Opinion

The targeting of pro-life protesters

Protesting is becoming increasingly common in our world.

Protesting. It’s a rather common thing in our world today. No matter if you’re talking about the Occupy Wall Street protesters, the Arab Spring protesters, pro-life protesters, the Westboro Baptist Church protesters, or the “kiss-in” protesters at Chick-fil-A, protesting is becoming less of a foreign idea and more of the “thing” to do. Thankfully, unlike many protesters throughout the world, we live in a nation that guarantees our right to free speech and our right to speak out in support of or against certain ideas.

Of course, we all could easily name protesters we agree with and those whom we completely oppose. (Personally, I particularly disagree with the Westboro protesters, since it’s obvious that they give Christianity a bad name with their outlandish claims and cruel statements.) It’s obvious to anyone who’s read my articles that I agree with the position of most pro-life protesters. Welcome to America. We all have the right to support and not support a variety of causes.

But here’s what I don’t like – and I’m hoping you can agree with me here. Pro-life protesters are specifically called out and unfairly discriminated against. The “kiss-in” declared by the gay community yesterday at Chick-fil-A restaurants across the nation is a perfect example. Nowhere do you hear widespread outrage against this protest. Nowhere do you hear people overwhelmingly demand that innocent children should not be exposed to the kissing or other actions of people who their parents may teach them are morally wrong. Nowhere do you hear demands for “bubble laws” against gay protesters outside family restaurants.

Regardless of your stance on gay rights, we can all agree that there were families at Chick-fil-A yesterday who didn’t want their children to watch two men kiss. We can all agree that Chick-fil-A does not support gay marriage – although the people there have stated that they will freely serve any person, regardless of sexual orientation. We can all agree that the “kiss-in” was an “in-your-face” protest: we’ll do what we want, anywhere we want, no matter what you or anyone else thinks. Okay, this is America. The gay community technically has the right to do this, no matter how much their actions were in bad taste or offensive to some.

Students stand together in prayerful protest – Photo credit: Bethany Bolen

Here’s the problem: people constantly complain about pro-life protesters who hold up signs of aborted babies or who stand outside abortion clinics – or the houses of abortion doctors – and protest what’s happening. These protesters are commonly called out for “offensiveness” and “bad taste.” Cities and states pass “bubble laws.” Pro-life protesters are arrested for actions that no other protesters can be arrested for. And why? Simply because of the issue they are protesting. This is wrong, discriminatory, and very hypocritical. Plain and simple, it’s un-American.

Now, I can already hear some people saying that pro-life protesting is different from yesterday’s “kiss-in.” After all, pro-life protesting is much more common. Well, so? Just because a viewpoint is more commonly protested against, should the protesting be prohibited? Exactly how does that support free speech? Others will say that the posters of bloody, cut up aborted babies are much more offensive than two men kissing. Well, in whose opinion? Yours, obviously. But not everyone will agree. And each American has the right to be more offended by one thing than another. The fact that an action is offensive is not a reason for the person doing that action to lose his or her free speech rights.

Still others will claim that the women entering abortion clinics are in a perilous time of life and need to be protected. But aren’t small children in Chick-fil-A young, impressionable, and arguably in a perilous time of life themselves? Couldn’t we argue that parents should have the right to take their children to a family restaurant without the risk of seeing offensive public displays of affection? And again, I’m not arguing for or against gay rights – I’m simply putting forward arguments that many Americans could indeed make.

Let’s finally consider the position of abortion clinic workers – who many believe should not be exposed to protesters as they enter and leave their workplace. Yet it’s the very same argument that could be made for the employees of Chick-fil-A – many of whom are young high school students. Why should they be exposed to protesters, including some who may be rude or unkind to them because of the company they work for?

Indeed, this protest situation in America is patently unfair and targeted against pro-lifers. Though pro-life protesters are protesting an actual act that kills people (abortion) and not mere words of personal opinion (Chick-fil-A), they are the ones who are arrested, attacked, and targeted in the law. The situation truly couldn’t be more un-American.

