    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       FROM TOOL TO WEAPON: THE FACE ACT AND
                      THE DANGERS OF FEDERALIZING CRIMINAL LAW
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND
                                  LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-65

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-601                    WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  TED LIEU, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       J. LUIS CORREA, California
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    KEVIN KILEY, California              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       Vacancy
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington

                                     ------

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                             CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair

    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member
    HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRANDON GILL, Texas                  DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                    ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2026
                               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......................................     4
    The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
      from the State of Ohio.........................................     6
    The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Eva Edl, Yugoslavian communist concentration camp survivor, Pro-
      life Advocate
      Oral Testimony.................................................    10
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    12
    Christopher A. Ferrara, Senior Counsel,Thomas More Society
      Oral Testimony.................................................    14
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    16
    Roger T. Severino, Vice President, Economic and Domestic Policy,
      Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage
      Foundation
      Oral Testimony.................................................    27
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    29
    Jessica L. Waters, Senior Scholar in Residence, Justice, Law &
      Criminology, American University
      Oral Testimony.................................................    71
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    73

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution
      and Limited Government, for the record.........................   107

    A statement from Sterling Heights clinic, submitted by the
      Honorable the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the
      Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, 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
        An article entitled, ``DOJ's First `Weaponization' Report Is
            a Bust,'' Apr. 20, 2026, The Atlantic
        A press release entitled, ``Ohio Woman Pleads Guilty to
            Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act
            Violation for Damaging Pregnancy Center,'' Dec. 8, 2023,
            Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice
        A press release entitled, ``Wisconsin Man Sentenced to Prison
            for 2022 Firebombing of Madison Building,'' Apr. 10,
            2024, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of
            Justice
        A press release entitled, ``Florida Woman Convicted of Civil
            Rights Conspiracy Targeting Pregnancy Resource Centers,''
            Dec. 20, 2024, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department
            of Justice
        A press release entitled, ``FBI Offering $25,000 Rewards for
            Information in Series of Attacks Against Reproductive
            Health Service Facilities,'' Jan. 19, 2023, Federal
            Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
        An article entitled, ``Separating Fact from Fiction in FACE
            Act Enforcement,'' Apr. 14, 2026, Just Security
        A press release entitled, ``Seven Defendants Convicted of
            Federal Civil Rights Conspiracy and Freedom of Access to
            Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act Offenses for Obstructing
            Access to Reproductive Health Services in Michigan,''
            Aug. 20, 2024, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department
            of Justice
        A statement from Reproductive Freedom For All, Apr. 28, 2026
        A statement from The American College of Obstetricians &
            Gynecologists, Apr. 28, 2026
        A statement from the National Abortion Federation (NAF), Apr.
            28, 2026
        A statement the Center for Reproductive Rights, Apr. 28, 2026
        A statement from David Gunn, Jr. and Wendy Gunn, Apr. 28,
            2026
        Pages from the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, pp. 557-
            558, Apr. 28, 2026
        A statement from Judith C. Appelbaum, Apr. 28, 2026
        An article entitled, ``I testified before Congress on the
            FACE Act--and became a target,'' May 8, 2026, MS Now
    An article entitled, ``Arrests in Memphis as Antiabortion
      Training Camp Sparks New Era of Clinic Blockades,'' Nov. 26,
      2025, Ms. Magazine, submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen,
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
      Government from the State of Tennessee, for the record
    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
        A report entitled,``Fact Sheet: Planned Parenthood's 2024-25
            Annual Report,'' Apr. 7, 2026, Lozier Institute
        The Executive Summary report entitled, ``The Biden
            Administration's Weaponization of the Freedom of Access
            to Clinic Entrances Act,'' Apr. 14, 2026, Office of Legal
            Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
      Government from the State of California, for the record
        A statement for the record from Renee Chelian, Founder, CEO,
            Northland Family Planning, Apr. 28, 2026
        An article entitled, ``Trump pardons abortion clinic
            protesters ahead of March for Life,'' Jan. 23, 2025,
            Politico
        An article entitled, ``Fertility clinic bombing suspect was
            `nihilistic' 25-year-old, FBI says,'' May 18, 2025, The
            Washington Post
        A press release entitled, ``More Men Using Family Planning
            Services,'' Jun. 16, 2016, U.S. Department of Health and
            Human Services
        A letter to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee
            on the Constitution and Limited Government from the State
            of Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
            Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and
            Limited Government from the State of Pennsylvania, from
            Amnesty International, Apr. 28, 2026

