Republicans Move A Step Closer To Repealing Protections For Abortion Clinics
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, also known as the FACE Act, was enacted in 1994 by President Bill Clinton in response to escalating violence against abortion clinics. The law made it a federal crime to use force or the threat of force to injure, intimidate or block any person trying to provide or access reproductive health care services. While the law has primarily been used to protect abortion clinics, it also protects fertility clinics, anti-abortion pregnancy centers, churches and other places of religious worship from similar violence.
Anti-abortion violence dropped by 30% when the FACE Act was first signed into law. The law is arguably now more important than ever, since federal abortion protections fell in 2022 and violence against providers and clinics have skyrocketed. The year the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade, there was a 538% increase in people obstructing clinic entrances, a 913% increase in stalking of clinic staff and a 133% increase in bomb threats, according to a National Abortion Federation report.
Reproductive rights are under attack. HuffPost is committed to reporting the truth, amplifying voices, and covering this fight with depth and care. Support our work by today.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025 earlier this year, claiming that President Joe Biden's administration weaponized the law to prosecute anti-abortion activists. The repeal is part of a yearslong push by the GOP to stoke a false narrative that Democrats are waging a war against the anti-abortion religious right. Republican support for the bill comes less than a month after a California fertility clinic was bombed and one person died.
After a heated debate on Tuesday, the repeal bill passed in a 13-10 vote along party lines. It now heads to the House for consideration.
'NAF has been tracking anti-abortion violence since 1977, and we know this for certain: when the FACE Act is being enforced, it is an effective and important tool to keep abortion providers and their patients safe,' Julie Gonen, chief legal officer at the National Abortion Federation (NAF), said in a Tuesday statement. 'It is unconscionable to see anti-abortion legislators trying to repeal a law that has been keeping people safe for decades.'
During Tuesday's debate, Roy claimed that he had little issue with the actual law and instead worried about overcriminalization and the Biden administration's 'one-sided enforcement of the law.' He noted that he's received pushback from within the Trump administration over his repeal bill because he said the administration is looking to use the FACE Act to protect churches.
'The previous administration weaponized the FACE Act to prosecute nonviolent pro-life Americans with the harshest sentences,' Roy said, routinely referring to abortion clinics and pro-choice advocates as 'anti-life.'
Republicans argued that the law has been disproportionately applied against anti-abortion advocates who protest at abortion clinics. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said there has 'most certainly been egregious abuse' from the Biden administration's 'selective enforcement' of the law.
Roy said in his opening statement that 8% of the FACE Act cases filed under Biden's Department of Justice were against protesters at anti-abortion centers and 92% were against anti-abortion activists at abortion clinics. Because of this there should be a full repeal of the federal law, Republicans argued.
But several Democrats pointed out that simply looking at the numbers does not prove selective enforcement of the law. Instead, it shows that abortion clinics face a disproportionate amount of harassment and violence from anti-abortion protesters.
'The FACE Act is completely viewpoint neutral in its textual scope and viewpoint neutral in its application,' ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said. 'If more people have been convicted of attacking pro-choice abortion clinics than have been convicted of attacking pro-life pregnancy centers, as my friend from Texas suggests, it is because there have been vastly more people attacking abortion clinics than attacking pregnancy centers.'
The only Republican on the committee who did not support a full repeal was Rep. Tom McClintock (Calif.), who said enforcement was abused but the law should instead be revised.
Days into his presidency, Donald Trump announced he would limit enforcement of the FACE Act. He dismissed a handful of current ongoing FACE investigations and instructed prosecutors to apply the law only in 'extraordinary circumstances' such as instances of death, extreme bodily harm or significant property damage.
Trump also pardoned 23 people for FACE convictions that ranged from harassing pregnant patients to breaking into clinics and stealing fetal tissue. Several of those pardoned, some of whom were serving prison time, have already said theyplan to return to targeting and invading abortion clinics.
Abortion providers, clinic staff and other experts working in the reproductive health field told HuffPost shortly after Trump's announcement that they were deeply demoralized by the administration's decision. Some had already seen an increase in aggression and hostility from protesters in the few weeks since Trump took office.
'Unless you have worked at an abortion clinic, you will never understand the terror we face on a daily basis,' Renee Chelian, founder and CEO of Michigan abortion clinic Northland Family Planning, said in a statement following the advancement of the bill to repeal the FACE Act.
