The Constitution Won't Save Us Forever

Adam Smith-Connor was convicted for praying silently outside an abortion clinic.

When Americans hear of blatant human rights abuses in other Western countries, they typically rejoice that such a thing cannot happen here, a notion usually based on the perceived strength of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, as our society loses the understanding of what rights are and from whence they came, that document will lose its meaning and its force. A closer look will reveal that this is already happening.

To see where we are going, one need only glance at the October 16th conviction in Britain of Adam Smith-Connor. He is a British veteran who served in Afghanistan and was prosecuted for praying silently outside of an abortion clinic. A police officer had approached him when he was doing so and asked, “What is the nature of your prayer?” The government prosecutor would later argue that his head being bowed was indicative of his disapproval of abortion, and one cannot disapprove of abortions within a “buffer zone” around the clinic.

Yes, British abortion clinics now have special protection written into the law, so that those who are seeking abortions never have to see anyone who might help them to make a different decision. (Side note: That’s not a fantasy. There are plenty of occasions of scared pregnant mothers who talk to such activists, get directed to pro-life clinics, and get the help that they need to care for their children. These mothers make up a surprising percentage of pro-life activists. Women who are seeking abortions invariably do so because they falsely believe that they have no other options.)

If it strikes you as shocking that abortion is the one industry that receives such special protection as to be immune from the sight of opposition, remember that being pro-death is a huge part of the modern state religion, including its promotion of abortion, euthanasia, contraception, and even unchecked immigration (cultural death). While Adam Smith-Connor was not the first to be arrested for this non-crime, he was the first to be convicted. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said that it was the “first known conviction of a thoughtcrime in modern British history.”

On this side of the ocean, Bevelyn Beatty Williams is going to spend 3 years in prison in the United States for her activism against abortion in New York. Bevelyn, a stay-at-home mother, attempted to block the entrance to a clinic using her body. While that would have historically led to a misdemeanor charge, the Biden-Harris Administration used the FACE Act to result in a much more serious conviction. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) Act is an obvious precursor to the more draconian British-style buffer zone. It takes behavior that would have been deemed minor ordinarily, and dramatically increases its legal severity, for the sake of enshrining abortion.

The FACE Act makes it a federal offense to:

[by] force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services. 

Thus, blocking an entrance becomes a much bigger crime, but only if it’s an abortion clinic. When Black Lives Matter attacked a Ronald McDonald House? That didn’t count. When the same leftist protestors forcibly shut down Urgent Care centers because they were throwing bricks through every glass pane? That doesn’t count. The FACE Act, like England’s equivalent, only applies to abortion (“reproductive care”). This really amounts to the targeting of one group of activists on the basis of their political, moral, and religious convictions.

This legal situation would have been so anathematic to the Founders of the United States as to be almost impossible to explain. That might not seem to matter, but those who base their hopes for the long-term protection of rights in the U.S. Constitution are also presuming an originalist interpretation thereof—which is increasingly being ignored. We are passing laws that are so opposed to the Natural Law principles that the Constitution was based upon that it is just a matter of time before this topic comes to a head. If we disregard wholly what was meant and understood at that time, then it is useless for its purpose. The danger is that with the rejection of that underpinning, soon the government will operate without restraint, stomping on the rights of its citizens with the same wanton disregard as the formerly civilized country of England.