But “anti-abortion activists” are called plenty of names, and their ability to speak for their pro-life cause is once again set back by a new law coerced out of Chicago’s City Council by pro-abortion activists.

“Patients and employees entering Chicago hospitals and clinics would no longer be hounded by “in-your-face” abortion protests, thanks to a protective zone established today by a divided City Council.”

Wait….This is written by a Sun-Times City Hall beat reporter. Who is she quoting as saying patients and employees at Chicago hospitals and clinics are being houded by “in-your-face” abortion protests? That’s a broad and unsubstantiated claim. Moving on in the article…

“Thirteen aldermen voted against the ordinance, many of them Roman Catholics, as demonstrators gathered outside City Hall and chanted in the hallway outside the Council chambers.”

And she names the 13. But the reporter fails to mention, much less name, the 28 Chicago aldermen who voted for the law to restrict the free speech of pro-life advocates near abortion clinics.

The Chicago Tribune does, however, at least the hard copy carrying that article today. And though it refers to pro-lifers in the lede as anti-abortion activists (it’s in the media template), the Trib piece put them in another perspective.

“The so-called bubble zones will exist within 50 feet of the entrances to all health care centers. Those who venture closer to another person without consent could face a fine of $500.

Before the City Council voted 28-13 in favor, more than 100 people opposing the ordinance circled City Hall’s front doors. Many of them held small American flags as they sang “Amazing Grace” and shouted “Praise God.”

Those are the people who are allegedly hounding patients and employees outside hospitals and clinics.

LifeNews reports that pro-lifers had an unusual ally in fighting this.

“The law is so onerous that the pro-abortion ACLU joined pro-life advocates in condemning it…The ACLU of Illinois issued a statement that makes clear that the Chicago Council “must honor the Constitution and tolerate the widest amount of free speech in public ways.”

One of the aldermen mentioned in that Sun-Times article brought that up when the reporter pressed him about his vote.

“If the ACLU is against it and the Catholic church is against it, why should I vote in favor of it?” [Edward] Burke said.

Asked whether his Catholic faith influenced his decision, Burke said, “I listen to what the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago says, and it’s one element of my decision-making process. But, it’s also clear that, if the ACLU is against it, maybe there’s something flawed with the ordinance itself.”

Clear to those who use plain language.