Rep. Roy Ready to Push for Vote on Repealing the FACE Act

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) has stated he is ready to initiate a vote on his FACE Act Repeal Act if his Republican counterparts do not advance the bill.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, commonly referred to as the FACE Act, prohibits individuals from obstructing access to abortion clinics, pro-life pregnancy centers, and places of worship. However, since its enactment in 1994, it has predominantly been applied against pro-life activists.

Numerous Republicans and pro-life organizations have called for the repeal of the FACE Act. During a Heritage Foundation event in Washington on March 5, Roy expressed that his fellow GOP members were stifling the progress of his bill.

“We have not had a vote on it in committee. We have not had a vote on it on the floor because some individuals in our own Republican Party are too intimidated to address it,” he stated.

Roy mentioned that lawmakers are concerned that repealing the law “might be slightly more contentious than simply advancing another continuing resolution.” Nevertheless, he implored them to take action.

“If my Republican colleagues persist in their refusal to bring the FACE Act up for a vote in committee or on the floor, I will file a discharge petition and begin efforts to advance the bill, regardless of the typical procedures,” Roy asserted.

Related Stories

House representatives can “discharge” legislation that has remained inactive in committee for a minimum of 30 legislative days if a majority of the chamber, or 218 members, sign a petition. After seven days, those who signed the petition can request a vote on the motion to discharge, and if successful, an immediate motion to consider the bill can be made.

Even if a repeal successfully passes the House, it will face significant challenges in the Senate. Despite the GOP holding a narrow 53-vote majority there, 60 votes are needed to overcome the procedural obstacles prior to a final vote.

Among those pardoned was Paul Vaughn, who faced conviction for taking part in a blockade at an abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee, in March 2021.

While other participants obstructed the entrance, Vaughn stood further down the hall, away from the door, engaged in prayer and hymn singing. Some 18 months later, four FBI agents arrived at his home in tactical gear to arrest him at gunpoint in view of his family.

“Seven of my 11 children were home that day,” he recounted.

Vaughn ultimately was sentenced to three years of supervised release, yet he pointed out that the specter of a potential decade-long prison sentence loomed over him throughout his trial.

Andy Bath, executive vice president of the Thomas More Society, asserted that imposing long prison sentences serves to intimidate defendants.

“They understand that the process itself is the punishment. Even if we attain an acquittal in the end, they’ve already faced the punishment,” Bath remarked.

Supporters of the FACE Act argue that it safeguards the well-being of clinic patients and staff.

“Despite this law being in effect, anti-abortion activists have threatened the lives of providers, bombed their clinics, and harassed patients,” noted Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement on January 24.

However, Jipping contends that the law has been inconsistently applied against individuals with pro-life perspectives.

“This constitutes pure viewpoint discrimination, which violates constitutional principles,” he emphasized.

Jipping also stated that, in his opinion, Congress lacked the authority to enact the FACE Act.

“Congress must identify a specific delegated authority for every law it enacts,” he remarked.

In the case of the FACE Act, lawmakers cited two: the right to abortion under the 14th Amendment and the power to regulate interstate commerce.

In 2022, the Supreme Court clarified that there has never been a constitutional right to abortion, including at the time the FACE Act was enacted in 1994, according to Jipping.

“And, naturally, the FACE Act does not regulate any form of economic activity whatsoever,” he argued.

Bath further contended that the law is superfluous as it bans actions that are already illegal according to state and local statutes.

“There’s no justification for this law. It lacks constitutional backing and poses significant issues,” he said. “For Congress to intervene in what should be managed at the state and local levels endangers the fundamental principle of separation of powers.”

Regarding violence prevention, Bath noted that the FACE Act also penalizes violence against churches and pro-life organizations, yet offenders of these crimes are seldom prosecuted under the statute.

However, if Congress fails to act on a repeal, Vaughn suggested an alternative route to invalidate the FACE Act: “By challenging the FACE Act and asserting, ‘You know what? This law is unjust, and we are going to return it to the courts and let the courts address it definitively.’”