Potential Jurors in DC Trial of Pro-Lifers Admit to Being Planned Parenthood Donors, Abortion Activists

Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D. : Aug 15, 2023
LifeSiteNews.com

A firsthand account of days one and two in the DC courtroom where pro-lifers are facing up to 10 years in prison in an historic FACE case.

(Washington, DC) — [LifeSiteNews.com] August 9, 2023 was the first day of the trial of five of the nine pro-lifers charged with violating the FACE law 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. (Image: via LifeSiteNews-screengrab)

The cases have been divided into two separate trials. On trial on August 9 were Will Goodman, John Hinshaw, Heather Idoni, Lauren Handy, and pro-lifer known as Herb Geraghty. Their very dedicated and able attorneys are Martin Cannon, Steve Crampton, Howard Walsh, Robert Dunn, John Kiyonaga, Alfred Guillaune, and Bierina Jasari.

The Federal court judge is Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Many pro-lifers filled the courtroom, several of them from PAAU—the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, members of whom held a press conference that morning outside of the court at 333 Constitution Ave, NW inDC.

Media were present, most notably a reporter from the Washington Post who also attended the trial itself.

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... Subscribe for free to Breaking Christian News here

Continue reading Here.