A curious silence has fallen over a group of Democratic lawmakers. Months ago, they urgently called for strict enforcement of the FACE Act against pro-life protestors, demanding the Attorney General fully prosecute those obstructing access to reproductive healthcare facilities.
Now, facing a similar situation – the disruption of a Baptist church service in Minnesota – those same voices are conspicuously quiet. The Attorney General has already filed FACE Act charges against the agitators involved in that incident, creating a difficult crossroads for the Democrats who previously championed the law’s aggressive application.
In March of 2025, Representatives Sean Casten, Jan Schakowsky, and Jerrold Nadler led a letter signed by 75 Democrats, explicitly requesting full enforcement of the FACE Act to protect patients and healthcare providers from threats and harassment. The letter emphasized the importance of safeguarding access to a wide range of healthcare services.
When asked if they would support similar prosecution of the individuals who disrupted the church service, the offices of Casten, Schakowsky, and Nadler remained unresponsive. The silence extends to most of the other signatories, including prominent figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bonnie Watson-Coleman.
The disrupted service took place at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, and reportedly involved individuals connected to local Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. One of the reverends had ties to ICE, adding another layer of complexity to the situation.
Only one representative, Eric Swalwell, acknowledged the inquiry, stating that their office was “looking into” the matter. This minimal response highlights the discomfort surrounding the issue and the potential political ramifications.
The Democrats’ original letter acknowledged the rights to free speech and peaceful protest, but firmly asserted that these rights do not extend to physical force or intimidation. They argued that such actions threaten access to essential healthcare services, including abortion care, cancer screenings, and prenatal care.
The FACE Act, however, isn’t limited to protecting abortion clinics; it also safeguards the free exercise of religious rights. This dual purpose is now at the heart of the debate, as the Attorney General applies the law to protect a place of worship from disruption.
Charges have already been filed against individuals allegedly involved in the disruption, including Chauntyll Louisa Allen, a St. Paul school board member, and Nekima Levy Armstrong, identified as a key organizer of the event. The Attorney General made a clear statement following the incident: “We do not tolerate attacks on places of worship.”
This case presents a stark test of principle for those who previously demanded strict enforcement of the FACE Act. Will they publicly support the prosecution in this instance, potentially breaking with the Attorney General they once pressured, or will they remain silent as Republicans call for consistent application of the law?