                       FROM TOOL TO WEAPON: THE FACE ACT
                  AND THE DANGERS OF FEDERALIZING CRIMINAL LAW

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, April 28, 2026

                            House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy [Chair
    of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Roy, Jordan, Hageman,
    Grothman, Harris, Onder, Gill, Scanlon, Raskin, Cohen, Jayapal,
    Balint, and Kamlager-Dove.
        Mr. Roy. [Presiding.] The Committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
    at any time. We welcome everybody to today's hearing on the
    FACE Act and the dangers of Federalizing criminal law.
        Before I start, I just want to say thanks for everybody's
    patience. I think there were some security line issues. Thanks
    to the witnesses for navigating through those, and thanks to my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I apologize for
    starting a little bit late, but we were trying to deal with
    that issue.
        I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
        Today, this Subcommittee confronts a fundamental question
    about the proper role of the Federal Government in our
    constitutional system, because the issue before us is not just
    one statute; it is about a broader and more dangerous trend--
    the steady expansion of Federal criminal law into areas the
    Constitution traditionally reserves to the States. When
    Washington creates these authorities and hands them to
    unelected bureaucrats, these tools will inevitably be
    weaponized.
        The FACE Act is a case study into exactly that problem. It
    was sold as a narrow, even-handed tool designed to equally
    protect access to abortion clinics, pregnancy resource centers,
    and places of worship by prohibiting threats of force,
    obstruction, and property damage. Like so many Federal laws
    before it, it has become a vehicle for selective enforcement, a
    mechanism for political targeting, and ultimately, a weapon
    used against conservatives and prolife Americans.
        We don't need to speculate. We now have clear evidence from
    the Department of Justice's own report that this law was
    weaponized by the Biden Administration. That report shows how,
    under the Biden Administration, enforcement of the FACE Act was
    shaped, if not driven, by outside advocacy groups.
        The Biden Department of Justice worked in close
    coordination with extremist NGOs, particularly large, well-
    funded pro-abortion groups, like the National Abortion
    Federation, Planned Parenthood, and the Feminist Majority
    Foundation. These groups weren't merely reporting crimes.
        They were operating as de facto intelligence-gathering
    arms, collecting and compiling detailed dossiers on the speech
    and activities of American citizens for Federal authorities
    mapping their movements, logging protests, and gathering deeply
    personal information, including participation in religious
    activity, home addresses, license data, even photos of their
    families and minor children all of it fed into the prosecution
    pipeline, even as DOJ officials themselves recognized much of
    the underlying activity was protected under the First
    Amendment.
        The DOJ didn't just receive this information. It gave these
    groups privileged access. On May 15, 2023, the National
    Abortion Federation requested a full internal list of every
    active FACE Act prosecution in the country. They got it in full
    within one hour.
        When this Subcommittee and I personally, as a Member of
    Congress, asked for the exact same information, the DOJ didn't
    just delay. They stonewalled for over three years from 2022-
    2024.
        In October 2022, a formal request was ignored. December
    2023, asked again under oath: No answer. February 2024,
    followup in writing: Nothing. May 2024, response finally comes
    16 months later.
        It wasn't just Congress; defense counsel and active FACE
    prosecutors were denied the data outright. In one case, a DOJ
    official explicitly wrote that providing the information would,
    quote, ``open gates we will struggle to close,'' implicitly
    acknowledging that the records would reveal unequal enforcement
    targeting only prolifers. They refused and claiming the records
    didn't exist, even though the same information had been handed
    to the National Abortion Federation on demand.
        Why does an outside abortion advocacy group get immediate
    access to internal Department of Justice enforcement data,
    while Congress, prolife defendants, and the American people are
    forced to wait years or are denied altogether? That is not
    equal justice under the law. That is a two-tiered system where
    political allies are treated as partners and dissenters as
    targets.
        It didn't stop there. The bias we are seeing didn't just
    shape who was investigated. It shaped how these cases were
    prosecuted in court. In FACE Act trials, we have evidence that
    DOJ attorneys probed prospective jurors on their religious
    beliefs and prolife views, treating constitutionally protected
    convictions as potential disqualifications for service.
        In one instance, a DOJ prosecutor even complained when a
    judge took care to protect the defendant's First Amendment's
    rights. This is what happens when Washington takes power it was
    never meant to have, using it to target, instead of to serve,
    while treating constitutional protections as obstacles rather
    than guarantees.
        We don't have to imagine what that looks like. We see it
    sitting here before us today. Ms. Eva Edl is not a violent
    criminal. She is a 91-year-old survivor of a communist labor
    camp, someone who has lived through the horrors of unchecked
    government power. Yet, in Biden's America, she was not met with
    freedom, but with the full force of Federal prosecution for a
    nonviolent protest. Having survived the abuses of a 20th
    century regime built on centralized power, she now faces the
    consequences of that same dangerous principle right here on
    American soil decades later.
        Her case is not an outlier. It is a warning about what
    happens when the Federal Government takes jurisdiction over
    local conduct, and then, applies that power selectively guided
    not by equal justice, but by political priorities.
        This should concern every American, regardless of their
    views on the underlying issue. Because the real problem isn't
    just how this law has been used. It is the permanent expansion
    of Federal power it represents. When Congress Federalizes
    criminal law, we are not just addressing a single issue in a
    single moment. We are creating authorities that do not
    disappear when political control changes hands, authorities
    that will be used again and again by whoever sits in the White
    House, controls the DOJ, or directs Federal law enforcement.
        That is why this hearing isn't just about the FACE Act. It
    is about what happens when Washington takes power it was never
    meant to have.
        We are seeing the same impulse in proposals to Federalize
    other areas of criminal law. New Federal penalties layered on
    top of existing State crimes and efforts to nationalize deeply
    contested social issues through criminal statutes. Because the
    real question isn't whether this power delivers you the outcome
    you want today. It is whether you are willing to hand that same
    power to your political opponents tomorrow. The answer should
    be obvious. It isn't to fight over who controls these powers.
    The answer is to stop creating them in the first place.
        Criminal law enforcement, particularly for conduct that is
    local in nature, has historically and constitutionally belonged
    to the States. That division of authority was not accidental.
    It was designed as a safeguard against centralized power. When
    we ignore that structure, we don't just make a policy mistake;
    we create a system ripe for abuse, a playground for
    bureaucrats, a lever for political agendas, and a direct threat
    to the liberties we are sworn to protect.
        That is why I have called for the repeal of the FACE Act,
    not only because of who it has been used against, but because
    of what is represented, an expansion of Federal power and a
    breakdown of constitutional limited. The Federal Government
    should not be in the business of policing local conduct through
    expansive criminal statutes. If we are serious about protecting
    liberty, then we must be serious about limiting power. Because
    once Washington takes it, it doesn't give it back.
        One final point, a point of personal privilege, is I have
    tried to be consistent on this point to the extent of opposing
    or raising questions about legislation that is supported by
    people that are, shall I say, politically aligned typically, or
    issues that I care passionately about issues such as
    transgender surgeries or issues involving law enforcement who
    are being targeted locally or cops who are killed, that are not
    getting justice in one jurisdiction or another.
        I believe that we need to have this debate and this
    conversation about how much authority should be vested in the
    Federal Government in the form of criminal laws. Because I
    assure you that my colleagues who have concerns about this
    administration and those of us who had concerns about the last,
    the point that the Founders were making was that we should
    leave those authorities and those powers to the people and to
    the governments in the States closest to them, and not
    centralize that power in such a way that it can, in fact, be
    used against the people.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        I now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening
    statement.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Well, today is the third time in as many years that this
    Subcommittee, under Republican leadership, is holding a hearing
    to undermine the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or
    the FACE Act, fourth, if you count the markup of the Chair's
    FACE Act Repeal Act last year. Eliminating the FACE Act is a
    Right-wing policy priority drawn directly from the extremist
    Project 2025 manifesto, page 558, to be precise.
        No matter how many times the enemies of reproductive rights
    try to rewrite history or drum up new conspiracies about the
    FACE Act, the facts stay the same. We continue to see criminal
    obstruction of and threats, intimidation, and violence against
    abortion providers and women seeking those services. The FACE
    Act is needed now as much as it has ever been.
        In 1994, Congress passed the FACE Act with bipartisan
    support to address rising violence against abortion and
    reproductive healthcare providers. Over the years, that
    violence has included arsons, bombings, chemical attacks,
    blockades, murders, and attempted murders of abortion providers
    and bystanders.
        Specifically, the FACE Act protects the people who work in
    or seek care at facilities providing access to abortion and
    other reproductive healthcare services, as well as places of
    religious worship. It protects them from the use of force,
    threats, intimidation, or physical obstruction.
        For decades, the same coordinated extreme anti-choice
    forces whose violent conduct created the need for the FACE Act
    in the first place have tried to undermine the law as part of
    their unpopular mission to gut access to reproductive
    healthcare and, effectively, ban abortion in the United States.
        Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022,
    anti-abortion extremists have been emboldened, fueling a
    resurgence of violence and harassment against abortion
    providers. A report from the National Abortion Federation
    documented 777 instances of obstruction of clinics in 2024. In
    the last two years, there have been 296 incidents of death
    threats and other threats of violence aimed at abortion
    providers and their patients.
        For years, our Republican colleagues have tried to warp
    reality, and today's hearing is more of the same. They are
    claiming that people were arrested under the FACE Act for
    praying. That's just not true. Praying is not unlawful conduct,
    but you can't mask unlawful conduct, including violent threats
    or blockading entrances to clinics, with performative prayer.
    Those threats and physical harassment are crimes, and they
    jeopardize people's access to potentially lifesaving care.
        Take, for example, one woman's story from Michigan. After
    struggling with infertility, she finally got pregnant, but at
    12 weeks she and her husband got devastating news. Their baby
    had an extremely rare abnormality and he wouldn't survive
    birth. If she continued the pregnancy, her ability to have
    children in the future would be at risk and her life would be
    at risk as well. She and her husband made the decision to
    terminate the pregnancy.
        On the morning of her appointment at a local reproductive
    healthcare clinic, she arrived to find people blocking the
    entrance. A group approached them, trying to force her to take
    graphic pamphlets and telling her she could stop a murder from
    happening. The harassment continued even after the couple moved
    their car. She and her husband had to leave out of fear for
    their safety, even though she needed immediate medical
    attention. They were only able to return after police arrived,
    arrested the disruptors, and removed them.
        In another instance, five anti-abortion extremists forced
    their way into a clinic in Virginia and attempted to grab a
    patient. The patient's friend had to step in and help the
    clinic staff usher the invaders out.
        We are talking about women and their loved ones facing
    terror, threats of injury, and having to physical fight people
    off, just to receive legal healthcare for serious medical
    needs. It shouldn't be that way. That is why we have the FACE
    Act.
        Republicans have seized on a false narrative that the Biden
    Justice Department selectively enforced the law. That's not
    true.
        This month, as Chair Roy has related, Trump's Department of
    Justice issued a report claiming that the former administration
    used the FACE Act to go after allegedly peaceful prolife
    protestors. I should note that this report has been variously
    described across multiple outlets as cherry-picked, shoddy,
    misleading, hypocritical, inaccurate, incomplete, and a
    distortion of the truth that disregards multiple court rulings
    and jury verdicts. It parrots longstanding anti-abortion
    conspiracies, particularly those championed in the extremist
    Project 2025 manifesto.
        There is no credible evidence that prior administrations
    selectively enforced the FACE Act against anti-abortion
    protestors. To the extent that there is any disparity in FACE
    Act prosecutions of attacks on abortion clinics versus prolife
    facilities, it is simply a reflection of the facts. Abortion
    providers and their patients face significantly higher threats
    and levels of violence than other entities covered by the
    statute.
        The actions of the Trump Administration and its Right-wing
    allies, including our Republican colleagues, to undermine the
    FACE Act have invited anti-abortion extremists to carry out
    even more dangerous and hostile acts against women seeking
    healthcare and their medical providers.
        The President's firing of lawyers who prosecuted FACE Act
    violations, along with pardons for people who were convicted by
    juries of harassing and attacking abortion providers and their
    patients, only further emboldens people to commit these crimes.
    In fact, we have already seen pardoned anti-abortion activists
    go back to commit similar acts.
        Last July, six people, two of whom received Trump pardons
    for FACE Act violations, were arrested after invading a clinic
    in my District in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. They have gone
    on to be arrested again after their plea bargains were
    affirmed. They lied to get into the Delaware County facility,
    and then harassed patients and staff until the police removed
    them.
        If my Republican colleagues want to examine the real
    dangers of an out-of-control executive using the government to
    attack its political enemies, they should be holding hearings
    to examine what the Trump Administration is doing right now.
    How about deploying American troops and armed and masked
    Federal agents to our city streets to shutdown opposition and
    threatening assaulting and even killing people who would hold
    them accountable?
        How about using warrantless searches to arrest American
    citizens in their own homes? Or labeling people who disagree
    with the President's policies as domestic terrorists under
    NSPM-7? Putting their names on secret government lists and
    demanding that tech companies' hand over the identities of
    Americans who organize or share their dissenting opinions
    online? If we are talking about Federal intrusion into areas
    reserved to the States, how about this administration's
    attempts to Federalize our elections and seize State voter
    rolls? Why aren't we holding hearings about that?
        In politicizing a law meant to keep all Americans safe,
    anti-abortion extremists are openly attempting to lay the
    groundwork for a national abortion ban. Their goal is to scare,
    threaten, and physically obstruct women from accessing
    reproductive healthcare.
        The Majority of Americans agree, all women deserve the
    freedom to work with their doctors and their families to decide
    on the healthcare that is right for them without the meddling
    of radical politicians or religious extremists. No one should
    be denied medical care because of someone else's religious or
    political beliefs. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee,
    Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I can't think of a better time to have this hearing. Last
    week, we learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center was
    running a scam. The Southern Poverty Law Center who said,
    quote, ``The prolife movement is fundamentally antidemocratic,'
    '' was running a scam, paying $3 million to, quote,
    ``informants'' to go foment the hate they told the world they
    were actually supposed to be fighting. This is exactly the
    right time to have this hearing, for goodness' sake.
        The Southern Poverty Law Center that the Biden Justice
    Department used to train lawyers to go deal with the FACE Act?
    You've got to be kidding me. The Southern Poverty Law Center,
    which was cited in the now famous memorandum--we have the
    Thomas More Society here; they remember this--where they said
    prolife Catholics were extremists, guess who they cited in that
    memo? The Southern Poverty Law Center.
        I remember when Rahm Emanuel said, ``Never let crisis go to
    waste.'' Well, the SPLC took it further. They said: We're going
    to create the crisis, so we can go after prolife groups using
    the FACE Act, and whatever else.
        The Ranking Member can talk about, oh, we have had three
    hearings on this. Well, this one couldn't be better timed. This
    is exactly what we need to be talking about, in light of the
    fact they have been indicted for running a $3 million scam
    against the people who were supporting them, and going out and
    going after prolife people, like Eva Edl, the 90-year-old. The
    Chair talked about her history and what she is doing, praying
    at a clinic.
        I'm glad you are all here and I look forward to hearing
    your testimony. I thank the Chair for putting this hearing
    together. With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair. I will now recognize the
    Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I want to thank
    all our witnesses for joining us today.
        We are in a weird time warp groove with our friends across
    the aisle. Most of their energy is now focused on pardoning
    people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, wounding and
    injuring 150 of our police officers, disfiguring and disabling
    some of them for life.
        Their time is spent vacating the criminal convictions of
    the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who engaged in seditious
    conspiracy against the U.S. Government, which means conspiring
    to overthrow and put down the government. Now, the Department
    of Justice wants to vacate those convictions that were handed
    down by unanimous juries.
        They want to give millions of dollars to convicted
    criminals like Michael Flynn, for example, President Trump's
    disgraced former National Security Advisor. They gave him $1.5
    million for a lawsuit he brought against the government and
    already lost. He lost it in court, and nonetheless, they wrote
    him a check for $1.5 million.
        They wrote a check for another $1.5 million, or $1.25
    million, to Carter Page, who unsuccessfully sued the government
    for damages and losing four different lawsuits. Nonetheless,
    they just wrote him a check of the taxpayers' money, $1.25
    million.
        Now, they are all lining up at the trough. A lot of the
    January 6th insurrectionists wanted their $1.25 million payout.
        Donald Trump has sued the IRS for 10, no, forgive me, not
    $10 million--$10 billion. He wants 80 percent of the IRS budget
    that he is suing the government for. He is also suing for the
    search warrants handed down by an independent, neutral
    magistrate, where they executed a search on Mar-a-Lago and
    found lots of classified documents and confidential and secret
    documents he shouldn't have had. He is suing there for several
    hundred million dollars as well. It is a big piggy bank for
    them.
        Now, we are having our third hearing about the claim, I'm
    not sure I fully understand it, but I think the claim is that
    the activists who forcibly blocked health clinic entrances and
    prevented women from accessing lawful reproductive health
    services were somehow unjustly prosecuted under the FACE Act,
    which they intimate is unconstitutional, but eight different
    Federal Circuit Courts have upheld its constitutionality as a
    perfectly lawful exercise of Congress' powers under the
    Commerce Clause and not in any way in violation of the First
    Amendment. OK? They continue to want to pander to people who
    think that they should never have been prosecuted for their
    criminal conduct.
        This hearing is an after-the-fact justification for
    President Trump's antichoice pander pardons which took place
    last year. As one of his first acts in office, he pardoned
    nearly two dozen people convicted, again, by unanimous juries,
    of FACE Act-related crimes, including one of the witnesses here
    today, Ms. Edl. As with the January 6th rioters and
    insurrectionists that he pardoned, Trump and his MAGA allies
    are attempting to rewrite history to portray convicted criminal
    conduct as peaceful protests and to cast the dedicated public
    servants who sought to protect patient safety as the villains.
        Let's discuss some of the facts of Ms. Edl's case. She was
    pardoned by President Trump and invited as an example of the
    so-called ``peaceful protestors.'' A jury convicted her, along
    with six coconspirators of Federal civil rights offenses,
    including a FACE Act violation arising out of their blockade of
    a reproductive healthcare clinic in Sterling Heights, Michigan,
    in August 2020.
        A jury of her peers, not deep-State prosecutors, a jury of
    her peers drawn from her community convicted her by unanimous
    vote after a trial by an impartial Federal judge. She was one
    of two defendants convicted of another FACE Act violation
    arising out of their actions in yet another clinic blockade in
    Saginaw, Michigan.
        Now, I have no problems with the fact that Ms. Edl and
    others like her have strong moral convictions about this, as
    did Martin Luther King and John Lewis. They had strong moral
    convictions about Jim Crow apartheid and segregation in
    America, and they participated in civil disobedience. They
    violated various trespass laws in different cases, and they
    were arrested for it, and they were willing to accept their
    punishment as the price for trying to get a law they considered
    or actions by the government reversed and to dismantle racial
    segregation.
        What these protestors have a problem with is other people
    accessing their own healthcare. The civil rights protestors
    weren't trying to stop people from getting healthcare, and they
    were willing to, nonetheless, accept the consequences of having
    a sit-in, or whatever. Here, they don't seem to want to accept
    the fact that they violated the law. In fact, they violated the
    law precisely to prevent other people from exercising their
    constitutionally protected rights to healthcare. That is
    exactly what they were doing. I'm afraid there is a huge
    difference between them and other people who have participated
    in civil disobedience in the past.
        We got a statement from the founder and operator of the
    Sterling Heights clinic, who was present that day, which I'm
    going to enter into the record in full, that described what
    happened.
        Mr. Raskin. She writes this:

