Fri. Jul 19th, 2024

Opinion By Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph. D. – August 14, 2023 – Excerpts

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — August 9, 2023 was the first day of the trial of five of the nine pro-lifers charged with violating the FACE law (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act) and the additional federal charge of conspiracy to interfere with civil rights – which alone carries a 10-year maximum prison term and $230,000 in possible fines. These charges are the result of the rescue nine pro-lifers conducted on October 22, 2020 at the Washington Capitol Surgi-Center – the Santangelo abortion facility where abortions are committed through the ninth month of pregnancy.

On August 9 jury selection began with a whopping 154 prospective jurors. They were given a card on which they had to note answers to no less than 34 voir dire questions. Most questions were very technical, i.e. “Have you or any close friends or family members had an experience with law enforcement that would make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial in this case?” or “Would you give more weight to the testimony of a witness simply because that witness was a law enforcement officer?”

Okay – let’s cut to the chase. The really significant questions were numbers 20, 21, and 22. Question 20: “In this trial ‘abortion’ will be mentioned, but this case is not about abortion [RIGHT, OF COURSE NOT!] – not whether it is right or wrong, just or unjust – it’s about whether clinics have a right to operate. Do you have any beliefs about abortion that would render you to not be fair and impartial in this case?”

Question 21: “Have you ever belonged to or contributed to any group that advocates for or against abortion?” Question 22: “Have you or a close friend or family member ever participated in any demonstration either for or against abortion?”

Jurors were brought into the courtroom one at a time. And wow, the voir dire, most of it conducted personally by the judge, was a long and incredibly tedious process. Yes, at this slow rate of jury selection, the trial may well take three weeks as the judge herself announced.

And here’s why the jury selection in this pro-life case was jury selection in pro-abortion la la land. Four jurors answered “Yes” to questions 20, 21, 22 and they were all pro-abortion. Two of these potential jurors admitted to donating to Planned Parenthood, supported legalized abortion, and that access to abortion was important to them. One potential juror said his wife donated to Planned Parenthood, but he didn’t really have a problem with it.

Another potential juror said that she actually attended women’s marches in D.C. because the marches, among other “women’s issues,” supported abortion. She said that she had very committed views in support of abortion, and believed access to abortion was important! And, she was employed as the media consultant for a congresswoman who supported legalized abortion.

So here’s a potential juror totally committed to abortion, who personally advocates for abortion – and yet Judge Kollar-Kotelly did not strike her for cause. And why? Hey, all these pro-death jurors had to do, despite their commitment to the legalized killing of babies, was say the magic words, “I can still be fair and impartial.” That’s all it took.

Let’s not forget – the pro-lifers are charged with FACE. FACE is specifically about securing access to abortion – and these pro-lifers are charged with physically preventing access to abortion when they defended the unborn from being put to death.

Even when the pro-life attorneys called for the judge to strike these pro-abortion potential jurors for cause because they said they believed access to abortion was important, Kollar-Kotelly actually defended them, saying: “But access to abortion is legal” – meaning that they could not be struck for supporting something that was legal.

This is jury selection, yes —in pro-abortion la la land. What is the la la land? It’s la la land that such jurors, so dedicated to legal abortion would – even could – be fair and impartial. Are you kidding?! Certainly, the risk is too great to the defense of the pro-lifers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *