    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         REVISITING THE IMPLICATIONS OF
                                  THE FACE ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND
                                LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2023

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-19

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    52-287                     WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
    MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
    MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin                   Georgia
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ADAM SCHIFF, California
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
    VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             TED LIEU, California
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    TROY NEHLS, Texas                    MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
    KEVIN KILEY, California              DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
    NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               GLENN IVEY, Maryland
    LAUREL LEE, Florida
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina

                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                         MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Chair
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
    CHIP ROY, Texas                          Ranking Member
    DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    KEVIN KILEY, California              VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
                                             Georgia

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
              AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, May 16, 2023

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
      Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Louisiana     1
    The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
      Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
      the State of Pennsylvania......................................     3
    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     5
    The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     5

                                   WITNESSES

    Mark Houck, President, The King's Men
      Oral Testimony.................................................     9
    Tammy Kocher, Executive Director, New Life Family Services
      Oral Testimony.................................................    10
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    13
    Talcott Camp, Chief Legal Strategy Officer, National Abortion
      Federation
      Oral Testimony.................................................    17
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    19
    Jeremy Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
      Oral Testimony.................................................    22
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    24
      Supplemental Material..........................................    33
    Arielle Del Turco, Director, Center for Religious Liberty, Family
      Research Council
      Oral Testimony.................................................    34
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    36
      Supplemental Material..........................................    39

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the
      Constitution and Limited Government are listed below...........    66

    A report entitled, ``2022 Violence & Disruption Statistics,''
      National Abortion Federation, submitted by the Honorable Mary
      Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
      Constitution and Limited Government from the State of
      Pennsylvania, for the record
    A report entitled, ``Appendix A--Attacks on Pro-Life Facilities
      in the Last Year,'' submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan,
      Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio,
      for the record
    Two reports entitled, ``Hostility Against Churches: Supplemental
      Report--First Quarter 2023, Issue Brief,'' April 2023, and
      ``Hostility Against Churches Is on the Rise in the United
      States, Issue Analysis,'' December 2022, Family Research
      Counsil, submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the
      Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
      the State of Louisiana, for the record
    A report entitled, ``Designed to Deceive: A Study of the Crisis
      Pregnancy Center Industry in Nine States: A Study of the Crisis
      Pregnancy Center Industry in Nine States,'' Alliance, submitted
      by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
      Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
      the State of Pennsylvania, for the record

                         REVISITING THE IMPLICATIONS OF.
                                  THE FACE ACT

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, May 16, 2023

                            House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Johnson
    [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Johnson of Louisiana,
    Jordan, Roy, Bishop, Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, Fry, Scanlon,
    Nadler, Cohen, Escobar, Jackson Lee, and Johnson of Georgia.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The Subcommittee will come to
    order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess at any time.
        We welcome everybody to today's hearing on the FACE Act. It
    is a really important issue. I now recognize myself for an
    opening statement.
        We want to thank our witnesses for being here this morning.
    Some of you came a long way, and we really appreciate your
    time. Today is our Committee's first hearing regarding the
    Biden Administration's use of the Freedom of Access to Clinic
    Entrances Act, or the FACE Act, as we call it.
        Since the Dobbs decision was leaked over a year ago now,
    there have been more than 100 attacks on pregnancy resource
    centers and churches across America, more than 100.
        These attacks have included fire bombings and vandalism
    that includes phrases written in graffiti like, ``If abortions
    aren't safe, neither are you.'' Including smashing of windows,
    targeted online harassment, protesters threatening violence
    outside pregnancy resource centers and churches, and many other
    acts.
        Federal law obviously prohibits all this conduct. The FACE
    Act states that,

               threats of force, obstruction, and property damage
            intended to interfere with pregnancy resource centers are
            illegal.

    It also states that,

                force or threat of force to intentionally injure,
            intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or
            seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious
            freedom at a place of religious worship is prohibited.

        However, here is the problem. The Biden Administration has
    rarely enforced the statute to protect these organizations that
    are covered. For example, on June 7, 2022, last summer, vandals
    associated with a group called Jane's Revenge firebombed the
    CompassCare Pregnancy Services in Buffalo, New York.
        Half a million dollars in damages were done to that
    facility. To this moment, the FBI has done nothing to bring
    charges in the CompassCare case.
        That is just one example among many. The Justice Department
    to date has brought only four indictments against pro-abortion
    activists, all of which were related to a single Jane's Revenge
    attack in Florida.
        Four indictments, just four indictments are not even a drop
    in the bucket when you compare the hundreds of attacks that
    have occurred against pro-life organizations and churches since
    this law's inception.
        Here is the worst part, and this is a glaring fact, and it
    is impossible to overlook. While these radical left-wing groups
    go unpunished, the Justice Department at the same time has
    unleashed Federal law enforcement on pro-life advocates.
        Here's just a couple of examples. In October 2022, Eva Edl,
    an 87-year-old pro-life advocate and survivor of a communist
    concentration camp, was charged with a FACE Act violation for
    singing and praying near an abortion clinic. In February, Ms.
    Edl was again charged under the FACE Act for ``standing in
    front of a door'' of a Michigan abortion clinic in August 2020.
        Ms. Edl was confined to a wheelchair at that time. The
    Justice Department claimed that the 87-year-old woman was
    charged because she ``intimidated patients and employees.''
        Then, there is Mark Houck, who we will hear from shortly.
    He will share his testimony today. His home was raided at dawn
    by more than 20 FBI agents with guns drawn in front of his wife
    and seven young children for an alleged FACE Act violation.
        Thankfully, despite the FBI's brazen and unwarranted and
    tactics, a 12-person jury unanimously and very quickly
    acquitted him of those Federal charges that were brought
    against him.
        The targeting of advocates like Ms. Edl and Mr. Houck
    compared to the lack of enforcement against those who attack
    pregnancy resource centers and churches are striking. Pregnancy
    resource centers serve millions of women annually across this
    country with a multitude of services virtually free of charge.
    Most of them are nonprofits, of course, and they should be able
    to operate without fear.
        They provide care to pregnant women and distribute
    necessary items like clothing and diapers to mothers, and the
    women that seek these services should not be able--should be
    able to do so obviously without facing any danger. Churchgoers
    should be able to exercise their First Amendment right to
    religious freedom at places of worship without being
    terrorized.
        Unfortunately, this has not been the case under Attorney
    General Garland's Justice Department. This Committee is
    concerned with the apparent unequal application of the FACE Act
    by the Biden Administration. It is our job to monitor this.
        The application and enforcement of this act is an important
    matter of Congressional oversight, and this hearing will
    provide Members of our Committee and our Full Committee in the
    Judiciary with the opportunity to reexamine the FACE Act and
    explore ways that Congress might reform the statute.
        We believe in justice for all, and the FACE Act should be
    used to prosecute crimes committed against all entities covered
    by the law. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today,
    and I yield back.
        I now recognize our Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from
    Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Today's hearing on revisiting the implications of the FACE
    Act, that is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act,
    gives us an opportunity to consider the deeply troubling,
    decades-long history of violence, threats, and intimidation of
    people providing or accessing reproductive health services.
        The FACE Act was passed in 1994 in response to a decades-
    long campaign of threats and violence by anti-abortion forces
    against facilities and providers of abortion services, and
    shortly after a doctor who provided such services was murdered
    by these extremists in 1993. The bill had bipartisan support in
    both houses, passing by voice vote in the House, and with
    bipartisan support in the Senate.
        In the past few years, we have seen a disturbing rise in
    political violence in this country, particularly, from right-
    wing extremists. Just yesterday, we learned of an attempt to
    attack one of our House colleagues, which resulted in injuries
    and hospitalization for two of his staff members.
        This attack occurs amid a tenfold rise in threats of
    violence against Members of Congress since 2016. Also, a rise
    in threats and attacks against public officials, law
    enforcement, school board members, and other elected officials.
        Therefore, against the background of rising political
    violence, it might make sense to hold a hearing to examine how
    Congress can reduce political violence, particularly in the
    wake of the Dobbs decision, which overruled 50 years of
    precedent in Roe v. Wade.
        That is not the purpose of this hearing. This majority has
    stacked the hearing with witnesses to testify about only
    threats and violence impacting anti-abortion facilities, while
    ignoring the far more numerous and ongoing threats against
    individuals and facilities that provide abortion care and other
    reproductive health services.
        Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, since the
    start of this Congress, the extremist Members of the House
    majority have sought to highlight only the reprehensible
    attacks against pro-life organizations and to suppress evidence
    of far greater and more longstanding attacks against abortion
    providers.
        This false equivalency and disinformation feeds into the
    division and chaos afflicting our country and encourages more
    violence. This hearing continues the narrative pushed by the
    House majority since the start of this Congress, a narrative of
    manufactured outrage to stigmatize and distract from the deeply
    unpopular efforts of an extremist minority to enact or enforce
    a nationwide abortion ban.
        One of the first bills passed by this Congress was H. Con.
    Res. 3, rammed through in the first week with no regular order,
    no process. That resolution condemned the recent attacks on
    pro-life facilities while conspicuously failing to condemn any
    of the thousands of acts of violence, threats, and intimidation
    faced by abortion providers and patients, whether in the
    aftermath of the Dobbs decision or over the course of preceding
    decades.
        Violence, threats, and intimidation tactics should have no
    place in our political discourse, including in our Nation's
    ongoing debate over abortion access. We must condemn all
    political violence and threats of violence, whatever the
    beliefs or motivations of those who engage in it, and
    regardless of who the target may be.
        Experts on political violence and threat it poses to our
    democracy say that one of the primary things that must happen
    is leaders must condemn such political violence. Just as
    pernicious as normalizing or advocating for such violence is
    those who twist the facts to excuse or minimize such violence
    when it supports their cause.
        So, yes, the FACE Act's scope does include anti-abortion
    facilities, but let's be clear. The overwhelming majority of
    such violence, threats, and intimidation has been and continues
    to be directed against abortion providers and patients by anti-
    abortion extremists. So, any attempt to revisit the
    implications of the FACE Act have to consider that history and
    the ongoing facts of such violence.
        Now, we have just heard that the Republican majority is
    trying to show that there is some kind of selective enforcement
    by the Biden Administration in enforcing the FACE Act to target
    anti-abortion activists, but I think the facts speak for
    themselves.
        FBI Director Wray testified to the Senate last summer that
    when it was reported the Supreme Court intended to reverse Roe
    v. Wade, the FBI put out a directive to its field offices to be
    actively looking for potential threats. He said that the Joint
    Terrorism Task Forces were specifically focused on attacks and
    threats against churches, pro-life organizations, pregnancy
    resources centers, and similar organizations.
        Wray went on to say there's too many people that seem to
    think that passions running high justifies engaging in violence
    and destruction of property. Sorry, I had an extended quote, I
    don't think we need to go into all of it, but it says,

            On abortion or anything else, you don't get to use violence or
            threats of violence to act on it. And we are going to go after
            that contact aggressively. I feel very strongly about that. I
            have communicated that very strongly to all of our field
            offices and our workforce.

        In fact, earlier this year, the Department of Justice
    successfully obtained indictments in the Middle District of
    Florida against two people for violating the FACE Act after
    they allegedly vandalized an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy
    center.
        The Department has also reached out to the United States
    Conference of Catholic Bishops, among other groups, to ask for
    their assistance to let the anti-abortion facilities know that
    the FACE Act protects them. Further, in December of last year,
    the FBI offered a $25,000 reward to obtain evidence concerning
    attacks against such facilities.
        So, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue
    to push a false narrative that the Federal government is out to
    get them, but the facts are not on their side. The clear
    majority of Americans believe we must protect access to
    abortion and the freedom to make such healthcare decisions in
    consultation with one's doctor, not politicians.
        At this point, I would seek unanimous consent to introduce
    a report from the National Abortion Foundation entitled, ``2022
    Violence and Disruption Statistics.''
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. I now recognize the
    Chair of our Full Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jordan, for his
    opening statement.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Politics is driving the agenda in our Federal agencies. If
    you don't believe me, just read the Durham Report from
    yesterday. No probable cause, no predicate, no evidence
    whatsoever, and yet they used a fake dossier from the Clinton
    campaign to open an investigation into a Presidential campaign.
    They spied on American citizens.
        Here is what the Durham Report said, ``the FBI failed to
    uphold their mission of fidelity to the law. They didn't follow
    the law.''
        In 2020, we have just learned in the last couple weeks, it
    was the Biden campaign working with 51 former intelligence
    officials to put together a letter that was not accurate to
    interfere with a Presidential election.
        Politics is driving the agenda in far too many agencies in
    our government, and today it is not limited to Presidential
    campaigns. Today they come after American citizens. You could
    be a Catholic attending a Mass. You could be a parent showing
    up at a school board meeting.
        Or you can be like Mr. Houck, a pro-lifer praying at a
    clinic. You will be targeted; you could be targeted by our
    government. That is how scary the situation has become.
        So, I want to thank Mr. Houck and the other witnesses for
    being here today. God bless you, Mr. Houck, what you had to go
    through. Twenty agents showing up at your house in front of
    your wife and your seven children. Arresting you when you were
    willing to turn yourself--that is how ridiculous it has become
    in our country.
        So, Mr. Chair, thank you for this hearing. We are sick of
    the double standard. We are sick of politics driving who gets
    prosecuted, who gets pursued and who doesn't. It is wrong. It
    is not supposed to happen in the greatest Nation ever, where we
    have a Bill of Rights, where we have a Constitution and where
    we have the rule of law.
        It is. This hearing is going to help expose all the
    ridiculous things going on, and why frankly this Congress
    should look at the appropriations process and what we have to
    do there to begin to rein in these Federal agencies that are
    trampling on American citizens' rights.
        With that, I yield back to the Chair.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. I now
    recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler,
    for his opening statement.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Chair, I should be astonished, but I am not, that the
    Chair of the Committee would quote from the discredited Durham
    Report and the discredited Mr. Durham, who filed I think a 300-
    and-something report--
        Chair Jordan. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Nadler. No. Who filed a something 300-page report
    giving his opinions, but whose two prosecutions both resulted
    in acquittals and jurors saying why did we ever even have to
    take this.
        Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by saying that I condemn
    violence in all its forms, including threats, vandalism, and
    property destruction against any person or organization,
    regardless of their position on abortion rights.
        I would also like to reiterate my condemnation of the
    attempted murder of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I am
    grateful that law enforcement took Justice Kavanaugh's would-be
    assassin into custody before he could complete an act of
    violence.
        In a democracy, violence is never in a political dispute,
    and it should be roundly and unreservedly condemned. Yet, for
    decades, anti-abortion extremists have used violence, threats,
    and disruption to curb access to abortion.
        According to the National Abortion Federation, or NAF,
    since 1977, anti-abortion extremists have been responsible for
    11 murders, 42 bombings, 200 arsons, 531 assaults, and
    thousands of incidents of criminal activities directed at
    patients, providers, and volunteers.
        Nearly 30 years ago, in response to this disruptive
    violence, including the murder of Dr. David Gunn, Congress
    passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. I have
    been unequivocal in my support for the FACE Act, as well as for
    the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters, with
    whom I deeply disagree, so long as that speech does not cross
    the line into violent conduct or disruption.
        As a cosponsor of the bill in 1993, which our former
    Judiciary Committee colleague and now-Senate majority leader
    Chuck Schumer introduced in the House, I remarked on the floor
    that,

            Anti-abortion protesters have an absolute right to say don't do
            it or anything else they want to say. They do not have any
            right to say by means of physical force or intimidation, we
            won't let you do it.

