Congress Questions Legitimacy of FACE Act

A House Judiciary subcommittee is scrutinizing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act to determine if the Biden‑Harris administration has used the federal law to target pro‑life advocates.

“As we just saw with the Department of Justice’s recent indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, important work is being done to hold left‑wing activist networks accountable—especially those increasingly operating as de facto partners of the federal government to undermine the rule of law,” Rep. Chip Roy, R‑Texas, told The Daily Signal.

“Nowhere have we seen this more than with the Biden‑Harris administration’s weaponization of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, where enforcement was driven by extremist abortion networks to go after pro‑life Americans.”

During Tuesday’s meeting of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government—titled “From Tool to Weapon: The FACE Act and the Dangers of Federalizing Criminal Law”—pro‑life activists who were prosecuted under the law, along with policy experts, testified that the legislation has been distorted by federal officials to restrict First Amendment rights and prosecute peaceful protesters.

“This hearing aims to expose these leftist groups and the constitutional implications of over‑federalizing criminal law,” Roy, the subcommittee chairman, said.

Democrats on the panel disputed those claims. Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon, D‑Pa., said Congress enacted the FACE Act in 1994 to protect abortion providers from violent attacks.

“Eliminating the FACE Act is a right‑wing priority drawn directly from the Project 2025 manifesto,” Scanlon said. “The facts stay the same: We continue to see criminal obstruction, threats, intimidation, and violence against abortion providers and the women seeking those services. The FACE Act is needed now as much as it’s ever been.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D‑Md., compared anti‑abortion activists arrested under the FACE Act to the “politically motivated” Jan. 6 protesters.

Witnesses challenged that characterization, including pro‑life activist Eva Edl, who testified that she was imprisoned under the Biden‑Harris administration for protesting outside abortion clinics. Edl said she was “counseling mothers” rather than threatening clinic staff.

“In my case, I was only charged with a first‑offense misdemeanor in Tennessee, but in Michigan I was convicted of two separate violations of FACE, faced up to 13 years in prison, and up to $300,000 in fines,” Edl said. “I am before you today to plead with our government to repeal the FACE Act, because it is targeting people who want to do right.”

“I plead with our government to stop the killing and go back to the foundational principles our forefathers built this country on—that all human life has equal value before God,” she added.

Roger Severino, vice president of economic and domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation and former director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee that the FACE Act is the “poster child of over‑criminalization.”

“Under our constitutional system, the federal government has only enumerated powers—it only has the authority explicitly given to it by the people in the Constitution,” Severino said.

Addressing Raskin’s claim that courts have upheld FACE Act prosecutions under the Commerce Clause, Severino said Congress has used the clause as a “catch‑all” to justify federal involvement in nearly every aspect of American life.

“We have delegated far too much authority to federal bureaucrats,” Severino said. “That discretion has given them unchecked power, which has been abused with the FACE Act and other cases.”