Live Action on Facebook
  • peach

    I don’t think anyone is telling you that you don’t have the right to protest. But that whole freedom thing goes both ways. People have the right to tell you to eff off when you’re protesting. The fact that you’re experiencing backlash more than people protesting against homophobia probably should tell you something.

    • Emilia

      Yes, people can tell pro-life protestors to “eff off”, because they have freedom of speech. However, if someone were to tell those at the “kiss-in” to eff off, they would be torn down for ‘hate speech’. The double standard is un-american and ridiculous. And yes, it is telling. What it tells me if that you can only protest if you’re the ‘right sort of person’ and you only have free speech if it’s the ‘right sort of speech’, which sort of defies the point.

      Also, it’s not homophobia to respect marriage.

      • Detroiter327

        I enjoy this “respect of marriage” idea. Lets go into it! How do you look at two men/women getting married as disrespectful, but a person who divorces and remarries a partner of the opposite sex (multiple times) as respectful? Is the double standard un-American and ridiculous? You are drawing a double standard right there. So straight people are allowed to abuse the sanctity of marriage, but gay people cannot prove their love to each other.
        And yes! If you think that only gay people can disrespect marriage then it is homophobic.

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          And here is where I would agree with you Detroiter…the rampant divorce among men and women is indeed an abuse of the sanctity of marriage, and all of us who oppose gay marriage ought to equally – if not more so – speak out against so much divorce.

          • peach

            So are you saying it should be illegal to get divorced? If not, why? If you don’t have a problem forcing your morals onto some people’s relationships then why not others?

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Hmmm…where did I say that all divorce should be illegal? I simply agreed with Detroiter that people who oppose gay marriage ought to be consistent and take a stand against rampant divorce. Rampant divorce hurts the sanctity of marriage and hurts plenty of families – especially kids. My personal opinion is that marriage should be legally recognized as between one man and one woman and that divorce should be much harder to get than it is now.

            However, since the point of this article is discrimination against pro-life protesters, let’s stick to the issue please. I’m not trying to create a debate about gay marriage or divorce here.

          • peach

            That was my point exactly. You didn’t say divorce should be illegal. But you don’t want gay marriage to be legal. Why can’t you force your morals on some people’s relationships (you don’t like divorce but you don’t want it to be illegal) but you can force your morals on some other people’s relationships (you don’t like gay marriage and you don’t want it to be legal)?

            I know you’re not trying to start a debate, but I’ll just finish by saying it really doesn’t surprise me that you’re also against gay marriage. Some (potential) people’s lives are just more important than others eh? Hopefully those fetuses you try to save don’t turn out to be gay.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Unfortunately, you continue to mischaracterize my views and my statements. No person’s life is more important than another’s life – regardless of whether I agree with their beliefs or actions or not. What someone does with their life does not change their infinite value as a human being.

          • driveswift

            Well said Peach.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      My point is that many laws are passed against pro-life protesters, specifically. So while our “right to protest” has not been entirely taken away, it has been restricted and limited – unlike the rights of almost every other type of protester. That’s what un-American – discriminating against protesters based on what they’re protesting. Our laws should not be allowed to do that…

      • LifeofPi

        But that’s not true. Throughout history you have examples of protests that have been restricted. Like I said above, Occupy Wall Street is a recent example, at least in my town. In addition, the Westboro Church, while they can protest at funerals, are required to stay a certain distance away.

  • Pingback: The Targeting of Pro-Life Protesters | Live Action News & Opinion | A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • Pingback: The Targeting of Pro-Life Protesters – Live Action News & Opinion | Occupy Wall Street Info

  • ProTruth2

    Trying to explain how clinic protests are different from the “kiss-in” is like trying to explain why a woman ignores the ex-boyfriend who calls her once but seeks a restraining order against the one who calls her a hundred times. It can’t be done. If the difference isn’t obvious to you, then no amount of explanation will help.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      I agree. There is a very obvious difference between two people kissing at a fast-food restaurant and calling attention to the fact that a particular building exists for the purpose of butchering inconvenient people….

  • Guest

    “Here’s the problem: people constantly complain about pro-life protesters who hold up signs of aborted babies or who stand outside abortion clinics – or the houses of abortion doctors – and protest what’s happening.”