        Today's Subcommittee hearing, however, is a lost
    opportunity to focus on the real, longstanding problem of
    violence and disruption that doctors, nurses, patients, and
    volunteers face in providing or accessing abortion, which
    appear have to have spiked follow the Supreme Court's decision
    in Dobbs.
        Instead, the apparent purpose of today's hearing is to
    provide yet another platform for the majority's inflammatory,
    anti-Federal law enforcement rhetoric, which I fear will only
    further contribute to a political climate where anti-abortion
    extremists believe their violent conduct is justified,
    particularly in States where abortion remains protected by law.
        According to NAF's latest report on the matter, in 2022,
    States that are protective of abortion rights saw a
    disproportionate increase in violence and disruption targeting
    doctors and their patients.
        This includes a 538 percent increase in obstructions, which
    NAF defines as causing a delay or attempting to cause a delay
    in the conduct of business or preventing people from entering
    or exiting an area, textbook examples of the conduct prohibited
    by the FACE Act.
        Despite this surge in incidents and the long history of
    violence and disruption perpetrated by anti-abortion
    extremists, which necessitated Congress to pass the FACE Act in
    the first place, today's hearing is designed to further
    majority's misleading political narrative that the Biden
    Administration is using Federal law enforcement to target
    conservatives.
        There is zero evidence that Federal prosecutors are
    selectively targeting anti-abortion protesters under the FACE
    Act. To the contrary, it appears that DOJ is enforcing the law
    without regard to defendants' viewpoints.
        At a recent bipartisan briefing provided to Judiciary
    Committee staff, FBI representatives stated that approximately
    75 percent of FACE Act investigations concern incidents against
    anti-abortion facilities.
        Yet, Republicans insist on devoting the Subcommittee's time
    to this manufactured controversy to placate a minority of anti-
    abortion MAGA Republicans who would like this Congress to pass
    a total nationwide ban on abortion.
        Let me be clear. Democrats stand with the majority of the
    American public and will always oppose such a radical position.
    Regardless of your position on abortion rights, we must condemn
    all acts of violence, regardless of who is the ultimate target,
    make clear that any individual who violates the FACE Act should
    be subject to prosecution.
        Unfortunately, by refusing to acknowledge the problem of
    violence against providers and patients and focusing only on
    this false narrative of malevolent Federal law enforcement,
    today's hearing will inadvertently send the wrong message to
    anti-abortion extremists at a critical moment in our Nation
    where reproductive freedom and abortion access is in crisis.
        This hearing is in a sense a repeat of a resolution we
    passed the first week of this session, first week of
    Republicans' control of the House, when we passed a resolution
    condemning violence at anti-abortion facilities, pregnancy
    crisis centers, but rejected a Democratic Amendment to add a
    condemnation of violence at abortion providers also.
        So, they rejected an Amendment. They said we will condemn
    violence against anti-abortion clinics, but we will not
    condemn, maybe say OK to, could not condemn violence at
    abortion clinics.
        Mr. Chair, I believe today's hearing is a wasteful and
    ultimately irresponsible use of this Subcommittee's time. With
    that, I yield back.
        Chair Jordan. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, sir.
        Chair Jordan. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into
    the record in response to Mr. Nadler's quote and manufactured
    crisis the list of over 100 crisis pregnancy centers and
    churches that have been vandalized in the aftermath of the leak
    of the Dobbs opinion and the Dobbs decision.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
        I will also offer into the record, seeking unanimous
    consent to include the Family Research Council Report and its
    Supplemental Report. It is entitled, ``Hostility Against
    Churches Is on the Rise in the United States,'' Analyzing
    Incidents from 2018-2022. It was prepared by Ms. Arielle Del
    Turco, who is going to testify here shortly.
        Just one headline, key point, at least 420 acts of
    hostility against occurred between January 1918-September 2022
    across 45 U.S. States and Washington, DC. Without objection,
    these will all be entered into the record.
        Without objection, all other opening statements will be
    included in the record as well.
        We now introduce today's witnesses.
        I will begin with Mr. Mark Houck. He is a father, husband,
    and pro-life advocate. In October 2021, he was standing on a
    street corner praying outside a Planned Parenthood facility.
    After Mr. Houck and his 12-year-old son were approached and
    harassed by a Planned Parenthood escort, Mr. Houck pushed the
    escort away from his young son.
        Nearly a year later, he was charged with violations of the
    FACE Act. Despite his lawyer offering to have him turn himself
    in, Mr. Houck's home was raided in the early morning by
    approximately 20 FBI agents and other law enforcement officers.
    Mr. Houck was unanimously acquitted of the charges by a jury.
        Ms. Tammy Kocher is the Executive Director of New Life
    Family Services in the Minneapolis--St. Paul area. In March
    2023, one of her facilities had its windows broken and its
    building was defaced by this group Jane's Revenge and their
    graffiti. One of those messages read, ``If abortions aren't
    safe, neither are you.''
        Ms. Talcott Camp is with us. She is Chief Legal and
    Strategy Officer at the National Abortion Federation. She
    oversees NAF's legal work and plays a major role in all NAF's
    strategic decisionmaking. Prior to joining the Federation, she
    was the Deputy Director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom
    Project.
        Mr. Jeremy Dys is a Senior Counsel at First Liberty
    Institute. First Liberty is the Nation's largest legal
    organization dedicated exclusively to defending religious
    liberty for all Americans. In his role, Mr. Dys litigates on
    behalf of clients in State and Federal courts, including FACE
    Act cases.
        Ms. Arielle Del Turco, referenced earlier, is the Director
    of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research
    Council, where she is responsible for religious freedom policy
    and advocacy efforts, and her recent research includes tracking
    the number of attacks against churches across the country. We
    just entered that report in the record.
        We welcome our witnesses, and we thank you all again for
    appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in, so would you
    please rise and raise your right hand for us.
        Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
    testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
    of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
        Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have
    answered in the affirmative. Thank you, you can be seated.
        So, all of you know that your written testimony will be
    entered into the record in its entirety, but we ask you
    summarize that testimony in your five minutes that is allotted.
        You have a microphone in front of you. It has a clock and a
    series of lights. When the light turns yellow, you should begin
    to conclude your remarks. When the light turns red, that means
    your time has expired.
        So, Mr. Houck, we will begin with you. You can start now.
    Hit that button for us, there you go.

                        STATEMENT OF MARK HOUCK

        Mr. Houck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member,
    Madam Ranking Member, and Jim Jordan, thank you for inviting me
    to be here today, and all Committee Members, thank you.
        Twenty years ago, I began pro-life work in the city of
    Philadelphia. I did peaceful protests and prayer vigils in
    front of many abortuary facilities in the Philadelphia. I have
    always been peaceful.
        I want to bring you to October 13, 2021, where I was with
    my son, 12-year-old son, praying in front of an abortuary in
    Philadelphia. On that day, a couple women walked out of the
    facility. I began to offer them literature, as I always do,
    with compassion, love, and great respect. In fact, I was 50
    feet away from the entrance of the building.
        I proceeded to walk with these women across the street,
    making me about 100 feet away from the entrance to building, to
    a crisis pregnancy center, pregnancy resource center, which was
    about six feet away from me. At that time, an escort in the
    building decided to run over, impede my progress, and get in
    the way of me ministering and talking to the women that had
    left Planned Parenthood, 12th and Locust Streets in
    Philadelphia.
        At that point, we exchanged some words. We went back to
    where we were praying, and I continued to pray with my 12-year-
    old son. About 20 minutes later, the escort, his name is Bruce
    Love, I have known him for years, I have known him for 20
    years, came out of the building.
        He made a direct line toward my son, stood right next to my
    son. Again, we are about 50 feet from the entrance to the
    building. He stood right next to my 12-year-old boy, who was a
    little intimidated and scared by this.
        I asked him if he could please give him some space. He did
    not. He has a right to be there. We just continued to pray. He
    continued to talk to me and offer insults to me, which of
    course he has done before, and it was never a problem for me. I
    just, I didn't listen to it.
        Then he started to begin to talk to my son. Now, he has
    talked to my son before. In fact, I believe he taught my son
    the ``F'' word. I am a home school dad, and that is the reality
    of it.
        Nonetheless, he begins to talk to my son and badger my son.
    Starts telling my son how evil his father is and how his father
    doesn't want to help women. I instructed him to step away, to
    go back to where he normally stands in front of the building,
    which he did not.
        He continued to badger my son. After repeated requests not
    to comply--not to stand next to my son, I escorted him back to
    where he normally stands, which he did comply. I turned around
    to face my son and go back to pray, and he turned around and
    began to badger my son again.
        At that point, I became a dad on the street concerned for
    my son. I did push the man. He did fall down. We went, we
    prayed for the man, we returned to the scene. I presented my
    information to the Civil Affairs Department that day, I gave my
    information.
        I want you to know that the Philadelphia PD and the DA in
    Philadelphia as well as the Civil Affairs Department did not
    intend to prosecute. They had no interest in that. I was put in
    a private criminal complaint, which was dismissed.
        I want to take you to April 22nd, when it was dismissed.
    Five days later, this is 2022, I was served a target letter on
    the same street corner with my 12-year-old boy. A target letter
    that I was a target of a Federal indictment.
        Fast forward to September 23rd. My attorneys reached
    initially at the target letter, stating that we would
    peacefully present ourselves to the district. There would be no
    need to come out to his house and disrupt his family and cause
    any trauma to them. That he is a peaceful man, he will come in.
    We said that.
        In August 2022, my attorney reached out to me and says have
    you heard from the Assistant U.S. Attorney. I said no. She
    won't return my phone calls, he says. I said, ``Well, maybe we
    will just let sleeping dogs lie.''
        On September 23rd, my home was raided by ten unmarked and
    marked units, State troopers, Federal law enforcement
    personnel. I had five Federal agents on my doorstep at 6:30 in
    the morning, with long guns pointed at me and my seven
    children.
        They banged on the door, and they said, ``open up.'' They
    did not even declare who they were that day. They didn't even
    asks me could you please open the door; we are the FBI. They
    just said, ``open up.'' I went to the door, I was up. I said,
    ``who is it.'' They said, ``it's the FBI, open up.'' So, I
    opened up the door peacefully. I said, ``please stay calm, I
    have seven babies in here.'' They pointed M-16 guns at me and
    my wife. My wife comes down and says, ``Do you have a warrant
    for his arrest.'' They said, ``we're taking him with or without
    a warrant.'' My wife said, ``you can't do that, that is
    kidnaping.'' We proceeded to go into a 4\1/2\-month trial that,
    as you know and have said previously, that we were acquitted
    of. That I was facing 11 years in prison, and I had every
    prospect in my heart that I would be in Federal prison away
    from my seven children.
        Thankfully, we were able to be acquitted, and I am blessed
    to be able to share the story today. Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr, Houck. Ms. Kocher,
    you are next, you may begin.

