Bowling Green State Student Charged with Defacing Pro-Life Center

There were few substantive points offered by FBI Director Christopher Wray in his testimony yesterday, but, when information helped the FBI, he could suddenly become forthright and detailed. That was the case when, in defense of attacks on political bias, Wray said that most of the attacks that they are investigating are by pro-abortion advocates. Indeed, he said 70 percent of the crimes were being committed by pro-choice figures against pro-life centers. The most recent is a student at Bowling Green State University named Whitney Durant, who reportedly had a history of extremist conduct at the school before her arrest.The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio charged Durant with  a “federal misdemeanor charge under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.” The DOJ announcement stated “according to the information, on April 15, 2023, Durant intentionally damaged the property of HerChoice, a pregnancy care center located in Bowling Green, Ohio, by defacing the clinic’s building with spray paint because the clinic provides reproductive health services.”

Durant is reportedly well known to pro-life students at the university. She is the president/founder of a group called Bowling Green Student Rights Union (BGSRU). Her Facebook page also states that she is “a communist trying to spread the gay agenda.”

According to a pro-life group, Durant previously disrupted pro-life displays and  “screamed, ‘You are promoting violence against women! Violence.'” The students said that, when they tried to deescalate the situation, she screamed “‘No, you dumb f*ck!’ [and] refused to answer why she was so upset and told us she didn’t want to speak with us before walking away.” They added:

An hour later, the girl — our SFLA group later learned named Soren — came back and screamed, “You are promoting violence by forcing people to stay pregnant!” We explained that we offer free resources to pregnant and parenting students and believe they deserve love and support. At this point she was slamming her fists on the table, yelling, “There is nothing loving about forcing people to give birth against their will!”

The claim that free speech is violence is a common rationale on the left for “deplatforming,” disrupting, and even attacking those with opposing views. We saw a similar confrontation by Hunter College professor Shellyne Rodríguez when she trashed a pro-life student display in New York. Most were focused on her profanity and vandalism (and her later arrest for chasing journalists with a machete), but there were familiar phrases that appeared in her diatribe to the clearly shocked students. Before trashing the table, she told the students, “You’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”

The two cases have other common elements, including the apparent lack of action by the universities in addressing such disruptive conduct before these individuals turned to violence or criminal acts. In the case of Hunter College, the college did not view Rodríguez’s trashing a table, screaming at students, and her invoking her status as a faculty member to be sufficient to fire Rodríguez. (They later fired her after she was charged after holding the machete to the neck of a journalist and chasing a television crew down the street).

There is no indication that Durant faced prior actions by her university.

This activist, who accused pro-life students of being violent, felt justified in not only abusing other students but allegedly committing criminal acts. It is the license of the age of rage where even criminal acts are deemed righteous because opposing views are deemed violent acts.

Durant has pleaded not guilty.

42 thoughts on “Bowling Green State Student Charged with Defacing Pro-Life Center”

  1., CampusReform, and TheCollegeFix document the endless episodes of these almost daily.

  2. “You are promoting violence by forcing people to stay pregnant!”

    Someone should ask the little tramp who forces her to drop her drawers ?

  3. Jonathan: I don’t really understand your position. Whitney Durant has been charged by the US Attorney’s office under FACE for allegedly defacing the building containing a pro-life clinic. I would think you would applaud the DOJ for applying the law equally without any political bias. Your complaint is that in both the Durant and Rodriguez cases there was a “lack of action by the universities in addressing such disruptive conduct before these individuals turned to violence or criminal acts”.

    Curiously, this was not your focus in your previous column (7/12) about Prof. Tamara Kay at Notre Dame. She was subjected to a campaign of repeated threats and harassment because of her opposition to the Dobbs decision and her activism in support of abortion rights. The ND administration turned a blind eye to Kay’s complaints about the threats and harassment. They pretty much ignored her security concerns. ND failed to act to protect Kay because ND is a Catholic university and is officially opposed to abortion. ND showed extreme political and religious bias in refusing to act on Kay’s call for help. And, instead of supporting Kay’s calls for help, you came down on the side of the ND student newspaper after being sued by Kay. A strange position to take if you are really concerned about “disruptive conduct”. Not a word in your column about all the threats and harassment Kay was subjected to at ND.