    Okay, leaving aside the first part, are you seriously defending protesting outside someone’s home? And what exactly is “happening” inside that person’s home that you’re protesting? A doctor living out his or her life with his or her family? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that anyone follows Chick-Fil-A employees home and protests outside their houses.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      You may want to quote the rest of my paragraph there, because that statement is best understood in context. I’m not defending any certain way of protesting in particular…I’m explaining the situation =) Here’s the rest of what I said:

      These protesters are commonly called out for “offensiveness” and “bad taste.” Cities and states pass “bubble laws.” Pro-life protesters are arrested for actions that no other protesters can be arrested for. And why? Simply because of the issue they are protesting. This is wrong, discriminatory, and very hypocritical. Plain and simple, it’s un-American.

      • peach

        The reason for those bubble laws is that the pro-life protesters are there on the regular and they have caused disturbances. The other protesters you gave examples of don’t have laws because they aren’t regularly at the same spot. But they usually do have designated areas for protest (even Westboro has restrictions on where they can protest, like a certain distance away from whatever funeral they decide to disrupt) and if the protesters are causing a disturbance, you can bet the police will show up to break it up no matter how righteous the cause (and can even be arrested for it). Also, those bubble laws only apply to pro-life protesters outside of clinics, correct? You can still protest outside government buildings and on college campuses and whatnot.

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          You are correct about the bubble laws applying only to pro-life protesters outside of clinics. And that’s exactly my point. To my knowledge, no other protesting group has had a law passed against them that tells them how many feet they must stay away from a person they are talking to.

          Also, the regularity of protests should not take away people’s First Amendment rights. Either we have the right to protest or we don’t. And if you want to call talking women out of killing their children “disturbances,” go ahead, but I can think of far more disturbing protesting actions than that – and they are 100% legal.

          • LifeofPi

            But if you use Occupy Wall Street as an example, they were, at least in my town, allowed to protest at first. However, because they did it so often and on a regular basis it became a disruption for the people trying to get into the town’s banks. At that point, the police had to step in and say they had to stay far enough away from the building or they would be arrested. I don’t see how this scenario is any different from people protesting at abortion clinics.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            The difference is still that laws are being passed to stop pro-lifers from standing next to people when they talk to them. The distance they must stand in some laws prevents them from even having a conversation unless they shout or talk annoyingly loud. I still have never heard of those kind of laws being passed against any other type of protester. There’s also a difference in laws that are passed and police controlling a certain situation – a big difference.

          • driveswift

            I had an ectopic pregnancy which I probably would have kept otherwise, and seeing the “pro-life” protesters outside and thinking of Rick Santorum saying he would just let me die made the experience even worse. There is NOTHING more disturbing to me than that day, and no group of people who I loathe more now.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Where did Santorum say he’d just let you die?

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Honestly, I don’t know of any pro-lifers who would “just let you die.” On the contrary, we believe that women have the right to life just as much as an unborn baby does. The purpose of removing an ectopic pregnancy is not to kill the baby – it’s to save the mother. That’s incredibly different from an abortion, and every mother does have the right to live.

  • Detroiter327

    Personally I dislike PDA in any form. Do you find a gay couple making out as offensive as a straight couple making out? Are you morally opposed to both?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1504686413 Dana Tafel Nalls

      I don’t “make out” with my husband in public. PDA is tacky. Don’t care who’s doing it. Get a room.

  • ProTruth2

    protesting is becoming less of a foreign idea and more of the “thing” to do.

    Protesting has actually never been a “foreign idea” in America. The term ‘kiss-in’ is itself a reference to the sit-ins that were used to protest segregation in the ’60s and have become a common protest technique ever since.

    Cities and states pass “bubble laws.” Pro-life protesters are arrested for actions that no other protesters can be arrested for. And why? Simply because of the issue they are protesting. This is wrong, discriminatory, and very hypocritical.

