Boston, Mass., Jul 11, 2023 / 14:05 pm (CNA).
Federal charges have been filed against a 20-year-old college student in Ohio for allegedly vandalizing a pro-life pregnancy center in April with graffiti that included the pro-abortion calling card “Jane’s Revenge.”
A student at Bowling Green State University, Whitney Durant — who goes by the name Soren Monroe — was charged with a misdemeanor under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Ohio said July 5.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as the FACE Act, prohibits “violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.”
The act of vandalism of Bowling Green Pregnancy Center, also known as HerChoice, located in Bowling Green, featured the words “Liars,” “Fake clinic,” “Jane’s Revenge,” “Fund abortion,” and “Abort God,” written in blue paint across the clinic on April 15.
The pregnancy center is about a two-minute walk from the campus.
“Jane’s Revenge” became a calling card of sorts for dozens of pro-abortion vandals after a May 2022 draft opinion leak from the Supreme Court indicated that the justices were poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide.
“Durant intentionally damaged the property of HerChoice, a pregnancy care center located in Bowling Green, Ohio, by defacing the clinic’s building with spray paint because the clinic provides reproductive health services,” the U.S. attorney’s office said.
If convicted, Durant, who pleaded not guilty to the charges on July 7 and was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond, could spend a maximum of one year in prison, but the sentence will be determined by the court.
CNA reached out to the pregnancy center for comment, but no one was available at the time. CNA also reached out to Durant’s lawyer for comment but did not receive a response.
According to the pro-life advocacy group Students for Life of America (SFLA), Durant had a history of “actively bullying” Falcons for Life, a pro-life group at Bowling Green State University that is affiliated with SFLA.
“Through in-person intimidation — by screaming obscenities and getting in the Falcons for Life faces — as well as online cyberbullying and defamation, [Durant] and the radical group she leads on campus have made it hard to be pro-life. They’re not giving up yet, though. The Falcons for Life are currently getting help from SFLA’s legal counsel over this matter and have sent a demand letter to the school administration,” Students for Life of America wrote.
There have been more than 60 pro-abortion attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers since May 2022.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Ordinary law deals with all these criminal activities and torts, criminal property damage, harassment, intimidation, etc. FACE was used to codify things in behalf of abortuaries and abortionists and legitimize “reproductive health services” into law; a codification suited to the “legal” regime under Roe.
I am arguing that as a result of Dobbs, FACE has become hollow -it is “gutted”
Until the State actually lays down what it is doing on abortion and on life as well, FACE can’t really bite on anything. Legal ramifications.
When it does lay down what it is doing FACE is not how that is enforced or followed. If the States “regulate abortion” how can FACE have any “jurisdiction”?
Again, pregnancy now has rights. How can FACE stand there unmodified? The State might have an interest in leaving it to the Courts to define those rights according to common law; leaving pregnancy with “innate” legal recognition and abortion as crime.
But since FACE is contradictory of the State regime it is also highly prejudicial since it does not say how it is to be limited.
I am not an expert in US law nor well studied in it. I imagine that unless codifications rule out the common law then it still applies. If this is so, it is quite likely that neglect of explicit over-rule of common law within codifications has left large areas of law with conflicts within itself.