“Rescue” Tactics Shock But Rarely, If Ever, Save

A group of activists has announced their intention to blockade a Planned Parenthood this week – facilitating a “rescue” – in an effort to prevent clients from receiving abortion referrals. In more recent years, modern-day “rescue” supporters have been prosecuted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, resulting in prison sentences.

Witnesses at a “rescue” in Michigan a few years ago described the activists as “aggressive,” “intimidating,” “chaotic,” and “haranguing.” Meanwhile, due to the crowd that the group attracted, Sidewalk Advocates – who are committed to peaceful, prayerful, and law-abiding outreach on the public right-of-way – were obstructed from sharing life-affirming options with clients entering the facility. As a result, “rescuers,” hoping to stop abortion in its tracks, instead concerningly halted life-saving outreach.

This upcoming “rescue” has already had the same chilling effect: leaders of the local Sidewalk Advocates team have asked their volunteers to stay off the sidewalk for the duration of the event to clearly separate themselves from those planning to break the law.

Trained Sidewalk Advocates sign a Pledge of Integrity promising to abide by the principles of peaceful and law-abiding outreach. This approach has proven incredibly effective, resulting in more than 25,000 preborn babies saved from abortion, 107 abortion workers guided out of the industry, and 71 abortion and abortion-referral facilities permanently closed in the 11 years since the organization’s founding.

This approach was tried in the 1980s and 90s as a way to stop abortions and close abortion businesses; however, understanding that historic “rescue” activities were born from a different set of circumstances, Sidewalk Advocates for Life urges an end to “rescue” activities in the modern area, due to the following concerns:

1. Pro-life outreach ends if you ignore the law and go to jail. While FACE Act prosecutions have lessened under the current federal administration, the standard statute of limitations for breaking the FACE Act is five years; so prosecution could await these activists under a future, less friendly, administration. We need dedicated pro-life individuals serving women in ways that are proven to save lives in the short and long term. “Rescuers” may face prison sentences instead of availing themselves of countless future opportunities to interface with mothers in crisis and help connect them to America’s renowned pregnancy resource centers. Additionally, the FACE Act combined with RICO can be used to prosecute organizations – even people who were not directly involved in the “rescue” – meaning the acts of a few have the power to destroy a pro-life ministry.
2. Former abortion facility workers say this method doesn’t work. We know from former abortion workers and former Planned Parenthood executives like Abby Johnson that entering abortion facilities, barricading doors, and confronting staff and clients lead to workers painting all pro-life individuals with the same brush – as untrustworthy and even dangerous. Moreover, because abortion-facility clients do not know what to expect from those employing a law-breaking approach, they are inclined to further align with the abortion workers offering them what appears to be a peaceful “solution” in a state of crisis. This creates a unified force between the abortion industry and abortion-vulnerable women, instead of creating trust between the abortion-vulnerable woman and the Sidewalk Advocate that often develops through peaceful, winsome, legal sidewalk advocacy. Even more importantly, abortion workers have told us that, after experiencing an incident like this, women almost always go forward with their abortion – whether rescheduled at that facility or another nearby one – so no one is actually rescued from this trauma.
3. These aggressive approaches inspire buffer and bubble zone laws. Historically, this type of aggressive behavior gives cities and states fodder to create bubble or buffer zone ordinances that push peaceful, free-speech activities like prayer and sidewalk advocacy – activities that are saving lives every day – dozens of feet away from an abortion client or entrance to an abortion facility. This drastically decreases opportunities to effectively offer resources and support to abortion-vulnerable women. This is especially disheartening since 76% of women willingly admit that they would choose life if they were supported. Buffer and bubble zone laws – a form of viewpoint discrimination – put pro-life individuals in a difficult, if not impossible, position, forcing their peaceful, successful speech activities as far away as across the street, leaving few options to offer life-saving help to those in need.

The dichotomy between modern sidewalk outreach and the “rescue” approach could not be clearer: rather than making use of public rights-of-way and exercising First Amendment rights to reach women in crisis with resources and support, the activists burst into abortion facilities, aiming to simply disrupt abortions for a period of time and make a public statement. “Rescue” – while a tempting strategy for passionate pro-life activists – puts all sidewalk outreach within that jurisdiction at legal risk. Further, this approach makes it difficult for an abortion client to build trust with the people reaching out to her, in her fear of what might happen next; similarly, anger at “rescuers” has moved mothers to become more entrenched in their decision to abort their preborn children.

It is frustrating that those whose motives are purportedly to save the lives of the preborn are putting peaceful, prayerful, and law-abiding sidewalk ministries – that sometimes see lives saved every day – at legal risk, all while seeing few concrete results themselves.

We pray that those involved with this approach will reconsider their approach and choose a proven strategy that has reached mothers in crisis, saved preborn children, and ended abortion in many communities in the modern era.