              Perhaps the most dangerous and appalling episode of clinic
            violence I've ever experienced since the FACE Act became law
            took place in August 2020. Our Sterling Heights clinic was
            blockaded by extremists who prevented me and other staff from
            entering the clinic. Patients were stuck in their cars,
            including three women who were coming in for medical abortions
            following the detection of fatal fetal anomalies.

              One woman was actively losing amniotic fluid and was
            scheduled for the second day of a two-day procedure. She needed
            immediate medical attention. She huddled with her mother and
            her husband trapped in the parking lot while extremists
            plastered signs of fake fetuses on her car windows and shouted,
            ``God loves you. God loves your baby.'' The woman cried back,
            ``I know God loves me. I know God loves my baby, but my baby is
            dying.'' Her baby was missing most of its brain and had no
            kidneys. This woman later shared her powerful testimony at
            trial.

        As eight different Circuit Courts have found, Congress has
    the power under the Commerce Clause to protect people against
    being harassed and interfered with as they go to get medical
    attention. The FACE Act is a legitimate exercise of
    Congressional power, and they people were properly arrested and
    prosecuted for perhaps their very morally, sincerely held
    views, but they violated the law.
        These politically motivated pardons of FACE Act violators,
    as well as January 6ers and dozens of white-collar criminals
    and fraudsters, are all part of a political strategy that has
    got nothing to do with justice. Now, this is the equivalent of
    the government giving people a green light to go out and break
    the law. Indeed, there are numerous reports that President
    Trump has been pardoning promises, has been promising pardons
    rather, to everyone who works for him.
        As President Trump continues to endanger public safety with
    pardons like this, they are making threats against the Southern
    Poverty Law Center, which is the main not-for-profit
    organizational antagonist to the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi
    and the White extremist groups. They are being investigated and
    prosecuted for having sent people undercover to research what
    is going on in those groups, to get the information to
    government for prosecution.
        Now, the administration, which has pardoned 1,600
    extremists who attacked the U.S. Capitol, who violently
    assaulted our police officers, and tried to overthrow a
    Presidential election, which Joe Biden won by more than seven
    million votes, 306-232 in the Electoral College, well, now,
    after having pardoned all of those people, they want to attack
    the Southern Poverty Law Center. That is an amazing attack on
    the First Amendment for real.
        I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. Without objection, all other opening statements
    will be included in the record.
        Mr. Roy. We will now introduce today's witnesses.
        Ms. Eva Edl. Ms. Edl is a prolife advocate who came to the
    United States after surviving a communist concentration camp
    after the end of World War II. In 2023, she was prosecuted by
    the Biden Administration under the FACE Act for protesting at
    an abortion clinic. She was pardoned by President Trump in
    January 2025.
        Mr. Christopher Ferrara. Mr. Ferrara is a Senior Counsel at
    the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm. Mr.
    Ferrara's practice focuses on cases involving the sanctity of
    life, religious liberty, and parental rights. He founded the
    American Catholic Lawyers Association in 1990.
        Mr. Roger Severino. Mr. Severino is the Vice President of
    Economic and Domestic Policy and the Joseph C. and Elizabeth A.
    Anderlik Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He previously
    served as the Director of the Office of Civil Rights at the
    Department of Health and Human Services.
        Professor Jessica Waters. Ms. Waters is a Senior Scholar in
    residence for Justice, Law, and Criminology at the American
    University Washington College of Law. She previously served as
    the American University Dean of Undergraduate Education and
    Vice Provost for Academic Student Services.
        We thank our witnesses for appearing today.
        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, and you may be seated.
        Please know that your written testimony will be entered in
    the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
    summarize your testimony in five minutes.
        Ms. Edl, you may begin. I will just remind you to have your
    microphone turned on, I believe it is, and to speak clearly
    into the microphone.

