(LifeSiteNews) — In 2021, five people were arrested at two Red Rose Rescues in New York. One rescue was in Manhasset, Long Island, NY, on April 24, 2021; the other was in White Plains, NY, on November 27, 2021. One of these pro-life rescuers did an additional one-man rescue July 7, 2022, that was unaffiliated with Red Rose Rescue.
All of them were convicted and served time in prison for these rescues.
NY Attorney General files a civil lawsuit
Nonetheless, in June 2023, New York Attorney General Letitia James decided to file a lawsuit, suing these rescuers individually and Red Rose Rescue itself civilly for violating federal and NY clinic access laws, i.e., FACE. This was likely done in a spirit of post-Dobbs retaliation.
After hearing oral arguments in December 2023, Judge Kenneth M. Karas (a federal judge sitting in the NY district court where this lawsuit was filed) granted a preliminary injunction to the NY Office of the Attorney General (OAG) prohibiting these five people and anyone acting with Red Rose Rescue from getting within 15 feet of the doorways of abortion mills in parts of New York (the two federal court districts in and next to Manhattan, NY) with the intent to violate FACE.
In August 2024, while this lawsuit was working its way through court, with pro-life lawyers fighting to defeat the lawsuit and dissolve the injunction, the NY OAG filed a contempt motion against Red Rose Rescue, claiming a supporter of Red Rose Rescue “knowingly violated the injunction” by going closer than 15 feet of the doorways of some abortion mills while doing her ordinary, normal, constitutionally protected sidewalk counseling.
On March 10, 2025, after four hearings on this matter spread out over 6 months, Judge Karas threw out the contempt motion. He held that the sidewalk counselor was not breaking the injunction and was practicing her constitutionally protected free speech, which he specifically wrote into the injunction as being allowed.
In addition to a brief description of the “contempt motion” recently thrown out, the above is a summary of the ongoing NY OAG lawsuit against Red Rose Rescue and five individuals who participated in past RRR events. The named defendants in this civil lawsuit are Matthew Connolly, Laura Gies, William Goodman, John Hinshaw, and Father Fidelis (Christopher) Moscinski. The five named defendants are for the time being prohibited from entering a 15-foot space leading up to the doorways of any abortion facility in the two districts in NY the judge proscribed (Manhattan, Queens/Brooklyn and Long Island) “with the intent to injure, intimidate or interfere” with patients in violation of FACE.
The judge wrote into his injunction that it should not be construed to limit free speech rights, and thus he allowed the five named defendants to sidewalk counsel even within 15 feet of the doors of abortion facilities if they did not enter, or block the entrance to, the abortion facilities.
In other words, the injunction does not restrict the right to offer help to mothers walking into abortion facilities, if it is offered outdoors.
This injunction is meant principally to restrict the five named defendants, all of whom have been convicted of trespass at abortion clinics in New York, while the civil lawsuit is underway. The tricky part is the additional application of this 15-foot restriction to other persons “acting in concert” with RRR. This gave the NY OAG a chance to argue that other people they had evidence of being supporters, or “agents,” of Red Rose Rescue must also be restricted by this injunction.
READ: Federal judge tosses New York AG’s FACE Act claim against pro-life activist
Hearings for the NY Office of the Attorney General’s contempt motion
Seizing upon this interpretation, the NY OAG filed a contempt motion on August 27, 2024, claiming that Brianna Mangat (aka Bernadette Patel), a young woman who had been sidewalk counseling for several years in NYC, was now in violation of the injunction because she was sometimes a supporter of Red Rose Rescue.
The first thing this “contempt motion” did was frighten the young woman. She was very concerned that she was being charged with a crime for basic sidewalk counseling.
The odd thing was, she was not charged with anything. Only the group or philosophy of “Red Rose Rescue” was charged in this contempt motion.
The second thing this “contempt motion” did was sidetrack all parties from the main lawsuit, causing lawyers to respond to this frivolous motion. This contempt motion consumed six months and four hearings, while a motion for summary judgment in the main lawsuit has been pending for over six months.
The first hearing on the contempt motion was held on November 4th, 2024. Both sides began to unpack the intent of the 15-foot restriction for Red Rose Rescue and/or the named defendants. The attorneys argued that a regular sidewalk counselor outside abortion centers in New York City could be blamed for violating an injunction to which she was not a party.
A goal important to the NY OAG was to also show that the sidewalk counselor in question, Miss Brianna Mangat (aka Bernadette Patel), had been affiliated with Red Rose Rescue, and thus had knowingly violated the 15-foot buffer of the injunction, because according to them, she was always – in her mind – thinking and acting with or for Red Rose Rescue. Much time was spent showing evidence from social media and articles written by Miss Mangat, under her alias of Bernadette Patel, to supposedly prove this connection to Red Rose Rescue.
The prosecution had originally not planned to present witnesses, however, a week ahead of the hearing, they submitted the names of two witnesses. The two witnesses were 1) a Planned Parenthood escort who described her “training” to be a “patient escort” outside the Bleeker Street NYC Planned Parenthood and related her observations of the sidewalk counselors on January 6, 2024, and 2) an abortion-rights activist who is part of a group that regularly counter-protests the pro-life group which prays the Rosary on First Saturdays. This second witness for the prosecution gave dramatic descriptions of the sidewalk counselor’s “methods,” describing her as “leaping in front of patients.” This hearing lasted 6 hours.
Due to the lengthy testimonies, the judge agreed to extend the hearing to a second part, wherein the pro-life defense attorney could provide witnesses and further evidence on behalf of Red Rose Rescue. But before that hearing, the lawyers appeared in court in December 2024 to discuss whether the OAG had presented enough evidence for the contempt motion to continue at all. The judge decided to proceed with hearing defense evidence.
That third hearing happened on February 12, 2025. Miss Mangat was finally permitted to testify and, more importantly, to share a lengthy body-cam video she had filmed of her actions on January 6, 2024, one of the four dates for which she was accused of violating the injunction.
READ: Priests, pro-life activists found guilty of trespassing for efforts to save babies at abortuary
A fellow sidewalk counselor who had been right next to Miss Mangat the entire time also testified, corroborating that no client seeking services at the Bleeker Street Planned Parenthood was ever prevented access to the abortion facility by Miss Mangat (or anyone else).
In the end, once the judge ruled to dismiss the “contempt motion” against Red Rose Rescue, it was made very clear to the NY OAG that they had made a ridiculously thin case attempting to link constitutionally protected sidewalk counseling to the trespass actions of Red Rose Rescue.
I was present in the courtroom Monday, March 10, 2025, and took notes. Here is what the Judge Kenneth M. Karas said at the conclusion of the closing arguments hearing that day:
The OAG has not established by clear and convincing evidence that [sidewalk counselor] Mangat intended to impede any patient from accessing the clinic. Yes, she was in the buffer zone, but did not violate the injunction. This does not rise to the level of FACE – OR violating the injunction. The injunction was worded the way it was to ALLOW for sidewalk counseling.
In conclusion, to have this clarity from the courts regarding not just the allowance of free speech but the protection of this important work has been a welcome respite of good news for pro-life speech. While vulnerable mothers still enter abortion centers to obtain services that dismember their unborn children, giving last moment hope, help, and ability to a mother to choose life is critical and must continue to be protected.