[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVISITING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FACE ACT: PART II
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-106
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-830 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
CHIP ROY, Texas Georgia
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 BECCA BALINT, Vermont
WESLEY HUNT, Texas JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina ERICA LEE CARTER, Texas
MICHAEL RULLI, Ohio
Vacancy
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, California MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina Ranking Member
KEVIN KILEY, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
WESLEY HUNT, Texas CORI BUSH, Missouri
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina BECCA BALINT, Vermont
Vacancy Vacancy
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas.... 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......................................... 6
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 8
WITNESSES
Paul Vaughn, Pro-Life Advocate
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Testimony............................................. 13
Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President, Center for Life
and Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Oral Testimony................................................. 75
Prepared Testimony............................................. 77
Steve M. Crampton, Senior Counsel, Thomas More Society
Oral Testimony................................................. 100
Prepared Testimony............................................. 102
Jessica L. Waters, Assistant Professor, School of Public Affairs,
Justice, Law & Criminology, American University, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 115
Prepared Testimony............................................. 117
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Limited Government, for the record......................... 141
A portion of the transcript from FACE Act, May 5, 1994, House
Congressional Record, submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
Arizona, for the record
Materials 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 Memo Opinion, Tennessee District Court's order, United
States. v. Gallagher, Jul. 3, 2023, United States
District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
An Opinion, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
decision, 2002 Norton v. Ashcroft, Jul. 31, 2002
An article entitled, ``Abortion protester's arrest unrelated
to prayer, hymns | Fact check,'' Apr. 1, 2024, USA Today
A press release entitled, ``Three Defendants Plead Guilty to
Civil Rights Conspiracy Targeting Pregnancy Resource
Centers,'' Jun. 14, 2024, Office of Public Affairs, U.S.
Dept. of Justice
Materials submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Texas, for the record
Thousands of letters regarding the repealing of the FACE Act,
to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on
the Constitution and Limited Government from the State of
Texas
A letter in response from Assistant Attorney General Carlos
Felipe Uriarte, Department of Justice, regarding the FACE
Act, to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution and Limited Government from the State
of Texas
APPENDIX
Materials 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 letter from Carlos Felipe Uriarte, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, regarding the FACE Act,
May 14, 2024, to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
from the State of Texas, for the record
A letter from Carlos Felipe Uriarte, Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, regarding the indictment
of Mark Houck and the FACE Act, Nov. 6, 2023, to the
Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary from the State of Ohio
A letter from the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
from the State of Texas, regarding the FACE Act, Aug. 19,
2024, to the Hon. Christopher Wray, Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation
REVISITING THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE FACE ACT: PART II
----------
Wednesday, December 18, 2024
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Roy, Jordan, McClintock,
Bishop, Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, Scanlon, Nadler, Escobar, and
Balint.
Also present: Representatives Biggs and Lee Carter of
Texas.
Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on revisiting the
implications of the FACE Act.
Without objection, Ms. Lee Carter and Mr. Biggs from
Arizona will be permitted to participate in today's hearing for
the purpose of questioning the witness if a member yields her
time for that purpose.
I would just like to add that I would welcome Ms. Lee
Carter. We remember your mother's participation and
contributions to this Subcommittee, and we look forward to
having you participate here today.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. The
reason that statues of Lady Justice show her wearing a
blindfold is because it is not supposed to matter who is being
judged, what they believe, or who they voted for. The rule-of-
law demands an equal application of the law without fear or
favor. That is why we are here today.
The FACE Act is a Federal law originally designed to
equally protect access to abortion clinics, pregnancy resource
centers, and places of worship by prohibiting threats of force,
destruction, and property damage. Unfortunately, over the past
four years, the Biden-Harris Administration has weaponized this
act, disproportionately targeting prolife Americans for FACE
Act violations while simultaneously failing to protect
pregnancy resource facilities despite being the target of
growing violence.
On May 2, 2022, a draft copy of the Supreme Court's
decision in Dobbs was leaked to the press and gave rise to
widespread attacks on nearly 100 prolife facilities and 300
Catholic churches, which were vandalized, damaged, and even
firebombed. Only in the aftermath of the leak did the DOJ begin
to more aggressively pursue FACE charges, yet these
prosecutions did not address these significant increases in
violence, but rather the largely peaceful prolife
demonstrations at abortion clinics.
Since the start of the Biden-Harris Administration until
May 2024, the DOJ had brought a total of 24 FACE Act cases
against 55 defendants, with only two of these cases concerning
attacks on pregnancy resource centers. To this day, the FACE
Act has never been used in defense of a church since it was
passed in 1994. When the DOJ does prosecute pro-abortion
activists, the vigor with which they pursue and penalize these
individuals pales in comparison to the penalties faced by
prolife advocates.
Take, for example, one of our witnesses here today, Paul
Vaughn, who was prosecuted for praying outside of an abortion
clinic. Vaughn was arrested when an FBI SWAT team raided his
home at gunpoint early in the morning in front of his wife and
11 children, later sentencing him to six months of home
confinement and three years of probation.
Another FACE Act defendant, Lauren Handy, was sentenced to
57 months in prison for her role in protesting late-term
abortion within our Nation's capital. I would note this happens
to be an individual that I don't always align with
philosophically.
In another grotesque prosecution, the weaponized Biden-
Harris Justice Department recently sentenced a 75-year-old
grandmother, Paulette Harlow, to a 24-month Federal prison
sentence. Again, in the case of Eva Edl, an 89-year-old--I
repeat, 89-year-old--death camp survivor who is awaiting
Federal sentencing for her peaceful advocacy for praying for
the unborn at abortion clinics, where prison time could be a
potential death sentence given her age. She is a survivor, a
survivor of concentration camps and abuse in Europe.
Still, you don't see the weaponized Biden-Harris Justice
Department pursuing antilife activists who vandalize prolife
clinics with the same vigor. One day, after the Dobbs leak, a
pregnancy resource center near the University of Texas campus
was vandalized with pro-abortion slogans. Banners were torn
down, and memorial bricks were dug up from the sidewalk, all
while activists chanted, ``My body, my choice.'' No arrests
were made. Similarly, a pregnancy resource center in Houston
was vandalized with, ``Abortion for All'' written on the front
of the clinic locks, gluing the entrance shut, causing $10,000
in damage. No arrests were made.
It doesn't stop with the FACE Act, either. This law is just
one tool that the Biden-Harris DOJ has issued in its years-long
crusade against political dissenters. The DOJ Civil Rights
Division has chosen to undermine election integrity laws, suing
States like Virginia for taking steps to ensure election
integrity.
The DOJ targeted Eithan Haim after he revealed that his
employer, the Texas Children's Hospital, is performing illegal
trans-gender medical interventions on minors. The DOJ Civil
Rights Division opened pattern-or-practice investigation into
local police departments in search of patterns of misconduct
during the height of the defund the police movement. They
advised colleges on how to get around SCOTUS's ruling on
affirmative action, ensuring race remains a key factor for
admissions.
The Biden-Harris DOJ would rather focus its time and
resources on these efforts as well as going after prolife
grandmothers, sentencing them to years of Federal prison for,
at best, a trespassing charge instead of targeting actual
criminals.
The Civil Rights Division has been used as a tool against
the civil rights of the American people, undermining their
freedom and liberties. While we expect the incoming
administration to end this horrific practice at the DOJ, that
is not good enough. The American people deserve to know that
their rights will not be violated, regardless of which
administration is in power.
It has been long time for Congress to address this
weaponization legislatively. The Republican Congress must start
to ensure that future weaponization is not possible by passing
the legislation H.R. 5577 to repeal the FACE Act. It is not
enough to merely end Biden-era discrimination. We must act to
reverse these wrongful imprisonments, reuniting families who
have been collateral damage to this administration.
The Trump Administration should consider pardoning and
commuting the sentences of FACE Act defendants who have been
victims of this targeted harassment. Unequal application of the
law is not truly law; it is tyranny imposed on those who didn't
have the power by those who do have it. That is contrary to
everything we believe as Americans.
I thank our witnesses, some of whom know these abuses all
too well, for being here today to address the need for
fundamental and permanent reforms at the Department of Justice.
I now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening
statement.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our
witnesses for joining us.
We are here today, according to this hearing's title,
``Revisiting the Implications of the FACE Act: Part II.'' Part
I occurred in May 2023, under the Chairship of now Speaker
Johnson. During the intervening year and a half, things really
haven't changed that much.
We continue to see heightened political violence concerning
reproductive rights, particularly by right-wing extremists. We
continue to see the House GOP's efforts to claim
disproportionate enforcement under the FACE Act, all while
ignoring the disproportionately greater number of attacks
against reproductive healthcare facilities that provide
abortion care. We continue to see our GOP colleagues ignoring
facts and pushing a false narrative of selective enforcement to
form a pretext for the repeal of the FACE Act.
What has become clear in the intervening months is that
this attack on the FACE Act is part of a coordinated extreme
antichoice agenda that seeks to gut reproductive rights and
effectively ban abortion care in the United States. That agenda
is outlined in the extremist conservative manifesto called
Project 2025, which was rolled out just weeks before Part I of
this hearing.
Unless our Republican colleagues once again deny any
connection between Project 2025 and their actions, we should
note that both parts of this hearing have parroted false
narrative of Project 2025, claiming selective enforcement
against anti-abortion advocates on page--I believe it's 568 of
Project 2025.
Each of today's majority witnesses have close ties to
Project 2025. Ms. Hawley is an anti-abortion lawyer and Senior
Counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, the ADF, which is a
Project 2025 Advisory Board member. Mr. Vaughn's arrest under
the FACE Act for blockading a reproductive healthcare facility,
for which he was convicted by a jury, is cited--I am sorry. It
was on page 558 of Project 2025.
I do have to correct the Chair's statement that Mr. Vaughn
was arrested for praying at that facility. In fact, the record
is quite clear. His arrest was for blockading the facility, not
praying. Mr. Crampton, of course, was Mr. Vaughn's attorney in
that case. So, they all have close ties to this manifesto.
So, in revisiting the FACE Act today, our Republican
colleagues are really just giving themselves another
opportunity to signal their support to the extremists plotting
to criminalize or block access to abortion across the country.
The only thing that has changed since the first iteration of
this hearing is public awareness of the deeply unpopular plans
outlined in Project 2025.
Over the past year and a half, House Republicans have
attempted to cloak their unpopular agenda with misleading
claims that their policies will support women, children, and
civil rights. Those claims have repeatedly turned up empty
because the truth is every step we take toward a nationwide
abortion ban drastically undermines the health and well-being
of American women and children, and furthermore, it violates
women's rights to make their own personal medical decisions
without politicians invading their doctors' offices and their
private business.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act,
protects facilities providing access to abortion and other
reproductive health services as well as places of religious
worship--protects them from the use of force, threats,
intimidation, or physical obstruction.
The record from the Subcommittee's hearing on this topic in
May of last year is clear. There is no credible evidence to
support Republican allegations that the FACE Act is being
selectively enforced. Even so, if our colleagues were actually
concerned about that, you would assume they would be calling
for stronger and broader enforcement of the FACE Act. Instead,
our Subcommittee Chair and 47 other House Republicans have
introduced legislation to repeal the FACE Act.