                          STATEMENT OF EVA EDL

        Ms. Edl. I'll try.
        Mr. Roy. You might want to pull that microphone a little
    closer, if that's possible. There we go. Thank you, Ms. Edl.
    You may begin.
        Ms. Edl. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the Members
    of the Subcommittee, my name, as I have said, is Eva Edl. Thank
    you for inviting me to speak to you today.
        As I say in my biography, as a young child, I was taken to
    a communist death camp and survived only by the grace of God.
        When I came to this country, I was so grateful to see that
    the respect-that this country respected life. To my horror,
    even this country lost its moral compass when abortion was
    legalized in 1973.
        I knew from basic biology that human life begins when an
    ovum and sperm unite. I knew I could not remain silent, and I
    knew I had to speak in defense of the preborn babies.
        In 1988, I became aware of the existence of abortion
    clinics, which I view as our American death camps. On TV, I
    watched women take their babies inside to be killed, and it
    reminded me of my ride in the cattle car that took me as a
    young girl to the death camp.
        While being locked up in that car, I wished that some
    people would have put their bodies on those tracks to bring
    that train to a stop and set us free.
        I thought of the word of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 7,
    ``that I should do unto others as I would have them do unto
    me.'' I knew I had to place my body between those victims and
    the abortionists, no matter what the cost.
        For the prolife movement, this is what we call ``rescue.''
    We call it an interposing, putting ourselves in danger to save
    someone else.
        In 1988, I also learned of a rescue plan for October in
    Atlanta. I decided to join them. People were peacefully sitting
    in front of the door of the abortion clinic and not moving;
    consequently, shutting the business down at least until
    everyone was arrested.
        When we are at clinics like that, it's like sitting in
    front of the train tracks. While we are being arrested, our
    sidewalk counselors have the opportunity to offer help to young
    women, and hopefully, persuade them to give their life to their
    children.
        Then, in 1994, when I heard that Senator Ted Kennedy
    introduced the FACE Act, I knew that things would change. I
    knew that we rescuers would be targeted.
        Prolifers who continue to put their bodies between the
    abortionists and innocent victims today will continue to be
    targeted by this unjust law until it is repealed.
        Yet, despite knowing this, when the Lord asks you to do
    something, you just simply do it, no matter the cost. After
    all, he gave his life to save us.
        There are many others who have answered this sacrificial
    call. In my case, I was only charged with a first offense
    misdemeanor in Tennessee, but in Michigan, I was convicted of
    two separate violations of FACE and one violation of conspiracy
    against rights and faced up to 13 years in prison and up to
    $300,000 in fines.
        I am before you today. I plead with our government to
    repeal the FACE Act because it is targeting people who want to
    do right. After all, we have enough laws that, if somebody does
    something wrong, we have the means to punish them.
        I plead with our government to stop the killing and go back
    to the foundational principle that our forefathers built this
    country on: That all human life has equal value before God.
        If we do not have an awakening of our national conscious,
    then we will exterminate our posterity. Indeed, our next
    victims will be the elderly and the sick through the so-called
    ``assisted death.''
        We are aborting those who would be our country's future,
    who will take care of us when we are old. When we do not
    respect human life, it becomes very disposable.
        Yet, where there is life, there is hope. It is this hope
    that has carried me over 90 years through World War II, a
    genocide, and Tito's horrific camps, all the way to today.
        While I may not see the end of abortion in my own lifetime,
    I have the unshakeable hope that the truth will prevail and
    that our Nation will soon recognize the value of all human
    life.
        Let us act by beginning to repeal the FACE Act. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Edl follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Edl. Mr. Ferrara, you may begin.

                  STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA

        Mr. Ferrara. I thank the Committee for this opportunity to
    argue in favor of repeal of the FACE Act.
        The FACE Act was supposedly a viewpoint-neutral protection
    of abortion clinic access. It contained a disclaimer that it
    would not prohibit First Amendment protected conduct or create
    new remedies for interference with that conduct.
        We members of the prolife bar were not fooled. The FACE Act
    targeted a particular social justice movement, the prolife
    activist movement. It created a new category of Federal
    offenses, civil and criminal, based on what were purely matters
    of local law involving citizens and other minor offenses
    committed in the context of nonviolent civil disobedience no
    different from what Dr. Martin Luther King defended in his
    Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
        As for the acts of violence in the course of the movement,
    there were acts of violence, and they were prosecuted
    appropriately under local law. Consider Paul Hill, who was
    executed under State law in Florida in 2003. No need of FACE to
    bring him to justice.
        I've had 25 years of experience defending FACE claims,
    almost entirely in opposition to attorneys general, and I have
    seen how, with dreary predictability, the terms ``force,''
    ``threat of force,'' and ``physical obstruction'' in FACE have
    become so elastic as to reach even de minimis conduct that
    would not even warrant a desk appearance ticket under local
    law.
        Even the most fleeting physical contact has been found to
    constitute force. The most minimal impediments of clinic
    workers or clients on the sidewalk have been found to
    constitute physical obstruction. Mere references to God's
    judgment on death have been found to constitute threats of
    force.
        The FACE Act has been used to impose ridiculous
    injunctions; totally unheard of in any other context. Speech-
    free buffer zones, bubble zones, and even floating bubble zones
    around clinics have created for prolife advocates, and them
    only, exactly what Justice Scalia described in McCullen v.
    Coakley., quote: ``An entirely separate abridged edition of the
    First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.''
        Consider, also, FACE's mode of requirement. If you stand in
    front of an abortion clinic worker outside a clinic to demand
    money that you are owed, delaying that person, no law is
    violated. Stand in front of the same person to offer prolife
    literature and discuss alternatives to abortion, and you've
    just violated FACE.
        Even worse, FACE is being combined with 18 U.S.C. 241,
    prohibiting conspiracies against rights, which elevates
    misdemeanor FACE violations into Federal felonies. The result
    has been preposterous prison sentences.
        Consider the clinic sit-in at a D.C. abortion clinic in
    2020 called a ``blockade'' by the government. Because a clinic
    staffer allegedly suffered from a sprained ankle, all the
    participants were found guilty of a crime of violence, as
    coconspirators, and were sent immediately to prison after the
    verdict.
        Joan Bell, 27 months in Federal prison for a 77-year-old
    grandmother.
        Jean Marshall, 24 months in Federal prison for a 77-year-
    old retired nurse.
        Heather Idoni, 24 months in Federal prison for a 61-year-
    old grandmother.
        Consider the case of Beverlyn-Bevelyn Beatty, 41 months in
    Federal prison for the mother of a two-year-old girl, based on
    uttering political hyperbole and allegedly causing a minor hand
    injury.
        Well, thank God Trump pardoned all these victims of FACE
    and many more political prisoners that he rescued from the
    Biden Administration's Gulag.
        Now, we have the massive DOJ report on weaponization of
    FACE by the Biden Justice Department. That report reveals a
    comment by an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the case of U.S. v.
    Jastrow, which says it all concerning the Biden
    Administration's weaponization of FACE against religiously
    motivated prolife activists. I quote,

            Unfortunately, we ended up with a very Catholic magistrate on
            duty this week and he was very particular about bond conditions
            and not infringing on First Amendment rights. At the end, we
            ended up with overly lawyered bond conditions that would be
            difficult to enforce.

    Well, there we have it anti-Catholic bigotry on full display in
    a public record pertaining to the Biden Administration's
    vindictive FACE Act prosecutions.
        We have never seen anything like this pernicious law in
    American history. For the sake of freedom and justice in
    America, the FACE Act must be repealed.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrara follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Ferrara. Mr. Severino, you may
    begin.

