DOVER, Del. — Proponents of the pro-life movement in Delaware voiced strong opposition to a recently proposed bill that they argue threatens their ability to express their beliefs peacefully. During a recent House Judiciary Committee session, members raised concerns over House Bill 272, which they believe could criminalize activities aimed at encouraging women to consider alternatives to abortion.
The bill, advanced on January 28, aims to impose legal restrictions on actions that obstruct access to reproductive health care facilities or houses of worship. A specific phrase within the legislation—”discouraging” individuals from entering such facilities—sparked a significant debate among lawmakers and the public.
Moira Sheridan, president of Delaware Right to Life, described the bill as an attempt to silence dissenting voices through the threat of prosecution. She criticized the language as being intentionally vague, which could lead to unintended consequences for individuals simply expressing their viewpoints.
Nandi Gamble, a policy analyst with the Delaware Family Policy Council, noted that existing federal legislation, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, already addresses many of the conduct considered in HB 272. She asserted that the state-level amendment was unnecessary and seems to target “expressive conduct” more than actual obstruction.
Retired nurse Bess McAneny shared her experiences of how prayers and messages from pro-life advocates outside Planned Parenthood facilities have influenced women’s decisions. She criticized the efforts of clinics to drown out pro-life voices, citing tactics such as loud music.
Donna Latteri, who leads the vigil outside the Planned Parenthood clinic in Dover, expressed her fears about potential fines for voicing her opinions. “We’ve never been violent,” she insisted, emphasizing that their intent has always been to support women in making informed choices.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Debra Heffernan, a Democrat from northern Wilmington, attempts to solidify protections already included in the FACE Act, which prohibits threats or physical obstruction that might deter anyone seeking healthcare or participating in religious activities. Several committee members and public commentators expressed concerns that HB 272 could infringe upon free speech rights.
Heffernan highlighted that the bill does not aim to alter current protest activities. “It simply states that all violent acts are illegal,” she stated, noting it grew from a directive issued by the U.S. Department of Justice last year that limited enforcement of existing protections in abortion-related cases. She assured residents that prayers and counseling remain protected forms of expression.
Some legislators, including Republican Rep. Valerie Jones Giltner, echoed concerns that the term “discourage” could lead to confusion. “If the biological father is pleading loudly, that could be classified as discouraging,” she argued, reflecting apprehension about the bill’s potential implications.
Another Republican, Rep. Jeff Hilovsky, cautioned against the severe penalties proposed within the bill, suggesting that mere discussions about abortion could put individuals at risk of significant fines. “Asking someone to reconsider terminating a pregnancy should not carry such a heavy financial burden,” he asserted.
Heffernan pledged to collaborate with the state Department of Justice to refine the language of the bill as the General Assembly’s agenda permits. The proposed legislation may be presented to the full House later this year, but if it does not pass before the session concludes in June, it will need to be reintroduced.