Actions speak louder than words, and with that action, the
motivation here is very clear. In repealing the FACE Act, they
would invite every anti-abortion extremist to use violence,
threats, intimidation to block access to abortion services
everywhere, even in States where it is legal, a nationwide ban
in practice if not in law.
Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994 in response to two
decades of escalating violence, intimidation, and blockades
against abortion providers and their patients. The need for
this protection was extremely clear, as the House Judiciary
Committee and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Community
detailed numerous incidents in their respective Committee
reports of abortion providers being subjected to horrifying
threats, including murder.
Dr. David Gunn was murdered by an anti-abortion extremist
outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida, in March 1993. The
House report on the FACE Act noted that Dr. Gunn's murder was
the tragic culmination of years of threats, blockades, and
personal attacks.
In addition to threats against providers, both Committees
detailed incidents where abortion clinics were the targets of
arson, bombings, chemical attacks, and blockades by anti-
abortion extremists that resulted in sometimes severe injuries
for doctors, clinic workers, volunteers, patients, and others.
Today, the FACE Act remains an important deterrent to
political violence regarding reproductive healthcare. Since
January 2021, the Department of Justice has brought 25 FACE Act
cases involving 57 defendants, and yes, those cases have
involved both abortion providers and anti-abortion facilities.
Of course, 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.
It remains that abortion providers and their patients are
actually the ones who face higher levels of violence. To the
extent there is a disparity in FACE Act prosecution, that
disparity is a reflection of the facts.
A 2022 report from the National Abortion Federation, which
we introduced into the record in Part I of this hearing,
confirmed that anti-abortion violence is escalating in the wake
of the Dobbs decision. That report detailed that there was a
100 percent increase in arsons and a 20 percent increase in
threats of death and harm against clinics and providers as
compared to 2021. There was also a 229 percent increase in
stalking from 2021-2022, indicating an increase of reports of
providers and patients being followed as they entered, exited,
traveled to or traveled from clinics.
Moreover, that report noted that after the Supreme Court
issued its decision in Dobbs, clinics in States where abortion
remains legal saw a disproportionate increase in violence and
destruction. This escalating violence is part of an anti-
abortion extremist campaign to achieve by extralegal means what
they have been politically unable to do since Dobbs, which is
to enact a nationwide abortion ban.
This decades-long effort, which the FACE Act has helped to
de-escalate, involves intimidating doctors and providers from
delivering necessary and often life-saving reproductive care
and denying access to healthcare facilities where women can
exercise the freedom to make decisions impacting their own
health and their family's well-being because, as a leader of
the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue said when asked during
the FACE Act passage, if there is no one willing to conduct
abortions, there are no abortions.
Republican lawmakers are now trying to turn the FACE Act
into yet another rallying cry in their cultural war against
abortion, blatantly politicizing a law that is about protecting
Americans and keeping them safe. In doing so, they knowingly
enable dangerous and hostile rhetoric that threatens women's
access to reproductive healthcare all across this country.
Ultimately, that makes them complicit in the consequences of
those actions.
No one deserves to be denied medical care because of
someone else's political or religious beliefs. Everyone
deserves the freedom to provide or seek appropriate medical
care without threats to their own safety, and all women deserve
the freedom to work with their doctors to decide on and access
the healthcare that is right for them. That is the America that
my Democratic colleagues and I are fighting for because that is
the America our constituents deserve.
I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member.
I would note that at least one thing that has changed since
2023, as the Ranking Member referenced saying nothing had
changed, we sent a letter to the Department of Justice. The
Department of Justice responded to the letter, and I ask that
we consent that we insert that in the record. Without
objection, we will put it in the record.
That confirms the numbers that I cited in the opening
statement, that there have been 24 FACE Act cases against 55
defendants obtaining 34 convictions, and of which only two were
directed, as they say here, toward nonprolife--directed toward
something that isn't attacking prolifers.
With that, I would ask the Chair if he would like to offer
up any statement.
Chair Jordan. I thank the Chair. Yes, only two.
What we forgot and what the Ranking Member didn't mention
is, in the aftermath of the Dobbs leak and the Dobbs decision,
that Spring and Summer, 103 churches and crisis pregnancy
centers were attacked. She used the term ``extremist'' for the
prolife people. Look. We are against all violence. I agree with
that statement. That was not in any way an accurate picture of
what took place in that Summer and, frankly, the disparity in
who is prosecuted under the FACE Act.
Here is the bottom line. Government has been weaponized
against ``We the People.'' September 23, 2022, Mark Houck at
home in Pennsylvania--ten unmarked cars pull up to his house at
6:30 a.m., and arrest him in front of his wife and seven kids.
What did they arrest him for? Praying in front of an abortion
clinic and protecting his son from some crazy person screaming
swear words in his child's face. In fact, he was prosecuted,
went to court, and the jury of his peers found him not guilty.
Twelve days after he is arrested, our witness, Mr. Vaughn,
at home in Pennsylvania--arrested in front of his wife and 11
children. What was he doing? Exactly what the Chair said:
``Praying and singing hymns outside of an abortion clinic.''
Just came and got him.
On March 5, 2024, in Mr. Bigg's State, Penny McCarthy, 66-
year-old grandmother in her driveway--U.S. Marshals pull up,
guns drawn, and arrest her. They said she violated parole, a
parole violation for a nonviolent offense from 25 years
earlier. They show up with guns drawn and arrest this lady. She
said, ``I think you got the wrong person.'' Guess what: She was
right. They had the wrong person.
Of course, we had a hearing on this right here in this
room. Bryan Malinowski. Bryan Malinowski--the top official,
highest paid official in the municipal government in Little
Rock, Arkansas, gun hobbyist. Sold six guns, and the ATF said,
``You're a felon because you sold six guns without a license.''
They show up. Again, ten cars show up at 6:01 a.m.
First thing you see--because we got the video. The first
thing they do is walk up and put tape on the doorbell cam.
Fifty-three seconds after they put tape on the doorbell cam,
Bryan Malinowski is shot and later dies. They weren't even--
this wasn't even an arrest warrant. This was a search warrant.
They have been surveilling this guy for two weeks. They were
going to go the week before, but found out he wasn't home, so
they waited for him to be home to--you can't make any sense of
what they did.
Government has certainly been weaponized against ``We the
People.'' Of course, last week--what did we find out last week?
Two Inspector General reports came out last week. The first one
said when Chris Wray first started at the FBI, they spied on
Capitol Hill staffers. Here's the amazing thing: One of the
guys they spied on is the guy who's going to replace Chris
Wray. They spied on Kash Patel, got the email. Who are you
emailing to? Emails coming in to you, phone calls--did that
to--and it was Democrats, too. Democrats should be just as
outraged. They were spying on Republican and Democrat staffers.
Of course, the second report that came out last week from
the Inspector General--we find out that there were 26
confidential human sources here in the Capitol, at the Capitol.
Well, some of them came into the Capitol, 26 of them on January
6th. Seventeen went into the restricted area. Four went into
the Capitol. Zero were arrested.
Remember, confidential human source is a fancy name for
spy--spying on Americans that day. We also know they spied on
parents, right? Spied on moms and dads going to school board
meetings. We know. They have to set up a snitch line. You could
report on parents. One of the FBI whistleblowers came and
testified in front of this Committee--this Congress told us he
was sent to go get license plates from parents in the parking
lot when they're at a school board meeting. Our government is
doing that.
Of course, all this makes me wonder, are they spying? Might
they be spying on prolife activists, other Americans who are
concerned about the sanctity of human life? Might they be doing
that? Well, guess what: They tried that, too. They tried that,
too, because we got the memorandum from the Richmond Field
Office earlier this Congress.
On page 4 of this memo says,
We now have new opportunities to mitigate violent extremism
threat through outreach to traditional Catholic parishes and
the development of sources with the placement and access to
report on places of worship.
Now, that is fancy FBI-speak for, ``We are going to put spies
in the parish, spies in the church in America.'' All this stuff
happened. So, thank the good Lord we had a change in this
administration back on November 5th.
I want to thank the Chair for his tireless work on
advocating for the sanctity of life and looking at this law. I
want to thank Ms. Hawley, Mr. Vaughn for what you have been
through, both of you for coming and testifying, Mr. Crampton
for your good work at the Thomas More Society, and for being
with us today.
Protecting the sanctity of life is critically important,
and just as important is the First Amendment, your right to
speak, your right to pray, all the rights we enjoy under the
First Amendment. That is why this Committee, which is charged
with protecting the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and those
important freedoms we have as Americans, is so darn important.
I thank the Chair for all his good work and yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
Now, with that, I would recognize the Ranking Member of the
Full Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, since the last
time this Subcommittee held a hearing on the Freedom of Access
to Clinic Entrances Act, or the FACE Act, over a year ago,
Judiciary Republicans have found no, zero, credible direct
evidence that supports their speeches' claims regarding what
they allege is the Department of Justice's uneven enforcement
of the FACE Act.
What has changed since then is that the Subcommittee Chair,
along with 47 of his fellow House Republicans, have once again
said the quiet part aloud. They have introduced a bill to
repeal the FACE Act altogether. That is right. Anti-abortion
extremists continue to use violence, threats, and destruction
to curb access to abortion, so Republicans want to repeal the
law that explicitly protects patients, providers, and
facilities that provide reproductive health services from these
ongoing threats.
Republicans claim that prosecutors are selectively
targeting anti-abortion protesters under the FACE Act and
declining to prosecute threats against anti-abortion
facilities. There is zero evidence for their claims. On the
contrary, it appears that DOJ is enforcing the law without
regard to defendants' viewpoints.
I fear, however, that once Republicans complete their
takeover of the Federal Government next year, they will use
these sham allegations as a pretext to put a bill revoking the
FACE Act's important Federal protections on President Trump's
desk. This would represent a dangerous and unacceptable attack
on public safety.
The FACE Act was enacted because of a long-documented
history of violence specifically directed against abortion
providers, their staff, and their patients. The American people
need strong enforcement of the law even more now in the wake of
continued and escalating violence, threats, and intimidation
against women and their doctors post-Dobbs.
According to the most recent report issued by the National
Abortion Federation, anti-abortion extremists have intensified
their efforts to block access to abortion facilities in those
States that protect the right to obtain an abortion. Even by
their own terms, FACE Act repeal is a nonsensical course of
action. If House Republicans' supposed concern is uneven
enforcement of the FACE Act, why wouldn't they simply call for
the incoming Trump Administration to prioritize cases involving
protection of anti-abortion facilities, which are explicitly
protected under the FACE Act?
Instead, the Chair and his Republican colleagues have come
up with a new, equally farcical pretext for attacking the FACE
Act: They believe that it is unconstitutional and should be
eliminated altogether. While the Supreme Court has not weighed
in on the constitutionality of the act, that is because, as far
as I can tell, every Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that has
considered the issue has upheld the FACE Act against challenges
that the law violates the First Amendment's free speech
guarantees or exceeds Congress's authority under the Commerce
Clause.