                     STATEMENT OF ROGER T. SEVERINO

        Mr. Severino. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I want to build off comments from your opening statement
    and to consider a few different scenarios, and what could
    actually be the common thread.
        Scenario 1. You want to build a pool in your house, and the
    people doing the construction move the dirt from the hole into
    some soggy area of your land.
        Scenario 2. You're cleaning a gutter from your house, and
    you get up on top and you notice that there is a bird nest
    there that you push off to the side to the ground.
        Scenario 3. You go with your son to a National Park, and
    you discover an Indian arrowhead that you keep as a souvenir.
        Scenario 4. You're walking down the street, and you see a
    protest going on. It could be in front of an abortion clinic.
    It could be in front of a pregnancy resource center. You get
    into a heated debate and there's an altercation that ensues.
        The common thread among those four scenarios is that they
    may be Federal crimes. The thing is, you're not really sure if
    they are or they aren't. It really depends on the prosecution
    and what their theory of the case is, and what facts they
    cherry-pick, and worst of all, whether or not the identity of
    the alleged perpetrator is perhaps of the same political party
    or not of the prosecutor. All these things are a result of
    overcriminalization. The FACE Act is a poster child of
    overcriminalization. Now, whatever you think about the
    underlying issue to be addressed in any of those cases, are the
    wrongs to be addressed at the Federal level? Is everything
    meant to be, literally, a Federal case?
        Under our constitutional system, it was designed such that
    the Federal Government is one of enumerated powers. It only has
    the power that was given to it by the people specifically in
    the Constitution. It cannot act unless Congress is authorized
    by a specific provision in the Constitution.
        Now, the problem is, Congress has used the Commerce Clause
    as its catchall to cover every single aspect of American life,
    such that we have 5,200 different crimes. My former colleague
    at the Heritage Foundation, Giancarlo Canaparo, catalogued
    these crimes, but his chilling finding was he couldn't be sure,
    either.
        Nobody knows how many Federal crimes there are. The
    Department of Justice was tasked to actually try to figure this
    out and they gave up. They did not know how many Federal crimes
    there are.
        When you add to this the fact that there are 300,000
    regulatory crimes, let me repeat that, 300,000 regulatory
    crimes, where some bureaucrat decided to amend a regulation
    that then becomes a crime, well, are we really a Nation of laws
    or not?
        We have delegated far too much authority to Federal
    bureaucrats, and that discretion has given unchecked power that
    has been abused with the FACE Act and other cases. Let me give
    you a few examples.
        There was a person who was importing undersized lobsters
    from Honduras, and unfortunately, didn't know the Honduran
    regulations and packed them in plastic bags instead of boxes.
    What Federal crime was violated? Well, it was done--no Federal
    crime actually. A Honduran crime perhaps was committed, but
    because he violated a Honduran crime, that became a Federal
    crime under the Lacey Act. Who knew that, if you don't follow
    Honduras' laws for packing lobsters in plastic versus boxes,
    you might be committing a Federal crime?
        Now, sticking with Fish and Game, in Florida, a fisherman
    was capturing some grouper, and they were, again, undersized. A
    Fish and Game Warden came by and said, ``Wow, they look
    undersized.'' When the warden left, the fisherman threw some of
    the fish away to try to kind of hide the evidence.
        Now, he was charged with a Federal crime under Sarbanes-
    Oxley, an Enron-related bill that was designed to go after
    people and accountants that were shredding evidence in an
    investigation. All of a sudden, the Federal agent said, ``You
    know what? A fish is a whole lot like a document.'' The Supreme
    Court said, ``no, it's not; a fish is a fish; it's not a
    document.''
        On with one more example. I was the Nation's HIPAA
    regulator, and I had the power to issue regulations which also
    had the force and effect of law.
        The case of Eithan Haim, a whistleblower doctor in Texas
    who discovered that Texas Children's Hospital, despite what
    they were saying, was still giving cross-sex sterilizing
    treatments to minors possibly in violation of law.
        He blew the whistle, and the Biden DOJ went after him, not
    the hospital, for an alleged HIPAA violation 10 years potential
    prison time for looking into files, not disclosing any
    protected health information, but verified that, in fact, the
    hospital was lying.
        This shows that our laws have been weaponized, such that we
    are no longer a Nation of laws, but a Nation of men with
    unchecked authority to go after political enemies whenever they
    like.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Severino follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roy. Mr. Severino, thank you for your statement.
    Professor Waters, you may begin.

                     STATEMENT OF JESSICA L. WATERS

        Ms. Waters. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the
    Members of the Committee, and the Members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for inviting me back to testify today. I appreciated
    our conversation related to FACE during the December 2024
    hearing before this Committee, and I look forward to additional
    constructive dialog today.
        The specific provisions of FACE are outlined in my written
    testimony, but in brief, FACE created criminal penalties and
    civil remedies against specific types of intentional violent,
    threatening, or obstructive conduct directed at people
    providing or obtaining reproductive health services or seeking
    to exercise First Amendment religious rights at houses of
    worship.
        A few concepts are key there:

    (1)  FACE prohibits specific conduct, not speech.
    (2)  FACE requires that the conduct be intentional; that is,
    directed at preventing the seeking or provision of reproductive
    health-
    care or the exercise of religious rights at houses of worship.
    (3)  FACE expressly excludes nonthreatening, nonobstructive
    speech from its purview, as it must, as the First Amendment
    demands that protection.

        We have heard other witnesses opine today that FACE should
    be repealed and that it is somehow unconstitutional. Let us be
    clear: That is simply not what the law says.
        Every Federal court to consider such arguments has
    unequivocally held that FACE was a constitutional exercise of
    Congress' authority. This is not an area where circuits are
    split or where the laws are unclear. Whether the challenge has
    been on Commerce Clause grounds, First Amendment speech
    grounds, First Amendment free exercise grounds, or Tenth
    Amendment grounds, the courts have said the same thing: FACE is
    constitutionally sound and based on extensive legislative
    findings about the need for a Federal remedy to combat a
    nationwide campaign of violence.
        Lest there be any confusion, this unanimity is true both
    pre- and post-Dobbs. A few post-Dobbs cases illustrate this
    point.
        For example, in 2025, the Sixth Circuit confronted the
    question squarely of whether FACE's long-affirmed
    constitutionally constitutionality was impacted by the Dobbs
    decision. The Sixth Circuit held that Dobbs had no effect on
    FACE's constitutionality, finding that, quote,

            The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs provides no basis to
            reconsider prior holdings that FACE is a constitutional
            exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

    The Sixth Circuit also directly affirmed its prior decisions
    holding that FACE did not run afoul of the First Amendment
    speech or free exercise protections.
        Notably, in the case in which Ms. Edl was a codefendant,
    United States v. Gallagher, the Tennessee District Court
    confronted this same question and flatly rejected any argument
    that Dobbs undermined FACE--FACE's constitutionality or
    protections. As the Court wrote, and I quote,

            What did the holding and essential reasoning of Dobbs change
            about the interstate nature of the reproductive health field?
            Nothing. Those issues were not even remotely raised by the case
            which involved a State statute.

