Pro-abortion radicals who vandalized several Florida pregnancy centers plead guilty

---

Despite this latest development, the FACE Act is still being unequally applied against pro-lifers. Is it time for this politicized law to be rescinded? 

---

Four pro-abortion advocates who targeted pregnancy clinics in Florida following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson have settled a civil suit brought by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and law group First Liberty Institute, while also agreeing to plead guilty to several federal charges.

Following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade ruling that there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, pro-abortion radicals engaged in hundreds of attacks on pregnancy centers and churches.

In January 2023, the Department of Justice announced the first indictments of pro-abortion vandals under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

Caleb Freestone and Amber Smith-Stewart were the only two defendants named in the indictment. Later, Annarella Rivera and Gabriella Oropesa were also discovered to be involved in a series of acts of vandalism on Florida pro-life centers.

The various acts of vandalism included threatening messages spraypainted on the facilities, such as “if abortions aren’t safe then neither are you”; “YOUR TIME IS UP!”; “WE’RE COMING FOR U”; and “We are everywhere”.

Also spray painted were anarchy symbols and “Jane’s Revenge,” the name of a pro-abortion group that has taken credit for various acts against pro-life centers and has promised violence against pro-life organizations.

Between the four suspects, they vandalized LifeChoice Pregnancy Center in Winter Haven, a Heartbeat of Miami Pregnancy Help Medical Clinic in Hialeah, and the South Broward Pregnancy Help Center in Hollywood.

In 2023 First Liberty Institute and Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC filed a civil suit against the defendants, as did Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody.

First Liberty argued that Freestone, Smith-Stewart, and Rivera had also hacked their way into Heartbeat of Miami’s guest list for its annual gala. They then went to the gala, where all three “shouted obscenities, disparaged Heartbeat’s staff, volunteers, and supporters, and leafletted the venue with propaganda, hoping to dissuade women from using Heartbeat’s services.”

In June 2024, Freestone, Smith-Stewart, and Rivera pleaded guilty to federal charges of “conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate employees of pregnancy resource centers in the free exercise of the right to provide and seek to provide reproductive health services.”

They could receive a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

Last week, Moody issued a press release saying that as part of the settlement, Freestone, Smith-Stewart, and Rivera are all banned from getting within 100 feet of the three clinics or any of Heartbeat’s five clinics. The three defendants must pay $2,250 in restitution to each facility. They also will be required to issue an apology.

Oropesa is banned from getting within 100 feet of the clinics. She also must pay $1,000 to each clinic and a $10,000 civil penalty.

Moody responded to their decision to settle the case and plead guilty to the criminal charges by saying,

“We will not allow radicals to threaten and intimidate women seeking help from crisis pregnancy centers or the counselors and health care professionals serving these women and their babies. In Florida, illegal actions have consequences, and I am proud of the work our attorneys did in this case to make sure these extremists were held accountable.”

First Liberty Senior Counsel, Jeremy Dys stated,

“The entry of these felony plea agreements serves as a reminder that no one should suffer violence for simply providing faith-based counseling and baby supplies to women and their babies. Attorney General Moody’s leadership, together with our lawsuit, sends a clear message: those who target life-affirming reproductive health facilities with violence will face the legal penalties Congress established for their crimes.”

In the 1980s and early 1990s, pro-life protesters engaged in clinic blockades to prevent people from entering abortion clinics, so President Bill Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno, and members of Congress sought to prohibit the protests. This was the reason behind the FACE Act, which was passed in 1994.

The point of the FACE Act was to prohibit blockades or violence against abortion facilities or their staff, and the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, has been used as the justification for it. Before the FACE Act passed, legislators also extended the law’s protections to crisis pregnancy clinics and places of worship.

However, since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to an abortion, just six pro-abortion radicals who attacked pro-life centers have been charged or convicted for threats, vandalism, and arson. Fewer still have been charged with or convicted of FACE Act charges.

Meanwhile,  many pro-lifers have been charged under the FACE Act, as well as related conspiracy charges, simply for taking part in gatherings of prayers, hymn singing, and counseling pregnant mothers to keep their babies.

This has led to sentences of years in prison for those who were only engaging in their First Amendment rights to peaceful protest.

If the FACE Act is going to be deployed against violators, it should be used equally to protect pro-life centers and churches, not just abortion clinics.

Yet the question should be raised as to whether the FACE Act is really needed. Arson, vandalism, and domestic terrorism are all criminal acts and carry their own sentences. Trespassing also is a crime. What need is there for a FACE Act violation in order to equally protect pro-life and pro-abortion centers?

Take the case of Hridindu Roychowdhury, who firebombed the offices of Wisconsin Family Action. He was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison for arson, not domestic terrorism nor FACE Act violations nor conspiracy.

Meanwhile Whitney Durant pled guilty to a FACE Act violation for spraypainting messages such as “Jane’s Revenge” on the pro-life pregnancy clinic HerChoice in Bowling Green, Ohio. She was charged with a misdemeanor and sentenced to two years’ probation and a $2,000 payment to HerChoice.

A FACE Act violation carries a sentence of up to one year in prison while a conspiracy charge under the FACE Act carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.

The question is, what is the reason to use the FACE Act?

If Roychowdhury didn’t deserve a FACE Act or conspiracy charge, why are pro-life protesters getting charged with those laws? If Roychowdhury got 7.5 years in prison and Durant got probation, why are pro-lifers like Lauren Handy getting 57 months in prison?

Don’t misunderstand. It is good that Durant, Freestone, Rivera, and Smith-Stewart were criminally charged under the FACE Act and that Moody and First Liberty pursued civil charges because such actions are criminal and should be deterred.

There should be equal treatment under the law.

But is the FACE Act the right way to handle such crimes? For example, should young activists like Freestone, Smith-Stewart, and Rivera really be given 10 years in prison largely for graffiti on specific type of organization, while others who spraypaint threatening messages on federal monuments face no consequences? Or is it fair that pro-life protesters are spending years in prison for peaceful protests for supposedly disrupting the right to “reproductive freedom,” but climate protesters are allowed to disrupt the free movement of thousands without essentially any consequence, much less jail time.

The issue is that the FACE Act injected political motivations into criminal law, and it has largely been used in a politically motivated and unequal fashion. Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy and Senator from Utah Mike Lee, R, have proposed repealing the FACE Act.

There are plenty of laws designed to punish specific criminal actions that hurt businesses or people that can and should be used to charge perpetrators.

The FACE ACT is only designed to criminalize one thing: political speech and thought, specifically certain kinds of political speech and thought. But it’s never been equally applied. From the moment it was introduced, the FACE Act was always protecting, first and foremost, the abortion business; churches and pregnancy centers were thrown in as an afterthought to make that fact less obvious.

It’s why there have been only a few arrests of pro-abortion attackers despite the fact that there have been literally hundreds of attacks on churches and pregnancy centers since 2022, even as pro-lifers are still being targeted and prosecuted for peaceful protests they engaged in years ago. It’s why sidewalk counseling outside of abortion clinics has been outlawed in many states. And it’s why progressive politicians are targeting pro-life pregnancy centers with media smears and legislation designed to shut down their speech and their ability to provide life-saving alternatives to pregnant women.

Pointing out the value of life, encouraging women to let their babies live, and praying for God’s intervention is not a crime. It’s time for the U.S. criminal code to reflect that fact. 

---

If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.