The verdict was recently handed down a while back, but the conversation has not died down at all. Pro-life activist Lauren Handy has been sentenced to four years and nine months in a federal facility. We live in a country where freedom and the pursuit of happiness are held dear, but this conviction sends a very clear message. Those who are serving as peaceful activists need to be more cautious than ever in order to avoid becoming the next targets of the Biden administration’s aggressive tactics.
Should those who are merely exercising their first amendment rights become legal targets? Why is the administration using them as examples? Those who are working to protect the unborn, some of our nation’s most vulnerable, deserve better than this. Let’s take a closer look at how the selective application of justice is impacting American patriots.
The Conviction of Lauren Handy
The pivotal event leading to Handy’s conviction is an October 2020 protest at the Washington Surgi-Clinic, a clinic operated by Dr. Cesare Santangelo. Along with eight co-defendants, including John Hinshaw, Handy orchestrated a demonstration inside the clinic by chaining themselves to furniture to prevent the termination of late-term pregnancies. The protest, which was live streamed on social media, lasted several hours until the activists were apprehended by the police. Handy and her co-defendants were subsequently charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), a federal law that prohibits the use of physical force, threats, or property damage to obstruct access to abortion services.
The conviction itself carries significant legal implications. Handy was found guilty on felony charges of conspiracy against rights and violation of the FACE Act. Her sentence, which includes three years of supervised release, is a stark contrast to the one-year prison term requested by her defense team. The harsh sentence has sent shockwaves through the pro-life community, who see it as evidence of the administration’s aggressive posture toward political opponents.
Co-Defendants Sentenced
Handy’s co-defendant, John Hinshaw, a 69-year-old pro-life activist, received a sentence of one year and nine months. Other co-defendants, including Jonathan Darnel, Jay Smith, William Goodman, Joan Bell, Paulette Harlow, Jean Marshall, and Heather Idoni, are also awaiting sentencing.
The Thomas More Society’s Appeal
In response to the conviction, Handy’s legal team from the Thomas More Society plans to appeal her sentence, citing the legal violence and selective prosecution faced by pro-life activists. Steve Crampton, senior counsel at the Thomas More Society, expressed dismay at the sentence, drawing comparisons with the relative lack of legal action against anti-Israel protesters on college campuses. This difference in treatment underscores the perception that the government is applying the law selectively, targeting pro-life advocates for their political beliefs.
The Larger Implications
The Handy case raises profound questions about the delicate balance between free speech, peaceful assembly, and the rule of law. As America navigates the complex landscape of reproductive rights, it is crucial that we, as a society, uphold the rights of all individuals, regardless of their political stance, to express themselves without fear of reprisal. The significant legal consequences faced by Lauren Handy and her co-defendants serve as a powerful reminder that we must continue to protect and cherish the principles of our Constitution, ensuring that the law is applied fairly and without prejudice.
Handy’s conviction also highlights the broader implications of the FACE Act. Enacted in 1994 to protect access to abortion clinics, it has become a potent tool in the hands of authorities to quell dissent from anti-abortion activists. By criminalizing peaceful protests, the Act erodes the fundamental rights of individuals to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, curtailing the very spirit of open discussion and debate that America was founded upon.
Many view this sentence as “shocking,” including Handy’s legal representatives. Pro-life activists and those who support them need to take a stand to protect their freedoms as granted by the first amendment. Just as important is the acknowledgement of what appears to be the inconsistent application of the law.
What do YOU think? Are Hardy and her co-defendants being treated unfairly, or is this as cut and dry as going beyond the first amendment to a physical violation of the law? Send us a message with your thoughts!
