William Goodman and Herb Geraghty. Other activists facing federal felony charges for participating in the same blockade on Oct. 22, 2020, are Joan Andrews Bell, Jonathan Darnel, Paulette Harlow, Jean Marshall and Jay Smith. 

Handy is the director of activism and mutual aid for the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU), the pro-life group that recovered the remains of five babies in addition to boxes containing 110 human remains from the same abortion clinic at the center of this trial. 

Before court proceedings began, PAAU held a press conference Wednesday outside the Elijah Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., repeating the group’s calls for the FACE Act to be repealed in addition to urging pro-lifers to stand in solidarity with those on trial. PAAU members and supporters, including a representative for Concerned Women for America, attended the press conference. 

“Extreme acts of violence must be met with bold acts of love,” Handy said during the conference. “And that’s why I can stand here today with my head held high and without shame. Because there is no shame in loving your neighbor as yourself.”

PAAU founder Terrisa Bukovinac argued during a press conference outside the courthouse that enforcement of the FACE Act has been unequal since its enactment in 1994. While the act is not limited to abortion facilities, as it’s also intended to protect pregnancy resource centers, Bukovinac asserted that the Biden administration has used it to “harass” and “intimidate” pro-lifers. 

She also cited the wave of violence committed against pro-life pregnancy centers and churches by radical abortion activists following the publication of a leaked draft decision in the U.S. Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Bukovinac believes pro-lifers can better protect pregnancy centers and churches at the community level. 

The progressive pro-life leader contended that the FACE Act cannot be reformed. Instead, it must be repealed. In addition to being used to protect the “bottom line” of an industry that kills humans, Bukovinac reiterated that the act has been used to target pro-lifers. 

In an interview with The Christian Post, Bukovinac stressed that the trial is a “huge moment” for pro-lifers, viewing it as an opportunity to reignite the rescue movement, a form of protest that became less popular among pro-lifers following the enactment of the FACE Act.

Rescue is a pro-life tactic that involves entering abortion facilities to pass out roses with pregnancy help information attached to abortion-minded patients. PAAU has engaged in multiple rescues at abortion facilities throughout the country, and many of the group’s members have been arrested for it several times. 

“Unless we can bring back rescue, we’re not going to be able to end abortion in all 50 states, not in any kind of timely manner,” Bukovinac told CP. “And our best hope for ending abortion in all 50 states is to open the floodgates for rescue.” 

While the pro-life activist said she doesn’t expect justice from the court within the coming weeks, she indicated that there will be more opportunities to challenge the FACE Act during the appeal process to challenge the law. 

Acknowledging that rescue is a controversial tactic, even among some pro-lifers, Bukovinac asserted that this form of protest is “critical” to bring about change. 

Pro-lifers opposed to rescue have argued that preborn lives can be saved through legal means, such as lawfully handing out pregnancy help information on the sidewalk outside abortion clinics. Other pro-lifers argue that those engaging in rescue motivate pro-choice lawmakers to enact buffer zone laws that prevent advocates from standing near abortion clinics.

“There has never been a social justice movement that has come and won through nonviolent means that didn’t require people to physically use their bodies to go create a barrier between the oppressors and the oppressed,” the PAAU founder asserted, referencing the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

While she supports rescue as a tactic, the activist clarified that she still encourages pro-lifers to engage in legal activities like sidewalk counseling. 

Bukovinac also noted that some pro-lifers might be afraid to risk arrest by participating in rescues for various reasons, but she urged people to find ways to move past their fears. The PAAU leader urged everyone to consider supporting rescue in ways that don’t involve risking arrest, such as standing in solidarity with the activists who have been incarcerated for rescue. 

Regarding the trial and its eventual outcome, Bukovinac believes the case will put a “spotlight” on what she described as the “injustice” of the FACE Act. 

Herb Geraghty, the executive director of the nonpartisan pro-life organization Rehumanize International, expressed appreciation during the conference to those who have supported the indicted activists.