    In the case of Durant she did not kill or injure anyone. She defaced property and is only being charged with a misdemeanor. If we look at all the violence around abortion over the last 30 years it has been the anti-abortion groups that have committed most of the serious violence. At least 11 people have been killed, including 4 doctors, 2 clinic employees and others. Ten murders occurred alone in the 1990s–not to mention the torching of abortion clinics and other acts of vandalism.

    The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is still prosecuting cases of violence against abortion clinics. It reports that: “In 2023, four defendants were charged FACE Act violations”…when “defendants spray painted threats, including ‘If abortions aren’t safe than neither are you’ and ‘We’re coming for U'”. But you complain that universities are not doing enough to protect those that oppose abortion. What about protection of abortion clinics and their staffs? If Durant and Rodriguez stand for the proposition that universities should take more forceful steps against “disruptive conduct” then shouldn’t the same rule have applied in the Tamala Kay case at ND?

    1. I just read the Kay vs Rover (or whatever they are called) piece by Prof. Turley, and it seems to me you are mischaracterizing some things. First, Turley doesn’t seem to me to be “coming down on the side of” the newspaper, except insofar as he points out that there is traditionally and properly a high bar to surpass to sue a newspaper successfully. He does also point out that on first reading, Kay’s complaint against the paper doesn’t seem to have a lot of meat – the paper paraphrases her rather than quoting her directly in some instances, but are the paraphrases sufficiently beyond a reasonable person’s interpretation to make them defamatory?

      And also, that piece by Turley is focusing on the defamation lawsuit Kay is bringing against the paper and how unusual it is for a faculty member to sue a student newspaper, not on the threats she says she’s received and her being harrassed on account of her views, neither of which is linked to the paper (except insofar as whoever is harassing she threatening her might have read the article on her). This piece, OTOH, is about the conflation of protected free speech acts with “actual violence” in the parlance of the left, when a protest is against something the left likes. It only uses the DOJ prosecution of this activist as a jumping-off point – it’s not the theme of the article.

      I have no idea how Kay was or is being threatened or harrassed, nor of how Notre Dame has or hasn’t responded, nor, frankly, of how credible the threats and harassment have been (especially given the tendency of those of the activist left to conflate words and “actual violence,” as we were just talking about). And I don’t condone threats or harassment, as understood by what we all used to understand as a reasonable person. But those things are not the subject of this piece. So ISTM that you’re just trying to derail the comments onto the track of your choosing: violence against pro-abortion clinics, or – maybe more likely – “right-wing hypocrisy.”

    2. “over the last 30 years”..when was the last time one of these happened vs. a clinic? Meanwhile over 80 attacks on churches and “life centers” mostly go uninvestigated. The NY where the cops seized security cam video and would not give it back lest it “encourage terrorism” was all-too-typical. The inconsistency in federal action goes without commentary, like when Thomas Starks attacked the federal office of Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) in Fargo on Dec. 21, 2020, using an ax.He got probation and the FBI gave him his axe back!

    3. Dennis you are all over the place. Further your arguments are a logical mess.

      There are a few seriously distant past violent actions by very fringe pro-life activists.

      The overwhelming majority of pro-life activists completely disowned those distant past actions.

      The primary groups opposing the death penalty int he US are the same ones opposing abortion.

      Many of those protesting in front of abortion clinics, are also protesting at state executions.

      These people are CONSISTENTLY oppoosed to taking human life.

      You may disagree with them regarding when life begins. but 99.99% of them are entirely consistent in their views regarding the sanctitity fo human life.

      With regard to the ND professor – No one supports ACTUAL credible threats to initiate violence against others – whatever the reasons. But we do actually have a first amendment and LOTS of case law regarding what speech actually constitutes a crime.

      The nearly all 21st century violence -= as well BTW as alot of 20th century violence was performed by those on the left.

      Not “threats” but actual violence. Things like ARSON.

      Further, if some professor is getting ACTUAL credible threats – the kind of threats those on the right get from the left ALL the time. Those should be refered to the police and prosecuted Where there is ACTUAL law breaking speech.

      Saying “I hop[e you rot in hell” is a very nasty threat. It is not a violation of the law. Hell is gods domain – not that of the government. In fact saying “I hope you die” is bad speech – it is also legal speech. There is a supreme court standard for when threatening speech constitutes a crime. It is very narrow.

      Conversely actual ACTS are pretty easy to devine.

      Tearing up signs, overturning tables, showing people arround. Stealling their property, defacing their property – arson.
      There is little ambiguity about what constitutes actual criminal conduct. Rather than merely blowing off steam.

      Those here on the Left on this blog CONSTANTLY engage in threatening but legally protected speech. You do it so frequently you do not even grasp you are doing it.

      You are livid that the supreme court has decided that states are free to decide that killing an unborn human life can be murder – we can debate whether abortion is the killing of a human. There is ZERO doubt that it is KILLING – VIOLENCE.
      We can debate whether it is killing that states should regulate. But it is still an act of violence no matter what.

      Using government to take away ACTUAL rights of others – something those of you on the left advocate for ALL the time.
      That is violence and threats fo violence – and again you do it all the time.
      And you piss all over those that confront you. You constantly demand that government be empowered – over the objections of the rest of us to take away pretty much any rights, for pretty much the least consequential reasons to fail to deliver any of the promised benefits.

      And that is fine with you.

      Just look arround – the speech of those on the left on this blog are constantly filled with HATRED.

      You hate Trump – and will throw away whatever principles and values you have to “get Trump”

      You hate “Trump voters” constantly maligning them personally.

      Almost no one “hates” Biden – most of us grasp that he is a crook, that he is incompetent. That he is unfit, that he has been a disasterous president.

      You think that disagreement with you is hate. But your disagreement with others – no matter how irrational and hate filled is not.

      You have no standards but double standards.

      You want ND to “defend” a professor who rejects the core principles of the institution she teaches at.

      WHY IS SHE THERE ? Notre Dame owes that professor nothing.

      The student newspaper correctly presented the professors views.
      Defaming someone requires yo to LIE about them.

      Is there some claim that the Student newspaper made that is not correct ?

      We criticise and argue against and sometimes insult the views of others – with far too much of the latter and not enough of the former. Regardless, we are allowed to do that – that is free speech.

      Only the left is so stupid as to try to blame those who speak truth for the criticism they get as a consequence.

      Even in the distant past that you keep trying to allude to – Left wing violence was atleast as prevalent as that of those whose views you hate.

      I will be happy to condemn the ACTUAL initiation of violence, regardless of the politics.

      But your idea that there is some political parity is bogus.

    4. It’s amazing to see so many people fighting so that they can kill babies.
      This is trulysatans world.

  4. Universities only take action against one of their own when it’s absolutely unavoidable, a la “machetes to the neck”. Otherwise, they quietly smile.

  5. “Her Facebook page also states that she is ‘a communist trying to spread the gay agenda’.”

    That’s on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. On Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays she’s probably a gay person trying to spread the communist agenda.

    On Sundays, my guess is that she’s an Orthodox Calvinist St. Elmo’s Unitarian, but that would mostly be because Frank Lloyd Wright’s Unity Temple in Oak Park, Ill., is such an impressive (and only remaining) example of Wright’s public Prairie-style designs.

    Yes, none of the above makes much sense, but what the heck — neither do the alleged actions of this gay communist or communist gay person. At what point does a reasonable person conclude that it would be more beneficial to society to just stay home and watch cartoons?

  6. “Her Facebook page also states that she is “a communist trying to spread the gay agenda.”
    Aren’t they all?