                       STATEMENT OF TAMMY KOCHER

        Ms. Kocher. Thank you, Chair Johnson, Ranking Member
    Scanlon, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to join today.
        My name is Tammy Kocher, and I have the privilege of
    serving as the Executive Director of New Life Family Services
    in Minneapolis, Minnesota. For 50 years, New Life has served
    Minnesota families as one of the most comprehensive, faith-
    based nonprofit organizations of its kind through its five
    pregnancy centers in the Minneapolis--St. Paul area, as well as
    Rochester.
        We provide professional, life-affirming care through no-
    cost pregnancy, parenting, and post-abortion services, as well
    as licensed adoption services. Every year, we serve more than
    6,000 women, men, and children through our five centers.
        We are particularly proud of our newest center, a 12,600
    square foot building in the heart of urban Minneapolis. This
    facility houses our largest pregnancy center and a full-service
    nonprofit medical clinic started by African immigrants. It has
    been a decade-long vision that came to fruition in 2022.
        Our new building is located in the Phillips community of
    Minneapolis, which is one of the most beautifully diverse and
    resilient communities in our State. It is also a community
    filled with numerous challenges, including generational
    poverty, illegal drugs, and gang activity.
        As you may recall, in 2020, Minneapolis was literally on
    fire after the tragic death of George Floyd. Our new center is
    about one mile north of George Floyd Square.
        This community has endured so much over the past several
    years. While Minneapolis has struggled greatly since 2020, New
    Life's love and commitment to this city and to hard-hit
    communities in particular, has never wavered.
        My purpose today is to share about the increasing hostility
    that pregnancy centers like ours are facing across the country.
    There are more than 3,000 pregnancy centers in the U.S. that
    provide compassionate, quality, no-cost medical and social
    services to hundreds of thousands of women, children, and
    families every year.
        In New Life's 50-year history, we have never experienced
    the type of attacks as we have this past year. Since the Dobbs
    decision, there have been numerous false narratives and
    outright lies told about the work of pregnancy centers.
    Minnesota is sadly one of the many States that have quickly
    turned into a hostile environment for pro-women, life-affirming
    organizations like ours.
        On August 23rd of last year, Minnesota Attorney General
    Ellison issued a misleading consumer alert warning Minnesotans
    about pregnancy centers like ours, using the same false
    narratives perpetuated by abortion activists.
        Words are powerful, especially when spoken by people in
    position of authority. When those in authority regurgitate
    these false narratives, it can have devastating consequences
    for organizations like ours, and it has.
        The day after Attorney General Ellison released his
    consumer alert, we had threatening posters plastered all over
    the community surrounding our new clinic. You can see Exhibit B
    in my written testimony.
        We were warned, ``If abortions aren't safe, neither are
    you.'' A few months later, there was a protest outside our
    center near the University of Minnesota. Then on March 4th of
    this year, a little after 2 a.m., we were notified by law
    enforcement that our brand-new building in Minneapolis was
    badly vandalized.
        We had multiple windows smashed in; the front of our
    building was covered with threatening graffiti messages. Again,
    we were warned, ``If abortions aren't safe, then neither are
    you.'' Other graffiti stated, ``Jane was here.'' ``F-12,'' etc.
        The vandals caused more than $30,000 worth of damage in a
    matter of two minutes. To add insult to injury, there was a
    protest planned for later that day at the park across the
    street.
        The protesters, however, couldn't resist the backdrop of
    our damaged building. So, while we were literally in the midst
    of boarding up our broken windows, they moved their protest
    right in front of our center.
        We are the fifth organization in Minnesota that has been
    vandalized in these coordinated attacks. Many more pro-life
    centers across the country have endured the same threats and
    violence under the banner of Jane's Revenge.
        While these attacks are meant to intimidate and hurt us,
    the people who are ultimately hurt are our clients, single
    moms, families who are struggling to make ends meet, and young
    women who are being pressured into an abortion. They are the
    real victims here.
        The truth is not every woman facing an unplanned pregnancy
    wants an abortion. Many of the women we serve want to continue
    their pregnancy but lack the support and practical resources
    needed to do so. Without pregnancy centers and the important
    work that we do every day, the three million women who
    experience an unintended pregnancy each year will be left with
    fewer options and fewer resources.
        Whatever you believe about abortion, we should agree that
    nonprofit organizations like ours that contribute millions of
    dollars in free services to women, children, families, and
    their communities, should not be the targets of vandalism and
    terrorism.
        The people we serve should not feel threatened simply for
    walking through our doors. When pregnancy centers aren't safe,
    our patients aren't safe.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share about the important
    work of pregnancy centers like ours and the increasing
    hostility that we are enduring.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kocher follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Kocher. I
    apologize for mispronouncing your name earlier.
        Ms. Kocher. That is OK.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Sorry for the chaos in the
    hallway, too. You performed like a pro there.
        Let's see, Ms. Camp, you are next, and you may begin.

                       STATEMENT OF TALCOTT CAMP

        Ms. Camp. Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Scanlon, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Talcott
    Camp, and I am the Chief Legal and Strategy Officer of the
    National Abortion Federation, or NAF. I have worked to support
    providers of abortion care for decades, both in my previous
    role at the ACLU, and my current role at NAF.
        NAF is the professional association of abortion providers
    with a mission to unite, represent, serve, and support abortion
    providers in delivering patient-centered, evidence-based care.
    Since 1977, NAF has compiled an invaluable data base of
    statistics on anti-abortion extremist violence, allowing us to
    track patterns and trends.
        Last week, we released our 2022 violence and disruption
    statistics, a copy of which is attached to my written
    testimony, which I believe Ranking Member Scanlon has moved
    into the record.
        Since 1977, there have been 11 murders, 26 attempted
    murders, 42 bombings, 200 arsons, 531 assaults, 492 clinic
    invasions, 375 burglaries, and thousands of other criminal
    incidents targeting abortion patients, providers, and
    volunteers.
        Each of these incidents involves a real person with a real
    family and often real children. Every one of these incidents
    means that every provider of abortion care and every patient
    trying to access abortion care lives in terror.
        NAF's 2022 statistics show increases in major incidents.
    Comparing 2022 with 2021, the number of death threats or
    threats of harm rose from 182-218. Stalkings rose 229 percent,
    from 28-92. Burglaries rose 231 percent, and four clinic arsons
    occurred in 2022 alone.
        The statistics also show a sharp increase in violence and
    disruption in very specific States. The Supreme Court decision
    overturning Roe and the subsequent proliferation of State
    abortion bans emboldened anti-abortion extremists to travel
    specifically to States where abortion remains legal to target
    clinics, clinicians, and patients there.
        We must stand against violence at clinics providing
    abortion care in States where it remains legal and recognize
    that a national ban on abortion would be an even greater public
    health catastrophe. No one should fear violence in the
    workplace or when seeking healthcare.
        Abortion providers, patients, and volunteers face violence
    and harassment every day. Here are a couple examples from 2022.
    In that year, we saw a 100 percent increase in arsons, compared
    to 2021. One of those arsons was at a clinic set to open in
    Casper, Wyoming in June 2022.
        In May, shortly after reporting on the Supreme Court's
    expected decision in Dobbs, an arsonist broke into the clinic
    and set it on fire. The arson devastated staff, delayed the
    clinic's opening by nearly a year, and caused hundreds of
    thousands of dollars in repairs.
        A few months earlier, an anti-abortion extremist stood
    outside a NAF member clinic on the East Coast with a flaming
    torch, holding a photo of one of the clinic's abortion
    providers, including his full name, personal information, and
    the word ``wanted'' printed on it. Through a megaphone, they
    shouted details about his family, his wife's name, how many
    children he had.
        They then posted a video of these threats on a public
    social media page, ensuring that their menacing message reached
    a wide audience.
        The use of that wanted poster was not singular or new. That
    extremist tactic harkens back to the terrifying circumstances
    surrounding Congress's enactment of the FACE Act, the Freedom
    of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, in 1994 with bipartisan
    support.
        For many years, anti-abortion extremists had used clinic
    blockades to intimidate and prevent access to clinics. The
    first clinic arson was in 1976, followed by a series of
    bombings in 1978, and the attacks and threats escalated. In the
    1990's, extremists began using butyric acid attacks and anthrax
    threat letters.
        In 1993, Dr. David Gunn was murdered outside his clinic,
    the first abortion provider killed by anti-abortion extremists.
    He, too, was featured on a wanted-style poster before his
    murder, as were other now-slain abortion providers. Since Dr.
    Gunn's murder, there have been ten more murders and 26
    attempted murders, most recently in Colorado Springs in 2015.
        It was in response to this escalating violence that
    Congress passed the bipartisan FACE Act, which has been an
    important tool in addressing extremist violence over the last
    three decades. Every administration has enforced the FACE Act,
    Republican and Democratic alike. Nonetheless, abortion
    providers and their patients face unrelenting threats of
    violence and disruption to care.
        I am here today because no one should fear violence at
    their workplace or when they are trying to access healthcare.
    For decades, abortion providers and their patients have faced
    escalating harassment and violence. In the post-Dobbs world,
    that atmosphere had only intensified, making FACE and the
    protections it offers all the more critical.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Camp follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Camp. Mr. Dys, you
    may begin now.

                        STATEMENT OF JEREMY DYS

        Mr. Dys. Thank you, Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Scanlon,
    and Members of the Committee. I am Jeremy Dys, and I serve as
    Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute, a nationwide legal
    organization dedicated to defending religious liberty for all
    Americans. Thank you for your very kind invitation to testify
    here this morning.
        The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act promises to
    ensure access to the Nation's reproductive health facilities
    and accountability to those who would unlawfully restrict
    access to those facilities.
        The law is quite clear. If you attempt to injure,
    intimidate, or interfere with access to a reproductive health
    facility, then you may face both criminal charges and civil
    penalties.
        The FACE Act is intentionally broad in its scope, affording
    protection to facilities that provide services ``relating to
    the human reproductive system.'' Pam Hibbard provides
    reproductive counseling every day to women at her facility. She
    also lives there.
        One morning she woke to find shattered glass strewn about
    the ground. Her facility had red paint dripping down the
    outside walls as if it were blood. On the sidewalks, clients
    seeking access to reproductive services would have to walk over
    spray-painted threats. Pam did not know if she was safe, nor if
    her clients would be safe.
        Not far away, a Jill Jorgenson woke to a similar scene at
    her reproductive health facility. Vandals had shattered the
    glass front door of her facility. Clients would soon arrive to
    find spray-painted threats on the threshold.
        These scenes played out across the country more than 100
    different times following the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson
    Women's Health Organization just last year. Yet, despite these
    numerous attacks to life-affirming reproductive health
    facilities, the Department of Justice had indicted just four
    individuals under the FACE Act in the past year.
        More concerning is the response of State Attorneys General.
    The FACE Act explicitly authorizes State Attorneys General to
    seek civil penalties on behalf of the citizens of each State
    against those who engage in such unlawful acts of intimidation.
    Yet, in Massachusetts, rather than deploy the FACE Act in
    defense of Pam and Jill's facilities, former Attorney General
    Maura Healey threatened them with sanctions.
        Then the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a consumer
    advisory against the very centers who suffered broken windows,
    paint bombs, and spray-painted threats from Jane's Revenge.
        Florida tells a very different story. Martha Avila showed
    up to her reproductive health facility in Hialeah, Florida, on
    July 4, 2022, only to discover a threat from Jane's Revenge,
    ``If abortion is not safe, neither are you.''
        Her experience, though, is different from Pam or Jill's.
    Once Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody knew the name of the
    vandals who had allegedly attacked Martha's facility, she filed
    a lawsuit under the FACE Act to impose the maximum civil
    penalties against them.
        The FACE Act and ought to be indifferent to ideology. It is
    meant to hold accountable those who use violence to express
    disagreement. Its application should not be withheld because a
    government official disagrees with a facility's religious
    beliefs.
        In Florida, the DOJ investigated and indicted the alleged
    vandals under the FACE Act. That allowed the Florida Attorney
    General to file her suit on behalf of the State, and it also
    allowed First Liberty to defend Martha and Heartbeat of Miami
    in a private legal action under the FACE Act.
        Had the DOJ and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts similarly
    identified potential FACE Act defendants, our clients there and
    perhaps elsewhere may have had recourse under the FACE Act as
    well.
        Violence is never an appropriate response to disagreement.
    Those who would so express their disagreement with life-
    affirming reproductive health facilities must be held
    accountable under the law. Applying the FACE Act equitably
    simply ensures that our Nation will not tolerate violence as a
    means to political ends.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify here this
    morning. I am happy to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dys follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The complete statement from Mr. Dys, Senior Counsel, First
    Liberty Institute, including the exhibits can be found at
    https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20230516/115924/HHRG-
    118-JU10-Wstate-DysJ-20230516.pdf.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Dys. Ms. Del
    Turco, you may begin.

                     STATEMENT OF ARIELLE DEL TURCO

        Ms. Del Turco. Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Scanlon, and
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. My name is Arielle Del Turco, and I am the Director of
    the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council.
        Our organization desires all people to have the freedom to
    exercise their faith. This freedom is significantly undermined
    whenever houses of worship are the targets of violent or
    destructive acts.
        It would be appropriate at this time to note that the FACE
    Act specifically includes protections for places of religious
    worship. It protects the faithful exercising their right of
    religious freedom in these places while also protecting such
    places from efforts to damage or destroy their property.
        In December 2022, FRC releases a report analyzing publicly
    documented acts of hostility against churches over the past
    five years. We identified 420 incidents that occurred in 45
    States and Washington, DC, between January 2018-September 2022.
        We noted a recognizable increase in frequency over the
    course of that reporting period. These acts include vandalism,
    arson, bomb threats, gun-related incidents, and interruption of
    worship services. All these are punishable under the FACE Act.
        FRC updated our report in April and found additional
    incidents in the final months of 2022 and 69 in the first
    quarter of 2023. If the trend continues, this year will be on
    track to have the highest number of church attacks over the
    last six years. All told, FRC has observed 565 attacks against
    churches from January 2018-April 2023.
        I would now like to highlight a few examples for you. In
    February 2023, vandals broke into the Delabrook Presbyterian
    Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. They sprayed a fire
    extinguished all over the church and into the ventilation
    system, causing $40,000 in damage.
        One church staff member told a local news station,

            I keep wondering why. It shows a great deal of anger. Are they
            angry at us? Were they angry at churches? Were they angry at
            God?

