A pro-life activist faces two years in jail after being criminally charged for a 14-second Instagram post of her and a Planned Parenthood worker outside a San Francisco abortion clinic. Prosecutors accuse Anastasia Rogers of violating California’s FACE Act because they consider the post “threatening,” while Rogers’ attorneys say she was simply exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. Opening statements in her trial are expected to begin tomorrow. The outcome of the case could set a major precedent for free speech and pro-life activism in the state.
Rogers, a member of The Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, was arrested in December 2025, roughly three months after the video was posted. She is charged under California Penal Code section 423.2, the state’s version of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Prosecutors allege the video was criminal intimidation of a clinic escort. Rogers and her legal team at Life Legal Defense Foundation argue it was protected political speech and part of peaceful sidewalk counseling.
Rogers has been pro-life since elementary school and has been a pro-life activist for the past four years, doing sidewalk counseling with other members of The Survivors outside of Planned Parenthood clinics in San Francisco.
The Video
Her team regularly posts videos from sidewalk counseling.
“The main reason to post is to encourage more people to get to the sidewalk,” Rogers said. She added that the video “was nothing out of the ordinary” except that the video, posted in August 2025, went viral with nearly 400,000 views.
The video reel uses a “handshake” trend common on Instagram and TikTok, set to a clip of the song “Illegal” by PinkPantheress. Rogers extended her hand toward the camera with the on-screen caption “Unalive them with kindness,” then the video cuts to a Planned Parenthood escort with the on-screen caption “Unalive them.” The post caption read: “Same goal in mind, different methods for sure.”
Rogers said she was trying to show that both she and the escort wanted to help women, but disagreed on how. Rogers was guiding the woman toward saving the child, while the escort was guiding the same woman toward aborting children or “unaliving them.”
Arrested Months After Posting
The Planned Parenthood escort depicted in the video filed a complaint with Planned Parenthood and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, claiming Rogers’ post was intimidating, according to two other volunteer escorts who spoke with the San Francisco Public Press.
Rogers said she first learned authorities were investigating her about a month after the post, when she received a phone call from someone identifying themselves as law enforcement and informing her of a warrant tied to a social media post.
She said she and her attorneys tried for weeks to confirm the warrant through the District Attorney’s Office and other channels. “Up until the moment of arrest, we had been in contact with the DA’s office,” Rogers said. Officials, she said, could not locate records or give clear guidance.
In December 2025, Rogers was back on the sidewalk outside the Planned Parenthood clinic, peacefully distributing pregnancy resource pamphlets, when a San Francisco sheriff’s deputy arrived and arrested her on the warrant. She spent roughly seven hours in jail before being released.
The Statute Was Written for Clinic Blockades
Alexandra Snyder, the CEO of Life Legal Defense Foundation, whose organization is representing Rogers, said the FACE Act was originally aimed at a very different kind of conduct. The federal version of the law was passed in the 1990s in response to pro-life “rescue” actions in which activists physically blocked clinic entrances by linking arms. About a dozen states later passed their own versions.
“This is not one of those cases,” Snyder said. Rogers wasn’t blocking an entrance or threatening anyone. The video was recorded on a public sidewalk and posted to a public social media account.
“I’m genuinely perplexed as to how somebody could interpret this particular video as any kind of intimidation,” Snyder said.
Rogers said that the perception of pro-lifers as violent is largely driven by propaganda and doesn’t match their experiences in activism. “I’ve been doing this a while. I’ve never seen us get intentionally violent with someone. It seems to be the other way around,” she said.
The Charges
Prosecutors charged Rogers under subsections (g) and (h) of California Penal Code section 423.2. The first count alleges she recorded video near a reproductive health facility with the intent to intimidate. The second alleges she knowingly distributed the recording with the same intent. A third charge related to alleged electronic harassment was dismissed during pretrial proceedings.
Originally, Rogers faced up to three years in jail and roughly $21,000 in fines across three counts. After the dismissal, she faces up to two years for the two remaining misdemeanor counts.
In March 2026, a Superior Court Judge denied a defense motion to dismiss. According to Life Legal, the court gave Rogers’ attorney 60 seconds to argue, declined to view the video itself, ruled the Instagram post was not protected speech, and issued a stay-away order requiring Rogers to remain 150 feet from the clinic.
“I definitely feel as if they’re just kind of targeting my group …, since we shut down the abortion clinic in Beverly Hills,” Rogers said. “Since then, they’ve kind of had a really big eye on us and just took this as an opportunity to try and get me to stop doing my activism in San Francisco.”
“I can’t be certain,” she added, “but the fact that the video is really innocent and that they’re prosecuting me to this point where I’m now facing two years in prison over it; it just seems like they’re doing it as a way to silence us.”
Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, along with allied groups, drew national attention in 2023 for opposing a late-term abortion clinic that planned to open in Beverly Hills. The building’s landlord rescinded the lease that summer.
What the Trial Could Decide
Snyder said the case could shape how California courts interpret the state’s FACE Act in future prosecutions. The novel question is whether a social media post made on a public sidewalk, weeks before any in-person encounter with the alleged victim, can satisfy the statute’s specific-intent-to-intimidate element.
For pro-life advocates across California, the implications stretch far beyond a single Instagram video.
They believe that if peaceful sidewalk counseling and social media advocacy can be prosecuted as criminal intimidation, then the state will continue using vague laws to silence pro-life speech in the public square.
California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt agrees. “Real threats should always be taken seriously. But no honest observer can look at this 14-second video and conclude it was a threat against anyone’s life,” he said. “It was a pro-life statement about how abortion ends the lives of unborn children. Prosecutors are twisting badly worded laws into a weapon against speech they don’t like, and that should alarm every Californian.”
What Can You Do?
Rogers is asking for prayer, for justice and wisdom during the trial, and protection throughout the legal process.
She also encouraged supporters to attend the trial in person. Jury selection began on May 18 in the San Francisco Superior Court. Opening statements are expected as early as Thursday, May 28. The trial is expected to last two to four weeks.
“Even showing up for a few hours helps demonstrate public support for free speech and pro-life advocacy,” Rogers said.