  7. So the FBI sends a squad of armed agents to arrest a pastor who pushed back a man who was accosting his son, and he is arrested for a felony that other agencies refused to prosecute. Did they show up to arrest the Bowling Green student?

  8. She certainly should have been arrested for her violent acts, but doesn’t the FBI have better things to do? This arrest should have been made by local police. We don’t need a national police force. The FBI should spend their efforts on crimes that are national in nature and significance. Maybe we have an excess of FBI agents looking for something to do?

    1. TIN, the same is true for the pastor, and for parents who are critical at a school board meeting. If it gets out of hand, the local police/sheriff should handle it. But they find a federal statute to allow the FBI to insert itself in what is a local affair, so they can go after political enemies of the regime. That’s why Wray and he rest of the top FBI leadership needs to be replaced. The FBI headquarters must also be moved away from DC.

      1. You can thank Bill Clinton and the Dem congress in 1993. They put this federal law into place as a special protection for abortion mills. In this case it is used to protect a pregnancy resource center, but this is an outlier case.

    2. TIN – you can thank Bill Clinton and the Dem congress in 1993. Once they had the levers of power, they quickly put into place a special protection for abortion mills. It ironically was used in this case to protect a pregnancy resource center, but this is an outlier case.

  9. Why are communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) so duplicitous and conniving?

    Why are they so evasive in circumventing the truth?

    Wray calls abortionists and murderers “pro-choice” with reference to the termination of a doomed principal who is given “no-choice.”

    The inverse of pro-life is pro-death.

    The inverse of anti-abortion is anti-life.

    Is there a difference between abortion clinics and Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek, Auschwitz and Birkenau?

    64 million vs. 6 million seems to be the inconvenient truth.

  10. Meanwhile in CA a member of the Assembly that just voted down a bill making Trafficking a major crime which would include it in the 3 Strikes territory has suddenly had a change of heart. The NO voting member said she “made a mistake” and she will change her vote if given another chance. My crystal ball tells me that Governor Newsome, running hard to replace Biden on the Dems side, got ahold of her and read her the riot act.

    What this shows is that the radical left, grooming wing of the CA Dems pressured the Assembly to vote the bill down, despite wide spread support for it, and then the pressure arose from the normals knowing that the nation is watching.

    The Democrats and their insane agenda can’t survive the light of day. This is why the never debate.

    1. HullBobby,
      What kind of justification do they have in voting down such a bill?
      It is almost as if they want to legalize Trafficking.
      Some seriously sick people out there.

      1. @UpstateFarmer: re: “What kind of justification do they have in voting down such a bill?” This has already been addressed in public discussions elsewhere. Passing the bill acknowledges the failure of the current administration in upholding promulgated Immigration Law which permitted thousands of unaccompanied minors to enter this country. Mayorkas and the rest of that sorry lot, following orders from the Oval Office are wittingly enabling this is any citizen supporting the Democrat Party and its agenda. .

  11. Jonathan Turley, thosegroups do not deserve the name ‘pro-life’. They are pro-fetus but offer no support after a child is born.

    1. @David B. Benson: re:” They are pro-fetus but offer no support after a child is born.” …..and you make this accusation based upon what evidence or proof, in detail, to support it?.

    2. David, “these group” offer more assistance to women during and after birth than PP offers to women after they abort. How much mental assistance does PP offer after the checks have cleared?

    3. “If you won’t commit to financially supporting every child for eighteen years via our program for full luxury space Communism we get to kill them” isn’t the zinger you seem to think that it is.

      I imagine neither biology nor social relations are your strong suits, so you may be surprised to learn that a fetus/child is the result of the conduct of both a woman and a man, commonly together known as “parents,” and in Western societies “parents” bear the primary responsibility to support the material and emotional needs of their own children.

    4. . . . offer no support after a child is born

      That’s a flat-out lie. The whole point of their existence is to offer exactly that type of support.

