National Archives signs agreement to ensure free speech at museum after alleged pro-life discrimination

 

null / K I Photography/Shutterstock

Washington D.C., Feb 16, 2023 / 16:50 pm (CNA).

When several people in Washington, D.C., for the March for Life visited the National Archives Museum last month they were taken aback when staff told them to cover up the pro-life messaging on their clothing or leave the building.

Today, National Archives administrators signed a legal agreement to ensure that such an incident won’t happen again and offered the plaintiffs a tour of the National Archives Museum as well as a personal apology.

Whether this agreement heads off litigation against the federally-funded museum remains to be seen. The plaintiffs had filed a suit Feb. 8 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, charging the National Archives with violating their First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights as well as the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In signing a “consent decree,” the National Archives agreed to make clear that visitors are free to express their religious and political beliefs at the museum, which is home to original copies of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.

“The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) represents that its policy expressly allows all visitors to wear T-shirts, hats, buttons, etc., that display protest language, including religious and political speech,” the agreement reads.

NARA also promised to communicate this policy “to all NARA security officers who interact with the public at every NARA facility, including the National Archives.”

In addition, NARA agreed to extend a personal apology and a personal tour to two of the plaintiffs who, the agreement stated, intend to pay a visit to the museum in the future.

NARA declined to comment on the agreement when contacted by CNA.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the legal firm representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement saying this is “a great first step and a win for our clients.”

“This doesn’t mean the case is over, as we will continue to get answers for our clients as to why it happened in the first place, and what corrective action the defendants will be taking to ensure that it never happens again to anyone wearing expressive religious and pro-life apparel at the National Archives. No one should be targeted by the federal government for their Christian and pro-life views,” the ACLJ statement said.

After the ACLJ announced its lawsuit earlier this month, the National Archives responded almost immediately with an apology: “As the home to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, which enshrine the rights of free speech and religion, we sincerely apologize for this occurrence,” read the Feb. 10 statement.

In their press release today, the lawyers for the pro-life advocates said they weren’t satisfied with the museum’s apology.

“While the National Archives had previously issued an apology for the Jan. 20 incident, it had not provided any evidence of the existence of a policy or of sufficient training of its employees and officers with the apology sufficient to ensure that a repeat violation would not occur. As a result, the ACLJ’s clients remained fearful about returning to the building,” they said.

The law firm said that they then prepared a motion for a temporary restraining order against the museum. The prospect of that order, they said, paved the way to today’s agreement.

In a statement, the ACLJ noted that the signed agreement “is necessary here because two of our clients have plans to return to the National Archives soon — one as early as the end of this week — and we want to ensure that they are not targeted, humiliated, and silenced again during their visits.”

The two clients planning the visit were specifically named in the agreement and promised a tour of the museum along with a personal apology.

The following allegations are listed in the lawsuit against the National Archives:

  • A group of Catholic students and their chaperones were allegedly asked to remove or cover up all pro-life messages. This included pro-life hats that read “life always wins” and another that had the inscription “ProLife.” A security officer allegedly ordered one person to zip up her jacket to cover a pro-life shirt and told her she could not unzip the jacket until she left the National Archives. The security officer also allegedly told students to remove pro-life buttons on their clothing.
  • Another plaintiff, Wendilee Walpole Lassiter, a law school student at Liberty University, alleges that a security officer said she could not enter the building and was told “you have to take your shirt off [because] your shirt will incite others” and told her it would “cause a disturbance” and that she was “disturbing the peace.” She was wearing a sweatshirt that read “I am the post-Roe generation: law students for life,” according to the lawsuit. She complied with the order and alleged she saw people freely walking around the building with pro-abortion messages, such as “my body, my choice.”
  • A third plaintiff, Terrie Kallal, who entered the National Archives with her granddaughter, wore a T-shirt that read “March 4 Life 2014: Saint Cecilia’s Youth Group, Glen Carbon, IL” and her granddaughter wore a shirt that read “pro-life generation,” according to the lawsuit. She alleges that a security officer told her that the clothing was “offensive” and that “you must zip up your coats or take off your shirts.” They complied with the order.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Catholic News Agency 11117 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

1 Comment

  1. Evidence we’re living in an anomalous culture in which destroying life is sacrosanct, whereas the love and preservation of life is illegal.
    Antichrist is a faceted word drawing all sorts of opinion. Definitively in accord with sacred scripture it was referenced by the Apostles as any ideology, misrepresentation of Christ and the faith as Antichrist. John in his Apocalypse indicates a person. Now during this present time we may rightly identify this anomaly of legal murder illegal support of life as Antichrist. It can’t be any other. If the fallen Lucifer were to be present, he, the Prince of this world and Prince of darkness would feel at home. Welcome as it were. Pleased with the above, mightily pleased with the death dealing to the soul ambiguity on good and evil in the Church, by which one might favor one or the other. Nevertheless the choice is consistently commended in favor of mercy rather than justice, transformation of the latter into the former.
    So if one were to consider that it’s the words of Christ that are questioned as overly rigorous would not the Prince be delighted? Would it be exaggeration to mull the Prince is in our midst?

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. National Archives signs agreement to ensure free speech at museum after alleged pro-life discrimination | Franciscan Sisters of St Joseph (FSJ) , Asumbi Sisters Kenya

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*