Abortion rights advocates in Chile took over the main cathedral in Chile, vandalized confession booths, shouted at parishioners, painted pro-abortion graffiti on the walls, and used the pews as barricades to prevent police from arresting them.

Still, the Associated Press labeled the protest “largely peaceful.”

Now, the number of peaceful protesters may have outweighed the number of violent attackers but I’m just wondering if that description would’ve been in a story about a tea party protest that turned violent as this one did.

The BBC put numbers to it. They said that about 5,000 protesters marched in total while 100 attacked the Church. Hardly an insignificant number.

The flashpoint for the ire seems to have been that an 11 year old girl who was raped by her mother’s boyfriend has said she wants to keep the baby. Abortion rights advocates seem outraged by her commitment to the baby and are now calling to overturn the country’s ban on abortion.

Even the BBC inappropriately described the protest as marching “in support of an 11-year-old girl who was raped, fell pregnant and is not allowed to have an abortion.” So this girl who wants to keep her baby is being “supported” by protesters attacking the Church and agitating for liberalized abortion laws? How is that “support?”

Isn’t it more accurate to say, these protesters are using this little girl to advance their own agenda?