        Other courts to reach this question have found the exact
    same thing. This includes a New York Court, the D.C. District
    Court, and a Pennsylvania District Court.
        Where I think Dobbs does matter in this equation is in two
    areas that actually underscore the need for FACE.
        First, Dobbs returned the abortion question to the States,
    leaving us now in a patchwork of laws across the country. By
    the end of 2025, 13 States had total abortion bans and six more
    have 6-12-weeks abortion bans.
        As has been well-documented, the number of abortions did
    not decline nationwide after these bans went into effect.
    Instead, what happened is people who lived in States with bans
    traveled to other States that protected access to reproductive
    healthcare. A hundred and seventy thousand patients traveled in
    2023; 150,000 in 2024, and 140,000 in 2025. That is, patients
    and clinics engaged in interstate commerce, the very basis on
    which FACE left rests.
        Finally, following Dobbs, there was an almost immediate
    spike in major incidents targeting reproductive healthcare
    providers, including arsons, burglaries, and death threats. In
    2023 and 2024, the National Abortion Federation documented
    three arsons, 13 invasions, 169 incidents of vandalism, 621
    incidents of trespass, 296 death threats, 38 assaults and
    battery, 777 counts of obstruction, and 12 bomb threats.
        Though I wish it wasn't the case, the continued campaign of
    nationwide intimidation and violence against reproductive
    healthcare providers highlight the continued need for FACE. As
    I said in 2024, the bottom line is this: People should be able
    to seek medical care, and medical professionals should be able
    to provide it, without fear of violence or intimidation. This
    is an issue that warrants a Federal remedy.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roy. I thank the witness for her testimony. I will now
    recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for five minutes.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all the
    witnesses for being a part of this today.
        Mr. Ferrara, as a pastor, and now, a Congressman, I have
    unequivocally stood firm on the importance of protecting the
    sanctity of life. It is undeniable that every life is a
    precious gift from God, created with inherent dignity and
    purpose. This truth has encouraged prolifers across the country
    to push back on the pro-abortion rhetoric by serving outside of
    abortion clinic to pray, to counsel women who feel they have
    run out of options, and to reaffirm the sacred truth that the
    unborn have value.
        The way in which the Biden Administration weaponized the
    FACE Act against prolifers was indefensible and it makes me
    fear that these actions have discouraged others from getting
    involved in the fight for the unborn.
        I would ask you, Mr. Ferrara, in your view, do FACE Act
    prosecutions against prolifers create a chilling effect among
    those in the prolive movement?
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Ferrara, can you use your microphone?
        Mr. Harris. Your mic, please.
        Mr. Ferrara. They most certainly do. As I indicated during
    my testimony, Justice Scalia rightly observed that we have,
    through the application of the FACE Act, a separate and
    distinct abridged version of the First Amendment for prolife
    advocates.
        The injunctions issued under the authority of FACE have no
    precedent in American law. They are, as I said during my
    testimony, ridiculous. Bubble zones, floating bubble zones,
    speech-free areas to prevent even a discussion of alternatives
    to abortion, all enacted in the name of protecting what turned
    out to be the nonexistent right to abortion.
        Yes, I think that this is a case of unprecedented
    restrictions on activities, some of which do involve civil
    disobedience. Civil disobedience, like it or not, is part of
    the American tradition of social justice movements.
        I'll tell you this: What I don't see in the prolife
    movement, even at the height of the rescue movement in the
    1990s, is cities burning; police officers being attacked;
    Molotov cocktails being thrown into businesses; police officers
    being pelted with bottles filled with ice, and not just death
    threats, but actual acts of violence on a massive scale not the
    isolated acts we saw in the prolife movement in the nineties,
    which were punished appropriately under criminal law. As I
    indicated, Paul Hill was put to death. You can't do better than
    capital punishment for punishing lawless activity.
        My testimony has made clear, that FACE has, for the first
    time in American history, singled out a single protest movement
    for treatment under the law that has never been meted out to
    any other social justice movement in our Nation's history.
        Mr. Harris. Let me ask you a followup to that. During
    President Trump's first year in office, he took action to
    correct the injustices that occurred during the Biden-Harris
    Administration's enforcement of the FACE Act by issuing pardons
    to several of the prolifers that were unjustly targeted. Would
    you say what response have you seen from the prolife movement
    and your clients regarding President Trump's actions?
        Mr. Ferrara. Gratitude, and thanks to God for justice done.
        The sentences handed out, some of which I mentioned in my
    testimony, are absolutely absurd years in Federal prison for
    nonviolent conduct, the worst of it being someone's hand was
    injured or there was a sprained ankle. Then, with the
    combination of Section 241, conspiracy against rights,
    multiyear prison sentences for nonviolent conduct.
        Again, these things could be handled, and had always been
    handled, as matters of local law. By the way, the system is
    capable of handling these matters. If you have repeat offenders
    who are trespassing, sooner or later, they'll end up in a jail
    cell, and that might be appropriate.
        Mr. Harris. Correct. Unfortunately, what we are hearing
    today is part of a larger pattern of an anti-Christian bias we
    witnessed under the Biden-Harris Administration. Thanks to this
    Committee's work in the past, we learned that the Biden-Harris
    FBI used its resources to spy on Catholics in Richmond. On top
    of that, in today's hearings, we are hearing stories of prolife
    activists being unjustly targeted by the Biden-Harris DOJ,
    while attacks on churches and prolife pregnancy centers went
    largely ignored.
        In the last 30 seconds, I just want to ask you, Mr.
    Ferrara, is it fair to say that the Biden-Harris
    Administration's DOJ displayed clear anti-Christian bias in its
    actions, including its enforcement of the FACE Act?
        Mr. Ferrara. Well, there's no question about it. Even FBI
    Director Wray admitted that the report had been issued out of
    the Richmond office, characterizing traditionalist Catholics
    and I'm one of them, and I attend that parish in Richmond as,
    basically, domestic terrorists. He professed to be embarrassed
    by the memo and said it was only a localized product. It turned
    out that this was false. This memo had been widely circulated
    in FBI channels. Yes, the answer is yes.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I will
    recognize the Ranking Member first and the unanimous consent
    request.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thanks. First, I have an article from The
    Atlantic, dated April 20, 2026, ``The DOJ's First
    `Weaponization' Report Is a Bust. The document purports to show
    bias under Biden Administration--and fails spectacularly.''
        Second, I have a DOJ press release on an Ohio woman who was
    prosecuted for attacking a pregnancy resource center, December
    8, 2023.
        Another one, DOJ press release about dated April 10, 2024,
    concerning prosecution of someone who fire-bombed a Madison
    building because of anti-abortion.
        Next, I have a press release from the DOJ, December 20,
    2024, ``Florida Woman Convicted of Civil Rights Conspiracy for
    Targeting Pregnancy Resource Centers.''
        Another DOJ press release from January 19, 2023, titled,
    ``FBI Offering $25,000 Reward for information on attacks
    against reproductive health service facilities.''
        Mr. Roy. Without objection.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full
    Committee, Mr. Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
        I know our friends are desperate to change the subject from
    President Trump's aggressive insults to the Pope, saying that
    he is weak on nuclear weapons and weak on crime, and his online
    impersonation of Jesus Christ, who he later claimed he was
    actually he thought that was an image of him playing a doctor.
    Of course, he is not a doctor, either. He is neither a doctor
    nor Jesus Christ.
        In any event, that doesn't make the FACE Act anti-
    Christian, and if you think it is, then go ahead and bring
    another failed lawsuit against the FACE Act and claim that it
    violates the Free Exercise Clause. It does not.
        In 2022, the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case reversed
    itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Roe v. Wade. The
    right to abortion was not legalized in 1973. It was legal in
    most of the country. What the Supreme Court did was strike down
    abortion bans criminalizing abortion.
        In any event, since the Dobbs decision, 21 States now have
    a total or a substantial ban on abortion affecting the rights
    directly of 29 million American women. The 169,000 of them at
    least, they have had to cross State lines in interstate
    commerce to seek the medical attention that they need.
        It is not enough for our friends now to allow State
    legislatures to ban other people's medical decisions. They want
    to repeal the FACE Act, so they can directly blockade hospitals
    and medical clinics. That is the very clear implication of what
    Mr. Ferrara was just saying that you should have a
    constitutional right to do what has been made criminal by
    Congress in the FACE Act, after nine or ten doctors and other
    medical staff were killed in attacks on people working in
    abortion clinics.
        Now, Ms. Waters, I want to ask you, is there any reason to
    think that there is a constitutional right to blockade other
    people from obtaining medical attention?
        Ms. Waters. There is no reason to think there's a
    constitutional right to interfere with other people seeking
    medical attention. FACE is very clear on this point and very
    deliberate, and the legislative history is clear. This was very
    deliberate.
        What speech gets at, or what FACE gets at is conduct,
    right? It's violence. It's threats. It's intimidation. It's
    blockades. FACE expressly excludes pure speech that does not do
    those things. Right?
        What we're talking about here is I hear talk of these
    crimes were minor and these things were insignificant. When I
    look at the stats of what's actually happening on the ground,
    11 abortion providers have been murdered. Right? There have
    been 26 other attempted murders. There have been thousands of
    blockades. There have been hundreds of arsons. We are not
    talking about peaceful protests. We are talking about violence,
    and we are talking about a nationwide campaign of violence.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, Mr. Ferrara makes one good point, it
    seems to me; that if they are killing doctors who work at
    reproductive health clinics and other staff and we know that
    there have been many cases of that--they are already chargeable
    and punishable under State laws.
        There's a discrete injury here when people get together and
    blockade a clinic. You might not have State legislatures that
    are willing to enact laws to keep them, keep them open.
    Obviously, there is a Federal interest here, which is why eight
    Federal Circuit Courts have unanimously around the country
    upheld the FACE Act against attack.
        What happens, as in the case where Ms. Edl, again,
    sincerely goes out to protest, but is part of a protest that
    blockades people from getting healthcare? What is the effect on
    the people who are trying to get in?
        Ms. Waters. There are a couple of points there. The
    legislative history is replete with references to why a Federal
    remedy was needed.
        FACE does not stop States from acting, and FACE does not
    stop States or command that States do anything. What it says is
    this is bigger than any individual State. This is a coordinated
    nationwide campaign that deserves a remedy.
        Mr. Raskin. You are proud of them that they travel around.
        Ms. Waters. Absolutely.
        Mr. Raskin. Yes.
        Ms. Waters. I think that is important. Let's talk about
    what is actually happening on the ground, right.
        If you are a doctor going into a clinic and trying to do
    your job, and what you are facing are death threats. What you
    are facing are blockades.
        What you are facing is fear that people are going to show
    up at your home or at your children's school and engage in
    campaigns and intimidation, no one should have to go to work