Chelian and her staff have survived arson attacks and a chemical bomb, as well as bomb and death threats. Eight of the protesters who attacked Northland Family Planning were convicted under the FACE Act during the Biden administration, but were later pardoned by Trump.
'Our patients have been blockaded from entering while needing immediate medical attention. My own children were targeted and terrorized,' Chelian said. 'The FACE Act is one of the only tools to hold these criminals accountable … There is no explanation for repealing this law other than purposefully inspiring violence against patients and clinic staff.'
'We're Sitting Ducks': Abortion Providers Brace For Violence After Trump Limits Clinic Protections
Arson, Burglary, Death Threats: Abortion Clinics See Uptick In Violence Post-Roe
Trump Admin Sends 'Ominous Signal' On Emergency Abortion Care Guidelines
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a minute ago
- CNN
Judge rules that some Texas schools don't have to display Ten Commandments in classrooms
A federal judge has ruled that several Texas school districts do not need to comply with a state law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all classrooms. The colorful 55-page opinion issued Wednesday by US District Judge Fred Biery is the latest court victory in a series of legal challenges to laws that have been enacted in three southern states over the last year that require public schools to display the Ten Commandments. 'Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do,' Biery wrote. The judge – who was appointed by Bill Clinton – skewered the controversial law, known as S.B. 10, concluding that it's likely unconstitutional and cannot be enforced in several Texas school districts, including ones in Houston, Austin and Fort Bend County. 'Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: 'Mrs. Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?'' Biery added. 'Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues, … and a classic example of the law of unintended consequences in legislative edicts.' The judge ended his opinion by writing, 'For those who disagree with the Court's decision and who would do so with threats, vulgarities and violence, Grace and Peace unto you. May humankind of all faiths, beliefs and non-beliefs be reconciled one to another. Amen.' More than a dozen Texas families of various faiths sued over the state's law – which was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June and is set to take effect statewide starting next month – arguing it violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. Biery agreed. The law, he said, 'impermissibly takes sides on theological questions and officially favors Christian denominations over others.' The Texas law requires public schools to post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch (41-by-51-centimeter) poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship. Similar laws were enacted this year and last year in Arkansas and Louisiana. Court challenges to those measures have also resulted in favorable rulings. Legal experts have said that it's likely the cases will eventually be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Attorneys for the families behind the Texas case cast Biery's ruling as a strong rejection of state lawmakers' push to impose their religious preferences on to public school students in the Lone Star State. 'Today's ruling is a major win that protects the constitutional right to religious freedom for Texas families of all backgrounds,' said Tommy Buser-Clancy, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 'The court affirmed what we have long said: Public schools are for educating, not evangelizing.' CNN has reached out to Abbott's office and the Texas attorney general's office for comment on the ruling.
CBS News
a minute ago
- CBS News
Maryland Republicans ask President Trump to keep U.S. Marshals out of Piedmont power line project
A group of Maryland Republican lawmakers are urging President Trump to block a request to deploy U.S. Marshals in support of survey work for the controversial Piedmont Reliability Project, calling the move a "clear overreach" of federal resources and an intimidation tactic against local landowners. In a letter dated Aug. 20, seven Republican delegates from Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties expressed strong opposition to a federal court motion filed by New Jersey-based developer PSEG Renewable Transmission. The developer, which is planning to build a 70-mile high-voltage transmission line through central Maryland, requested U.S. Marshals to accompany surveyors who have allegedly faced threats from property owners—particularly in Carroll County. The lawmakers said that landowners in the path of the project are "understandably outraged" over the possibility of survey crews entering private property without consent. They criticized the project, saying it offers "no energy benefit" to Maryland. "This request constitutes a clear overreach," the lawmakers wrote. "It is a gross misuse of federal resources to send Marshals, particularly while appeals are in process. This is a local issue." The project has drawn sharp criticism from residents, environmental groups, and property rights advocates who say the line would cut through farms, forests, and protected watersheds. PSEG says the infrastructure is needed to address regional energy congestion and to avoid potential blackouts in the coming years, per analysis from grid operator PJM Interconnection. In the letter, Republican delegates, including House Minority Whip Jesse Pippy, Assistant Minority Leader April Rose, and Delegates Barrie Ciliberti, April Miller, Chris Tomlinson, Joshua Stonko, and Nino Mangione, argue that federal involvement would escalate tensions and erode trust. "The involvement of U.S. Marshals in this context is causing undue distress and anxiety among local residents," the letter reads. "This heavy-handed approach would be disproportionate and unnecessary." The lawmakers also said that local law enforcement agencies allegedly told surveyors they would not participate in enforcing PSEG's property access, but were willing to respond if public safety concerns arise. They argue any necessary security measures should be managed locally, not through federal intervention. PSEG's request for federal protection remains pending before the U.S. District Court in Maryland. The delegates urged the court to deny PSEG's motion, saying it would "foster a more collaborative atmosphere" if survey work proceeds without federal law enforcement presence. In a motion filed Aug. 15 in U.S. District Court in Maryland, PSEG Renewable Transmission requested that U.S. Marshals protect them during land surveys, after crews were allegedly threatened while attempting to access private land in Carroll County. According to the court filing, survey crews and private security personnel faced multiple threats while trying to conduct property assessments at six locations. Crews detailed several alleged incidents. In one encounter, PSEG said crews faced a man pointing a gun at them during one attempted survey. In another case, an ATV rider allegedly charged at private security, nearly striking one guard. At a separate property, the company said dogs were intentionally released toward the crew. PSEG also said that during one survey attempt, a landowner warned then they would "leave in a body bag" if they entered.