House Republicans' manufactured narrative about the FACE
Act, however, makes perfect sense if one recognizes that their
ultimate goal is to ban abortion nationwide. House Republicans
clearly feel more beholden than ever to the special interests
of anti-abortion activists over the will of the American
people, a majority of whom reject their extreme anti-abortion
agenda.
As we stand on the eve of the next Trump Administration,
today's hearing, the last of the Judiciary Committee in the
118th Congress, can only be interpreted as a message from House
Republicans to these extreme anti-abortion activists. That
message is, ``Sit tight,'' because Republicans will use the
119th Congress to lay yet another brick in the groundwork for
the Trump Administration's plans to use complete Republican
control of the Federal Government to block women from obtaining
the reproductive health-care they need, all while inching
toward enacting a total nationwide ban on abortion.
The House Democrats will not stay silent in the face of
this onslaught. We will do everything within our power to
protect the right to an abortion and to resist Republican
efforts to enact a nationwide abortion ban.
I yield back.
Mr. Roy. Without objection, all their opening statements
will be included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witnesses. Mr. Paul Vaughn--
Mr. Vaughn is a prolife advocate and the President of
Personhood Tennessee, an organization dedicated to the
advancement of the recognition and protection of life from
conception to natural death. He was prosecuted under the FACE
Act by the Biden's Department of Justice for praying and
singing hymns outside an abortion clinic.
Ms. Erin Hawley--Ms. Hawley serves as Senior Counsel and
Vice President of the Center for Life and Regulatory Practice
at the Alliance Defending Freedom. Prior to joining ADF, she
specialized in appellate law in private practice and has
litigated extensively before various Federal Appellate Courts
and the U.S. Supreme Court. She also previously served as an
Associate Professor of Law at the University of Missouri, where
she taught constitutional law, Federal income tax, and other
courses.
Mr. Steve Crampton--Mr. Crampton is a Senior Counsel at the
Thomas More Society, a nonprofit public interest law firm that
focuses on cases involving individual liberty. He has more than
30 years of experience litigating religious liberties cases in
both the civil and criminal justice systems.
Professor Jessica Waters--Ms. Waters is an Assistant
Professor of Justice, Law, and Criminology at the American
University. She also serves as the Director of the American
University School of Public Affairs Leadership Program. Her
research focuses on higher education leadership, student
success, and reproductive rights law and policy.
We thank our witnesses for appearing today, and we will
begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your
right hand?
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?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative.
Thank you. Please be seated. Please note that your written
testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety.
Accordingly, we ask you to summarize your testimony in five
minutes.
Mr. Vaughn, you may begin.
I would remind everybody to turn your microphones on before
you speak.
STATEMENT OF PAUL VAUGHN
Mr. Vaughn. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the
honorable Members of this Committee, thank you for entertaining
this important discussion today and allowing me to share our
story with you.
I'd like to speak to you about the DOJ's Project 2022. It
happened October 5th at 7 a.m. in the morning, when my house
was assaulted, my wife and children were terrorized, and I was
kidnapped at gunpoint by four armed men.
I had just sent three of my children to the car so I could
take them to school when the house began to shake from a loud
banging near the front door. I heard men shouting on my porch,
``Open up. FBI.'' The banging continued.
As I looked out a side window to check the location of my
children, I saw two unmarked SUVs with lights flashing but I
did not see my children. The banging continued and I heard more
shouting. I opened the curtains on the front door to find three
men with guns trained on the door.
I asked who they were looking for and they replied, ``We're
here for you.'' They did not identify me or provide
identification for themselves. As I believed there was an
imminent threat to the safety of my wife and seven children who
were home that day, I determined to surrender myself to them,
hoping that they were legitimate law enforcement.
I opened the door and stepped out onto the porch, staring
down the barrels of both a pistol and an automatic weapon
pointed at my head.
As I did, I asked what authority they were operating under
and if they had any identification. I later learned at the same
time three of my children, ages 12, 14, and 18, were being
detained in the side yard on the edge of the woods by a fourth
armed man.
I was taken without the presentation of a warrant or
identification when requested. Make no mistake, this was an
armed conflict, and I was unarmed. Lethal force was abused and
to abridge my God-given and constitutionally secured rights.
At the moment of being placed in handcuffs I became a slave
to ideological tyrants, either the ones holding the weapons or
the ones they obeyed.
The event that brought this ill-fated drama to my front
door took place 18 months prior, as been noted. Prolife
Christians gathered at carafem abortion clinics in Mount Juliet
to attempt to save unborn children that were scheduled to die
that morning.
Out of the couple hundred people who attended that day
eight adults were, in fact, arrested for nonviolently sitting
at abortion clinic doors for doing a sit-in like many of you
have seen right here in your own buildings by Antifa, BLM, and
Hamas. I wonder how many of those have faced 10 years of prison
for those activities.
The fact remains that I did not do any of these things. I
did nothing that was outside constitutionally protected free
speech and religious freedom.
I did nothing that day that I've not done many times since
FACE was passed in 1994. I did not sit in. I broke no laws,
Federal or local, and I was not arrested the day of the event.
Yes, Member Scanlon, I did pray that day.
I had talked with the police chief and lead negotiating
team. I helped the police and the prolifers by messaging back
and forth.
The police spokesperson complimented us on the peacefulness
nature of the event on the evening news. The lead negotiator
testified for us in our Federal trial. There's a lot of talk
about violence around the issue of abortion.
Of course, all people of honor and character denounce acts
of violence on either side of this issue. The narrative has
been projected against the prolife people and fails to take
into account at least three other aspects of violence around
this issue.
There is violence committed against every unborn child in
every abortion. There's violence committed by aggravated
fathers or other family members of aborted children and there's
violence being done to prolifers by our own government.
Any serious conversation about violence, going forward,
needs to include these three facts. The FACE Act was ostensibly
passed because of violence. As my family knows very well, all
it did was give violence the cover of law and place it in the
hands of the government.
The phrase ``the process is the punishment,'' and the
weapon-
ization of the FACE Act are not just words in our household. We
are living the reality of those words.
Since my arrest, I've been restricted to the Middle
District of Tennessee for over two years under control and
supervision of the Federal Government. My family spent 20
months of having a potential decade in prison hanging over
their lead provider's head--my head.
We endured long, stressful days of the actual trial,
enduring lies and half-truths for the sake of government
winning a case with no regard to actually seeking justice.
The process has entailed government agents invading and
inspecting our home, calling my home to make sure I'm obeying
the rules. It involved giving up my rights as a U.S. citizen in
spite of the novel use of the 1,800 conspiracy laws.
The Appeal Court refused to stay the order pending the
appeal to find out if this was a legal right--application of
the law.
All this process is a punishment, and I was the one that
did not get jail time. There are those who are in jail today
while we are discussing this abuse, some of them for over a
year at this point.
With the overturning of Roe and the long train of abuses of
the unequal application of the FACE Act there is no legitimate
reason for it to remain on the books. It is a tool whose sole
purpose is to stifle free speech and abuse the rights of
Christian conservatives. There is nothing that the FACE Act
does that is not already accomplished by State laws across the
land.
If abortion is returned to the States, so should the laws
governing it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vaughn follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Vaughn.
Ms. Hawley, you may give your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ERIN M. HAWLEY
Ms. Hawley. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Roy, Ranking
Member Scanlon, and the Members of the Committee.
One of the most enduring and crucial features of the
American constitutional design is its commitment to the equal
application of law.
John Adams famously described the republic as a government
of laws, not of men, meaning that in America the rule-of-law
comes before politics. Yet, the Biden Administration has broken
this promise.
It has consistently put politics above the rule-of-law in
its one-sided application of the FACE Act to target prolife
individuals.
The text of the FACE Act is clear. Its protections apply
to, quote, ``reproductive health services,'' which is broadly
defined to include not only abortion facilities, but also
pregnancy centers.
The FACE Act also protects churches and other houses of
worship from violence, vandalism, and intimidation. Instead of
applying the FACE Act in an even-handed way, the Biden's DOJ
has weaponized the act to target prolife advocates.
Since 2001, it has brought criminal or civil cases under
the FACE Act against 55 individuals, 50 of them prolife. It has
charged 24 cases under the FACE Act, but only two in defense of
pregnancy centers.
Since the Dobbs decision was leaked in May 2022, there have
been close to 100 pregnancy care centers that have been
vandalized, spray painted, or firebombed.
Only eight percent of the Biden DOJ's FACE Act cases have
been filed to protect pregnancy centers. Again, just two cases.
As for churches, again, expressly protected by the FACE
Act, the Family Research Council has identified 436 instances
of threats or violence in 2023 alone.
Shockingly, the Biden Department of Justice has failed to
initiate a single FACE Act prosecution to protect a house of
worship. Take just a few examples of the violence confronting
prolife organizations.
On June 7, 2022, CompassCare's office in Buffalo, New York,
was firebombed and tagged with spray paint reading ``Jane was
here.'' Three days later on June 10th the Gretchen Pregnancy
Resource Center in Oregon was set on fire, and on June 25th
Life Choices in Longmont, Colorado, was firebombed and spray
painted with the message, ``If abortions aren't safe neither
are you.''
Not only has the Biden Justice Department demonstrated bias
in its refusal to prosecute violence against prolife
organizations, but for the first time in the FACE Act's history
the Biden's DOJ has used the FACE hook--excuse me, the FACE Act
as a hook to tack on an additional conspiracy against rights
felony charge.
This charge comes with a potential 10-year prison sentence
even for nonviolent civil disobedience, showing how the Biden's
DOJ has upped the ante, placing prolife Americans in as much
jeopardy as possible.
Take Eva Edl, an 89-year-old survivor of a Soviet
concentration camp, who sat in front of the entrance to an
abortion clinic in a wheelchair. Because the Biden's DOJ tacked
on a conspiracy charge, Eva could face a sentence up to 11
years in Federal prison along with hundreds of thousands of
dollars in Federal fines, all for singing and praying from her
wheelchair.
The Biden DOJ's one-sided use of the FACE Act raises
serious concerns about viewpoint-based selective enforcement.
While the Executive Branch does have discretion to decide
whether to prosecute a case, it cannot selectively enforce the
law in a way that violates the Constitution.
As the Federal Courts have said, ``this is antithetical to
a free society.'' The Biden's DOJ has consistently declined to
enforce the FACE Act against individuals attacking pregnancy
centers and churches while vigorously enforcing it against
prolife advocates. That's the definition of selective
enforcement.
To make matters worse, the FACE Act is a questionable
exercise of Congress' commerce clause authority. The Federal
Government is one of limited enumerated powers.
Thus, in United States v. Lopez and United States v.
Morrison, the Supreme Court struck down two criminal statutes
because they had nothing to do with commerce.
These cases rejected the argument that Congress may
regulate crime so long as it has an aggregate effect on
economic activity. That would obliterate the distinction
between what is national and what is local.
To be clear, there is never any excuse for violence in
expressing one's viewpoint. Repealing the FACE Act would not
mean that criminal conduct could occur with impunity or without
legal consequence. Every State has laws that regulate trespass,
assault, disorderly conduct, unlawful assembly, and the like.