    that way, and no medical professional should have to go to work
    that way. That is not good care. That is not going to help your
    health.
        Mr. Raskin. No patient should have to try to scale--
        Ms. Waters. No patient--
        Mr. Raskin. All those obstacles just to get attention. Let
    me ask you finely, this is the third time we have had a hearing
    on this, but there is no vote.
        It is because our colleagues know that the vast majority of
    the American people reject this idea and want to make sure that
    there is safety there. They keep throwing a bone to the prolife
    movement.
        I wonder if you agree with me that they are not willing to
    put this to the floor.
        Ms. Waters. I cannot speak to their intentions. What I can
    say is, there is a difference of opinion in this room about
    access to abortion care.
        What there should not be a difference of opinion about, and
    what there cannot be a difference of opinion about, is whether
    we should use violence to advance those aims. We can't.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I will now recognize
    the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder, for five minutes.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this important
    hearing on the FACE Act abuse uncovered in the DOJ's recent
    report.
        The report explains how the Biden-Harris DOJ unevenly
    enforced the FACE Act and coordinated with antilife advocacy
    groups to target prolife Americans.
        According to the report, just one month after the Supreme
    Court overturned Roe v. Wade, then Attorney General Merrick
    Garland, created a National Task Force that worked hand in
    glove with Planned Parenthood, the Feminist Majority
    Foundation, and the National Abortion Federation.
        These groups compiled dossiers, headshots, and travel
    information on prolife individuals that ultimately resulted in
    search warrants, surveillance, and prosecutions.
        In one instant, the National Abortion Federation prepared a
    law enforcement guide for an upcoming Christian prolife
    conference, complete with attendees' personal information.
    Planned Parent provided a similar dossier labeled opposition
    identified.
        After receiving this intelligence, the Biden-Harris DOJ
    even assisted these groups in securing private grant funding
    when the Task Force Director volunteered as a reference for
    NAF's application.
        The Biden-Harris Administration's conduct during
    prosecutions was probably most concerning in U.S. v. Houck. In
    it, the Justice Department authorized an aggressive early
    morning arrest rather than permitting a voluntary surrender.
        In U.S. v. Gallagher, the prosecutors withheld evidence
    from the defense, while sharing similar information with the
    National Abortion Federation.
        In United States v. Zastrow, internal emails show DOJ
    attorneys strategizing about screening out religious jurors,
    referring to prolife Christian activists as culty, and
    expressing frustration that a Catholic magistrate was on duty.
        The pattern continued through sentencing. Under the Biden-
    Harris DOJ, prosecutors sought an average of 26.8 months for
    prolife defendants, which is more than double the 12.3-month
    average sought for violent antilife offenders.
        One senior official in the administration even wrote that
    they should ``make sure that extremists know we still have this
    tool, the FACE Act, and we will use it.''
        Mr. Ferrara, all of this is clearly weaponization of the
    Federal Government. Do you believe any of the recently
    uncovered activities by the Biden-Harris DOJ are criminal?
        Mr. Ferrara. I would not go so far as to offer an opinion
    on whether criminal prosecution is warranted. I would have to
    be careful about that and evaluate the facts of the case.
        Mr. Onder. Yes.
        Mr. Ferrara. Let me take this opportunity to take exception
    to something my adversary in this issue said, Ms. Waters.
        Mr. Onder. Please do.
        Mr. Ferrara. Regarding the predicate in the Commerce Clause
    for the FACE Act.
        I don't believe there is an adequate predicate. The Lopez
    and Morrison cases really have eliminated any serious argument
    for a Commerce Clause predicate.
        In Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun Free School
    Zones Act, finding that only economic activity that has a
    substantial effect on interstate commerce can be regulated.
    Citizens don't have that effect.
        In the Morrison case, the Supreme Court said that there
    cannot be a regulation of economic activity based on its
    supposed aggregate effect on interstate commerce, and
    therefore, struck down a provision of the Violence Against
    Women Act.
        Sit-ins and even what they call blockades of clinics don't
    have a serious local effect.
        Mr. Onder. They are local effects, yes. Mr. Severino, how
    does the uneven application of the FACE Act on prolife versus
    pro-abortion groups undermine the Constitution and civil rights
    protections?
        Mr. Severino. It is an example of the weaponization. We
    believe in equal justice under the law, which means justice is
    blind, right?
        That is part of our American ethos. When you have this
    rampant uneven enforcement where 97 percent of cases under the
    FACE Act have been enforced against the prolife side, when in
    fact the FACE Act also covers pregnancy resource centers and
    houses of worship.
        I was in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as
    a career attorney under Obama for several years. There was not
    a single case of a FACE Act prosecution brought for the
    invasion of a church.
        Mr. Onder. Were there no attacks against churches or
    prolife pregnancy centers?
        Mr. Severino. There were. Yes, during the Prop. 8 debate,
    there was video of a storming of the Mormon Temple in Westwood.
    That was brought to the attention of DOJ civil rights.
        Mr. Onder. Prop. 8 in California.
        Mr. Severino. In California, yes.
        Mr. Onder. Yes, the marriage amendment.
        Mr. Severino. Correct.
        Mr. Onder. Yes. Again, the DOJ brought no prosecution in
    that case?
        Mr. Severino. They brought zero with respect to houses of
    worship, up until very recently, in fact. Under the Trump
    Administration, they finally did.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I will now
    recognize the gentlelady from Washington for five minutes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Trump Administration
    and Congressional Republicans have launched an all-out assault
    on women.
        They have advanced the SAVE Act to disenfranchise 69
    million married women whose birth certificates don't match
    their current last name. They have covered up the full Epstein
    files and refused to meet with Epstein survivors.
        They have made significant cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and
    health-
    care, making it harder for women to take care of their
    families. Nowhere is the assault on women more evident than in
    reproductive health.
        Donald Trump has cutoff abortion options in States that
    protect those rights. This Administration has withdrawn Federal
    guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortion care
    when life or health is at risk.
        It has frozen tens of millions of dollars in Title X
    funding for family planning. These unprecedented actions are
    not only unlawful, but they also put women's lives in danger.
        Now, Republicans want to repeal the FACE Act, a public
    safety law that protects healthcare providers and patients from
    physical intimidation, harassment, and violence.
        Now, I am one of the one-in-four women in this country that
    has had an abortion. I had to speak out publicly about it,
    frankly, when I came to Congress after not speaking about it
    for decades.
        When I saw the attacks on reproductive care around the
    country, I felt it was my responsibility to talk about it
    publicly. I don't begrudge anyone, including you, Ms. Edl, from
    making decisions about your own moral values, about the conduct
    that you would choose for yourself.
        I do not appreciate it when someone tries to block me from
    making choices about my body, about my family, and about my
    life. I certainly don't appreciate it when people try to block
    other people from getting healthcare.
        Professor Waters, at the core of this issue, is the basic
    principle that no one should fear violence in the workplace
    when seeking healthcare.
        Given the misinformation on the issue, could you just give
    us some details on what type of violent situations that
    abortion providers, patients, and volunteers face?
        Ms. Waters. If I may, I would like to quickly respond to
    the Commerce Clause point that my colleague raised. Then, I
    would love to get to your question.
        On the point of Lopez and Morrison, it is true that the
    Lopez and Morrison cases define what is covered by the bounds
    of the Commerce Clause.
        It is also true that most of the cases that we have cited
    that have said that the FACE Act is upheld are post-Lopez and
    some of them are post-Morrison. My colleague's point really
    doesn't hold.
        On the question of the type of violence, we were seeing on
    the ground, and this is the point, right, this is why we have
    FACE.
        If we are looking, we are talking about things like
    murders. We are talking about things like arson. We are talking
    about things like asset attacks, right?
        We are talking about, as we heard, women who are trying to
    get into clinics, because their fetuses are incompatible with
    life. They are having the worst days of their life, and they
    are blockaded from getting into a clinic and can't get in
    there.
        We are talking about harm. We are talking about threats. We
    are talking about violence. My colleagues keep raising
    hypotheti-cals about lobsters and fish, right?
        What we are talking about are real women. What we are
    talking about are real doctors who are going into work every
    day in fear of their life.
        Ms. Jayapal. Instead of addressing the violence, one of the
    first things that Donald Trump did when he took office was to
    pardon 23 anti-abortion extremists criminally convicted under
    the FACE Act. His Department of Justice released a memo
    directing prosecutors to cease enforcement of the FACE Act
    absent ``extraordinary ccircumstances.'' Based on your
    research, how did these actions impact women's access to
    reproductive care?
        Ms. Waters. Yes, it is ironic to me that we are here
    talking about some alleged weaponization, or some sort of
    selective prosecution. in fact, the Biden Administration was
    the first to actually bring cases to protect crisis pregnancy
    centers. Right?
        Ms. Jayapal. That is right.
        Ms. Waters. That was the administration that actually was
    applying this in a more even-handed way. When we are talking
    about what President Trump's directives and pardons will do, it
    declares open season, right?
        Ms. Jayapal. Yes.
        Ms. Waters. It says to abortion providers and patients, we
    are not going to be there to protect you.
        Ms. Jayapal. There is some confusion about all the services
    that people get blocked from when this happens at reproductive
    health clinics.
        Just a quick yes or no, whether it is easier or harder for
    women to get these services as a result of repealing the FACE
    Act. Is it easier for women to get STD testing and treatment?
        Ms. Waters. Harder.
        Ms. Jayapal. Cancer screenings?
        Ms. Waters. Harder. Ms. Jayapal Pregnancy testing?
        Ms. Waters. Harder.
        Ms. Jayapal. Birth control?
        Ms. Waters. Harder.
        Ms. Jayapal. Infertility services?
        Ms. Waters. Harder.
        Ms. Jayapal. Prenatal services?
        Ms. Waters. Harder.
        Ms. Jayapal. Postpartum services?
        Ms. Waters. Harder.
        Ms. Jayapal. Harder. All these things are harder. By the
    way, don't make choices about my body. Let me make those
    decisions for myself. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Washington. I will now
    recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan.
        Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ferrara, how many
    churches and crisis pregnancy centers were attacked in the
    aftermath of the Dobbs leak in the Dobbs decision, do you
    remember?
        Mr. Roy. Mr. Ferraro, can you please use your microphone?
        Mr. Ferrara. I don't have the exact number, but there were
    many. I am involved in one particular case, the firebombing of
    a prolife pregnancy center in Amherst, New York, causing
    $500,000 in damage and injuring two of the firemen.
        Chair Jordan. Well, I will tell you, there were hundreds. I
    will just give you a little sampling, you talked about the
    firebombing of that place.
        There was another place firebombed in Madison, Wisconsin on
    May 8, 2022. The next day, May 9th, three Catholic churches in
    Texas were attacked. Two days later in Michigan, activists
    vandalized the Family Life Services Pregnancy Center.
