Democratic Silence on FACE Act Enforcement in Church Disruption Case
In a striking display of contrasting reactions, Democratic lawmakers who recently pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “fully enforce” the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act against pro-life demonstrators have gone quiet when asked about applying the same law to those who disrupted a Minnesota church service. This silence comes as Bondi’s office has begun pursuing charges against individuals involved in the January 18 disruption of a Baptist service in the Twin Cities, including a local school board member and an organizer allegedly behind what Bondi termed a “coordinated attack” on Cities Church in St. Paul.
The apparent inconsistency is particularly noteworthy given that in March 2025, 75 Democratic representatives, led by Sean Casten and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and Jerrold Nadler of New York, signed a letter urging Bondi to ensure the FACE Act was rigorously applied to protect “women and health care providers” from being “threatened, harassed, or abused while trying to enter reproductive health care facilities.” Despite multiple attempts by Fox News Digital to contact these representatives and numerous co-signers—including high-profile Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Steve Cohen—only one office, that of Representative Eric Swalwell, acknowledged the inquiry, stating they were “looking into” the matter. This collective silence places these lawmakers in a potentially awkward position: either publicly support the current prosecutions under the FACE Act, openly break with the attorney general they previously pressured, or continue their silence as Republicans demand equal enforcement.
The FACE Act, originally championed by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, contains provisions protecting both abortion clinics and the public exercise of First Amendment rights to religious freedom. In their letter to Bondi, the Democrats acknowledged that while “individuals have the right to freedom of speech and the right to peacefully gather to protest,” they “do not have the right to use physical force or intimidation” that might threaten access to healthcare services. This principle would seemingly apply equally to protecting religious services from disruption, making the lawmakers’ current silence particularly notable.
The church disruption that prompted the current controversy reportedly targeted a Baptist minister with connections to local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. Among those allegedly involved in the disruption was former CNN host Don Lemon, though a magistrate judge has rejected charges against him specifically. Attorney General Bondi has been unequivocal in her response to the incident, declaring on social media: “Listen loud and clear, we do not tolerate attacks on places of worship.” This firm stance places pressure on the Democratic representatives to clarify whether their support for FACE Act enforcement extends beyond protecting abortion services to include religious services as well.
The broader context of this situation reflects the increasingly partisan nature of law enforcement priorities, with both sides accusing the other of selective enforcement based on ideological alignment. Republicans have long criticized what they see as disproportionate enforcement of the FACE Act against pro-life activists while alleged violations by abortion rights supporters receive less attention. Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that threats to reproductive healthcare access justify robust federal intervention. The current situation has created a moment where consistent application of the law across ideological lines is being tested in a very public manner.
As this story continues to develop, the silence from the Democratic representatives who previously advocated for strong FACE Act enforcement speaks volumes about the political complexities involved. Their eventual response—or continued lack thereof—will likely reveal much about how consistently they believe federal protections should be applied when it comes to safeguarding both reproductive healthcare facilities and religious services from disruption and intimidation. Meanwhile, Attorney General Bondi appears committed to enforcing the law against those who allegedly disrupted the church service, setting up a potential conflict with some of the very lawmakers who recently urged her to take a hard line on FACE Act violations in other contexts.
