Over the past fifteen years,

federal legislation has required state governments to track convicted

sex offenders and — for better or for worse — many states have

followed up with restrictions on the places where these offenders may

live and work. In light of the epidemic of anti-abortion violence that

has targeted reproductive health care providers over the past three

decades (including 41 bombings and 173 arson attacks since 1977),

Congress should create a similar registry for individuals convicted of

politically-motivated felonies that target abortion clinics or abortion

providers. The narrow purpose of such legislation would be to prevent a

small cadre of highly-dangerous individuals, all of whom have

previously demonstrated a disregard for both public safely and civil

discourse, from approaching either reproductive health clinics or their

employees. Much as we do not permit convicted pedophiles to teach

kindergarten or convicted hijackers to board airplanes, common sense

dictates that individuals who have been imprisoned for plotting

violence against abortion clinics should never again be permitted

anywhere near such facilities.

The vast majority of abortion opponents in the United States have

always embraced non-violence. However, this is not necessarily the case

with a small subset of hardcore anti-abortion activists who spend their

days — and often earn their livings — organizing protests outside

reproductive health clinics. The American public was reminded of the

rather chilling attitudes and backgrounds of some of these extremists

in the aftermath of the recent assassination of Kansas physician George

Tiller, allegedly by "pro-life" activist Scott Roeder. As was widely

reported in the media, Operation Rescue’s senior policy analyst, Cheryl

Sullenger, kept Roeder apprised of Dr. Tiller’s whereabouts — an

accusation she first denied and later admitted — and her phone number

was found on the dashboard of his car. Sullenger was quoted in the

press as stating, "He would call and say, ‘When does court start?

When’s the next hearing?’ I was polite enough to give him the

information. I had no reason not to. Who knew? Who knew, you know what

I mean?" Yet far less attention was paid to the details of Cheryl

Sullenger’s previous conviction for conspiring to blow up a California

abortion clinic and her prior three-year prison sentence for supplying

the explosive powder for that bomb. At the time of her guilty plea,

Sullenger, who federal prosecutors described as being in the "upper

echelons of culpability," had the audacity to tell the judge that she

was "trying to save lives." Such a woman has no business coming within

shouting distance of an abortion clinic ever again.

Sullenger is not alone. Increasingly, individuals convicted of

violence against abortion clinics during the 1980s and 1990s are

reaching the ends of their prison sentences — and many, far from

pursuing other causes upon release, appear to be reinserting themselves

into the hardcore anti-abortion movement. Unfortunately, keeping tabs

on these often unrepentant and dangerous individuals is highly

challenging, and the case of Sullenger demonstrates that organizations

like Operation Rescue cannot be trusted to turn them away. One

promising solution would be sentences that included, as a condition for

parole or release, lifetime bans upon loitering around or approaching

abortion clinics. However, a national registry might prove far more

manageable than the ad hoc imposition of such restrictions. Needless to

say, these bans should be narrowly focused in order to allay First

Amendment concerns. Those convicted of anti-abortion violence would

still be permitted to engage in most forms of meaningful and peaceful

civil dissent: writing to their legislators, protesting on the National

Mall, even serving as high-ranking officials in such organizations as

Operation Rescue. They would simply not be allowed near clinics. (A

judicial bypass provision could be incorporated if a registered

individual ever sought an abortion for herself or to accompany her

teenage daughter.) In addition, much as local parents are currently

informed when a convicted sex offender moves into the neighborhood,

local abortion providers ought to be notified when such an

anti-abortion convict settles in their community.

I have always believed that protests outside abortion clinics, rather

than embodying our nation’s powerful tradition of free speech and

vigorous debate, actually undermine that legacy. While shouting at

female patients during their most vulnerable moments may be a

Constitutionally protected right, doing so does not contribute to a

robust marketplace of ideas. Nor does the legality of such

demonstrations make them any less distasteful. Civil society would

benefit greatly if anti-abortion activists took their protests to state

capitals or to the steps of the United States Supreme Court instead. (I

would find it equally distasteful if pro-choice activists chose to

commemorate Roe v. Wade outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Easter

Sunday, but–at least to my knowledge — such displays rarely occur.)

While anti-abortion activists have a right to protest outside clinics,

at least from beyond a safe buffer zone, that right is not absolute.

Nor should it be. Attempting to kill or maim the occupants of a health

facility, or to burn these caregivers out of business, should be more

than enough grounds to permanently forfeit any right to protest nearby.

Of course, the number of individuals required to register would likely

be small. That is no reason not to act. Targeting an abortion clinic is

not merely a crime against a particular facility, after all, or even

against supporters of abortion rights, but is an act of terrorism that

threatens our very democracy. Not even violent sex offenders can do

that.

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

I am hopeful that, after reflection, both political supporters and

opponents of abortion rights would embrace such a registry. Doing so

would lend convincing credence to the anti-abortion movement’s claims

to nonviolence and would prevent dangerous ex-felons from infiltrating

its ranks. Keeping these violent zealots away from abortion clinics

will not resolve our ongoing public debate over abortion. However, such

a registry might improve the tenor of the public discourse. If nothing

else, it will help reassure vulnerable women entering abortion clinics,

and the physicians caring for them, that none of the protesters outside

the building has ever attempted to kill or injure someone like them

before.