Freedom
When Federal Law Only Protects One Side
Faith Facts
- The FACE Act was signed into law in 1994 to protect both abortion facilities and pro-life pregnancy centers from violence and intimidation
- Since 2022, over 400 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches have been documented, yet few prosecutions have occurred under the FACE Act
- Meanwhile, pro-life activists have faced aggressive federal prosecution under the same statute, raising questions about equal application of justice
A federal law meant to protect everyone appears to be enforcing justice selectively. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act was designed to shield both abortion facilities and pro-life pregnancy centers from violence and obstruction. Yet its application tells a troubling story about unequal treatment under the law.
Since its passage in 1994, the FACE Act promised equal protection for all facilities providing reproductive health services. That commitment now rings hollow for many Americans of faith who have watched their churches and crisis pregnancy centers targeted with minimal federal response.
The statistics reveal a troubling pattern. Beginning in 2022, following the Dobbs decision that returned abortion policy to the states, pro-life pregnancy centers and churches experienced a dramatic surge in attacks. Vandalism, arson, and intimidation became routine occurrences across the nation.
More than 400 documented incidents targeted pro-life facilities and houses of worship. Windows were shattered, threatening messages spray-painted on walls, and fire damage inflicted on buildings serving vulnerable women. Yet federal prosecutions under the FACE Act for these crimes remain remarkably rare.
The contrast with enforcement against pro-life activists could not be starker. Federal authorities have pursued FACE Act charges aggressively against those accused of blocking access to abortion facilities, even in cases involving peaceful protest. Some defendants have faced years in federal prison for non-violent civil disobedience.
This disparity raises fundamental questions about justice in America. When federal law enforcement agencies choose which victims deserve protection and which perpetrators merit prosecution, the rule of law itself suffers. Equal protection under the law is not a suggestion—it is a constitutional guarantee.
For Christian Americans who operate pregnancy centers, the message seems clear: your safety matters less. These centers provide free ultrasounds, material support, and counseling to women facing unexpected pregnancies. They serve their communities without government funding, motivated by faith and compassion. Yet when extremists target them with violence, the federal response has been largely silent.
The broken promise of the FACE Act extends beyond statistics. It touches the lives of volunteers who now serve with heightened security concerns, donors who watch their charitable investments literally go up in smoke, and women in crisis who lose access to services because centers cannot afford to rebuild.
Churches have not been spared either. Houses of worship have been vandalized with threatening slogans, their sanctuaries defaced, their congregations intimidated. These are not merely property crimes—they are attacks on religious freedom itself. Yet prosecutions remain scarce.
The path forward requires courage from federal law enforcement. Equal access to reproductive health services, as the FACE Act promises, cannot exist without equal protection for all facilities providing those services. Selective enforcement undermines both justice and public trust.
Congress may need to examine whether the FACE Act requires clarification or whether the problem lies purely in its application. Americans of all perspectives should agree that violence and intimidation have no place in our public discourse, regardless of the target.
Until federal authorities demonstrate genuine commitment to protecting all facilities equally, the FACE Act’s promise remains broken. True justice demands that those who firebomb a pregnancy center face the same federal scrutiny as those who block an abortion clinic’s entrance. Anything less betrays the fundamental American principle of equal justice under law.
The crisis pregnancy centers and churches that have been attacked are not asking for special treatment. They are simply asking for the protection that federal law already promises them. That should not be controversial—it should be guaranteed.
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
Faith Facts
- Abraham Lincoln taught that the measure of any choice is whether it does more good than harm.
- Scripture repeatedly calls believers to choose what protects life, family, and freedom even when no perfect option exists.
- American history shows that principled citizens have often voted against greater evil to preserve liberty for future generations.
When the ballot offers only imperfect candidates, principled voters still have to choose. Abraham Lincoln argued that the real test of a choice isn’t whether it contains any evil, but whether it does more harm than good. By that test, voting against the worst is a moral act, not a compromise.
Many believers wrestle each election cycle with whether casting a ballot for the lesser of two evils betrays their convictions. Yet the alternative—staying home or scattering votes on third-party candidates—has repeatedly allowed the greater evil to prevail in close races.
History records several presidential contests where third-party efforts split the conservative vote and handed victory to policies hostile to faith, family, and freedom. Those outcomes remind Christians that abstaining is itself a choice with lasting consequences.
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
Faith Facts
- Virginia State University has required Christian student organizations to submit to oversight by a single university-employed campus minister.
- Two Christian groups filed suit alleging the policy violates their religious convictions and First Amendment rights.
- The groups claim doctrinal differences with the appointed minister make compliance impossible without compromising their beliefs.
Two Christian student organizations have taken Virginia State University to court, asserting the school has violated their religious liberty by forcing them under the authority of a single campus minister.
The complaint states the policy requires all Christian clubs to operate under the governance of this university-appointed figure regardless of doctrinal alignment.
“The university is compelling these groups to accept spiritual leadership that contradicts their sincerely held beliefs,” the lawsuit argues.
The students maintain the mandate infringes on their freedom to choose leaders who share their theological convictions.
Legal observers note the case raises fresh questions about how public universities may regulate religious expression on campus.
Supporters of the plaintiffs argue that equal access should not require groups to surrender their core religious identity.
“We simply want the same rights extended to every other student organization without having our faith dictated by the state,” one plaintiff representative said.
The university has not yet issued a detailed public response beyond confirming receipt of the legal filing.
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
Faith Facts
- Parents hold the primary God-given responsibility to educate their children according to biblical principles.
- Traditional homeschooling has consistently produced graduates who serve their communities with integrity and skill.
- Local governments should respect parental authority and religious freedom rather than impose unnecessary credentialing barriers.
The city council of Fremont, Nebraska, has unanimously passed a resolution removing an education requirement that had prevented a homeschooled volunteer from applying for a paid firefighter position.
City leaders determined that the previous rule unfairly excluded capable individuals who had completed their education at home.
The decision came after a longtime volunteer firefighter, who graduated through homeschooling, was told he could not be considered for full-time employment because his diploma was not from an accredited institution.
“The council recognized that homeschool graduates bring the same dedication and training to the job as anyone else,” one council member stated during the meeting.
Council members agreed the change aligns with broader community values that honor parental choice in education.
Supporters of the resolution noted that many homeschool families in Nebraska choose this path for faith-based reasons and should not face employment discrimination for following their convictions.
The updated policy now allows the city to consider applicants based on their skills, certifications, and character rather than the source of their high school education.
Local firefighters and residents have welcomed the decision, viewing it as a practical step that strengthens public safety without compromising standards.
“This resolution simply removes an unnecessary obstacle so that qualified men and women can serve their neighbors,” another council member remarked.
City officials expect the change to expand the pool of dedicated candidates ready to protect Fremont families and property.
Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.
-
Self-Reliance2 years agoTrump’s Bold Move Uncovers Massive Social Security Fraud
-
Faith2 years agoNew Clues Emerge in Noah’s Ark Mystery
-
News2 years agoGovernor Walz’s Rhetoric Sparks National Controversy
-
News2 years agoMel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ Sequel Title Announced
-
Family2 years agoTexas Lawmaker Targets Furries in Schools
-
Freedom2 years agoMaine Lawmaker Challenges Sports Fairness Controversy
-
Family1 year agoCanada’s Controversial Policy Sparks Ethical Debate
-
Faith11 months ago
Congress Hears Pleas for Nigerian Christians