    5. Your decisions have consequences and are not my or anyone else’s responsibility. You getting pregnant does not give you the right to kill another human being and no right to others bank accounts.

    6. My wife worked at the very BG pregnancy center (since renamed) in the 1990’s as a post-abortion support group counselor. We witnessed the help they gave to women who chose birth, abortion, and adoption. If they are still like they were then, they work very hard to abstain from the politics and focus on helping women in need. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain misinformed, lying, or ignorant.

  12. Whats new? They will commit violence and they will defend child porn by attacking the movie Sound of Freedom. If defending men who have anal sex with seven year old boys is necessary they will do what it takes if it furthers their cause. Child anal sex is no big deal if your willing to kill a baby up to the very moment of birth. You should know who your dealing with. Don’t worry they’ll blame it all on QAnon. There seems to be a pattern.

  13. The far-Left doesn’t know what the word “violence” means. Universities have lost the meaning of “academic freedom” and “civil discourse as they coddle leftist violence and destroy diversity of thought.

    1. I understand what you are writing but this is incorrect. The Left understands that something is good or bad, legal or illegal based upon the principle of “who, whom?” Friend and enemy. Non-leftist speech is violence. Leftist violence is speech. You will see this principle repeated anywhere that Leftists or elected Democrats are in firm control of institutions. A Leftist Professor snatching and destroying the written materials of a non-Leftist student organization is that Professor expressing herself. The students distributing their written materials is not speech, it’s violence against whichever “marginalized” group will make the claim. In a jurisdiction firmly under the prosecutorial control of a Leftist Democratic administration, Leftist street violence is protected expression, and any contrary speech is violence which can be met with violence from Leftist street fighters and once that violence occurs the heckler’s veto is enforced by the law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities arresting and prosecuting the speakers with the wrong ideas.

      One of the purposes of Leftists in the incorrect and imprecise labeling of everything non-Left as “Fascism” is to associate the ideas/writings/expressions of their enemies as acts of inchoate violence. So you say “hey, maybe we shouldn’t have the government buy cartoon porn and put it in a school library where minors are required by law to be for several hours a day,” and their response is to label you a “book banning Fascist” and to punch you in the nose.

  14. It’s odd that they always scream??? Of course they almost always look a certain way as well. We all know “the look”. That ANTIFA, grunge, mom’s basement, gender studies, Starbuck’s barista look. Always pierced, always a strange hair color, always glasses of a different hue, always tattoos and always pasty.

    1. @Hullbobby: re:”Of course they almost always look a certain way’ That’s because that lot are a comprehensive study in psychological ill-health which is manifested globally in behavior and appearance. They satisfy the ‘birds of a feather’ concept to a ‘T’. What ever is fueling and driving their train, each ‘Casey Jones’ is a clinical study unto itself. If one digs deep enough the ‘oil’ will be struck. This is a job for Nurse Rached

    2. HullBobby,
      They are emotionally stunted.
      They will always have some gig job, barista, living in their mom’s basement.

  15. The fact that they haven’t put that Sturmabteilung Antifa to bed yet is prima facile evidence for me, as to what they consider to be domestic terrorism. It’s concerned parents who don’t like the idea of the school library keeping books that teach fellatio to third grade boys, who must be prosecuted. The former who cause bodily injury, pillage and burn continue to have free reign.

    1. Antifa* and BLM are the street fighting wing of the Democratic party, and the Democratic party is the organizing principle of the permanent U.S Government. Anywhere that the Democratic party exercises electoral hegemony, its street fighting wing can operate with impunity outside of the law. They’re part of the regime conducting acts of terror against the regime’s enemies – the regime doesn’t prosecute itself.

      Recall that U.S. Senator Tim Kaine’s son Linwood “Woody” Kaine was part of one of these brownshirt legions of the Democratic Party. There are other similar examples of the children of high Democratic Party officials being engaged in street violence under the monikers of “Antifa” or “BLM.” They’re different faces of the same thing.

Leave a Reply