    I think that we ought to distinguish between ‘laws’ and ‘arrests.’ Anyone can be arrested wrongly, so pro-life protesters “can be” and “are” arrested for actions that other protesters were not arrested for. However, Constitutionally-valid bubble laws must be content-neutral, and so pro-life protesters may not be arrested when “no other protesters can be.” Since buffer laws are complex, it is indeed possible that unconstitutional laws may be passed, inappropriate arrests may be made, and the entire issue may have to work its way through the appeal system. But it is, ultimately, not constitutional for pro-lifers to be arrested simply because of the issue that they are protesting.

    It would also be incorrect to imply that existing bubble laws are uniquely targeted at pro-lifers. If you Google terms like “no-protest zone,” “free speech zone” or “non-demonstration zone,” you’ll see that it is not uncommon for laws to be passed that ban protesting of all sorts around political conventions or conferences. You’re probably aware of the ADF’s recent loss in its appeal of the arrest of two pro-life protestors at the 2004 Republican convention. It is absolutely uncontested that the protest zone restrictions were not targeted specifically at pro-life speech, and hundreds of other people were arrested as well. Buffer laws have also successfully been passed to restrict protesting at funerals.

    We also should distinguish between protesters’ beliefs and their methods. Bubble laws are indeed often a reaction to pro-lifers, but this is because of their conduct: specifically, their conduct of hindering access to buildings and refusing to leave people alone when those people have asked to be left alone. I can assure you that if gay rights protesters made a habit of chasing after people who had walked away from them and then jumping in front of them and kissing, someone would pass a law against that conduct. If gay rights activists were to station themselves for hours in front of an elementary school and kiss whenever a child approached, then someone would pass a law against that conduct. The law might or might not stand, but it would be passed. And gay people who hold sit-ins after they are denied a marriage license do get arrested for trespassing when their actions are in violation of the law, although their beliefs are not.

    I realize that clinic protestors think there is nothing wrong with their methods of protest. However, it is disingenuous at best to pretend that they are being discriminated against because of what they are protesting, rather than how they are protesting.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      A few points….

      I entirely agree with you that non-neutral bubble zone laws are unconstitutional. That’s one of the exact ways that the First Amendment rights of pro-life protesters are being violated. So, it appears we can agree that while many bubble laws are unconstitutional, they are still passed and applied. Thus the need to discuss them.

      Additionally, the buffer laws you’re talking about (standing a certain number of feet away from a government building, etc.) are totally fine because they are applied to every kind of protester. But the bubble laws are different. In several states/cities, bubble laws are applied to tell pro-life protesters exactly how many feet they can stand from a person while they talk to him or her. I have never heard of that kind of law being passed against any other type of protester.

      If you’d like to claim the laws are passed because of pro-life protesters’ methods vs. their beliefs, go ahead. I’m certain there’s a mix of both. The problem is that the “methods” usually include handing out literature to women and talking to them. That shouldn’t be banned under any reasoning – whether people like the method or not. And if you’re only referring to pro-lifers who sit outside the clinic doors and prevent women from entering, I’m very interested in whether or not you would have sat outside the Nazi concentration camps with a bunch of your friends to stop the Jews from entering and being killed.

      • Kristiburtonbrown

        P.S. I am actually not a pro-life protester. I’ve never participated in a pro-life protest in my life (unless you call the March for Life a protest). I’ve never stood outside an abortion clinic. However, I firmly believe in the right of my pro-life friends to do these things. Pro-lifers are equal citizens with equal First Amendment rights, and we ought to be protected as such.

      • LifeofPi


        if you’re only referring to pro-lifers who sit outside the clinic doors and prevent women from entering, I’m very interested in whether or not you would have sat outside the Nazi concentration camps with a bunch of your friends to stop the Jews from entering and being killed.”

        The problem here is, many people don’t believe that the two are equatable. Therefore, they only see pro lifers preventing people from entering a building that they want to enter (many of whom are only going into PP for birth control or tests, not abortion), which they see as harassment, may feel threatened, etc.

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          True. Many people don’t believe they are equatable. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are equatable. Both examples are the “elimination” of “unwanted” human beings. One was sanctioned by the government; the other is permitted by the government.

