{"id":1716124,"date":"2022-10-29T07:37:41","date_gmt":"2022-10-29T11:37:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1716124"},"modified":"2022-10-29T10:34:17","modified_gmt":"2022-10-29T14:34:17","slug":"its-time-for-congress-to-get-rid-of-the-face-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/its-time-for-congress-to-get-rid-of-the-face-act\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s Time for Congress to Get Rid of the Face Act"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fits-time-for-congress-to-get-rid-of-the-face-act%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1716124&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/1280px-University_of_Toronto_pro-life_protest_3.jpg\" class=\"ff-og-image-inserted\" alt=\"image\" \/><\/div>\n<p>Just this year, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, has <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2022\/10\/19\/the-fbi-has-indicted-22-pro-life-protesters-and-zero-pregnancy-center-firebombers\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">announced<\/a> indictments of 22 peaceful pro-life protesters, trumping up bogus charges based on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. At best, that law creates duplicative protections against crimes that are already prosecutable under state and local criminal statutes. At worst, it is a weapon for federal law enforcement to unconstitutionally brandish against its political dissidents. <\/p>\n<p>Right now, it has become the latter. It\u2019s past time for Congress to repeal the FACE Act and do away with the reckless, state-sponsored terrorizing of innocent Americans that the law enables.<\/p>\n<h2>Provisions of the FACE Act<\/h2>\n<p>Passed in 1994, the FACE Act <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/18\/248\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">criminalizes<\/a> anyone who:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>\u2026by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>It\u2019s worth noting that the phrase \u201creproductive health services\u201d does not single out abortion facilities, but legally includes pro-life pregnancy centers. The DOJ, however, has yet to announce a single indictment for the dozens of attacks on pregnancy centers that followed the leak of the Supreme Court\u2019s <em>Dobbs v. Jackson<\/em> decision that overturned <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em>. <\/p>\n<p>The statute also criminalizes the same behavior toward \u201cany person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship,\u201d and criminalizes intentional damage or destruction to a place of worship or pregnancy-related facility because of the facility\u2019s purpose. <\/p>\n<h2>Denial of First and 14th Amendment Rights<\/h2>\n<p>On its face, none of the statute\u2019s provisions may seem objectionable (though, as experience has shown, \u201cintimidate\u201d and \u201cinterfere\u201d are interpreted well outside their stated definitions). But even properly applied, the law would invite unnecessary and political intervention by federal authorities into situations that could be effectively handled by local authorities. <\/p>\n<p>In more sinister hands, the FACE Act is used to tyrannize law-abiding abortion opponents. Recently, it\u2019s been invoked to send dozens of armed FBI agents to raid the home of pro-life Catholic father Mark Houck and arrest him in front of his wife and children. His crime? After a Planned Parenthood escort repeatedly harassed his young son and ignored Houck\u2019s demands that he stop, Houck\u2019s wife says, he pushed the man away from his child. Legal <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2022\/10\/04\/with-new-documents-the-biden-administrations-targeting-of-a-pro-life-dad-just-got-crazier\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">documents<\/a> even indicate the action had nothing to do with the facility\u2019s provision of abortions, making the FACE Act inapplicable, but the politicized DOJ has used it to terrorize Houck\u2019s family anyway.<\/p>\n<p>While the FACE Act has teed up left-wing bureaucrats to target pro-lifers, the DOJ has denied <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/constitution\/amendmentxiv\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">equal protection of the laws<\/a> to pro-life pregnancy clinics, in violation of the 14th Amendment. By refusing to apply the law <a href=\"https:\/\/catholicvote.org\/pregnancy-center-attack-tracker\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">to protect pregnancy centers<\/a> (as well as churches) from <a href=\"https:\/\/downloads.frc.org\/EF\/EF22F17.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">dozens of instances<\/a> of arson, vandalism, and threats, the federal government has violated Americans\u2019 14th Amendment rights in its application of the FACE Act.<\/p>\n<p>The application of the FACE Act has also targeted Americans for their peaceful assembly and speech, two of the most foundational freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Recently, the DOJ <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2022\/10\/19\/the-fbi-has-indicted-22-pro-life-protesters-and-zero-pregnancy-center-firebombers\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">indicted<\/a> 11 peaceful protesters who lined the hallway of a building outside the door of an abortionist\u2019s office to pray, sing, and petition. <\/p>\n<p>These targeted prosecutions aren\u2019t novel under the Biden administration, either. President Barack Obama\u2019s Justice Department used the FACE Act to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/pr\/justice-department-files-lawsuit-against-maryland-man-face-act-violation-planned-parenthood\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">go after<\/a> several pro-lifers, including a 79-year-old Maryland man whom the DOJ sued for walking alongside a woman on her way up to an abortion facility and peacefully <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/crt\/legacy\/2011\/07\/18\/FACE_RettaComplaint_7-14-11.