Cruel and Unusual: 75-Year-Old Woman Given Two-Year Prison Sentence for Protesting Abortion Clinic

The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Unless, it would seem, one is dealing with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On Friday, in what appears to be an egregious example of cruel and unusual punishment, the court sentenced Paulette Harlow of Kingston, Massachusetts, to two years in prison. Mrs. Harlow is 75 years old and in poor health, and in fact, her health issues are serious enough that the court allowed her to remain on house arrest during the proceedings so her husband could care for her.

No longer. The court is throwing her behind bars. Her crime? Protesting an abortion clinic.

A 75-year-old pro-life activist was sentenced to two years in prison by the US District Court for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Paulette Harlow from Kingston, Massachusetts was one of ten individuals who were convicted as part of a “conspiracy” to block women from entering an abortion clinic in Washington, DC.

Harlow has been on house arrest since her conviction due to her ill health. Her husband pleaded for leniency but those pleas were ignored by the court. John Harlow said "I feel like Paulette is dying. In my heart, I think she’s having a hard time staying alive." He is her caretaker and said that he would take care of her in prison if he could, LiveAction reported.

"We’ve tried to be good people," he said. "I love my wife dearly. She’s made me go beyond what I’d otherwise have done" to help others. "We’re throwing ourselves on the mercy of the court," he said.

The court would appear to be short on mercy at the moment.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act prohibits three acts concerning protestors at abortion clinics:

(1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion, (2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship, (3) the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health care facility or a place of worship.

The concerning part of all this is the proportionality. Does this protest really warrant sending an elderly woman to prison? Especially when she is in poor health and depends on her husband for not only care but, we can feel certain, also comfort and companionship? Having watched my parents, who were married for 71 years, go through their last years together, and especially what happened to Mom after Dad died, separating an elderly couple like this can be a serious shock. Possibly a life-threatening shock.

Where are the two-year prison sentences for the people who are blocking streets, taking over college campuses, and invading public buildings in the latest leftist outrage du jour over the Israel-Hamas war? Where is the sentence for Raz Simone, who led the takeover of an entire section of the city of Seattle in 2020, setting himself up as a de facto warlord and ruler?

WATCH: Radical Muslims Gone Wild in New York City, As 'Law and Order' Reigns Supreme

But an elderly woman gets two years in prison for her protest while so many others, young people in good physical (if not mental) health, walk away. This is the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

The judge in the case is the same judge who sentenced Mrs. Harlow's co-protestors, who all received similar prison terms.

Harlow was sentenced by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sitting in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the same judge who presided over and sentenced each of the other eight protesters who were found guilty in the case.

The facts of the FACE Act and the verdict obtained aren't the issue here. The problem is that it is cruel and exceptional to sentence a woman of this age, a woman in poor health, to prison. If she must face a sentence, the humane thing to do would be to leave her on house arrest, where her husband can continue to care for her, and where they can continue to live together through what may well be some of their last years together. This was not a crime of violence; this was not a crime of avarice or cruelty. And there is no evidence that Mrs. Harlow has led a life of crime.

But then, equal treatment under the law and proportionality - and, it would seem, mercy - in punishment has been dead for some time now.