        In these attacks, many churches are defaced with obscene or
    hateful messages. In October 2021, vandals spray-painted anti-
    Catholic messages on the front of Denver's Cathedral Basilica
    of the Immaculate Conception, including the words ``Satan lives
    here.''
        In March and April 2019, three historically Black Baptist
    churches in or near Port Barre, Louisiana, were set on fire by
    the same individual within a 10-day span.
        Following the leak of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision
    last May, at least 57 acts of hostility against churches were
    directly related to abortion. On June 25th, the day after the
    Dobbs announcement, St. Patrick Catholic Church in Philadelphia
    was spray-painted outside with the phrase, ``Abort the
    church.''
        On June 26th, pro-abortion protesters interrupted Mass at
    St. Joseph Catholic Church in Chicago and began chanting
    slogans and distributing leaflets. At least one protester held
    up a sign that read, ``The Catholic Church has blood on its
    hands.''
        Not only Christian churches are subjected to such attacks.
    The Anti-Defamation League reported hundreds of antisemitic
    incidents against Jewish institutions in 2022, including
    synagogues and Jewish schools. The American Civil Liberties
    Union has tracked nearly 400 anti-mosque incidents since 2005.
        Violent attacks against places of worship are completely
    unacceptable, and it should concern those of all faiths and
    political persuasions. As long as the FACE Act is on the books,
    it should be used to go after perpetrators of attacks on places
    of worship. Antireligious hostility has no place in our society
    or any country that wants to call itself a land of freedom.
        This issue deserves the full attention of the American
    public and the full weight of law enforcement. We appreciate
    the Subcommittee's interest in learning about attacks on places
    of religious worship as it considers the effectiveness and
    application of the FACE Act.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Del Turco follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The complete statement from Ms. Del Turco, Director, Center
    for Religious Liberty, Family Research Council, including the
    appendices is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
    JU10/20230516/115924/HHRG-118-JU10-Wstate-DelTurcoA-20230516
    .pdf.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Del Turco.
        We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
    questions, and I recognize myself first for five minutes.
        Look, I said in the opening, and I will reiterate here
    again as we begin the questioning period that we believe that
    the facts show that the Biden Administration has shown a clear
    double standard of enforcing the FACE Act in a way that
    protects pro-abortion activists and facilities while
    substantially ignoring attacks on pro-life advocates,
    facilities, and churches.
        It is a disgrace. The Justice Department would rather cater
    to the pro-abortion political movement than protect places that
    assist pregnant women in need.
        I am going to start just with a brief question of Mr. Dys.
    From your observation and first-hand experience in litigating
    these matters, do you agree with our assessment that the
    current Department of Justice is engaged in selective
    enforcement of Federal law based purely on political
    motivation?
        Mr. Dys. Thank you, Chair Johnson. Congress passed the
    Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act to uphold the rule of
    law in this country.
        After a year in which we have seen over 100 different
    instances of attacks on life-affirming reproductive health
    facilities, and as Ms. Del Turco just testified about, even
    more against houses of worship, it is incumbent upon our
    leadership to ensure that the full weight of the Federal
    government and the law is being applied.
        I think the American people would have no less expectation
    of this Committee than to insist that its laws be applied
    equitably and across the board. What we have--the problem that
    we have, if I may just wrap up, I am sorry, is that to
    prosecute these claims, the most difficult part of the entire
    process for us as lawyers is to have a name of someone to
    prosecute.
        That starts with General Garland. If his DOJ is able to
    provide to us a name after an investigation, we are happy to
    utilize the laws that you have passed to defend these
    reproductive health facilities from the noxious attacks that
    they have had to withstand over the past year.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Very good. Ms. Del Turco, thank
    you for researching and reporting on the rise of attacks
    against churches that we have seen in recent years. It is
    especially concerning that in the first three months of this
    year, there were approximately three times as many attacks on
    churches as in the same timeframe in 2022.
        Sadly, although many of these acts of violence could be
    charged under the FACE Act, they have gone unprosecuted. So,
    what do you think is spurring this increased violence against
    churches in America?
        Ms. Del Turco. Well, I think there are a lot of factors. We
    certainly see increasing secularism in the United States, an
    increasing lack of respect for religion, understanding for
    religion or religious traditions.
        In addition, I think it is motivated as well by these
    political battles that tend to fall along religious lines. When
    you see Catholic churches being blamed for the Dobbs decision
    and attacked, that is clearly a problem, right.
        It is very much a problem when, in our political system for
    democracy, when one side loses a political battle, and they go
    and attack churches. This is a horrendous problem.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, I am going to ask for
    unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter that
    First Liberty, a correspondence with Senator Warren.
        In it is some photographs of some of these abuses. This is
    Jane's Revenge and other groups. They graffiti on the side of
    churches ``Abort the church,'' and ``If abortions aren't safe,
    neither are you.'' ``Jane's Revenge'' all over the place.
        Then they go to the pregnancy care centers and they
    vandalize them. Again, nothing is being done about this. I
    think every person watching this hearing should recognize that
    you could be next.
        Right now, it is churches and pro-life groups and people
    being targeted that are pro-life, but that doesn't mean that
    other Americans wouldn't be targeted tomorrow.
        It is a disturbing reality that the Federal government has
    gotten too big, too powerful, and it is improperly wielding
    that power against the American people to appease a political
    base.
        The Durham Report, as Mr. Jordan noted earlier, makes clear
    the FBI, for example, the FBI in the Durham Report, ``failed to
    uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law.''
    My friends, that is a serious problem in a constitutional
    republic, and it is one that we aim to fix and will be about
    that.
        I have got less than a minute, but I wanted to turn to Mr.
    Houck really quick about speaking of disparate treatment, your
    story is so compelling and what the FBI did there to arrest you
    is astounding.
        Isn't it true that once you learned, get this clear for the
    record, once you learned that law enforcement was interested in
    questioning you, you offered to appear voluntarily, right?
        Mr. Houck. That is correct, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, they did this big raid with
    20 agents with long guns pointed at you and your seven young
    children and your wife, even though you offered to go in
    without issue, that is correct.
        Mr. Houck. That is correct.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It was about a year after the
    event actually took place, right?
        Mr. Houck. That is right.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It seemed to correspond, in our
    view, with the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, and
    it was released there. It sent the pro-abortion allies into a
    frenzy. Do you have an opinion on the timing of why they came
    to your house and raided you that way?
        Mr. Houck. Sure. Well, really quick, my indictment target
    letter was--preceded the Dobbs leak. Then of course the Dobbs
    leak was early May. Then of course the Dobbs in June. Then we
    saw a series of arrests.
        Then of course I was not expecting that myself because my
    attorney said that we would--and I will read right from the
    letter,

             . . . rather than put Mr. Houck and his family through
            needless disruption, we will accept a summons on my client's
            behalf and bring him to you.

        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. I am out of time. I
    yield.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Nadler for five minutes.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We have heard examples of violence against anti-abortion
    clinics. Ms. Camp, what are some examples of violence and
    disruption that doctors and patients have faced in recent
    years?
        Ms. Camp. Thank you for the question, Congressman. If I
    may, I would like to just review some examples, quite recent
    examples from 2022 in fact. The first are essentially news
    reports. Again, every person here, real person, real family,
    and real kids.
        In Michigan 2022, this is from ABC News:

            Officials said the suspect breached the fence outside the
            clinic then used a fuel to ignite bushes surrounding the
            building before lighting a fireplace starter log that he threw
            onto the building's roof.

        In California 2022, this is from the FBI:

            Two unknown suspects were captured on surveillance video
            throwing a Molotov cocktail at the front door of a medical
            building used by Planned Parenthood in Costa Mesa, California.

        Anthrax, letter leaking white powder reported to be anthrax
    in Ohio 2022. Inert ricin, according to the FBI, in New Mexico
    2022. A Texas clinic had all the wires cut, all the electrical
    wires going into the clinic, cut in 2022.
        In Michigan again, in March 2022, a large group of
    extremists entered the clinic, harassed patients and staff.
    Additional people outside were shouting through megaphones,
    making it very hard to provide medical care inside.
        In North Carolina, this is quite typical, extremists opened
    the car doors of patients driving into a clinic parking lot and
    got into their cars.
        If helpful, I could read just a couple of the personal,
    short personal testimonies of folks who have experienced
    violence in 2022.
        This is from California, in March,

            We experienced a clinic invasion where a group of anti-abortion
            protesters posed as a patient. Once our door was open, three
            other extremists rushed in past staff. It was terrifying. You
            are trying to figure out are their weapons. What is going to
            take place here, is it going to be a speech or is it going to
            be physical violence?

        Just read one more, from Texas.

            This is Texas. People have guns. There are school shootings.
            You have that fear because you don't know that this person is
            just standing there waiting to pull a weapon, or if they are
            standing there just praying for you.