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
California High-Speed Rail Project Funding Under Investigation
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has opened an investigation into federal funding awarded to the California High-Speed Rail Authority and whether it knowingly misrepresented ridership projections and financial viability to obtain federal and state funds. Committee Chairman James Comer announced the investigation on Tuesday in an open letter to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Why It Matters Years of delays and an inflated budget have damaged public and political faith in California's high-speed rail project, but the past few years have seen progress, with construction happening throughout the state and tracklaying set to begin later this year. Proponents of the project say that to call it off now, as many of its detractors in the White House desire, would waste years of advancement. That has not stopped Trump, a long-standing critic of the project, from regularly threatening to take away the federal funding that has been vital to the project's progress, a threat he and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy carried out in July. What To Know Chairman Comer requested a staff-level briefing, documents and communications from the U.S. Department of Transportation as part of a probe into whether CHSRA misrepresented ridership and financial forecasts to secure federal and state funding. "The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating federal funding sent to the California High-Speed Rail Authority," said James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "As part of our investigation, we are seeking to understand whether the Authority knowingly misrepresented the ridership projections and the associated financial viability of the California High-Speed Rail Project to secure federal and state funds." Stock Image: An Amtrak Coast Starlight train, Simi Valley, California, USA - May 24, 2024. Stock Image: An Amtrak Coast Starlight train, Simi Valley, California, USA - May 24, 2024. Getty Images The committee's move followed a June Federal Railroad Administration compliance review that concluded the California High-Speed Rail Authority lacked a viable path to complete the project on time or on budget and flagged overstated ridership projections and other management failures. In response, a spokesperson from the Authority told Newsweek: "This is yet another baseless attempt to manufacture controversy around America's largest and most complex infrastructure project. "The Authority has already addressed these recycled criticisms in its response to the FRA's compliance review supported by facts, noting the ridership critiques are 'nonsensical, cherrypicked and out-of-date, and therefore misleading.'" This prompted the FRA to terminate roughly $4 billion in unspent federal grants for the project in mid-July 2025, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation and news reporting. The outcome carried potential implications for hundreds of millions of federal taxpayer dollars, ongoing Central Valley construction activity and broader debates over the federal role in large infrastructure projects, as both federal and state officials prepared competing legal and administrative responses. Voters approved nearly $9.95 billion in state bonds in 2008 to support an originally planned 800-mile system with a projected 2020 completion and a $33 billion price tag, while current estimates of total project costs have ranged broadly, with figures between roughly $89 billion and $128 billion reported since the approval. What People Are Saying Sean P. Duffy, U.S. Transportation Secretary (Republican), said in a DOT statement on June 4, 2025: "I promised the American people we would be good stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars. This report exposes a cold, hard truth: CHSRA has no viable path to complete this project on time or on budget." Ian Choudri, CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, wrote in a July 2025 response reported by the Los Angeles Times: "Rather than rely on the relevant information and documentation provided by the Authority, FRA inexplicably relies on outdated information, unreliable, unsupported third-party sources, and incomplete and flawed analyses to support its conclusions." What Happens Next The House Oversight Committee sought documents and a staff-level briefing from the Department of Transportation as its initial investigatory step, and the committee's requests and the DOT's responses will determine whether further subpoenas or hearings follow, according to the committee release and reporting.
