Listen to the article
Democratic lawmakers who previously demanded enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act against pro-life protesters have remained notably silent when asked if the same law should apply to anti-ICE protesters who disrupted a Minnesota church service.
In March 2025, a coalition of 75 House Democrats, led by Representatives Sean Casten and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and Jerrold Nadler of New York, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi. The letter urged Bondi to “fully enforce” the FACE Act to protect women and healthcare providers from harassment at reproductive health facilities.
Now, Bondi’s Justice Department has brought FACE Act charges against agitators who disrupted a Baptist church service in the Twin Cities on January 18. The church’s minister reportedly had connections to local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, which appears to have motivated the protest.
Fox News Digital reached out to Casten, Schakowsky, and Nadler to ask if they supported applying the same law against left-wing protesters who disrupted religious services. None responded to requests for comment on whether they backed Bondi’s decision to prosecute the church disruptors under the same statute they had previously championed for abortion clinic protection.
The news outlet also contacted many of the other 72 Democratic signatories, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Bonnie Watson-Coleman (D-NJ), and Steve Cohen (D-TN). Only one office acknowledged the inquiry — a representative for Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said they were “looking into” the matter but provided no substantive response.
The situation highlights a potential inconsistency in the application of the FACE Act, which was originally spearheaded by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. The law contains provisions protecting both abortion clinics and the public exercise of First Amendment religious freedoms.
In their original letter to Bondi, the Democrats emphasized that while individuals have the right to free speech and peaceful assembly, they “do not have the right to use physical force or intimidation” that threatens access to healthcare services. The letter specifically mentioned protection for services ranging from “abortion care to breast cancer screenings, prenatal care, reproductive counseling, and in-vitro fertilization.”
Despite the apparent silence from Democrats who previously advocated for strict enforcement, Bondi’s office has moved forward with charges against alleged church disruptors. Among those charged are Chauntyll Louisa Allen, a St. Paul school board member, and Nekima Levy Armstrong, who authorities claim played a “key role” in organizing what they described as a “coordinated attack” on Cities Church in St. Paul.
Following the incident, Bondi made her position clear on social media, tweeting: “Listen loud and clear, we do not tolerate attacks on places of worship.”
The case has drawn attention to the political dimensions of FACE Act enforcement, with Republicans now calling for the same vigor in prosecuting disruptions of religious services as has been applied to protesters at abortion facilities. As the legal proceedings unfold, the situation raises questions about consistent application of federal law across the political spectrum and whether protections for different constitutionally protected activities will be enforced with equal measure.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
I’m curious to hear the justification, if any, from the Democratic representatives who pushed for FACE Act enforcement in the past. Their silence on this issue raises serious questions about their commitment to principles of fairness and equal protection under the law.
A consistent, principled stance is crucial for maintaining public trust in government institutions. The lack of response from these lawmakers is troubling and deserves further scrutiny.
This situation highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in how laws like the FACE Act are enforced. The public deserves to know that their elected officials are upholding the principles of equal justice, regardless of political affiliation.
Well said. Selective enforcement of the law undermines public trust and the integrity of the justice system. These lawmakers need to either defend their past positions or explain why they no longer consider the FACE Act a priority.
This highlights the importance of upholding the law impartially, regardless of the political affiliations of those involved. It’s concerning to see potential double standards at play, which can erode faith in the justice system.
I agree. The FACE Act should be applied evenly to all protesters who engage in disruptive or harassing behavior, regardless of their cause or ideology. Selective enforcement undermines the integrity of the law.
The silence from these Democratic lawmakers is puzzling and disappointing. If they truly believe in the importance of the FACE Act, they should be willing to speak up and defend its consistent application, even when it involves protesters they may sympathize with politically.
Exactly. Principled leadership requires standing up for the rule of law, even when it’s inconvenient or politically challenging. The public deserves a clear, unambiguous stance from these representatives.
This seems like a clear-cut case of double standards. The FACE Act should apply equally to all protesters, regardless of their political leanings. It’s concerning to see such blatant hypocrisy from lawmakers who previously championed the law.
Agreed. If the FACE Act is to have any real meaning, it must be enforced consistently and without bias. Selective application undermines the rule of law.
It’s disappointing to see such a clear double standard at play. The FACE Act should be applied consistently, without regard for the political leanings of those involved. The silence from these Democratic representatives is troubling and raises serious questions about their commitment to the rule of law.
I agree completely. Selective enforcement of the law, based on political affiliations, is a dangerous path that erodes public confidence in the justice system. These lawmakers need to provide a clear and consistent explanation for their position on this issue.