In summary, the FACE Act has been weaponized to target
prolife activity while leaving pregnancy centers and churches,
largely, unprotected. This is not the even-handed application
of the law the American people deserve.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hawley follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Hawley.
Mr. Crampton, you may provide your testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN M. CRAMPTON
Mr. Crampton. Good afternoon.
Mr. Chair, the Ranking Member, and the Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to
testify here today.
My name is Steve Crampton. I serve as Senior Counsel for
the Thomas More Society, a national nonprofit law firm
championing life, family, and freedom.
I applaud this Committee for addressing this vital issue--
as the title of this Subcommittee suggests, the Constitution
and limited government, both of which are keenly implicated in
this issue.
FACE should be repealed, as Ms. Hawley just said, first,
because it's an unconstitutional law and, second, because it's
an unnecessary Federal overreach into a matter traditionally
and best left to the States.
I also urge this Committee, however, to take action
regarding the use and abuse of the Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy
Against Rights Statute passed in 1870, which has for the first
time in our Nation's history been pressed into service for use
against these peaceful FACE protesters.
People like Mr. Vaughn and the others, many of whom, as has
been mentioned, are already in jail today, face that penalty
that goes up from six months for a first offense, nonviolent
FACE violation, to 10 years in the Federal penitentiary.
This is an outrage, and it should not be permitted.
Historically, FACE was always about one thing, abortion. The
legislative history, the drafts of the early bill make this
quite clear, as does the use and abuse of the FACE Act
throughout its 30-year history.
Moreover, FACE purports to prohibit intimidation of people
on the basis of their views on abortion, whichever side they
might take. The weaponized Department of Justice and its
Gestapo-like FBI are using FACE itself to intimidate and
silence peaceful prolife advocates.
It is the government, not the peaceful advocates like Paul
Vaughn, who are doing the intimidating here. Furthermore, since
the historic Dobbs decision June 2022, reversing Roe there's no
longer any pretense of abortion being a Federal right. Because
the reason for the law has ceased to exist FACE itself should
cease to exist. It should be repealed.
Instead of the DOJ lessening its use of the FACE Act after
Dobbs, what the Biden Administration has done is increase
dramatically, perhaps a hundred fold, its application.
Only after Dobbs was decided did they begin rounding up
prolifers all around the country for incidents that had
occurred years before Dobbs was even decided and they've thrown
the proverbial book at them.
Many of these peaceful prolifers will spend Christmas next
week away from their families behind bars in a Federal
penitentiary simply because they peacefully sought to interpose
on behalf of helpless babies facing a most horrific and violent
dismembering and death by abortion.
While those who sought to protect babies in any means now
are at risk under this administration regardless of their
proximity to an abortion clinic, pro-abortion zealots who fire
bomb churches and pregnancy resource centers are left free to
carry on their campaign of terror at will even though churches
and the PRCs are theoretically protected under FACE, too.
Moreover, FACE was carefully crafted from its inception to
criminalize only one side of the abortion debate, namely the
prolife. This viewpoint bias in FACE is seen all too clearly
when contrasting the cases of two of our clients, Mark Houck,
who was already mentioned here, and Mark Crosby.
This Subcommittee heard from Mark Houck how he was arrested
at gunpoint in front of his wife and children. Ended up facing
several years in the Federal penitentiary for two violations
that were charged to FACE.
Thankfully, he won at trial but only after going through
the entire process. Contrast that case with that of Mark
Crosby, 73-year-old prolife advocate brutally beaten on May 26,
2023, by a pro-abortion zealot outside of Planned Parenthood
clinic in Baltimore, Maryland.
Although Mr. Crosby offers counseling on so-called
reproductive health services, it should otherwise qualify for
protection under FACE, guess what?
His assailant is free from any FACE prosecution because
they carefully defined what constitutes a reproductive health
service and the counseling protected thereunder to be connected
only to a facility. Because Mr. Crosby is on the sidewalk he
had gotten no protection.
What we have here is an out-of-control Department of
Justice. The rule-of-law mentioned by Ms. Hawley has suffered
and it may prove to be a mortal wound. This two-tiered system
of justice must end.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crampton follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Crampton.
Professor Waters, you may offer your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JESSICA L. WATERS
Ms. Waters. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today.
We are here to discuss the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act, otherwise known as FACE. The specific provisions
of FACE are detailed in my written testimony but, in brief,
FACE created criminal penalties and civil remedies against
specific types of conduct, not speech.
That conduct includes the use of violence or threats of
violence directed at people providing or obtaining reproductive
health services or seeking to exercise their First Amendment
religious rights at houses of worship.
It prohibits physically obstructing the entrances to
facilities that provide those services and prohibits damaging
those facilities, importantly, only if these acts were
undertaken to injure, intimidate, or interfere with someone
seeking to obtain or provide the before listed services.
I want to make three brief points about the impetus for
FACE and why Congress found it necessary to implement a Federal
remedy.
First, as I detailed in my written testimony, there was
clear evidence of escalating violence against reproductive
health clinics and providers. As was summarized in the House
Judiciary report on FACE between 1977-April 1993, so right
before FACE was enacted, there were more than 1,000 acts of
violence against providers of reproductive health services and
the United States and these acts were serious ones.
They included 36 bombings, 81 arsons, 131 death threats, 84
assaults, two kidnappings, 327 clinic invasions, one murder,
and over 6,000 clinic blockades and other disruptions, and
while at the time of FACE passage the documented surge in
nationwide interstate violence was against providers and
clinics that provided abortion care.
Congress wisely made the deliberate decision to protect any
reproductive health service facility or reproductive health
service provider regardless of whether they provide abortion
care.
My second point is that FACE was needed because existing
State laws and remedies were demonstrably inadequate to
provide--to protect providers and patients. The June 1993, the
Senate Committee report on FACE made clear findings on this
point noting several reasons why State remedies were
inadequate.
First, the patchwork of State laws made it impossible to
address unlawful conduct that spanned across State lines. State
penalties were often insignificant, thus not providing a
deterrent effect.
States weren't resourced to respond to the numerous
blockades and were, as the Senate report on FACE stated, quote,
``frequently overwhelmed by the sheer number of blockades,''
and, unfortunately, for some State law enforcement entities and
officers were simply unwilling to enforce State laws against
people attempting to, in their view, stop abortions.
My third point is that there is a constitutional--sound
constitutional basis for FACE. Congress relied on both the
commerce clause of the Constitution as well as Section 5 of
14th Amendment and developed an extensive record in support of
both.
In support of commerce clause authority the record showed
that reproductive health providers are involved in interstate
commerce both directly and indirectly by things like purchasing
medical supplies and equipment across State lines, that their
patients engage in interstate commerce by traveling from one
State to another to obtain services, that clinic employees
travel across State lines to work, and that the conduct that
FACE addressed directly negatively affects interstate commerce
by, for example, forcing clinics to cease operating.
Indeed, every U.S. Circuit Court that has considered the
issue has found that the FACE Act is a constitutional exercise
of Congress' authority under the commerce clause.
I note these three points because they hold true today and
speak to the need for continued enforcement of FACE. The
statistics for 2022 show an increase in major incidents like
arson, burglaries, death threats, and clinic invasions.
There was also a sharp increase in violence and disruption
in States that are protective of abortion rights. It is plain
that many of us differ on questions of the legality and
morality of abortion.
I'm under no illusions about that as I sit here. Where I do
hope we do not differ is in our condemnation for vandalism,
violence, threats against any reproductive healthcare facility,
whether it is a prolife facility, an IVF clinic, or a facility
that offers comprehensive ranges of services including
abortion.
People should be able to seek medical care, and medical
professionals should be able to go to work and provide it
without fear of assault, invasions, blockades or murder, and
this is an issue that warrants a Federal remedy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Mr. Bishop. [Presiding.] Thank you, Professor Waters.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions, and I recognize myself for five minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Crampton, I take it you represent Mr. Vaughn. I've had
occasion to look at the Sixth Circuit's Opinion or a panel's
Opinion there from November 24th--hang on one second--I guess,
an application to stay his sentence and it, of course, went
against you, Mr. Vaughn.
I find this piece to be very interesting at the heart of
what I believe to be the issue here. It says that you presented
a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center which
identified 135 attacks on prolife churches and pregnancy
resource centers compared to only six attacks on abortion
clinics since the date of Dobbs and that Mr. Vaughn's argument
to the court was that under the FACE Act the Department of
Justice has prosecuted only two people under the FACE Act for
attacking pregnancy resource centers while prosecuting 26
prolife activists under the same statute.
Here's where it gets very interesting, having just read
this. It says, but most of the incidents in the CPRC study
appear to allege vandalism in potential violation of one
subsection of the FACE Act rather than obstruction in violation
of another subsection, which is what Vaughn was prosecuted for,
and the government could exercise its discretion to prosecute
obstruction rather than vandalism without violating the equal
protection clause.
Now, as I just ran across it--I've been practicing law a
long time--well, practiced until I got here--and that may--I
guess I get the distinction being drawn.
When you consider that vandalism against pregnancy resource
centers usually, almost always, itself is conveying a threat of
force for people who may subscribe to the services of that
clinic there's no distinction whatsoever between those acts and
for the Department of Justice to exercise discretion to one and
not the other based, apparently, on the ideology of the person
engaged in those acts.
I can't think of anything that seems to be more of an
example of selective prosecution the Constitution would not
abide. So, that's a stunning--what about that, Mr. Crampton? Do
I have that wrong?
Mr. Crampton. I think you have that exactly right, Mr.
Congressman. A further distinction is as you suggest, I would
argue the vandalism actions are of a more serious nature than a
sit-in.
Moreover, they were more recent. Mr. Vaughn's actions took
place in 2021. Those acts of vandalism took place in 2023-2024.
So, it's a very puzzling distinction that the court drew there.
Mr. Bishop. To Professor Waters' point, I do not disagree
that we don't want people engaged in violence around abortion
clinics or pregnancy resource centers. It should be condemned,
and it should be punished appropriately.
When I see--I just wonder, Professor Waters, when you see
these things where SWAT teams are going out to the homes of
people because they've engaged in a nonviolent act, which I
understand alleged here is a conspiracy to block access for an
hour that denied one person--one patient and one employee
access it just seems to me troubling that you got guns drawn
and pointed at a man's head and his children arrested in the
side yard or stopped at the--doesn't that seem we're in an
environment where we're always talking about police officers
should deescalate in the context of--what justifies that,
Professor Waters? Does that disturb you?
Ms. Waters. Thank you for the question. So, I will say that
as a human listening to Mr. Vaughn speak, it sounds like that
was a terrifying day and I'm not going to dispute his
experience of that.
I do not work for the DOJ. I am not involved in
prosecutions--
Mr. Bishop. I'm not trying to make you assign
responsibility. I'm just asking for a simple--are there things
we can agree on and it seems to me that, and I'll just leave it
at this, Professor Waters. It just seems--because I think it's
a very simple thing. I don't understand--and we have seen it in
so many ways--it is the fundamental part of this weaponization.