          • driveswift

            Human beings breathe on their own, eat and excrete fluids on their own. Until it is viable outside of the womb, it is still a part of the mother. There is a huge difference, and as a Jew I find this the most offensive of the “christian” arguments. Nowhere did Jesus or the Bible mention abortion. Nowhere.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            The baby is in the mother, yes, but I’m not sure how you can say the baby is part of the mother. I hardly think the mother has four arms, four legs, or two hearts. The baby is definitely a separate, unique human being.

            I’d disagree with you that the Bible and Jesus don’t mention abortion. Granted, you won’t find the word “abortion” in the Bible, just as you won’t find the word “holocaust,” “genocide,” or a lot of other horrible things that Biblical principles and Jesus’ teachings clearly condemn. The Bible is very clearly that God creates each person long before they are born, and it is also very clear that we are not to kill an innocent person.

        • LifeofPi

          But whether they are equatable or not is not my point. My point is that since they are not viewed as equatable, laws are put into place from that perspective. Going from that perspective, they are legal.

      • ProTruth2

        But the bubble laws are different. In several states/cities, bubble
        laws are applied to tell pro-life protesters exactly how many feet they
        can stand from a person while they talk to him or her. I have never
        heard of that kind of law being passed against any other type of
        protester.

        Bubble laws do not prevent protesters from standing as close to a person as they wish, provided that the person consents to the conversation. While bubble laws may be instigated by pro-life protesters, they do not apply uniquely to them: all protesters within a bubble zone area must remain at a defined distance from someone who does not wish to speak to them. Please see the Supreme Court decisions in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center and Hill v. Colorado if you need clarification on those points, as they discuss pretty much all the issues that you have raised.

        I’m very interested in whether or not you would have sat outside the
        Nazi concentration camps with a bunch of your friends to stop the Jews
        from entering and being killed.

        I like to think that I would have. Do you believe that women who have abortions and Nazi executioners are equally guilty of atrocities, or do you believe that Nazi executioners and women who have abortions are equally incapable of comprehending their actions?

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          Well, except that the laws in those cases you mention do apply to pro-life protesters only. Who else protests outside of abortion clinics? So no matter how they are written, the laws are purposely made against pro-life protesters. If it was a law, for example, that said no one could stand within 6 feet (unless invited) of another person to talk to them outside any privately owned business or on any public sidewalk in the state or city, that would be a fair (though unconstitutional, in my opinion) law. But to only have those laws outside of abortion clinics makes it pretty clear who’s being targeted.

          If you would have done that outside of Nazi camps, than you must at least understand how we pro-lifers feel about babies who are being aborted. We feel that same need to save them. I admire you that you would like to take that stand for the Jews.

          Personally, I believe almost everyone is perfectly capable of comprehending their actions. I also believe that the Nazis atrocities were bigger in scale, only because many of them killed more Jews than each woman has abortions. In total, though, of course, more babies have been aborted than Jews killed in the Holocaust. I also believe that some women – and some Nazis probably – are/were very deceived as to the humanity of the people they killed. So no, I don’t believe every woman – or every Nazi – was a cold-hearted killer. Though that doesn’t take away at all from how wrong it is to kill another human being…

          • driveswift

            Did you know that under Jewish law if there is any threat to the life of the mother, an abortion is sanctioned? According to the best historical research available, we were the ones who invented the procedure to protect the mother from death related to pregnancy or ailments which threatened the lives of both mother and child.

  • Detroiter327

    You work for a law group (Alliance Defense Fund) that attempts to systematically deprive gay people of their rights. The President and founders of the Alliance Defense Fund routinely refer to gay people as disgusting, and homosexual acts as evil. The President of it actually wrote an entire book on it. They blatantly come out and say gay people should not be allowed around children. I guess I just don’t understand how you can feign any neutrality (Im not saying this I just see how someone could say that etc) when your employer so publicly puts these homophobic views out there. 

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      First, your characterization of ADF is not the full picture of their work on the issues of marriage and gay rights. Secondly, I do not work with them on this issue currently because I am focusing on the pro-life issue. Finally, and in general, it’s a pretty lame argument to talk about the beliefs of an organization that I volunteer for and say that I have the exact same views. I’ve specifically stated that this article is not a debate on gay rights.

  • John son of John

    Shalom
    God bless you!!