However, the pro-life atheist stated that he and his co-defendant Handy are not the victims before referencing the names that PAAU gave to the five babies: Holly, Harriet, Christopher X, Angel and Phoenix.

“The victims are all of the thousands of unnamed little boys and girls that have been murdered by Cesare Santangelo,” Geraghty said, referring to the abortionist at the Washington Surgi-Clinic. “We will not stop fighting; we will not stop rescuing, and we will not stop working for justice.”

Kristen Turner, the former executive director of Pro-Life San Francisco and PAAU’s director of community organizing, also referenced rescue in her speech. The pro-life advocate insisted that rescue is a “legacy” that will “live on forever.”  

“We are the unborn, and we rescue us,” she said. 

In an interview with CP, Turner called the trial a “turning point” for whether the rescue movement is “brought back to life,” adding that the proceedings are the “biggest case since Roe.” She also called for the trial to be a “unifying moment” for pro-lifers. 

Like Bukovinac, the PAAU activist acknowledged some pro-lifers’ fear that rescue will lead to more buffer zone laws, but she argued that pro-choice lawmakers would enact those restrictions anyway. 

“They will crush us if we do not go out there and rescue and put our principles in alignment with our actions and treat abortion like murder,” Turner said. “This is the way forward.” 

As a result of the trial, the former executive director of Pro-Life San Francisco anticipates that there will be more calls to repeal the FACE Act. If the act is indeed repealed, Turner does not fear pregnancy centers will be left vulnerable, stating that local laws already protect facilities from vandalism and harassment.

“I want [pro-lifers] to remember that this is not out of their reach,” Turner said about the ongoing trial and the defendants. “These people are not some great heroes off in a faraway land whose actions are unachievable. You not only can rescue, but you have a responsibility to rescue. And whether or not you know what that looks like, it’s your duty.”

Prior to the jury selection process, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a warning to one of the defense attorneys after learning that supporters of the indicted individuals were distributing fliers outside of the courthouse. The fliers repeated PAAU’s previous claims that the Washington Surgi-Clinic and Santangelo have engaged in illegal activities.

After a pool of 100 prospective jurors assembled in the courtroom, Kollar-Kotelly instructed them not to accept any fliers passed out to them inside or outside of the courtroom in the future. She also told them not to discuss the details of the case with anyone, nor should they research it online or post about it on social media.

The judge went through a series of questions the prospective jurors would be asked, including their political or religious beliefs about abortion and their involvement with any organizations that advocate for or against abortion. 

Kollar-Kotelly also stated that the case is not about whether abortion is “right” or “wrong” and if it’s “justified” or “unjustified.” She informed the potential jurors that the trial’s purpose is to determine if the laws that allow clinics to operate without any physical obstruction were broken.

As WUSA-9 reported Monday, Kollar-Kotelly previously rejected Handy and Idoni’s claims that they were acting in defense of other human beings by blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic, with the judge stating a defendant may not “don a vigilante’s hood.” 

The judge also previously rejected requests to dismiss the case in light of the Dobbs ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide, and she barred Handy from showing images of the remains she obtained from the abortion clinic.

Following Bukovinac and Handy’s recovery of the babies’ remains from the Washington Surgi-Clinic, PAAU has repeatedly called for an autopsy of the five babies to determine if they were aborted in a manner that violated federal law. The babies’ remains are being held at the D.C. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, where PAAU held a vigil for them the night before the trial. 

Kollar-Kotelly said the length of the trial for Handy and her fellow activists is hard to determine but indicated that it could last as long as three weeks. 

A trial brief for the case explains that several of the defendants reportedly used chairs to block the clinic’s entrance, tying themselves together with chains and ropes, resulting in a nurse injuring herself while attempting to stop them.

The brief states that the “conspirators’ purposeful choice to invade the clinic and inflict trauma, physical and emotional, on its patients and staff, is one for which they must be held accountable. The government’s evidence will prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”