        Folks providing and accessing abortion care never know. The
    violence has been so relentless. They just don't know when a
    gun is going to get pulled.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you for those examples. Let me ask you
    this: Should Americans, even those who live in States that
    continued to protect reproductive freedom, should they be
    concerned that violence, threats, and intimidation against
    abortion providers could effectively ban abortion access in
    their States, regardless of what their State law provides?
        Ms. Camp. Absolutely, Congressman. Just as Dobbs left open
    the door for a nationwide ban on abortion, Dobbs also
    emboldened anti-abortion extremists to go specifically to
    clinics in States that protect abortion rights.
        So, NAF's 2022 violence and disruption statistics show a
    particular increase in those States. So, for example, stalkings
    went up overall, 230 percent in 2022. They went up 900 percent,
    a 900 percent increase in stalkings, at clinics providing
    abortion care in haven States. States that protect access to
    abortion care saw a 130 percent increase in bomb threats.
        Directly to your point, Congressman, clinics offering
    abortion care in States that protect access saw a 540 percent
    increase in obstructions. So, yes, we all need to fear the
    effect of violence on people's ability to access this
    fundamental care.
        Mr. Nadler. Finally, my last question now, just to be clear
    as to stakes, what impact would a total nationwide ban on
    abortion have on women's reproductive health and well-being?
        Ms. Camp. Congressman, a nationwide ban would be a
    catastrophe, a public health catastrophe, yes, for people's
    reproductive health, and for public health generally. It would
    add to the ongoing crisis of lack of access to healthcare in
    this country, which absolutely includes lack of access to
    appropriate high-quality pregnancy-related and labor and
    delivery care.
        We have an exceedingly high maternal mortality rate,
    pregnancy-related death rate, that is, for a wealthy,
    industrialized country. Let's drive that down, especially for
    the Black community, which suffers so disproportionately.
        Mr. Nadler. In States which have banned abortion, have we
    found a higher mortality rate for pregnant women?
        Ms. Camp. I am not a clinician and I think it is too soon
    to tell. We know internationally, yes, that banning abortion is
    associated with higher maternal mortality, of course.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman from California,
    Mr. Kiley, is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Kiley. I yield back to the Chair.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for yielding. Ms.
    Kocher, you just heard testimony from Ms. Camp and her
    organization, the National Abortion Federation, recently issued
    a report that labels crisis pregnancy centers as, quote, ``fake
    clinics use deceptive practices to dissuade people from seeking
    abortions,'' unquote. The organization claims that pregnancy
    resource centers such as yours lie and trick patients and force
    them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. How do you respond
    to the provocative claim by Ms. Camp's organization.
        Ms. Kocher. I would say that's ridiculous. We do not lie to
    women. We are very clear about the services we provide and what
    we don't provide.
        We have four registered nurses on staff. We have
    professional licensed staff. We are also a licensed adoption
    agency.
        We have eight social workers on staff, and we provide
    excellent quality healthcare for women, children, and their
    families. As a matter of fact, I think it's quite ironic that
    we are called fake clinics when the abortion clinics themselves
    in our area do not believe that. We receive referrals from
    abortion clinics in our area for medical--for health services.
        They refer their patients to us for health services. So,
    why would they do that if we are truly a fake clinic? So, I
    just think it's ridiculous. It's a false narrative that's been
    created. Any provider--any pregnancy center that provides
    medical services has licensed registered nurses on staff who
    are providing those services. They are absolutely bound by
    their medical license.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I agree with you 100 percent. In
    my law practice many years ago, I represented a number of
    pregnancy resource centers in my State and others. I never knew
    one of them to force any woman to carry a pregnancy to term and
    give birth. Have you ever forced anyone to carry a pregnancy to
    term?
        Ms. Kocher. We have not ever.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Despite the valiant efforts of
    pregnancy resource centers under the Biden Administration as we
    noted, the Justice Department has selectively enforced the FACE
    Act in a manner that caters to the radical pro-abortion
    movement and fails to adequately protect facilities like yours.
    After the leak of the Dobbs opinion and overturning of Roe,
    what kind of threats and violence were directed at you in your
    pregnancy resource centers? I know you've addressed a little
    bit of this. How did the violence and the damage impact the
    ability of organizations like your to offer their services?
        Ms. Kocher. Sure. So, again, we are the fifth center in
    Minnesota. I am very well connected with the other pregnancy
    center directors in our area as well as across the country. All
    the centers that I know are having to increase security to
    purchase security cameras, to just take extra cautious measures
    with everything that we do.
        For us, our facility that was damaged, the windows are
    still boarded up because one of the things that we found
    important is to purchase intrusion-resistant film. Thank God
    that we have that because otherwise they would've gotten into
    our building and they would've done a lot more damage than what
    was done. So, that's very costly.
        For our building, in particular, it was 60,000 dollars to
    add the film. So, to fix our windows, not only did we have to
    order the windows, but we have to have the timing correct to
    apply the film as well. So, every center that I know and I have
    been connecting with needs to get this film on your windows or
    do bullet-resistant windows. It's a real threat.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I know that organizations like
    yours operate on a very thin margin. You're a nonprofit. You
    have to raise the funds that use to serve women. Sixty-thousand
    dollars could go a long way in helping women in crisis
    pregnancies.
        Ms. Kocher. Exactly.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. To your knowledge, have the
    perpetrators that damage your pregnancy resource centers been
    prosecuted under the FACE Act or otherwise held accountable?
        Ms. Kocher. No, they have not. We have been in touch with
    the FBI. There have been no arrests. There have been--nobody
    has been identified to my knowledge.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, and I want to point out
    because it's been mentioned here this morning. The FBI did
    absolutely nothing with regards to these more than 100
    documented attacks on pregnancy resource centers all the way
    through until the Republican majority took the House again. We
    passed a resolution authored on the floor.
        I guess it was in early February. Six days after that is
    when the FBI magically came to this conclusion that they might
    need to pay attention to some of this. They offered this
    supposed reward for information leading to the arrest or
    prosecution of people involved.
        It took them a long, long time to pay attention to that. It
    took a resolution of the House of Representatives to force the
    action. What would you like to see from the Justice Department
    to make pregnancy resource centers feel safe?
        Ms. Kocher. Well, I think the same thing we all want,
    right? We all want to feel like we can go to work and be safe
    and that our patients are protected. The same is true for all
    of us, no matter what side of the aisle you are on. I think if
    people are breaking the law and damaging buildings and
    threatening your safety, they should be prosecuted.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you very much. I am out of
    time, yield back. The Chair recognizes Ms. Scanlon for her
    five--no, I'm sorry, Ms. Jackson Lee. I apologize. The
    gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I'm delighted to welcome you
    back to the Committee you love and we all love, the
    Constitutional Committee and you as Chair. I know that we have
    an abiding faith and love in the Constitution. Let me
    acknowledge Mark Houck, I hope I'm getting it almost right,
    Jeremy Dys, Tammy Kocher, and Arielle Del Turco. I just want to
    acknowledge them because there's nothing that I want to have
    associated with myself and I know my colleagues in opposition
    to the freedom of their positions or the work that their
    agencies are doing.
        I represent the Gulf Coast Catholic Diocese in my
    Congressional district. I have had bishops and cardinals in my
    Congressional district. We have a wonderful working
    relationship in actuality.
        I have had no encounters of the type that we seem to be
    presenting here. At the same time, I want to thank Ms. Camp for
    the work of the National Abortion Federation that all I can see
    is certainly attempting to do its work. So, my time is brief.
        I'm going to ask you to be meteoric in your answers. I must
    take a moment for my good friend, the Chair, to indicate that
    special prosecutor, Mr. Durham, was appointed by Attorney
    General Barr. He didn't have any critique on the actual results
    of that particular investigation of the FBI and the succeeding
    special counsel but commented on the basis on which the FBI
    proceeded, two different things.
        We wouldn't expect anything from Mr. Durham, but to walk in
    the tracks of who appointed him. That would be the likes of his
    work. So, we thank him for the service that he gave. Let me
    just--if you would take just a brief moment to respond to the
    comment about crisis clinics and anything that your
    organization would do inappropriately. Did you hear me?
        Ms. Camp. I'm sorry, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You have a moment to respond very quickly
    about the crisis clinics. Someone said you do something to
    crisis clinics? Can you just respond? Is that what--your
    organization attacks crisis clinics?
        Ms. Camp. Absolutely not, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. So, I want you to respond that
    you would be against them and that is not the case of your
    work. Is that correct?
        Ms. Camp. Congressman, thank you for the question. We are
    not against any particular facility. We are in support of
    providers of abortion care and patients trying to access it.
    Our 2022 report does not practice by some of the centers that
    have delayed and even obstructed care for patients.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You do it in that context? You do not do
    it in an attempt to incite anyone to go against these clinics?
        Ms. Camp. Unequivocally not. We just know that patients
    need unbiased counseling and transparency when they're trying
    to access services.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. As a FACE Act in a lifesaving provision
    for many of the clinics--freestanding clinics that are familiar
    with dealing with the right to choose and reproductive rights?
        Ms. Camp. Absolutely, Congressman. The FACE Act has been a
    really important tool. There are so many acts of violence at
    clinics offering abortion care that so many of the acts of
    vandalism just don't even get reported even if they violate
    FACE because it's just so frequent. It requires herculean
    efforts on the part of clinic administrators and clinicians--
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I have a short period of time. So, let me
    just continue to ask you questions. I might put into the record
    that the FACE Act deals with any activity that blocks access to
    the interest or obstructs the exit from a facility, trespassing
    at a clinic, vandalizing reproductive healthcare facilities, or
    stalking a clinic employee.
        We know that the bill from Texas called the Dobbs Act arose
    from S.B. 8, the Texas six-week ban on abortion. It had a
    provision that allowed a civilian to stalk a provider and some
    woman, some young person that may be a college student and
    stalk them and get 10,000 dollars. Is that something that is
    outrageous in terms of denying and threatening someone who is
    attempting to make a decision with their God, their family, and
    their provider?
        So, the FACE Act would keep that kind of activity from
    occurring. Let me back up so you can answer it. Chair will give
    me just additional seconds, is that historically, do you
    remember the case in Alabama where the doctor was killed, the
    nurse was killed, and the bombing of an abortion clinic? That's
    how far back these abortion bombings go. You can go ahead,
    please, quickly.
        Ms. Camp. Texas S.B. 8 was an abomination, a threat to
    providers of care and those accessing it and absolute
    antithetical to the structure of our republic.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The FACE Act that helps in other places to
    stop that stalking and threatening?
        Ms. Camp. FACE does make it illegal to stalk and threaten
    folks providing access to abortion care, yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentlelady. Chair
    recognizes gentleman from Ohio for five minutes, the Chair of
    the Full Committee.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Houck, why do you
    think they did it? Local police saw this incident. They weren't
    going to prosecute you.
        My guess is they probably exercised some common sense and
    said, this guy has been praying in front of this clinic for 20
    years. This guy harassed his son. He did what a dad would do.
        They chose not to come after you. You volunteer to turn
    yourself in, and yet they show up at your house, 20 agents,
    guns drawn in front of your family. Why do you think they did
    it?
        Mr. Houck. Thank you, Congressman Jordan, for the question.
    I've been thinking about that for many months. I can only come
    up with that the intention was to humiliate me, to scare my
    children, and to instill fear in pro-life America.
        Chair Jordan. Yes, I think they want to make an example of
    you, right?
        Mr. Houck. I believe so.
        Chair Jordan. They told us why they did it. They actually
    put it in writing. All you go to do is look at the memorandum
    from the Richmond Field Office. I mean, you were, like, front
    and center. Look at this memorandum.
        Now, thank goodness they rescinded it. FBI has rescinded
    this memorandum. They call it a domain perspective. I don't
    know why they can't use normal terms. It's a memorandum.
        They rescinded it because a brave whistleblower came and
    gave us this information. If you look at page--I think at page
    4, has this sentence: ``Events in which extremists and radical
    traditional Catholics will remain''--excuse me,

            Events in which extremist and radical traditional Catholics
            might have common cause include legislation or judicial
            decisions in areas such as abortion rights, immigration,
            affirmative action, and LGBTQ protections.