I was going to yield all my time to Mr. Biggs, but I got
carried away. I just don't--the American people see these
incidents and they seem to be made for CNN.
When people of certain political persuasions or ideas are
targeted and the SWAT team goes out and raids them in their
homes and it's totally disproportionate.
That must stop and I'll guarantee you it is going to stop
in the next Administration.
I have 15 seconds for you, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, for that reason I
won't even engage in a diatribe or ask questions, but I will
ask that the May 5, 1994, the Congressional Record from the
House, page 9409, Mr. DeLay's speech about this, the FACE Act
passage be admitted into the record.
Mr. Bishop. With my apologies and without objection, so
ordered, and I now recognize the Ranking Member for five
minutes of questions.
Mr. Bishop. I beg your pardon. The gentleman is recognized.
Oh, I see. Mr. Nadler is recognized.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Vaughn says he wasn't acting violently. He was acting
peacefully, quote, ``sitting in an abortion provider's doors,''
in other words, blocking access. In other words, violating the
FACE Act, which is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
Act. He was convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers because
of that.
He also said, or some other witnesses said, ``abortion laws
have been returned to the States and so should enforcement.''
Abortion laws have been returned to the States, but enforcement
in those States where abortion is still legal is a Federal
responsibility.
Professor Waters, has any Federal Court post-Dobbs
considered the question of whether the FACE Act is
constitutional and if so what did the court hold?
Ms. Waters. Thank you for the question. It is important to
point out that every Federal Court pre-Dobbs that has
considered the constitutionality of the FACE Act, whether it is
a First Amendment challenge or a commerce clause challenge has
held that the FACE Act is constitutional.
To my knowledge, there is one court that post-Dobbs has
directly addressed the question of whether the FACE Act is
constitutional, and that was actually in Mr. Vaughn's case.
So, the District Court, the Federal District Court, in that
case, on a motion to dismiss, held very squarely that in
accordance with the prior precedent from many circuits, the
FACE Act was constitutional and found that it was a valid
exercise of Congress' commerce clause authority and also did
not pose First Amendment--
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. How would you describe the effect
that State abortion bans have had on interstate commerce, such
as on transit of persons across State lines?
Ms. Waters. It's somewhat ironic when we think about a
post-Dobbs world what that has created is more interstate
commerce.
We know that in 13 States, abortion is almost completely
unavailable. We know that this means that a person, a woman who
is seeking abortion care now needs to travel.
We know that the rates of people traveling to receive
abortion care have risen dramatically. One in five patients who
seek abortion care now have to travel across State lines. That
does not--what that does is increase expenses for that woman.
She has to take more time off from work. She has to be away
from her family. She has to pay the travel expenses that it
takes to cross State lines. That pushes pregnancies later,
right?
So, the impact, ironically in a post-Dobbs world is more
impact on interstate commerce.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. In 1993, during testimony before
this Committee, the field director, the anti-abortion group
Operation Rescue, when asked whether the purpose of violent and
threatening activity by some anti-abortion activist was to deny
women access to abortion services testified, and I quote,
We may not get laws changed or be able to change people's
minds. But if there is no one willing to conduct abortions,
there are no abortions if there is no one willing to conduct
abortions.
Are you concerned that today's evident joint effort by
Congressional Republicans and anti-abortion extremists to
repeal the FACE Act or to have it declared unconstitutional is
another step in a campaign to intimidate abortion providers in
States where the right to an abortion remains protected?
Ms. Waters. I am concerned. I appreciate the statements of
multiple members that they don't condone violence, and I am
sure that is true. Unfortunately, there are people out there
who will engage in violent activity. The statement you just
read is a prime example of it.
I do think that what we are operating now is a climate of
fear. Medical professionals fear liability. They fear being
able to do their jobs up to existing standards of medical care.
Without protections like those provided in FACE, they fear for
their own safety and the fear going to work. So, I do agree
that we are in a climate of fear and uncertainty. I think that
is deliberate. I think reversing the protections that we have
will only add to that.
Mr. Nadler. In other words, repealing the FACE Act would
add to violence?
Ms. Waters. It is very possible that it would.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. [Presiding.] Ranking Member?
Ms. Scanlon. I just wanted to seek unanimous consent to
enter the two opinions that were mentioned, the Tennessee
District Court's order and Memo Opinion denying Mr. Vaughn and
his codefendants' joint motion to dismiss. That's U.S. v.
Gallagher. The 2002 Sixth Circuit decision in Norton v.
Ashcroft.
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. With that, I will recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Ms. Hawley, I'm from California. Would it
surprise you to learn that there are pregnancy centers in my
region that have had to invest significantly in security
measures because of the multiplicity of threats against them?
Ms. Hawley. It would not at all.
Mr. Kiley. They have also been the subject of hostile
legislation from our State legislature. One law was even struck
down by the U.S. Supreme Court because of violation of the
First Amendment. Of course, we have been talking about the ways
in which the Biden Administration has turned a blind eye to
hostile and potentially even violent actions against these
centers.
So gosh, they have been subject to attacks and to hostility
at the State and Federal level. There must be really nefarious
things going on at these places. Could you tell us some of what
goes on there that might be sparking this outrage?
Ms. Hawley. Sure. So, pregnancy care centers are a strange
target for ire. Pregnancy care centers are there when no one
else is. We know from women who have had abortions that the
majority of them say they would have chosen a parent or chosen
differently if they would have had additional resources, either
financial or familial support.
The pregnancy care centers are there to supply that support
when they can. They provide financial resources. They provide
material resources like car seats, baby blankets, clothes,
financial resources, food, housing, job training, and resume
training as well as parenting classes.
In 2022, they provided almost $316 billion worth of goods
and services to moms and families facing unexpected
pregnancies. Again, a strange target.
Mr. Kiley. A very strange target. They are giving away
diapers. They are giving away wipes. They are giving away baby
formula. Baby formula, that is outrageous, isn't it that they
are just giving it away?
What is driving this? It is really incredible that these
centers that provide such critical services to people who are
in need have been left in a position where they have to spend
their own limited resources putting up a security fence or
something like that to protect folks who go there.
On a separate note in terms of the law here, so is there
any precedent for a law that at least on its face is neutral to
be challenged on First Amendment grounds based on this idea of
selective enforcement? What would that look like and has that
been attempted here?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. There is a number of cases in
Federal Court. I would point out to you the Frederick Douglass
Foundation case decided unanimously by a D.C. Circuit panel a
year or two ago. In that case, there was a vandalism--or excuse
me, an ordinance against writing on public streets here in the
District of Columbia. The court allowed that to go forward on
the claim that it had been unequally enforced against prolife
advocates and other advocates.
Mr. Kiley. Very interesting. Perhaps something to look at
and thank you very much for your testimony. I will yield the
remainder of my time to my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Hawley, have there
been increased attacks against pregnancy resource centers
during the Biden Administration?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. We have had almost 100 attacks
since the Dobbs' decision was leaked in May 2022.
Mr. Biggs. Are you concerned that pro-abortion extremists
would continue to attack pregnancy resource centers?
Ms. Hawley. I think that's a concern. We just heard from
the gentleman from California about pregnancy care centers who
are having to build security fences and hire security guards.
That is something that is now commonplace for centers that
provide resources to women.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Vaughn, would you characterize the events in
Mount Juliet Tennessee as violent?
Mr. Vaughn. Absolutely not.
Mr. Biggs. Did you or anyone with you pose a physical
threat to the people around you?
Mr. Vaughn. Absolutely not.
Mr. Biggs. Was there anything you did or said that could
cause someone to think their life was immediately in danger or
harm?
Mr. Vaughn. Absolutely not.
Mr. Biggs. So, it was clear you were not a threat to anyone
around you?
Mr. Vaughn. That is correct.
Mr. Biggs. When the FBI came to serve your indictment, they
raided your house and arrested you at gunpoint in front of your
family?
Mr. Vaughn. That is correct.
Mr. Biggs. You know why they did that, right? It was to
intimidate you.
Mr. Vaughn. Sure.
Mr. Biggs. It wasn't just to intimidate you and your
family. It was to intimidate any other prolife activists in
this country. That is the disproportionality that has resulted
from the disproportionate impact of the enforcement of the FACE
Act.
So, you were at the brunt of that. This regime is going to
attack anyone that has disparate beliefs from them. That is why
they have gone after Catholics. That is why they have spied on
parents at school boards. It is a tactic they have employed for
the last four years against conservatives of any stripe.
Criminal terrorists and illegal aliens, let them in. Give
them free housing and other benefits. Conservative prolife
Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, send the
SWAT team to their house. That is clear political intimidation
and that is why the FACE Act has to be repealed. Mr. Chair, I
yield. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I thank the
gentleman from California for yielding time to the gentleman
from Arizona unlike my good friend from North Carolina, parting
shot on the way out of the Committee. With that, I would yield
five minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank
the witnesses for their testimony before the Committee today.
We are closing out business in the House Judiciary
Committee this Congress with a hearing that is meant to set the
stage for the continued hostility we can expect next Congress
toward reproductive healthcare.
Not content with undermining abortion access across the
country since the fall of Roe, my colleagues across the aisle
continue their attacks on the right to safely seek reproductive
care in this country.
Let's remember that the reason the FACE Act was enacted at
all was in direct response to escalating violence by the anti-
abortion movement on abortion patients, clinic employees, and
providers.
I want to be very clear. I stand firmly against all
violence. I don't condone any threats or intimidation. I
introduced the Healthcare Providers Safety Act earlier this
Congress, which would amend the Public Health Service Act to
authorize grants to healthcare providers to enhance the
physical and cybersecurity of their facilities, personnel, and
patients.
My bill would give providers the needed resources to ensure
the safety of patients and that providers are able to continue
providing essential reproductive healthcare.
Reproductive healthcare providers, patients, and facilities
are frequently the targets of violence and harassment, ranging
from vandalism to online harassment, to stalking, arson, and
deadly attacks. Our providers deserve to care for patients, and
patients deserve access to abortion care in safe environments.
Ms. Waters, how can Congress build on the protections
created by the FACE Act and what steps can Congress take to
improve or strengthen protections for patients and providers?
What other effective--or are there other effective methods
to combat routine harassment and violence like the kind
experienced by providers and patients at healthcare clinics?
Ms. Waters. So, I think it is important to note that while
FACE does provide an important Federal remedy that I would
argue to your question that Congress needs to zealously
protect, it does not preclude States from also enforcing
remedies in their own State, right? So, we need both of those
things, and we can hold both things. Both things can be true,
right?
It is incredibly important that Congress send the message
that if someone is providing legal healthcare, which abortion
providers and other medical professionals are in the majority
of the States, they will be protected. They don't have to fear
liability. They don't have to fear violence. They don't have to
change their medical practice to try to comply with ever
changing laws. That is a message that Congress can send.
Ms. Escobar. I want to tell a very quick story to give
voice to a number of constituents who reached out to me after
the reversal of Roe. I heard story after story about women who
were forced to terminate pregnancies because of the lack of
viability of the fetus. Many of these constituents had to
access their care at a clinic.
