No Dismissal

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia declined to dismiss an indictment charging conspiracy to deny access to reproductive health care

The Indictment centers on Defendants’ successful scheme to disrupt access to a reproductive health clinic in this District of Columbia on October 22, 2020. Indictment at 5. The Indictment alleges that Defendant Handy orchestrated this conspiracy, directing her co-Defendants to undertake various preparations to blockade the clinic. Id. For example, Defendant Harlow allegedly brought with her a duffle bag containing chain and rope, which Defendants Smith, Harlow, Marshall, Hinshaw, and Bell used to lock the clinic’s doors. Id. at 6. For her part, Defendant Handy allegedly made an appointment at the clinic under a false name in order to ensure her entry and her co-conspirators shortly thereafter. See id. at 4. According to the Indictment, at least Defendant Smith’s entry was particularly violent, causing a nurse “to stumble and break her ankle.” Id. at 5. Defendant Handy then purportedly directed others to blockade the clinic’s doors, locking staff in and potential patients out. See id. at 5-6. In particular, Defendants Goodman and Idoni allegedly “blocked [a] [p]atient from entering the [c]linic.” Id. at 6. Meanwhile, Defendant Darnel live-streamed the incursion, telling listeners that he and co-conspirators had “intervene[d] physically with their bodies to prevent women from entering the clinic[.]” Id.

The court rejected several claims including selective prosecution and “overcharging”

Defendants’ last argument is somewhat more difficult to parse. It appears that Defendants maintain that the Fourteenth Amendment attaches a life or liberty interest to a fetus, and therefore the FACE Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prevents private citizens from interfering with a private clinic that terminates a fetus. See Mot. at 6. As an initial matter, no court has yet to hold that a fetus is due constitutional protections. The Court need not even address the question, however, for this case concerns not the constitutionality of reproductive health services, but rather the obstruction of services that are lawful under state and federal law. Assuming such a life or liberty interest arguendo, Defendants actually argue that they should be immune from criminal liability in order to take the enforcement of a constitutional provision into their own hands. That is vigilantism, which the law does not permit. Cf. United States v. Zeese, 437 F. Supp. 3d 86, 100 (D.D.C. 2020) (“Considered disagreement with a legal duty embodied in the criminal law is not a defense to a charged criminal violation[.]”); Goldfuss v. Davidson, 679 N.E. 2d 1099, 1104 (Ohio
1997) (“The law should not encourage [and has not encouraged] vigilantism.”). As the caselaw addressing the FACE Act explains, the remedy to protect the purported rights of a fetus comes through the ballot box or peaceful protest, not through rope and chain. See United States v. Gregg, 226 F.3d 253, 267-78 (3d Cir. 2000); Terry, 101 F.3d at 1420. As such, this last challenge fails.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly authored the opinion. (Mike Frisch)