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">stepping<\/a> in front of her as he spoke to her. (\u201cIt is admitted that the woman got into the clinic without incident,\u201d his legal defense <a href=\"https:\/\/lifelegaldefensefoundation.org\/feds-prosecute-pro-lifer-doj-sides-with-planned-parenthood\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">noted<\/a>.) In targeting peaceful speech and assembly, the Department of Justice has a long and pervasive history of using the FACE Act to violate Americans\u2019 constitutional rights.<\/p>\n<h2>An Abuse of the Commerce Clause<\/h2>\n<p>The law is also unconstitutional on its face. When its constitutionality has been challenged in court, the FACE Act\u2019s defenders typically cite the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution to justify Congress\u2019s authority to pass a law dealing with crimes that could be (and often are) prosecuted at the local level. The Commerce Clause <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/constitution\/articlei#section8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">allows<\/a> Congress:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>That brief phrase hardly seems to empower the federal government to target pro-life protesters at abortion facilities. The courts have historically inflated the meaning of the Commerce Clause by monstrous proportions, to the point that, in <em>U.S. v. Lopez<\/em> in 1995, the government <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/commerce_clause\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">argued<\/a> that the \u201cauthority to regulate firearms in local schools \u2026 fell under the Commerce Clause on grounds that possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions.\u201d In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled against that argument, attempting to limit congressional commerce power to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/commerce_clause\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">regulation of<\/a> \u201cthe channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Some courts have argued that the FACE Act applies to actions in the third category. As the Seventh Circuit coldly <a href=\"https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/us-v-wilson-537\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">put it<\/a>, \u201cCongress found that obstructing access to abortion clinics decreases the number of abortions performed and therefore negatively impacts interstate commerce.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>To an observer whose basic understanding of the Constitution hasn\u2019t been marred by the onslaught of vacuous and rambling attempts to inflate it, this is obviously an illegitimate use of Congress\u2019s commerce power. In its decision in <em><a href=\"https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/hoffman-v-hunt-3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Hoffman v. Hunt<\/a><\/em>, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina observed that the Commerce Clause:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>\u2026has generated an inordinate number of judicial decisions because some courts fail to appreciate that our national government is one of limited and enumerated powers rather than an all powerful national government with jurisdiction to manage and regulate the general affairs of its citizens.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>\u201cThe notion that Congress can enact FACE because the activities of protestors result in fewer abortions as well as less interstate movement of people and goods is really straining at gnats,\u201d the court continued. \u201cIn fact, FACE is not aimed at the commercial activity of abortion clinics. It is aimed at the basic freedom of individuals to engage in civil protest.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>While that decision was subsequently overturned and is no longer legally binding, it accurately points out the flaws in the reasoning behind the FACE Act\u2019s passage.<\/p>\n<h2>A \u2018State and Local Problem\u2019<\/h2>\n<p>Adding to the evidence that Congress overstepped its authority by passing the FACE Act is the fact that state and local laws criminalizing assault, threats of injury, disorderly conduct, and trespassing (to name a few) already exist. \u201cEverything that might be covered of legitimate illegality under the FACE Act is already illegal in all 50 states, under state law,\u201d noted former Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli during a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation on Friday. \u201cThis act was passed to undertake federal elected officials\u2019 favorite thing: look busy \u2026 and to bring the kind of intimidation power [that is] always asymmetrical.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis is a state and local problem and should be returned to the states,\u201d added Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Andrew Bath. <\/p>\n<p>Both in its application and on its face, the FACE Act is an abuse of power by aggressive bureaucrats increasingly hostile to the views and existence of political dissidents. It is an unconstitutional threat to the Americans whom the Justice Department once existed to protect. And Congress needs to get rid of it.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n<p>\n  Elle Purnell is an assistant editor at The Federalist, and received her B.A. in government from Patrick Henry College with a minor in journalism. Follow her work on Twitter @_etreynolds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Just this year, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Merrick Garland, a Biden appointee, has announced indictments of 22 peaceful pro-life protesters, trumping up bogus charges based on the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1715210,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[547],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1716124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-bongino-report"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1716124","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1716124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1716124\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1715210"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1716124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1716124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1716124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}