As they were mourning the loss of a child they badly wanted
but a fetus that if they carried to full term would threaten
their own life, creating motherless children in their family,
they had to walk--I heard stories about women having to walk
past crowds of people screaming at them with photos that they
did not want to see in that moment as they were trying to save
their own life and be around for their other children and could
not adequately even mourn the loss of their baby's life because
they were spiraling into shame because of what was about to
happen.
I think it is really important that these women's stories
be uplifted, which is why I wanted to share it with all of you
today. Ms. Waters, thank you so much for your response. I
appreciate it. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Texas. I would now
recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming for five minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Wyoming's lone facility
performing procedural abortions opened last year in Casper. On
a routine basis, prolife Wyomingites pray, hold vigils, and
participate in advocacy activities outside of the clinic.
Advocacy to the clinic patients sometimes involves giving a
woman a rose and informing them of alternative services offered
at crisis pregnancy centers.
Local reporting suggests that clinic employees are now
claiming that this peaceful advocacy is harassment of patients
and employees.
The clinic is now escorting all their patients to and from
the building in response to these peaceful actions. Earlier
this year one of the clinic's escorts actually pleaded no
contest and paid a fine for assaulting a member of the prolife
protest group.
There is now an attempt to elevate the harassment
allegations to the local government.
Mr. Vaughn, does the situation in Casper, Wyoming, that I
just described sound similar to your case?
Mr. Vaughn. It does.
Ms. Hageman. Do you think prayer and peaceful advocacy are
violations of the law or are they instead activities that are
secured by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution?
Mr. Vaughn. They are both First Amendment protected
activities and activities of love and seeking to help others.
Ms. Hageman. Have you experienced these attempted mischar-
acterizations of your peaceful activities as being criminal or
violent in some way?
Mr. Vaughn. Right here in this very hearing.
Ms. Hageman. We heard it just today from the Ranking Member
on the Judiciary Committee.
Could you please explain and clarify what happened in your
circumstances?
Mr. Vaughn. Thank you for the opportunity. I was not
sitting at any door. I was not standing at any door. At no time
did I block anyone. My only activities were praying and talking
with the police officers and relaying messages back and forth
between the two parties.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Do you think that the pro-abortion
individuals who seek to misrepresent lawful activity as
violence, that they are doing so because of the current
administration's misapplication and unequal enforcement of the
FACE Act?
Mr. Vaughn. I think there is an element of that. I think as
a Nation, we need to be able to communicate. As long as we sit
here looking at each other face to face and we are not able to
communicate and honestly represent facts, what hope is there
for the news to get actually out to the people at the clinics?
I would just add that the people going and seeking abortion
as Ms. Escobar told her story, that is a tragic thing. If they
stopped and talked to someone out at the clinic, what they will
find is loving help and people that would take them to a crisis
pregnancy center or offer some other solution to help, if it is
possible. If it is not, then they would find someone that might
pray with them and encourage them. They would not find someone
if they stopped and engaged in a conversation and actually
listened to someone yelling or screaming or abusing them
verbally. Certainly, not physically.
Ms. Hageman. Those who hate wisdom, love death. That is
part of what we are dealing with here. That goes, Ms. Hawley,
to your statement about how you find it so utterly bizarre that
crisis pregnancy centers have been the target of protests,
activities, and vandalism when it is offering services and
support to individuals in need.
I am with you. It is such a bizarre target. I think it
demonstrates that this isn't necessarily a discussion about the
FACE Act or the First Amendment or protecting constitutional
rights or civil liberties.
There is a pro-abortion agenda that has been pursued,
especially by this administration that doesn't make sense. That
the abuse of the FACE Act is an attempt to criminalize the free
thought and the ability for people to, as you say, peacefully
protest.
It is a sad day in America when someone who is praying or
attempting to have that kind of conversation that you are
describing can be arrested years later for that behavior.
Based on your experience with the FACE Act, Ms. Hawley, do
you think that the pro-abortion community is aware that the
Biden-Harris Administration is selectively applying the FACE
Act against the prolife community?
Ms. Hawley. So, I think it probably is. I would point out
to you several press conferences that the Attorney General
Gupta held. She announced just a short time after the Dobbs'
decision was released a reproductive task force and noted that
one of the goals of that reproductive task force during their
daily meeting would be to seek out opportunities for FACE
enforcement. Of course, that FACE enforcement would have been
against prolife individuals.
Ms. Hageman. Is praying outside an abortion facility where
offering women information on alternative pathways, adoptions
for their pregnancy a violation of the FACE Act?
Ms. Hawley. It should not be, no.
Ms. Hageman. To your knowledge, would that violate any
Federal law, what I just described?
Ms. Hawley. Not consistent with the First Amendment, no.
Ms. Hageman. OK. The Biden Administration makes it appear
that the FACE Act is merely a statute covering abortion
facilities. In reality, it also prohibits certain acts against
places of religious worship. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely.
Ms. Hageman. Has the current administration, Attorney
General Garland or Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke
prioritize protecting religious places of worship, especially
in the wake of the antisemitic violence which has occurred in
the wake of October 7th?
Mr. Roy. The gentlelady's has expired. So, you may answer
the question and then we will move on.
Ms. Hawley. Thank you, sir. Not at all. The Family Research
Council identified 436 attacks on churches and houses of
worship just in 2023. There have been zero, zero prosecutions
under the FACE Act for that violence and threats.
Ms. Hageman. Well, thank you. Thank you for your
indulgence. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady. I will now recognize the
gentlelady from Vermont for five minutes.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the
witnesses for being here today. I know you are all very busy
people.
Before I get to my statement on the topic at hand, I have
to start by saying words absolutely matter. Mr. Crampton
earlier, you likened the FBI to the Gestapo, to Nazis. That
kind of rhetoric is not actually helpful in this debate.
The Gestapo operated without any civil restraints. Its
actions were not subject to judicial appeal. Thousands of
citizens, including Jews, trade unionists, political clergy,
and others simply disappeared into concentration camps, one of
those being my grandfather.
The political arm of the Gestapo could order prisoners to
be maimed, tortured, and murdered. There was no legal process.
The Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann organized the deportation of
millions and millions of Jews to concentration camps.
Now, I understand that you feel passionate about this
issue. I do. I understand that. Your use of the word Gestapo is
inappropriate, is offensive, and it is uneducated. I urge you;
I urge you as you continue your work to cease using this
terminology because I think what we are trying to do here is
actually elicit testimony that is helpful to get us to a better
place. I don't think that this is helping.
Professor Waters, if the Justice Department were to stop
enforcing the FACE Act or if it were no longer law, could you
describe for people--because that's really what these hearings
are about--describe for people what effect that would have on
access to abortion care and other reproductive rights?
Ms. Waters. I think it is important to note that if the
FACE Act were no longer enforced, many of the institutions and
many of the organizations that the colleagues to the left of me
have described, they would also be at risk, right? I don't
quite understand the argument that we think that DOJ and the
FBI should be doing more to protect prolife centers, but at the
same we should repeal FACE.
Ms. Balint. Agreed. This confuses me, too.
Ms. Waters. I do think, but the record is also very clear
that we have seen a campaign of coordinated violence and
blockades against centers and providers of reproductive
healthcare, including abortion. Without these Federal
protections, that would only increase.
I also think it is really important that we are precise in
how we talk about FACE's protections. FACE very clearly does
not reach peaceful protests outside of clinics that do not
interfere with passage into that clinic. That is not covered
under FACE. In fact, it is explicitly excluded.
Ms. Balint. Can you say that again? Please, honestly, this
is like the crux of it for me.
Ms. Waters. It is an important point. Congress was very
deliberate in carving out pure expressive activity from FACE's
purview. So, some of the activities that have been described
here, like peacefully protesting outside of a clinic and even
having signs that may be inflammatory, as much as we may abhor
that speech, the First Amendment likely protects that. It is
important to distinguish between what FACE does and protections
under the First Amendment.
Ms. Balint. So, it is the blocking of the entrance that is
making it difficult to get the care that they are entitled to.
Ms. Waters. It is. It is violence. It is destruction of
property. It is blocking entrances that is prohibited by FACE.
FACE does not prohibit expressive speech.
Ms. Balint. From your perspective, are clinic obstructions,
even if they don't lead to threats of violence, like of course,
we want to avoid violence, are they related to negative health
outcomes? Have we seen increased mortality since Dobbs was
overturned?
Ms. Waters. We have seen an increase in both maternal
mortality rates and infant mortality rates. Probably not
surprisingly, those were going up very quickly in States that
are most restrictive of abortion care.
Ms. Balint. I thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Vermont. I am going to
use the time for myself now. Mr. Crampton, you just had some
questions directed at you. I want to give you a chance to
respond very quickly because I want to move on to the rest of
the questions.
I would note also that only 42 of my Democratic colleagues
sought to join with us to sanction the International Criminal
Court, which is trying to say that Prime Minister Netanyahu is
somehow a war criminal for defending his country against the
vicious attacks from Iran, from Hamas, from Hezbollah, and all
of those that are trying to target the Jewish State. Do you
have anything, quickly, to respond to the attacks?
Mr. Crampton. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the
opportunity.
I would point to the gentlelady the facts as testified to
by Mr. Vaughn. Here comes people, guns drawn, banging on his
door, as he described it, and it is not an unfair
characterization. He was kidnapped at gunpoint before his wife
and children. No authority given. Even when asked directly,
they just point to a little sticker on the vest saying that is
all the authority you are going to get. That says FBI.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Vaughn, can you just add to that really quick?
The phraseology is used. It was used intentionally by Mr.
Crampton. We are talking about the Federal Bureau of
Investigation showing up to your home, in front of your 11
children, with a weapon pointed at you for what you did in
terms of praying and your activity at an abortion clinic. Is
that true?
Mr. Vaughn. That is absolutely true.
Mr. Roy. Do you think that was an appropriate use of the
power of the Federal Government against you?
Mr. Vaughn. Absolutely not. I am a local businessman. I
have been there for 17 years in the community. A phone call, I
would have happily talked to them.
Mr. Roy. Does not that invoke the kind of images Mr.
Crampton is talking about of previous examples in history in
terms of the fascism that we see out of Nazi Germany and how
they treated citizens?
Mr. Vaughn. It absolutely does. The gentlewoman said that
there is recourse is by law and that there are laws that
oversee this. I would like to ask for my 13-, 12-, and 18-year-
old daughters that was out in the side yard, what recourse do
they have at law for the abuse that they handled at this guy,
holding them at bay right there? Also, at the Department of the
FBI in Tennessee that two months later shot a guy in his own
living room.
Mr. Roy. As a reminder--
Mr. Vaughn. An internal investigation, who is investigating
the investigators?
Mr. Roy. As a reminder, Mr. Vaughn, you were there because,
as I understand your position, you believe that life begins at
conception. You believe you are protecting and praying for
life, correct?
Mr. Vaughn. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Roy. Your great sin, that the tyranny of the Federal
Government was brought to bear against you at your home with a
weapon in front of your 11 children was because you want to
protect a human life?