        So, if you're pro-family, pro-life and you want a border,
    you're a target. Your family fit all of that. You're a pro-
    life, pro-family Catholic for goodness sake. They're going to
    come--you got seven kids.
        You're not allowed to have seven kids today. We're trying
    to save the planet. You can't do that in America today
    according to--you were the example.
        That is how pervasive this political attitude is at the
    highest levels of our agencies. In this case, it was the FBI so
    much so, they put together a memo and said, we want to put
    informants and snitches inside the Catholic Church, inside the
    parish to go rat out people like Mark Houck and his family.
    Think that's what was going on here?
        Mr. Houck. I would agree with you 100 percent that my
    family was targeted, that I've been on a watch list. I am a
    Novus Ordo Catholic. I'm not a traditional mass, Latin mass
    goer. None the less, I embrace our faith and I live it.
        Chair Jordan. Still thought you were radical. They still
    thought you were radical, right? You may not go to Latin mass,
    but they thought you were radical.
        Local police wouldn't investigate, but we're going after
    this guy because he's pro-life and he's Catholic and he prays.
    Man, he's got seven. We're coming after him.
        Mr. Houck. Right. Yes, my children were down range of many
    guns, and they screamed through the whole process. The
    Committee should know that they were traumatized. I proceeded
    to be shackled in front of them and chained to a table for six
    hours in the Federal building.
        Chair Jordan. They were wrong because you went in front of
    a jury and the jury said no, he didn't do anything wrong. Isn't
    that right?
        Mr. Houck. That's correct.
        Chair Jordan. They prosecuted this case after the local
    people said, no, we're not going to do it. Federal government
    says, we're going to. We're going to make this guy an example.
    He's an RTC, a radical traditional Catholic, and we're going to
    come after him.
        You did and you went through the process. God bless you for
    going through it. This should send a--this is what's so scary.
    Again, we've had a number of whistleblowers come forward and
    talk about this kind of attitude displayed in this memorandum
    existing in the Justice Department. This is as wrong as it
    gets.
        Mr. Houck. Yes, I would agree with you. Yes, my children, I
    see it on their face every day. I see it in my wife, the fear
    in their eyes. Certainly, they have fear of law enforcement
    now, because the law enforcement guys become the bad guys, not
    the good guys.
        Chair Jordan. Yes, some--
        Mr. Houck. So, my children are confounded by that.
        Chair Jordan. Some guy gets in your kid's face, you do what
    a dad does. That's scary enough. Then they find out, oh, your
    dad is going to get prosecuted for standing up and defending
    his son.
        It's wrong. Everyone knows it's wrong, and it needs to
    stop. Frankly, as I said in our opening statement, the only way
    we can actually begin to stop this, is we got to do what
    legislatures do. You got to look at the money.
        You got to look at the money. You got to say, look, if the
    FBI is going to do this kind of stuff to good people like you
    and your family, they may not be getting the funds that they've
    gotten before. They certainly won't be using funds in certain
    ways.
        That's something we have to--we have an obligation, a
    constitutional duty to do that. I know Chair Johnson is going
    to be working on that with us to try to make that happen. With
    that, I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentleman yields
    back, and the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
    Escobar, for five minutes.
        Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Many thanks to our
    witnesses for being here today. I think it's really important
    for women in America to understand what's happening here.
        This is yet another example of how one of our parties in
    the two-party system, the Republican party, is hell-bent on
    making sure that women do not have access to reproductive
    healthcare and cannot make decisions about their own future.
    This is just yet another example of the messaging and the
    efforts to try to control women. Let me remind everyone again
    the different between the two sides.
        Our side believes that we've got to take care of families
    and that we've got to make sure that children have a good
    future. We did that by voting for paid family and medical
    leave. We voted for the expanded child tax credit.
        We voted for universal pre-K. We voted for affordable
    childcare. All of this was just last Congress.
        To a person, my Republican colleagues voted against all of
    that. So, this is--let's lift the--end the charade. In fact,
    right now part of the negotiations that are ongoing, both on
    the farm bill and in appropriations as well as in the efforts
    for my Republican colleagues to default on our debt involves
    taking SNAP away from families. In other words, taking food
    away from the mouths of children.
        As part--if they can't limit women legislatively, they will
    bully and threaten those providers who help women and the women
    who use services. In fact, last year because of the--and let me
    be clear. I don't believe anyone should be engaging in any
    violence or intimidation.
        All of us should reject all that. We're here really because
    we're chasing another conspiracy theory that is being put out
    there by my Republican colleagues. Last Congress and again this
    January, I introduced the Healthcare Providers' Safety Act
    which would amend the Public Health Service Act to authorized
    grants to healthcare providers to enhance the physical and
    cybersecurity of their facilities, personnel, and patients.
        This bill would give providers the needed resources to
    ensure patients and providers are safe and able to continue
    providing and receiving this essential reproductive healthcare.
    I'd like to ask Ms. Camp a question. Ms. Camp, in your view,
    has the FACE Act been effective in helping to mitigate some of
    the violence, threats, and intimidation faced by abortion
    providers and patients? Do you think that the FACE Act--do you
    think that FACE Act enforcement to protect abortion providers
    and patients could be stronger?
        Ms. Camp. Thank you for the question, Congresswomen. Yes
    and yes. FACE has been an important tool in addressing the
    relentless violence including murders and death threats against
    those who provide access to abortion care. Absolutely as I said
    before this violence is just relentless. It's so run of the
    mill. Plenty of things that violate FACE our members just
    simply don't report because it's so run of the mill for them.
        Ms. Escobar. It really has become run of the mill. I met
    with a provider in Texas, one of the last few before Texas
    passed its historic and awful ban in our State who talk to me
    about how routine the threats and the intimidation had gotten.
    I spoke with a mother who had to undergo an abortion because
    the fetus was not going to survive, and it threatened her life
    and would render her existing children motherless.
        She had to face intimidation as she walked into the clinic
    to receive care. I'm running out of time. I would just say that
    we need more programs to combat the kind of harassment and
    intimidation and violence that far too many clinicians and
    patients are seeing across America. Thank you for your
    testimony today. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back, and
    the chair now recognizes a gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
    Bishop, for five minutes.
        Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Houck, I just want to
    see if we can sum up. It sounds like the facts out of which
    your prosecution by DOJ arose involved a squabble between
    activists. That part is correct, right?
        Mr. Houck. I would agree with that, Congressman.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. There was one shove that led to somebody
    falling down, correct?
        Mr. Houck. Correct.
        Mr. Bishop. That was proceeded by provocation and profanity
    focused on your child, correct?
        Mr. Houck. At other times. Not particularly on that day of
    the incident, but yes.
        Mr. Bishop. OK. Didn't you say that activist was engaging
    with your child right before you escorted them back and then
    you had the shove?
        Mr. Houck. Yes, I did say that.
        Mr. Bishop. Then authorities decided to indict you under
    the FACE Act, right?
        Mr. Houck. Correct.
        Mr. Bishop. Do I understand from the other testimony that
    there's a civil provision of the FACE Act? Somebody could've
    sued if they wanted to? Do you know that?
        Mr. Houck. I don't know about that. I can't answer that.
        Mr. Bishop. I believe that's what I heard. Nobody sued.
    They decided to indict you. They didn't indict you for a
    misdemeanor charge which is like one year. They indicted you
    for a felony, right?
        Mr. Houck. That's correct, two counts.
        Mr. Bishop. Two counts, one felony, maybe one misdemeanor.
    I think it was a total of 11 years imprisonment they sought?
        Mr. Houck. That's correct, Congressman.
        Mr. Bishop. Out of the squabble. Then they ignored your
    offer to surrender. Instead, they used a SWAT team to take you
    down, right?
        Mr. Houck. That's right.
        Mr. Bishop. Then they proceed to a jury trial. The only
    thing that stopped you from going to prison for 11 years is
    that a jury of Americans acquitted you in the face of that,
    correct?
        Mr. Houck. Unanimously, yes, correct.
        Mr. Bishop. So, that strikes me as--that's a data point.
    Now, I understand my colleagues on the other side who say,
    well, this sort of pass this away or say people who are shadow-
    boxing here. That seems to me a data point that is confounding.
    Ms. Camp, I want to go to you. Does that seem like a
    disproportionate exercise of prosecutorial judgment to you?
        Ms. Camp. So, thank you for the question, Congressman.
        Mr. Bishop. Real quick because I don't have much time.
        Ms. Camp. I am not a prosecutor. I'm not--
        Mr. Bishop. You don't know? Let me ask you this. You spoke
    to an arson attack on an abortion facility or something in
    Texas. Did you talk about that during your testimony in your
    answers?
        Ms. Camp. I think it wasn't in Texas. Yes, arson, yes.
        Mr. Bishop. Did somebody get prosecuted for that because
    they damn well should have been.
        Ms. Camp. I agree, Congressman.
        Mr. Bishop. Were they?
        Ms. Camp. I believe not yet, but there's definitely a
    shortage of resources to prosecute.
        Mr. Bishop. Do you have any insight why they would
    prosecute Mr. Houck for a squabble with an activist and send
    the SWAT team and take him to a jury that acquits him if they
    haven't gotten the person who committed an arson attack on a
    clinic--on an abortion clinic? Any insight at all?
        Ms. Camp. Congressman, I'm not with the DOJ. I don't have
    that information.
        Mr. Bishop. Does anybody on the panel have any insight
    about why they would do that? I think that's the thing that's
    concerning. Then you hear about--
        Ms. Scanlon. Would the gentleman yield? I do have some
    insight on that.
        Mr. Bishop. If you have an answer, a quick answer, yield
    for an answer to that real quick.
        Ms. Scanlon. Sure. Mr. Houck was a well-known aggressive
    participant in demonstrations outside facilities in
    Philadelphia.
        Mr. Bishop. Oh, so they picked him--so they picked him
    because--
        Ms. Scanlon. He did not just push the guy once, 72-year-old
    man. He admitted he pushed him down twice.
        Mr. Bishop. It's my time, and--
        Ms. Scanlon. Oh, sorry. You asked for input on the panel.
        Mr. Bishop. I was giving you the answer--you gave me the
    answer. You gave me the answer a minute ago. Mr. Houck was an
    activist.
        He was opposed to the killing of children through abortion.
    He said that, so they made him a target. Let me tell you what
    that is.
        That is called selective prosecution in violation of the
    Constitution. You cannot make prosecutorial decisions because
    you want to make an example out of somebody who's a well-known
    anti-abortion or pro-life activist. You can't do that.
        That's unconstitutional. If that is the answer to the
    question that I posed to Ms. Camp, then it deepens the concern
    about the Justice Department and the FBI. If that is the
    answer, then it indicates that we have as the--Mr. Nadler
    denigrates the Durham Report. Ms. Jackson Lee says, well,
    ``Durham, the special counsel, came to his conclusion just
    because of who appointed him.''
        No. We see institutional corruption. Despite for the First
    Amendment rights of Americans which is expressed through
    politicized prosecutorial activity is the most grievous crisis
    that I've ever seen in this country. I cannot believe that I
    have to be concerned about the FBI and the DOJ and then,
    frankly, Members of Congress sitting up here and saying, I have
    the explanation. We picked Mr. Houck because he's a zealous
    advocate for life.
        Ms. Scanlon. Would the gentleman yield? That's not what I
    said.
        Mr. Bishop. That's exactly what you said.
        Ms. Scanlon. No, it is not.
        Mr. Bishop. I think that's the answer that most Americans
    has regrettably come to the conclusion that's what happened. My
    time is expired.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentleman yields
    back, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Johnson, for five minutes.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Chair Johnson. The bull
    Durham Report was released yesterday. Trump has promised us
    that to look forward to that bull Durham Report. When it came
    out, it would prove that the Russia investigation was a witch
    hunt.
        Unfortunately, the bull Durham Report yesterday amounts to
    a crock of BS. Two prosecutions, two acquittals. We know how
    rare acquittals are in the Federal system. He's batting zero.
        No conclusion that Trump was the victim of a witch hunt, a
    four-year investigation that petered out as a waste of time and
    taxpayers money. That is the legacy of the bull Durham Report.
    Now, Ms. Turco, your testimony is that between January 2018-
    September 2022 there had been over 420 acts of hostility
    against pro-life pregnancy centers. Is that correct?
        Ms. Del Turco. No, that was against churches.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Against churches? Not against pro-
    life pregnancy centers? Is that right?
        Ms. Del Turco. Yes, because my report was focused on
    churches. I did, however--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Are we here conflating hostility,
    acts of hostility against churches to acts of violence against
    these pregnancy centers that you all talk about? Is that what
    we're conflating today?
        Ms. Del Turco. No, these are both covered in the FACE Act.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. What relevance does acts of
    hostility against churches have when it comes to the assertions
    on this Committee that there have been acts of violence against
    these so-called pro-life pregnancy centers?
        Ms. Del Turco. Churches and houses of worship are also
    covered in the FACE Act as well as abortion clinics.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK. We're here today talking about
    pro-life pregnancy centers, not churches. You were not brought
    here to talk about churches. Maybe you were brought here to
    confuse the public.
        The confusion, we're not going to go for that. We're not
    going to have that. By the way, as far as the acts of hostility
    against churches, did you note any acts of murder?
        Ms. Del Turco. No, these were--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Any acts of bombings?
        Ms. Del Turco. Yes, yes.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Bombings?
        Ms. Del Turco. Bomb threats.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Bomb threat.
        Ms. Del Turco. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No actual bombings.
        Ms. Del Turco. This year in the supplemental report that
    covers--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No actions of bombings, right?
        Ms. Del Turco. --January through--there was a pipe bomb.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No bombing, correct?
        Ms. Del Turco. I guess no.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK. No acts of physical assault
    against anybody. All these things that you're talking about,
    these 420 acts occurred at churches. Of those, looks like of
    the 420, it looks like only 62 of them were abortion-related.
    Is that correct?
        Ms. Del Turco. Fifty-seven from January 2018-September 2022
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Fifty-seven of the 420 was
    abortion-related. So, ma'am, I abhor violence against anyone
    and anything. My point is that perhaps your testimony would've
    been good for another hearing, not this hearing.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would the gentleman yield for
    just a moment?
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, the title of our hearing just
    for clarification revisiting the implications of the FACE Act
    which specifically covers--
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I recognize that.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --exercising the First Amendment
    right of religious freedom and place of religious worship.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time.
        Reclaiming my time. The tone and thrust of this hearing
    have been toward what is alleged to have been violence directed
    at these so-called pregnancy--pro-life pregnancy centers. The
    fact is there has not. The case has not been made that there
    have been acts of violence against these centers.
        On the other hand, there has been a need for the FACE Act
    because in the last 50 years, anti-abortion extremists have
    committed 11 murders, 42 bombings, over 500 incidents of
    assault and battery. Post-Dobbs, the threats and the violence
    are escalating.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman is out of time. I
    believe you had a schedule conflict and walked in a little bit
    late today. I just point out that Ms. Del Turco's report also
    includes reports of at least 57 pro-abortion acts of hostility
    against churches between January 2022-September 2022 and that
    this extends to pregnancy centers as well. It's all related.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy,
    five minutes.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Houck, after your family was raided in the early
    morning in front of your family, has the Biden Administration
    in any way, shape, or form apologized for what they did to you
    or your family?
        Mr. Houck. No, Congressman.
        Mr. Roy. No apology?
        Mr. Houck. No.
        Mr. Roy. None? As we have heard today, you were
    specifically targeted because you're an activist; you are a
    pro-life activist?
        Mr. Houck. Correct.
        Mr. Roy. Question for Ms. Camp. Earlier, you mentioned in
    your report--you were quoting articles in which the FBI made
    statements about attacks on abortion clinics. How many
    statements by the FBI have there been on attacks on crisis
    pregnancy centers?
        Ms. Camp. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I don't
    have that information.
        Mr. Roy. Right. Because I'm not aware of there being any.
        What percentage of abortion-related violence cases or
    threats cases, or cases of violence or threats against pro-life
    organizations?
        Ms. Camp. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
        Mr. Roy. What percentage of abortion-related violence cases
    or threats cases are cases of violence or threats against pro-
    life organizations? The answer is 70 percent, according to FBI
    Director Wray, that well-known pro-life activist--70 percent,
    according to FBI Director Wray.
        Another question. You serve as the Chief Legal and Strategy
    Officer at the National Abortion Federation, correct?
        Ms. Camp. Yes.
        Mr. Roy. In this role, have you ever spoken with anyone in
    the Biden Department of Justice or Biden Administration
    specifically about FACE Act enforcement or abortion?
        Ms. Camp. I have not.
        Mr. Roy. OK. So, you, as the Chief Legal and Strategy
    Officer for the National Abortion Federation, you have had no
    contact with President Biden's Abortion Task Force?
        Ms. Camp. Let me be accurate. I believe I may have had
    contact. I don't think so, but I may have. On the issue of FACE
    enforcement, no, I have not.
        Mr. Roy. OK. In 2015, the Center for Medical Progress
    released a video on which you stated, quote,

            I'm like, oh, my God, I get it. When the skull is broken,
            that's really sharp. I get it. I understand why people are
            talking about getting that skull out, that calvarium.

