On June 10, the House Judiciary Committee voted 13–10 to advance H.R. 589, which seeks to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. Enacted in 1994 with bipartisan support after a wave of violent attacks, including the murder of abortion provider Dr. David Gunn, the law makes it a federal crime to use force, threats, or physical obstruction to block access to reproductive health facilities, places of worship, or crisis pregnancy centers.
“We are considering this legislation for one reason,” said Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-IL), “to green light violence against abortion care in this country.”
Supporters of the repeal bill, including Rep. Chip Roy (R‑TX), argue the FACE Act is being misused against anti-abortion extremists. Rep. Roy claimed that “a peaceful grandmother spent years in prison for praying,” referring to extremist Eva Edl, who was arrested and charged with blocking access to a Tennessee clinic. The lawmakers also pointed to instances of vandalism at anti-abortion centers and churches following Dobbs, claiming these have not received the same level of federal attention as attacks on abortion clinics.
However, the Department of Justice has prosecuted multiple cases under the FACE Act targeting threats against crisis pregnancy centers. In one recent case, three individuals were charged after admitting to defacing several centers with threatening messages.
The lawmakers supporting the FACE Act noted that every effort to challenge the act in court has failed. “There has been a coordinated attack on the FACE Act since it was passed, it was even mentioned in Project 2025,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA). But the act has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, and lawmakers like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D‑MD) and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D‑NY) emphasized that it regulates conduct, not prayer or speech. “No one is being arrested for praying,” Rep. Scanlon added.
Data collected by the National Abortion Federation show the law’s impact on provider and patient safety. Since the passage of the FACE Act, anti-abortion violence decreased by nearly 30%. However, NAF has reported significant increases in clinic disruptions following Dobbs, including a 229% spike in stalking incidents, a 231% rise in clinic invasions, and a doubling of assault reports from 2021 to 2022. The FACE Act remains one of the few federal tools aimed specifically at addressing those threats.
Some Republicans, such as Rep. Tom McClintock (R‑CA), acknowledged that the law is “viewpoint neutral,” noting it applies equally to abortion clinics, crisis pregnancy centers, and religious institutions. “Biden did abuse this act,” argued Rep. McClintock, “but it protects everyone, pro-life or pro-abortion.” He called for reform over repeal to ensure fair enforcement. Others, like Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), labeled the law as federal overreach, claiming that state laws are sufficient. “We already have laws to stop violent acts,” said Rep. Van Drew.
Repealing the FACE Act would remove a critical layer of protection at a time when threats and violence against reproductive health providers are rising. The law was enacted in response to local law enforcement’s failure to respond consistently to politically motivated attacks. Without it, there would be no uniform federal standard to prevent obstruction and intimidation, leaving providers and patients vulnerable to the same dangers that necessitated the law in the first place. “The act was needed in the first place because doctors were murdered,” said Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT), “if we repeal this, we are headed right back to that state of lawlessness.”
Now heading to a full House vote, H.R. 589 would dismantle a key federal safeguard. Data and legal precedent affirm that the FACE Act continues to play a vital role in protecting access, without limiting peaceful protest or speech.
As Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) put it during the mark up, “let’s not continue to play politics with women’s reproductive health.”