Mr. Vaughn. That is correct.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Hawley, are you familiar with the history of
this Act? Because it is not true that the current leader in the
Senate, Mr. Schumer, was the lead proponent of the FACE Act in
1993. In questioning for Republican Members of Congress, when
asked about whether or not this would be used against, for
example, we have 3, 10, 12 people prolife on a sidewalk in
front of a clinic. People cannot get by. Police locked them up
and put them in a paddy wagon. Take them away. Are they subject
to a felony? Mr. Schumer said, ``no.'' Yet, here we are.
Can you shed light on the extent to which the truth is,
notwithstanding what Professor Waters said a minute ago, that
what we are dealing with here is the conflation of the existing
statutes and the things that go back to the Ku Klux Klan Act
and that we now have a situation under the Federal civil rights
conspiracy that they are blending these together to target
people intentionally. That they are using this and targeting it
intentionally, so that they can go after people, punishable by
up to 10 years in prison. Can you add some context to that, Ms.
Hawley?
Ms. Hawley. Absolutely. So, the FACE Act comes with several
different sorts of levels of punishment.
For a first-time nonviolent offense, there is six months in
jail. A subsequent nonviolent offense might get 18 months in
jail. If you tack on a conspiracy to violate civil rights, you
get 10 years.
Take Eva Edl. She was sitting in a wheelchair. She was
blocking an entrance. Sitting in a wheelchair, blocking the
entrance, singing and praying hymns, she is subject to 11 years
in Federal prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars of
fines.
Mr. Roy. So, what we are talking about here, as I
mentioned--Mr. Vaughn, did you have something you wanted to add
there?
Mr. Vaughn. No.
Mr. Roy. That Mr. Vaughn is facing this kind of
persecution. He is not alone. We have talked about Ms. Edl. To
be clear, this conflation of the statute, had that ever been
done before prior to Kristen Clarke?
Ms. Hawley. Not until the Biden Administration, no.
Mr. Roy. So, this administration took the unprecedented act
of merging these together so they could have a Federal
conspiracy to target very specifically prolife activists.
Ms. Hawley. So, the numbers here speak for themselves.
Again, 55 individuals have been subject to prosecution under
the FACE Act. Fifty of those have been prolife. There have been
26 FACE Act civil and criminal prosecutions. Only two of them
have been in protection of pregnancy centers.
Mr. Roy. Just to finish here, do you think that is an
appropriate use of Federal authority to say target Mr. Vaughn
or say Ms. Edl who had been in Yugoslavia and effectively
gulags and now at 89 years old is being targeted by the
government of the United States?
Ms. Hawley. No. As John Adams would say, we are a
government of laws, not of men. The Supreme Court has been
clear that selective enforcement based on viewpoint is
unconstitutional.
Mr. Roy. Well, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate
it. With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member, Ms.
Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Professor Waters, we
seem to have conflated a lot of things here in suggesting that,
inaccurately, that Mr. Vaughn was prosecuted for prayer.
You noted in your testimony that the FACE Act explicitly
distinguishes between protective expressive speech and unlawful
conduct. We have talked a lot about what is expressive speech,
but the unlawful conduct includes things such as obstructing
access to a clinic, does it not?
Ms. Waters. That's correct. FACE explicitly makes clear
that obstructing access to a reproductive health services
clinic or a place of worship is a violation of FACE.
Ms. Scanlon. Mr. Chair, I would like to have unanimous
consent to introduce the press release when Mr. Vaughn was
convicted, six defendants convicted of Federal civil rights
conspiracy in freedom of access to clinic entrance for
obstructing access to reproductive health services in
Tennessee.
Also, a USA Today article saying, ``Tennessee Man Arrested
for Blocking Access to Abortion Clinic, Not Praying.''
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Recent data, Ms. Waters, from the
National Abortion Federation shows that violence and threats
directed toward abortion providers and their patients have
risen. Can you speak about this escalating trend and
particularly in light of this increasing threat to reproductive
health services, does the FACE Act continue to be a relevant
tool to protect doctors, nurses, patients, and volunteers who
are seeking or providing abortion care?
Ms. Waters. It continues to be a relevant tool to protect
anyone who is providing reproductive healthcare services,
including abortion care.
What we have seen is reports of escalating violence and
more numerous violence, including things like blockades
happening particularly in States that are protective of
abortion care.
As I noted earlier, women seeking abortion care in many
States now have to travel to States where abortion is legal,
and it is safe. Because they were having to engage in that
traveling, I think there has been a deliberate campaign to
target some of the clinics where abortion care is still
available.
Ms. Scanlon. In fact, the case that Mr. Vaughn was involved
in, although he purports to say that he was simply praying, the
jury rejected his argument and actually found him and his
fellow protesters to have been guilty of actually obstructing
these folks in this clinic for a period of three hours. The
conspiracy element came from the fact that these folks came
from all over. It was actually part of an organized effort in
Tennessee where his incident occurred as well as other places
around the country. Is that correct?
Ms. Waters. It is my understanding that people traveled
from several different jurisdictions and that there was indeed
a conspiracy charge in this case.
Ms. Scanlon. We have also heard repeatedly that basically
there is not any enforcement, or a blind eye being turned. I
wanted to seek unanimous consent to introduce another DOJ press
release just from a few months ago, ``Three Defendants Plead
Guilty to Civil Rights Conspiracy Targeting Pregnancy Resource
Centers.''
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. OK. Finally, to the extent that our colleagues
are concerned about excessive use of force, that's something
that the Members on our side of the aisle have been very
interested in preventing excessive use of force in a variety of
contexts. That's certainly not an issue exclusive to the FACE
Act and perhaps that's something we need to pursue on another
day. So, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. With that, I will
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Professor Waters
mentioned the cases of violence and vandalism directed at
abortion clinics that gave rise to the FACE Act, but I think
she left out all the cases of violence and vandalism that were
directed at churches and pregnancy centers. That's what
convinced Congress to make FACE even handed to protect both
sides of the controversy. Am I correct, Ms. Hawley?
Ms. Hawley. That's absolutely correct. The plain text of
the FACE Act applies to pregnancy centers--
Mr. McClintock. Everybody on both sides. There is no right
to impede a person's access to abortion clinics, pregnancy
centers, churches, or any other lawful pursuit. There is no
right to vandalize those facilities or threaten the people who
use them. There is every right to peaceably assemble to express
one's political or religious beliefs.
So, I have got no problems with the FACE Act on its face so
to speak. As I read it, it forbids blockading abortion clinics
and churches. As I read it, it protects the right of
individuals to peaceably assemble. So, what am I missing here?
Ms. Hawley. So, I'm afraid that the promise of equal
application of the FACE Act has really been a false one. As
Chair Roy discussed, there have been 55 individuals prosecuted.
Mr. McClintock. OK. So, is that the fault of the act itself
or is that the fault of the way the act is enforced?
Ms. Hawley. That specific concern is the fault of the
enforcement.
Mr. McClintock. OK. That's what I thought. I heard Mr.
Nadler say that, well, instead of repealing the FACE Act, and I
am not the least bit sure that we should, Republicans ought to
urge the Trump Administration to prioritize enforcement of the
FACE Act on behalf of prolife activists.
Well, I find this just as offensive as prioritizing
enforcement of the FACE Act on behalf of pro-abortion
activists. Both courses are deeply destructive to the rule-of-
law and to the concept of equal protection of the law. This is
the reason justice is always depicted as being blindfolded
because it shouldn't matter what anyone's personal opinions
are. The laws are to be applied equally to all.
I hope I misunderstood what the Ranking Member said in his
prepared remarks because it seems to confirm the complaint that
this law is susceptible to political abuse. In fact, it sounded
like he was encouraging us to abuse it, which I find bizarre.
So, if we are to slant enforcement of the law depending on
who is in power, it seems to me we have lost the fundamental
principle of equal justice under law. This problem is not
limited to the FACE Act. We have seen selective enforcement in
different treatment between say George Floyd rioters and
January 6th rioters or the Lois Lerner selected enforcement
against Tea Party activists a few years ago.
Should we, perhaps, instead of looking--repealing the FACE
Act, look at clearly defining what selective enforcement looks
like and then applying criminal or civil penalties to such
conduct?
Ms. Hawley. So, that could be a good first step. I agree
wholeheartedly that the FACE Act as is every criminal statute
should be applied even handedly. That is the promise of our
republic. I would say--
Mr. McClintock. Because it is being administered with
people with political biases, that is perhaps not always going
to happen. It certainly is not happening in this case, but also
it is not happening in a lot of other cases.
So, is there some law that you could recommend that would
define what selective enforcement is, and sanction those who
apply it in a biased manner?
Ms. Hawley. That is an interesting question. Selective
enforcement is typically raised as a constitutional claim
either under the equal protection clause or the First
Amendment. So, if you had a Federal selective enforcement claim
itself, you would have to think how that would play out. I do
think that the constitutional cases provide a good sort of
framework of reference.
What those cases provided that when parties are similarly
situated, there is prosecutorial discretion. When you have
similarly situated parties, the law requires that they be
treated equally.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Crampton, very briefly, your thoughts
on the subject.
Mr. Crampton. Would you repeat the question, please, sir?
Mr. McClintock. The question is, since these laws are
subject to enforcement by individuals who have their own
biases, is there a law we should be looking at that would
identify what selective enforcement looks like and sanction it?
Mr. Crampton. Actually, it is a very difficult area as Ms.
Hawley mentioned. The selective enforcement case law, the
precedents, are frankly, not entirely consistent. There is,
because of the discretion afforded prosecutors across the
board, a great deal of disagreement as to when that is too far,
and they've transgressed the constitutional limits. It is
frankly a matter for the courts, and we do really need more
clarity in that area. I can't point you to another statute or a
law that would help.
Mr. McClintock. Any further thoughts you have on that, I
would be interested in hearing.
Mr. Crampton. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from California. With that,
I will recognize my friend from Texas, Mr. Hunt.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Chair. Weaponization, two-tier
justice, prioritization. What do these words have in common?
They describe the unspoken policy of the Biden Administration
when it comes to justice. You can apply this unspoken policy to
any Biden Administration agency.
Weaponization, Biden weaponized the DOJ to go after a
former President for political purposes. He said Trump was
undermining democracy. For two-tiered justice in the classified
documents case, Biden directed the FBI to raid Mar-a-Lago, yet
gently browsed the classified documents that were sitting in
President Biden's garage.
For prioritization, Biden's FEMA Department in Florida only
helped storm victims who didn't have Trump signs in their front
yard. Think about that.
So, it should come to no surprise that we are talking about
another example of weaponization, two-tiered justice, and
prioriti-
zation, in today's hearing.
We are here today to talk about the DOJ's selective
enforcement of the FACE Act. It is aimed at assuring equal
protection for both prolife and prochoice movements. Under the
Biden Administration, I will let you guess whether more prolife
or prochoice activists have been charged with more crimes.
The FACE Act has been the law of the land for the last 20
years. The Biden's DOJ, in just four years, has brought over a
quarter of all FACE Act prosecutions. There are many examples,
but I will highlight an egregious example.