    ``Calvarium'' being an incomplete skull.
        When abortion has crushed the skulls of babies to kill
    them, what physical risks are there for the baby?
        Ms. Camp. So, Congressman, thank you for the question. It
    allows me to clarify that the media products you're referring
    to stoked a massive uptick in violence. Those heavily edited,
    misleadingly edited media products caused three murders and
    nine woundings in Colorado Springs in 20--
        Mr. Roy. No, the question was about the baby and the skull
    crushing that is a direct quote attributed to you.
        Ms. Camp. Well, the folks who distributed those media
    products may have attributed something to me. I can't speak to
    what it--
        Mr. Roy. So, true or false, did you say that? ``I'm like,
    oh, my God, I get it. When the skull is broken, that's really
    sharp.'' Did you say that?
        Ms. Camp. It's impossible to know, Congressman.
        Mr. Roy. Would you have said that? Is that something you
    would have said?
        Ms. Camp. I don't know, Congressman.
        Mr. Roy. You don't know? You don't know if you talked about
    the crushing of the skull of a baby? You don't remember having
    said something like that?
        Ms. Camp. What I do--
        Mr. Roy. I'm pretty confident I've never said something
    like that. I'm quite confident my colleagues here have never
    said something like that. Have you ever said something about
    crushing the skull of the baby, particularly, in that kind of a
    setup?
        Ms. Camp. I believe, Congressman, that we all came here
    today to agree that violence is never an appropriate response
    to policy differences.
        Mr. Roy. That seems pretty violent, the crushing of the
    skull of a baby. I think that, actually, is the definition of
    ``violence.'' I think the question here is whether or not we
    are going to acknowledge and recognize that reality, and the
    extent to which now the Federal government has been weaponized
    against the people who want to acknowledge that reality. That's
    the question.
        Mr. Houck has stood up and said, ``I'd like to recognize
    the reality of the violence against a baby.'' By the way, the
    violence against the mother who has been sold a myth by radical
    leftists in the name of baby-killing. They have been sold a
    myth that it is somehow healthy and good for them or better for
    them.
        If someone dares stand up like Mr. Houck, then, he's been
    targeted, as my colleague acknowledged from this very dais,
    targeted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which we saw
    was weaponized, specifically, against the President of the
    United States, as we just saw in the Durham Report; is
    weaponized against average citizens.
        Mr. Houck, do you think $38.5 billion is sufficient funds
    for the Department of Justice? Do you think maybe it's too many
    funds, if they are carrying out actions against people like
    you?
        Mr. Houck. I would think it was too many funds.
        Mr. Roy. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
        The Chair now yields to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
    Cohen, for five minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        A lot of discussion has been on the Durham Report this
    morning. People have commented on it, the weaponization of the
    Justice Department and the FBI--the same FBI that issued the
    incorrect and inappropriate and extraordinary statement about
    Hillary Clinton in the last 10 days of the 2016 election, that
    the Trump and the Clinton people agreed was the cause of Donald
    Trump winning what was otherwise an election that she would
    have won.
        So, if you want to talk about the FBI being weaponized,
    what Christopher Wray did in releasing--what Comey did in the
    last few days, the last 10 days or so, about Hillary Clinton
    and the questions about her, caused an election to be switched.
    I mean, there's no weaponization.
        What we've got is a weaponization of the political system
    to destroy a woman's choice, women's right to choose. I was in
    law school when Roe was passed. Roe was the law for almost 50
    years. It was established law.
        We have three Justices that were put on the Supreme Court
    because of The Federalist Society, and went to Donald Trump, a
    man who had been pro-choice, and proclaimed his idea of being
    pro-choice on some radio show, some shock jock guy in New York,
    but was susceptible to influence. When The Federalist Society
    came to him and said, ``We'll help you get the evangelical vote
    if you will appoint folks that we recommend to you for the
    Supreme Court,'' Trump did it--one of the most controversial
    decisions people have differences of opinion in this country.
        I'm pro-choice. I respect the people who are pro-choice,
    and I respect people who are pro-life. Each group has a
    position that they're wedded to because of their philosophy,
    their morality, or whatever. Trump had none of that. It was all
    about being President, and he gave up his position which he
    earlier had to become President.
        They gave him Gorsuch, and they gave him Kavanaugh, and
    they gave him Barrett. All of them in their hearings said they
    believed in precedent, established precedent, in the dealings
    with Roe v. Wade. Then, they got on the Court and they all
    changed their positions, decided to be activist judges and
    eradicate Roe v. Wade.
        They got on the Court through some very unusual and, I
    would say, should be illegal, but was permissive, actions of
    the Senate.
        First, you had a vacancy in Barack Obama's last term, 11
    months before he finished it. Senator McConnell said you
    shouldn't appoint anybody in the last year of a term, ``So,
    we're not going to even give a hearing to Merrick Garland,''
    who was President Obama's nominee. I think that's the first
    time, or one of the very few times at least, but I thought the
    first time that a President had not been allowed to have a
    hearing, at least on a nominee for the Supreme Court, 11 months
    into his last year of his first term, or at any time. They did;
    they stopped him because,``Oh, no, you can't put anybody on in
    your last year. You let the voters decide at the election.''
        When a vacancy came up within a month or two of the
    election of Donald Trump, it was all OK to get Amy Coney
    Barrett put through, I think about three weeks before the
    election. So, hypocrisy? Maybe. Maybe just lying to the public
    and saying nobody should be appointed in the last year. Because
    they did it with Barrett, and that's how we got a couple of our
    appointees, Mr. Gorsuch and Ms. Barrett.
        Then, Mr. Kavanaugh, of course, the FBI did not follow
    through on all the questions about his alleged assaults, and
    they didn't do a complete investigation on his alleged assaults
    and a particular lady that testified against him. So, they
    weren't weaponized against the Republicans or weaponized
    against anything. In fact, their lack of action resulted in Mr.
    Kavanaugh being nominated and approved.
        Those three judges--Mr. Kavanaugh, who had a weak to
    nonexistent investigation of the sexual assault allegations;
    Gorsuch, who got on because they said you shouldn't put anybody
    on in the last year, and Barrett who got on, despite that
    fact--resulted in the repealing of Roe v. Wade.
        What we've had is a failure of the legislative process, a
    failure of the Constitution, and while within the parameters of
    legality, an abrupt act against the Constitution and what it
    suggests for President nominees to the Supreme Court.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms.
    Hageman, for five minutes.
        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ms. Camp, are you familiar with the FBI's use of DVE, or
    domestic violent extremism, threat tags?
        Ms. Camp. Thank you, Congresswoman. Can you say that again?
        Ms. Hageman. Yes. Are you familiar with the FBI's use of
    DVE, or domestic violent extremism, threat tags?
        Ms. Camp. I am not.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Ms. Camp, can you point to even one
    situation where the Department of Justice or FBI treated a pro-
    abortion protestor, arsonist, vandalizer, rioter, or attacker
    similar to how they treated Mr. Houck?
        Ms. Camp. Thank you, Congressman.
        I want to say that I oppose violence in all--
        Ms. Hageman. I didn't ask that question. Can you point to
    even one circumstance where a pro-abortion attacker, protestor,
    arsonist, vandalizer, or rioter were treated by the DOJ or FBI
    similar to how they treated Mr. Houck?
        Ms. Camp. Well, I want to be responsive, but I want to
    reiterate that the National Abortion--
        Ms. Hageman. Do you know of even one person?
        Ms. Camp. Ma'am, the National Abortion Federation is a
    professional organization of abortion providers. We track
    violence against those who provide and access abortion care. We
    don't track other kinds of violence.
        Ms. Hageman. So, you can't point to even one incidence
    where a pro-abortion protestor, arsonist, vandalizer, or rioter
    was treated similar to how the DOJ and the FBI treated Mr.
    Houck, can you? Is that your testimony?
        Ms. Camp. Well, what I can tell you is that, when the DOJ
    put out a reward for information on 10 different incidents,
    nine of them were at anti-abortion--
        Ms. Hageman. Did they raid? Did they raid anyone's home and
    arrest someone in front of their seven children with guns
    drawn?
        Ms. Camp. Well, no, they're just looking for information.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. That's what I thought.
        Mr. Dys, I want to thank you for being here today, and your
    testimony is important, as someone who has firsthand experience
    working with the victims of these heinous crimes that have been
    described.
        Mr. Dys, are you familiar with the Committee's
    investigative work and findings about the DOJ and the FBI's
    weaponizing domestic extremism threat tags and statutes against
    Americans' constitutionally protected rights?
        Mr. Dys. Not beyond what you revealed this morning.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. You have represented clients whose
    clinics, employees, or patients have been subjected to
    vandalism and violence from pro-abortion groups, haven't you?
        Mr. Dys. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Hageman. How do you respond to the reality of a DOJ
    which is labeling parents using constitutionally protected
    speech as domestic violence extremists or padding crime stats
    to falsify the record about a rise in domestic extremism, but
    does little to nothing about politically motivated attacks on
    your clients, which could actually qualify as domestic
    extremism?
        Mr. Dys. It's certainly disconcerting, and I think that
    exemplifies precisely why the FACE Act is important. Because
    when we have a situation where speech reaches a tipping point
    into violence, that's where we find ourselves at with these
    situations, where we characterize speech as violence, instead
    of violence as violence.
        Violence has no place in our political dialog, and
    certainly, we should not express our political disagreements
    with a brick or a crowbar through a window. That's what our
    clients have had to endure, along with many other instances
    like that. Yet, there's only been the single indictment with
    four people indicted under that, in response to the 100-plus
    attacks in the past year.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, then, I was just going to get to that.
    As you mentioned in your testimony, the Department of Justice
    has returned just one indictment in response to the over 100
    acts of intimidation, injury, and interference toward those
    seeking service from pro-life organizations in the past year.
        Yet, even before the Dobbs decision, the DOJ announced the
    standing up of an abortion rights task force. So, not only is
    the DOJ, on the one hand, infringing on protected rights
    connected to peaceful actions, it is not enforcing the law when
    violations are targeted at the same political groups that the
    DOJ itself has been targeting. It is, instead, prioritizing the
    protection of law based on its preferred political narrative,
    which in this case is the pro-abortion movement.
        Are you aware of any task forces, memos, or priorities
    being set by the DOJ which would also focus attention to
    protecting pro-life and religious facilities under the FACT Act
    or any of its other authorities?
        Mr. Dys. I am not. My clients would welcome that.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms.
    Scanlon, for five minutes.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
        As I stated at the outset, violence and threats have no
    place in American political discourse, no matter what the cause
    or who the target. When leaders advocate for such violence or
    selectively condemn for political gain, they normalize such
    violence and undermine our democracy.
        Congress has an important role to play in protecting and
    defending our democracy from the corrosive impact of political
    violence. Those who have studied this issue recommend that we
    can make sure that anyone who promotes, condones, or turns a
    blind eye to political violence is held accountable, whether
    the former President of the United States, to Members of
    Congress, to those who actually commit such threats or acts of
    violence, no matter what their political objective.
        More importantly, Members of Congress can make sure that
    they take steps to prevent the normalization of political
    violence by refraining from using violent images and rhetoric
    and condemning it, no matter the source. By convening a hearing
    that inflames grievances and amplifies misinformation
    concerning the prevalence of violence against anti-abortion
    forces, this hearing does not advance our Congressional duty to
    protect and preserve our democracy from the corrosive forces of
    political disinformation and violence.
        My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to
    push a false narrative that the Federal government is out to
    get them, but the facts are not on their side. In fact, they
    don't have the evidence or the public support for their
    policies or narrative. The clear majority of Americans believe
    we must protect access to abortion care and the freedom to make
    reproductive healthcare decisions in consultation with one's
    doctor, not politicians.
        Ms. Camp, obviously, political vandalism and threats aren't
    acceptable, no matter to whom they are directed. At today's
    hearing, the majority has cited anecdotal evidence concerning
    vandalism at anti-abortion facilities, while refusing to
    acknowledge the far more pervasive and longstanding threats and
    violence directed at providers and facilities that offer
    reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.
        You've produced a report detailing the level of violence
    against facilities that provide such care over a period of
    years. Can you explain how instances of violence, threats, and
    intimidation that you've documented impact abortion access,
    even in States like Pennsylvania, where abortion access remains
    legally protected?
        Ms. Camp. Sure. Well, as we discussed previously, it is in
    States that have protected access to abortion care that we've
    seen a really pronounced uptick in violence in the last year--
    sort of over 500 percent increase in obstructions; 130 percent
    increase in bomb threats; a 900 percent increase in stalkings.
    So, the terror that people suffer under in providing this
    fundamental healthcare holds true across the country.
        I'd also say that the stalking of patients and taking
    pictures of them and their license plates using sort of
    location data to try to determine their activities, is really
    terrifying for patients. We see that illustrated just this past
    weekend in the tragic murder of Gabriella Gonzalez by her
    boyfriend after she had to travel out of Texas for abortion
    care.
        Folks legitimately fear that, if they can't keep their
    abortion decision confidential, they'll be killed, leaving
    their existing children orphaned. So, the need for people now
    to travel hundreds of miles, or even more, to access abortion
    care makes it that much harder to maintain their
    confidentiality. So, folks are really scared.
        Ms. Scanlon. Can you speak to the danger of using
    misleading or inflammatory language where political violence is
    already a threat to healthcare providers providing abortion
    care?
        Ms. Camp. Sure. Thank you, Congressman--Congresswoman.
        Yes, we know that inflammatory rhetoric creates upticks in
    violence, threats of violence, all of these major incidents.
    The selective sort of outrage just normalizes violence against
    folks providing, and therefore, accessing abortion care.
    Inflammatory rhetoric I think is really antithetical to the
    goal, I would think, of all of us here at this hearing today,
    which is to rachet down violence.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
        We heard testimony about mounting public criticism of
    pregnancy crisis centers. Therefore, I'd seek unanimous consent
    to introduce a report by the Alliance entitled, ``Designed to
    Deceive: A Study of the Crisis Pregnancy Center Industry in
    Nine States.''
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
    Fry, for five minutes.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having this
    hearing today.
        Radical Democrats have attempted all day to downplay
    coverup and ignore the reality that crisis pregnancy centers
    and churches are under attack. I guess their approach is not
    surprising. In my brief time in Congress every single hearing
    that we have heard we hear the same narrative that Republicans
    hearing today about blank is a fantasy, that it is a conspiracy
    theory. Well, 100 instances in the last couple years are not a
    fantasy. It is not a conspiracy theory.
        They have told us that the border is secure, of course.
    They have failed to acknowledge and indeed sneer at the
    weaponization of our Federal government against its own
    citizens despite most recently the Durham Report that was
    dropped yesterday. They failed to condemn labeling parents as
    domestic terrorists for just speaking out at their school board
    meeting.
        The Democrats' own witness today, Ms. Camp, said that every
    administration has enforced the FACE Act, Republican and
    Democrat alike. The only caveat that I will say to that, the
    only asterisk that I would provide is except this one. With
    over 100 attacks, threats, arsons, spray painting it is very
    clear that this administration has no intention of enforcing
    the laws unless it has a political benefit to them.
        The Chair talked about this earlier. Look at the dichotomy
    that we have here. On one hand we have Mr. Houck, right? We
    have Eva Edl from Aiken, South Carolina, an 87-year-old lady
    who survived a communist concentration camp in Yugoslavia. She
    comes to America and her egregious crime is singing hymns in a
    hallway. Over two years later, about two years later she is
    charged with a Federal crime with the full weight of the
    Federal government.
        We fast forward here to these instances that we outlined
    that are now in the record. Mother's Day last year. Suspects
    reportedly threw two Molotov cocktails into an Oregon Right to
    Life office. On June 27, 2022, two Molotov cocktails thrown
    into Two Hearts Pregnancy Center in Everett, Washington. On
    June 30, 2022, a Molotov cocktail was thrown into the Hope
    Clinic for Women in Nashville. Federal law enforcement did
    investigate the crime as attempted arson and vandalism, but not
    the FACE Act.
        Molotov cocktails are thrown repeatedly. Arsons happen
    repeatedly. The defacing of property, the vandalism of
    property, the threats against people and property happen
    repeatedly.
        Mr. Dys, can you describe what the FACE Act is supposed to
    protect?
        Mr. Dys. Well, the FACE Act clearly defines what it's
    supposed to protect by saying that any Service relating to the
    human reproductive system is protected by the FACE Act.
        Mr. Fry. Right. So, the intention of Congress at the time
    was that not only that they would do this for abortion
    providers, but also crisis pregnancy centers, churches, things
    like that on both sides of this equation, right? This is kind
    of what the intent of the law was supposed to be?
        Mr. Dys. Yes, the FACE Act knows no ideology. It simply
    seeks to protect reproductive health centers/facilities as well
    as, it should be pointed out, houses of worship.
        Mr. Fry. Right. We are not seeing that right now? We are
    not seeing that right now with the prosecution of these 100
    instances of violence against crisis pregnancy centers and
    churches?
        Mr. Dys. Yes, in the past year we have seen over 100 of
    those instances and yet only a single indictment in the Middle
    District of Florida.
        Mr. Fry. Ms. Camp, you stated in your written and oral
    testimony that, quote, ``no one should fear violence at the
    workplace or when seeking healthcare.'' Given these attacks on
    crisis pregnancy centers and churches would you agree that they
    should be entitled to the full protection of the law?
        Ms. Camp. Thank you for the question, Congressman. So, I
    want to make clear I condemn all acts of violence and--
        Mr. Fry. Well, that is great. I appreciate that, but are
    they entitled to the full protection of the law?
        Ms. Camp. Any entity facing actual real serious threats of
    harm should have protection.
        Mr. Fry. Right. So, Molotov cocktails, right, those would
    be entitled to protection under the law?
        Ms. Camp. Well, throwing a Molotov cocktail at a
    reproductive health facility would be a FACE violation, yes,
    but I'm not in a position as a representative of a professional
    organization of abortion providers to speak to what's happening
    at other kinds of entities. I just don't have that knowledge.
        Mr. Fry. Well, you don't have knowledge, but you would
    agree with me that they are entitled to protection and they are
    entitled to the zealous protection under the law by the DOJ, by
    the FBI in routing out and identifying the people who commit
    these acts of violence. Would you agree with that?
        Ms. Camp. Well, yes, DOJ should protect all of us from
    violence whether we're abortion providers or patients or
    others.
        Mr. Fry. So, in that case do you find it troubling--like in
    the case of Ms. Kocher here do you find it troubling that she
    has not received a fair adjudication of that violence against
    her facility?
        Ms. Camp. Congressman, as I think I've said before, I am
    just not with the DOJ. I believe there are complex--
        Mr. Fry. I am not asking that. What I am asking though is
    do you think--I mean in her case, in her testimony today there
    has been extremism lobbed at her and extremism lobbed at her
    employees, and the property in which she has. Do you think that
    this is troubling that years later that she has not received
    really any help from the DOJ?
        Ms. Camp. So, Congressman, I can give you two answers: One
    is I condemn acts of violence regardless of who may target. The
    other is I can tell you that acts of violence, intimidation,
    stalking, threats, murders at providers of abortion--targeting
    providers of abortion care are terribly under addressed. So, I
    am not in a position--I mean that I can tell you, but I cannot
    speak to the various decisions DOJ makes. I would think DOJ
    could.
        Mr. Fry. Before I yield back, just briefly, I just find it
    really troubling that you talk about these acts of violence
    against your facilities, but when--she is sitting right next to
    you. She just testified to this. This isn't an obscure theory
    in law that we are talking about or a fact pattern. This
    happened. So, I am a little bit surprised that you would not
    encourage the Biden Department of Justice and FBI to prosecute
    these cases.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman is out of time.
        Ms. Camp, did you want to respond to that?
        Ms. Camp. No, thank you, sir.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt, for five minutes.
        Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I want to thank the witnesses for appearing here today. I
    really appreciate it.
        For the record I am pro-life, and I thank God that my mom
    was also pro-life because if not for her I wouldn't be sitting
    before you as a Congressman today. Since this past Sunday was
    Mother's Day, I want to thank my mother for choosing life. Good
    looking out, mom.
        If you are a member of the Pro-Life Movement, you will be
    targeted. If you are a pro-choice protestor, you will be
    protected. This is how the Biden Administration puts their
    thumbs on the scales of justice.
        What we are really talking about here today is a selective
    application in enforcement of Federal law. I have brought some
    receipts.
        Under this administration conservatives are being targeted.
    My first example is the ATF. The ATF has targeted lawful gun
    owners by crafting a rule that would make 40 million Americans
    felons overnight.
        Of course, there is the FBI. The FBI conducted an
    unprecedented raid at President Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago.
    They used FISA research warrants against conservatives. They
    have attempted to put moles in churches to spy on radical
    Christians. Of course, we have the recent results of this
    Durham Report.
        Of course, we cannot forget about the CIA. Just this last
    week this Committee published this report that former
    intelligence officials colluded with the Biden campaign to
    discredit the Hunter Biden laptop. This happened just days
    before the 2020 election, and I say to that, well, hot damn,
    that sounds like election interference to me. They call this
    Russian disinformation. That doesn't look like disinformation
    to me. This looks like Hunter Biden committing a felony.
        Now, we have heard a lot of talk on this Committee about
    crime guns, and I would call this a Biden crime gun. The day
    after this report was released there was no mention of this in
    mainstream publications. What did they talk about? George
    Santos. George Santos. Conveniently George Santos was indicted
    the day this report was released. Coincidence? Well, you
    decide. Unfortunately for Democrats there is only one George
    Santos to keep the Biden family off the front page of The
    Washington Post. So, buckle up.
        This is Hunter Biden's gun application. I would like to
    direct your attention to question 11 echo. It says,

            Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any
            depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled
            substance?

    Now, in the words of the late, great Notorious B.I.G. when
    referring to the only way to get out of the hood, he famously
    said, ``Either you're slingin' crack rock or you got a wicked
    jump shot.''
        Now, Hunter Biden does not have a wicked jump shot, but he
    definitely slings crack rock. Out of respect for the President
    I am not going to show any photos of Hunter with prostitutes
    and grams of crack, but we all know he has a checkered past.
    Hunter Biden lied on this application about his history of
    illegal drug use. He obtained a gun anyway and was never
    prosecuted.
        If we saw this behavior from Donald Trump, Jr., he would
    have been in handcuffs a long time ago. The bottom line is
    this: The ATF is focused on making 40 million law-abiding
    citizens felons when they should be worried about Hunter Biden
    lying on a gun application, which is a felony, by the way.
        There is no wonder why the American people have lost faith
    and trust in the Federal government. If you want to restore
    trust, stop spying on Americans. Stop targeting conservatives
    and pro-life people and apply the law equally.
        To the FBI, the CIA, the ATF, please put Hunter Biden in
    jail. I yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Scanlon and I, the Ranking Member and I are going to do
    one more quick round of questions just to put a bow on this. I
    will recognize myself for five minutes.
        I just had a question for Ms. Camp, or a couple of
    questions: You are the Chief Legal and Strategy Officer for the
    National Abortion Federation. Before that you spent 20 years at
    the ACLU and I think you were in charge of their Reproductive
    Freedom Project, right?
        Ms. Camp. No, I was not the director. I was the deputy
    director.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Deputy director. OK. Just for the
    record, because we have talked a lot about violence here today
    and violence--I think in your words you said you tracked
    violence against people providing abortion services, but I have
    not heard you acknowledge at all the brutal violence committed
    against children in the womb, as Mr. Roy was asking, when their
    skulls are crushed and when their limbs are ripped apart to
    kill and abort them.
        I want to know for the record, are there any restrictions
    at all on abortion that you would support?
        Ms. Camp. So, thank you for the question, Congressman. The
    question you ask is one of profound moral dimension, one that
    only the person who's pregnant can answer in consultation with
    their own soul, their pastor, their God, their doctor, their
    spouse, and their nurse. That's where the moral authority
    rests, to answer the question you've asked.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, you have no position on--for
    example, would you support restrictions on sex-selection
    abortions, when someone chooses to abort a child just because
    of its sex?
        Ms. Camp. So, Congressman, I can only reiterate, the person
    with the moral authority to make a decision about a pregnancy
    is the pregnant person.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I understood that, but on this
    specific issue would you or your organization support a legal
    restriction on sex-selection abortion?
        Ms. Camp. My organization supports abortion providers in
    providing patient-centered, evidence-based care, the care that
    the pregnant person decides is necessary.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. Then if that person decides
    to have an abortion after 20 weeks' gestation, do you support
    that?
        Ms. Camp. So, Congressman--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It is a yes or no question. I
    understand the morality and the complexity, but do you support
    an abortion after 20 weeks' gestation, yes or no?
        Ms. Camp. Respectfully, Congressman, it's not a yes or no
    question. What I support is providers being able to offer the
    care that patients know they need.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You support that in case of an
    unborn child that is after 20 weeks' gestation, correct?
        Ms. Camp. I support it in situations where the patient has
    decided in--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right. Do you oppose parental
    consent laws before a teenager can obtain an abortion?
        Ms. Camp. So, I have to say, Congressman, these questions
    sound really far afield from the reason--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No, ma'am, wait a minute. Hold
    on. You are the Chief Legal and Strategy Officer for the
    National Abortion Federation. You are the perfect person to
    answer these questions. It is not afield. Everything is on the
    table, ma'am, for a hearing. You came here purporting to be an
    expert in the field and I am asking you a very simple question,
    and an important one.
        Ms. Camp. Sure. I just want to point out that I think we're
    here, all of us together to oppose violence at reproductive
    healthcare facilities.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We are talking about violence to
    the unborn child now, directly related to the issue at hand. I
    want to know do you oppose parental consent laws before a
    teenager can obtain an abortion?
        Ms. Camp. So, the issue of minors' access is complicated. I
    do not think that--well, we all know that the vast majority of
    minors do involve at least one parent in their decision.
    Lawmakers coercing certain family dynamics is not helpful, is
    not--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is a parental consent law an
    example of a lawmaker coercing a decision?
        Ms. Camp. Sure. Well, we know from multiple cases that when
    minors don't involve a parent it's with very good reason.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. Earlier Mr. Roy was asking
    you about the crushing of the skull of an unborn child. You
    acknowledged that this is part of an abortion procedure if it
    is a later term pregnancy, correct?
        Ms. Camp. I don't think I did do that. I'm not a clinician.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Ma'am, you are in charge of the
    National Abortion Federation. You know that they crush the
    skulls of unborn children. Come on. You are under oath. You are
    under oath. Is that true or not?
        Ms. Camp. I completely understand I'm under oath,
    Congressman, and I am trying to be accurate--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is that the part of the abortion
    procedure for a late-term abortion, yes or no, crushing the
    skull?
        Ms. Camp. Well, I--
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No, ma'am. It is a yes or no
    question. Is that part of it, yes or no? Under oath. You are
    under oath. Is that a part of the procedure?
        Ms. Camp. I understand I'm under oath and what I can tell
    you is that my background is in law and strategy, not medicine.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. How convenient. Ma'am, if it were
    true that they crush the skull of an unborn child to take the
    baby out and complete the abortion, would that be an act of
    violence to you?
        Ms. Camp. Congressman, the violence I see is the violence
    of forced abortion and forced birth.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. All right. I think your
    nonresponses here speak volumes for the record. I yield back.
        I recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you and thank all your witnesses for
    coming today. I appreciate your insights on what we need to do
    across the country to combat violence, whether it is pro-
    abortion or anti-abortion, or just pro-healthcare.
        There is certainly work to be done and Congress should do
    that work.
        Ms. Camp, the National Abortion Federation's report on
    ``2022 Violence and Disruption'' notes that post-Dobbs anti-
    abortion activists shifted their focus to States like
    Pennsylvania where abortion remains legal and protected and
    that as a result protective States saw a disproportionate
    increase in violence and disruption against abortion providers
    and patients. Can you elaborate on those findings?
        Ms. Camp. Sure. So, thank you for the question,
    Congresswoman. What we know is that the Dobbs decision and the
    proliferation of abortion bans throughout the State mandate
    pregnancy and childbirth against the will of pregnant folks.
    Those events emboldened anti-abortion extremists so that we saw
    a concentration of those extremist tactics at clinics
    continuing to offer abortion care in States that protect access
    to abortion care so that--whereas for stalking we saw an
    overall increase in stalking from--2022 of 230 percent. In
    States that protect access to abortion care the increase was
    900 percent--a 900 percent increase in stalking of providers
    and patients. In States protecting access to this fundamental
    healthcare, a 130 percent increase in bomb threats. In those
    States that are protecting access to this fundamental care a
    540 percent increase in obstructions, the core FACE violations.
        Ms. Scanlon. Am I correct that in the areas where you saw
    reduction in threats and obstructions and other harassment of
    patients and facilities that can be attributed, in part, to the
    fact that in many States with these post-Dobbs ruling--many of
    the clinics which regularly report issues to you have, in fact,
    closed and are no longer reporting?
        Ms. Camp. That's absolutely right, Congresswoman. So many
    of our member clinics have had to close because of bans on
    abortion care, bans that force people to remain pregnant and
    give birth against their will. Many of our member clinics have
    closed. Of those that closed many had reported numerous,
    voluminous instances of extremist violence, but they weren't
    open to report it to us at the time we collected the 2020-2022
    statistics.
        Ms. Scanlon. OK. We have seen some anecdotal reports
    referenced here. There doesn't appear to have been an actual
    study by a credible source concerning the incidence of violence
    and threats regarding anti-abortion facilities. Would you agree
    though that the bulk of violence, threats, and intimidation
    related to the provision or obtaining of reproductive health
    services including post-Dobbs have been directed against
    abortion providers and patients?
        Ms. Camp. Unequivocally. Unquestionably, Congresswoman. The
    vast majority of bombings, arsons, stalkings, threats,
    harassment, and death threats have been against providers of
    abortion care and folks seeking to access that care as
    patients.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have no further questions. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. This concludes today's hearing.
    We thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee
    today.
        Without objection, all members will have five legislative
    days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
    or additional materials for the record.
        Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m, the Committee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can be
    found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
    .aspx?EventID=115924.

                                     [all]