In Mount Juliet, Tennessee, prolife activists were arrested
for singing and praying in a hallway of a shared general
medical office building featuring an abortion clinic.
They initially were faced with misdemeanor charges.
Magically, 17 months later, the DOJ charged these Christians
with Federal crimes. Among these charged was Eva Edl. Now 89
years old, she is a survivor of a Communist concentration camp
in Yugoslavia after World War II. That is right. In Biden's
America, you can escape a Communist concentration camp and then
come to America and be arrested for praying.
Mr. Vaughn, thank you for being here today. I am glad that
you avoided prison time as well, sir. Did you receive three
years of supervised release. Is that correct?
Mr. Vaughn. That is correct. After 18 months of
presentencing supervision.
Mr. Hunt. Could you have ever imagined living in a country,
this country, that you would be arrested for praying, singing,
and providing sidewalk counseling?
Mr. Vaughn. No.
Mr. Hunt. We, as a country, should have seen this coming.
Under the COVID censorship regime that was the Biden
Administration, they restricted churchgoers from attending
church but allowed people to shop in liquor stores. I guess
that's because Tito's and Crown Royal were the cure for COVID.
Maybe we will never know.
Mr. Crampton, I have got to tell you something. You can
probably imagine, sir, I am not a big fan of the KKK. I am a
direct descendant of slavery, and I am also here to tell you
that the Klan has been dead for a very long time.
Why in God's name would you evoke an act like this under
these circumstances?
Mr. Crampton. I wish I understood exactly what the logic
was behind it as far as any legitimate reasoning, sir. What I
do know is Sanjay Patel authored an article in 2022 for the
DOJ's own internal kind of a law review magazine where he laid
out why he suggested they use it. He was the first one to use
it as the prosecutor in the District of Columbia case. That was
because it would increase the penalty and because it is easier
to prove conspiracy. You don't need what is called a predicate
act under 18 U.S.C. 241, this conspiracy against rights
statute.
Moreover, sir, if I may add, the conspiracy against rights
depends on a Federal right.
Mr. Hunt. Yes.
Mr. Vaughn. Traditionally, that was a constitutional right.
Now, as we know, there is no Federal constitutional right to
abortion. So, the right they are hanging that on is the very
slender thread of a right to access reproductive health
clinics.
So, it is a mystery, and it is such an unjust and excessive
punishment, use of that statute, abuse of that statute that as
I suggested in my opening remarks, it needs to be separately
addressed.
Mr. Hunt. Of course it does. Thank you for answering the
questions, sir.
The selective prosecution of FACE Act violations is two-
tiered justice at its finest. The Biden Administration Attorney
General Merrick Garland's prosecution of their political
opponents is real, and it is pervasive.
They painted January 6th protesters out to be violent
criminals, yet President Biden pardoned his son, Hunter Biden,
and many other actual felons because they were on his side of
the aisle, period.
Peaceful January 6th protesters are in jail while violent
criminals are pardoned and roam free. Thank God, they are going
to get out of here on January 20th. I can guarantee you that.
Merrick Garland surveilled parents at school board meetings
who were simply expressing their right to free speech. Garland,
however, did nothing about ANTIFA while cities in this country
were being burned to the ground. Biden has been on the wrong
side of justice every single time, and we know it. The American
people know it. We have expressed our sentiments just last
month. I can assure you we will have justice back in America on
January 20th.
Thank you all very much for being here.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas, his time having
expired. I would ask consent--I have been receiving
correspondence from folks from all over the country asking us
to repeal the FACE Act and stop what is happening to people
like Mr. Vaughn and like Ms. Edl. I would ask unanimous consent
to insert this into the record.
Without objection, does the gentleman from Ohio seek
recognition?
Chair Jordan. I was hoping for five minutes of questions.
Imagine that. No, I appreciate it.
Mr. Vaughn, so the day that you were at the--you were
praying and singing at the clinic, did the local police show
up?
Mr. Vaughn. They did.
Chair Jordan. Were they called by the clinic?
Mr. Vaughn. They were.
Chair Jordan. I want to get all the facts right. Maybe you
did this in your opening statement. I apologize. I had to step
out a couple of times during the hearing.
So, you are in front of the abortion clinic. You are
praying and singing. You were on the public sidewalk.
Mr. Vaughn. It was a multiuse building. We were in the
hallways of a public building.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Mr. Vaughn. Outside the door of the abortion clinic.
Chair Jordan. There were other people with you?
Mr. Vaughn. Correct.
Chair Jordan. You were charged with conspiring to stop
people from going into the clinic and their rights as Mr.
Crampton was just talking about.
Mr. Vaughn. Correct, yes.
Chair Jordan. Did you physically push anyone, hold anyone
back? Did you lock arms with your coconspirators or what did
you do?
Mr. Vaughn. No, I did none of that.
Chair Jordan. None of that.
Mr. Vaughn. I kneeled and prayed on the side of the hallway
at one point. Sang hymns when they were singing. I interacted
with the police department. The local police got a little
agitated at one point, and they came and shoved a couple
people. I walked back down the hallway with them and tried to
assure them that these people were peaceful and keeping peace
with the police department.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Vaughn. I ultimately talked with the negotiator and the
police chief along with another member and led to a peaceful
resolution. People that wanted to be--
Chair Jordan. No one was arrested that day?
Mr. Vaughn. There were eight people arrested.
Chair Jordan. Were you arrested that day?
Mr. Vaughn. I was not.
Chair Jordan. You were not arrested that day.
Mr. Vaughn. No, sir.
Chair Jordan. OK. Then what day was that? What day were you
there at the clinic praying and--
Mr. Vaughn. That was March 5th.
Chair Jordan. March 5th of what year?
Mr. Vaughn. 2022--I'm sorry, of 2021.
Chair Jordan. 2021.
Mr. Vaughn. Correct, yes.
Chair Jordan. Because it is a year later. It just happens
to be March 5th, again?
Mr. Vaughn. It is October 5, 2022.
Chair Jordan. October 5th, excuse me.
Mr. Vaughn. Yes.
Chair Jordan. So, a year later--that is right, October 5th.
So, almost a year later is when the Federal police shows up,
the FBI shows up at your house?
Mr. Vaughn. Correct, yes.
Chair Jordan. In that 11 month timeframe, what kind of
contact did you have with any law enforcement or any prosecutor
or anything like that?
Mr. Vaughn. None.
Chair Jordan. None?
Mr. Vaughn. None whatsoever.
Chair Jordan. So, you weren't arrested that day and other
people were. You didn't do anything wrong that day. In fact,
when there was some concern, you tried to de-escalate it.
Mr. Vaughn. Right.
Chair Jordan. Nothing happens. Local police said, this Mr.
Vaughn guy, he's doing the Lord's work, whatever they said.
They didn't do anything. Then 10 months later, the FBI shows up
at your door.
Mr. Vaughn. That's 18 months later, correct? They showed up
hard and heavy. That day, the police in their media press
release complimented how peaceful and orderly we were, how we
interacted with them. The lead detective--I'm sorry, the lead
negotiator testified for us at Federal trial.
Chair Jordan. So, the police--
Mr. Vaughn. We had good relations with the police. It has
been reported out--if I can, I would love to read just a quick
summary.
Chair Jordan. Do you know if the FBI talked to the local
police prior to them coming to your house and arresting you?
Mr. Vaughn. They did not. I asked them that question on the
hour-long ride to Nashville in the back of the car. I asked
``Did my sheriff know or anybody know?'' and replied ``No, we
didn't bother telling them.''
Chair Jordan. They just showed up.
Mr. Vaughn. They showed up.
Chair Jordan. If I remember the facts again, it was early
morning. Show up.
Mr. Vaughn. 7:15 a.m. in the morning.
Chair Jordan. You open the door, you and your wife and
children right there.
Mr. Vaughn. Correct, yes.
Chair Jordan. They had some of your kids held off on a
different part of the property.
Mr. Vaughn. Right.
Chair Jordan. OK. Where was the conspiracy? What were you
conspiring to do? Because I don't see the--I am troubled, as
the legal professionals Ms. Hawley and Mr. Crampton pointed
out, I am troubled by this whole conspiracy thing. I don't see
any conspiracy on your part.
Mr. Vaughn. No, the conspiracy, I ideologically agreed that
abortions should stop. I was in the hallway with other people
that did that.
Chair Jordan. Were there like emails at the trial where you
said, ``we are all going to meet at the clinic on this day?''
Is that how they demonstrate some concern?
Mr. Vaughn. There was no evidence like that presented as to
me. The only thing they showed--that piece of the trial was my
driver's license. It indicated that I lived an hour from the
clinic and drove an hour. So, that was the tie to the
conspiracy.
Chair Jordan. If the FBI called you said, ``Mr. Vaughn, we
are going to charge you with this crime. Can you show up and
meet us at the local FBI office or whatever, Nashville,'' I
think you said, you would have called your--you would have got
legal counsel.
Mr. Vaughn. Absolutely.
Chair Jordan. You have got Mr. Crampton. You would have
showed up whatever day they told you, right?
Mr. Vaughn. Sure. Absolutely.
Chair Jordan. Instead they came to your house. Yes, it's
crazy.
Mr. Crampton, what are traditional Catholics radical?
Mr. Crampton. Only in the eyes of extremists of the Biden
Administration.
Chair Jordan. Yes, only in the eyes of the people who show
up at 6 a.m. in the morning and arrest a guy when the local
police, ``wanted to give him a medal.'' Only they are the
people who are going to say, the pure traditional Catholic, you
are an extremist. You are a radical.
Mr. Crampton. I am afraid so.
Chair Jordan. Ms. Hawley, I got 32 seconds. I feel bad. I
will give you the last 30 seconds. Anything you want to add to
the discussion?
Ms. Hawley. Thank you, Congressman Jordan. One thing I
would like to mention is that the FACE Act is on top of State
and local law. So, as the Members of Congress have recognized
before, this would not allow criminal conduct to go unpunished.
Every State has trespass laws, has nuisance laws, and has
those sorts of things that are perfectly capable--
Chair Jordan. We saw it in the example.
Ms. Hawley. Exactly. Similarly,--
Chair Jordan. When they arrested--any of the eight people
that the local police arrested, Mr. Vaughn, did any of them get
charged by the FBI? How many of them? All of them?
Mr. Vaughn. All of them.
Chair Jordan. All of them. OK.
Mr. Vaughn. They got double charged.
Chair Jordan. They got double charged.
Mr. Vaughn. They got local charges and Federal.
Chair Jordan. They obviously did something wrong, and you
didn't.
Ms. Hawley. Similarly, with Mr. Houck, who I know has
testified to this Committee, the State and local prosecutors
declined to prosecute. They made a Federal case out of it. He
was acquitted by a jury of his peers. An Obama-appointed judge
noted that this was stretching the FACE Act a little thin.
Chair Jordan. No kidding. Thank you. Thank all our
witnesses. I want to thank the Chair for his good work on
dealing with this piece of legislation.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair, the gentleman from Ohio. I
thank the witnesses. This concludes today's hearing.
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 4:24 p.m., the Subcommittee 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=117765.