        I have actually it is like ten pages. We did a list of this
    back during the leak in the Dobbs opinion. I have ten pages
    just listing churches, crisis pregnancy centers that were
    attacked.
        Do you remember some of the groups that were attacking
    these churches and crisis pregnancy centers, Mr. Ferrara?
        Mr. Ferrara. Jane was here.
        Chair Jordan. Yes, Jane's Revenge, Ruth Sent Us. Do you
    happen to know if any of those organizations made the Southern
    Poverty Law Centers hate list?
        Mr. Ferrara. Of course not.
        Chair Jordan. No, they didn't, did they?
        Mr. Ferrara. No. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a
    credible organization. In fact, if you, as a conservative
    activist, are condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center,
    consider that a resume builder.
        Chair Jordan. They condemned Moms for Liberty. They
    condemned the Family Research Council. They condemned Alliance
    Defending Freedom.
        My guess, they may have gone after your group. I don't
    know. Any prolife group, it seemed like they were going to
    attack. Is that fair to say?
        Mr. Ferrara. Yes, it is. I would like to make a point about
    what Congresswoman Jayapal said, regarding public safety law.
    ``There is no Federal police power over the States.'' The idea
    that you would like to have a public safety law that caters to
    your particular interest in receiving reproductive health
    services, is contrary to the whole principle of federalism.
        That is the problem with FACE. That FACE purports to
    exercise generalized Federal police power in one area and one
    area only, and that being the activity of prolife activists.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. Mr. Severino, let me come to you. We
    know that the Biden Justice Department, the Biden FBI was
    actually paying confidential human sources to do all kinds of
    things.
        Well, we are trying to get some answers to that. I am just
    curious, do you think maybe some of the same folks, so, the
    Biden Justice Department was working with the Southern Poverty
    Law Center to train prosecutors, as if they were going to get
    some great wisdom from the SPLC, they were doing that.
        We know they were paying the confidential human sources. Do
    you think it is a fair question to say, I wonder if any of
    these ``informants of the SPLC, were also being paid by the
    Federal Government.''
        Do you think that is a fair question?
        Mr. Severino. Yes, absolutely.
        Chair Jordan. Why wouldn't they double dip? It is like if,
    oh, if the Southern Poverty Law Center is training the
    prosecutors, and I know the FBI is going to pay confidential
    human sources in the Southern Poverty Law Center, well, sugar,
    I can get money from both of them.
        Three million dollars from the SPLC and who knows what the
    Federal Government is going to pay out. They got a pretty big
    bank account too. That is a fair question that we would like to
    get the answer to.
        Mr. Severino. We should get to the bottom of it. What the
    DOJ report on the FACE Act showed was that in fact, DOJ was in
    cahoots with outside groups--
        Chair Jordan. Exactly.
        Mr. Severino. Similar to SPLC. The Left-wing groups, they
    get together and they pretty much create their own little
    branch offices within the DOJ whenever we have liberals in
    power.
        The SPLC has been talking to DOJ under Biden and certainly
    Obama, Planned Parenthood Federation, National Abortion
    Federation, all those folks, they pretty much open up their
    branch offices in DOJ when the Left is in power.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. You anticipated my next question,
    because that is exactly where I wanted to go. Do you think any
    of these informants actually were involved in the attacks on
    the churches and crisis pregnancy centers? I think that is a
    fair question as well.
        Mr. Severino. It is a possibility. That would be terrible
    if in fact, our own government was funding--
        Chair Jordan. Well, maybe what the SPLC calls informants,
    we might call instigators, based on what you saw in the
    indictment last week.
        Mr. Severino. Sure.
        Chair Jordan. I don't know that it is out of the realm of
    possibility if they are, we don't know, but I think it is a
    fair guess to say they might have been double dipping, getting
    paid by the government and the SPLC.
        Maybe they were instigating some of these over ten pages,
    100 different attacks on crisis pregnancy centers and churches
    in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision.
        Mr. Severino. Well, we know that a DOJ official actually
    endorsed a grant application for one of these abortion activist
    groups. Which is a clear ethical violation that the DOJ report
    said, ``it is very likely to be investigated for an ethics
    breach.''
        This sort of too cozy relationship, is something that is
    very common that we see in abortion and SPLC. Any of these hot
    button issues from the Left, you see this sort of collusion.
        Chair Jordan. Yes. Again, I want to thank our witnesses.
    Ms. Edl, I am sorry I didn't to you. I listened to your
    testimony, but I was in a meeting backstage.
        When you came on, I turned on the TV to hear what you had
    to say. God bless you. We appreciate your Christian witness and
    your words.
        With that, I yield back to the Chair.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Jordan. I
    now recognize the Ranking Member for some unanimous consent
    requests.
        Ms. Scanlon. Yes. I just seek unanimous consent for an
    April 14, 2026, article from Justice Security, ``Separating
    Fact From Fiction in FACE Act Enforcement.''
        Mr. Roy. Without objection. All right. I too, have a
    unanimous count request, an article from the Lozier Institute,
    saying that Planned Parenthood performed more abortions than
    pap tests, miscarriage care, preventative and primary care
    tests, prenatal services, HPV examinations, diagnostic
    procedures for cancer, combined. Without objection. I now
    recognize the gentleman from Tennessee.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are having this hearing
    because it is a political issue of great importance to both
    sides.
        On the Republican side, it can have an effect on different
    races that will be going on. I think we should have been having
    hearings on Executive Orders.
        Executive Orders that have gone way beyond the power that
    Congress should give to the President, and which I discussed
    with the Chair some time ago when we had a bill together on it.
        It is not gone and we have let the President overstep his
    bounds and take over Article I powers of the Congress. We have
    just given them up and that is a shame.
        That is a more important hearing than this. This does
    demonstrate the differences in the parties. Democrats are
    fighting to ensure that every American can access high quality
    healthcare practice, their faith freely, practice their faith
    freely, and rely on the rule of law.
        The Majority, however, seeks to hand individual healthcare
    decisions to a handful of radical activists, impose their
    preferred religious views on everyone else, and give cover to
    law breakers, even violent ones, when it benefits them
    politically.
        It was discussed earlier in a question to maybe Mr.
    Ferrara, about pardons that were given out by the President
    sometime after he pardoned everybody that participated in the
    insurrection of January 2025, I guess it was.
        He said that there were pardons given to these folks and
    thank God. We all have our different theories about God, Mr.
    Ferrara.
        I don't think God has anything to do with President Biden's
    pardons, particularly the ones that were paid, and bought, and
    given out to fraudsters and criminals that then committed
    crimes again. That is another issue.
        We should be hearing pardon exemptions. We need to reform
    the pardon power and give less power to the President to give
    pardons. It should be restricted, as we should be looking at
    emoluments as well.
        Back to healthcare. Every American should have meaningful
    access to high quality care. Too many barriers already exist.
    High prices, healthcare deserts, biases, which is why I support
    Medicare for all and have since I came to Congress. The last
    thing we need is self-appointed monitors preventing people from
    obtaining basic services.
        In December, 17 people were arrested for blocking access to
    the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Memphis, only a few blocks
    from my home. It is the only remaining Planned Parenthood
    clinic in Memphis. The other was closed because of the
    administration's deep Medicaid cuts.
        The protestors weren't stopping abortions. Abortion in
    Tennessee is a felony at all stages of pregnancy with no
    exceptions for rape or incest.
        The people entering the clinic were seeking routine
    preventative services like blood pressure checks, breast cancer
    screenings, and STI treatment. It functions like any other
    doctor's office, accepting insurance and serving patients whose
    reasons for visiting vary and are private.
        This wasn't about protecting life; it was about
    intimidation and imposing one groups' beliefs on everyone else.
    No one should be prevented from going to their doctor because
    of what one assumes they are there for.
        Here is the kicker, some of those arrested were antichoice
    activists whom President Trump had recently pardoned for
    earlier FACE Act violations. They don't stop.
        These, just like the January 6th people didn't stop. I
    think 30 of them have been arrested for everything from sex
    with a child, to rape, and to other heinous offenses.
        These individuals in Memphis had already been convicted of
    obstructing access to reproductive healthcare. The FACE Act
    plays a critical role in protecting the rights of patients and
    providers.
        This Administration and the MAGA movement want to dismantle
    it. Repealing the FACE Act would give political and legal cover
    to people who believe they can decide who should and should not
    receive healthcare.
        This is not about religion; it certainly is not about
    religious freedom. The FACE Act explicitly protects religious
    institutions.
        Repealing it would make them more vulnerable, not less.
    Even on the question of abortion, religion's perspectives vary
    widely. Christian denominations do not speak with one voice.
        Across Judaism, the prevailing view prioritizes the life
    and health of the mother. Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu teachings
    vary as well.
        Repealing the FACE Act will elevate one narrow set of
    beliefs at the expense of all others. That is the opposite of
    religious liberty.
        In the United States, everyone has a right to their
    religious beliefs, but not the right to impose those beliefs on
    others. That is why I am proud to work with Congressmen Scott,
    Raskin, and Scanlon on the Do Not Harm Act.
        Tomorrow, this Committee will hold a hearing on victim
    services. The Majority argues that advancing policy in that
    area would convey a strong message.
        Apply that language here. Advancing FACE Act repeal would
    send a clear message. Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans believe
    they should control who gets access to healthcare, and that
    those who physically block Americans from seeing a doctor will
    be encouraged, protected, and empowered.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I will now
    recognize the gentle lady from Wyoming for five minutes.
        Ms. Hageman. I find it very rich that any Democrat would
    attempt to lecture us about violence in light of the fact that
    it was yet another one of theirs who just three days ago sought
    to assassinate our President and his cabinet.
        Don't get me started on the Democrat's favorite KKK
    supporter, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Spare me your faux
    outrage about violence.
        According to the DOJ's report on the Biden Administration's
    weaponization of the FACE Act, ``in total, during the four-
    years under President Biden, the DOJ charged more than 45
    prolife defendants, in over 20 cases, with violating the FACE
    Act in connection with prolife demonstrations.''
        This is in stark contrast to largely ignoring attacks on
    prolife pregnancy resource centers, as Chair Jordan just
    pointed out, in which the DOJ, despite hundreds of cases and
    hundreds of attacks against prolife medical centers for women,
    the DOJ only charged a handful of them.
        Again, spare me your faux outrage. The report further
    reveals that the Biden DOJ prosecutors requested an average
    sentence of 26.8 months for prolife defendants, compared to
    12.3 months for prochoice defendants.
        Mr. Severino, how do these average sentencing amounts
    correlate to the applicable range in the sentencing guidelines?
        Mr. Severino. It varies depending on whether it is a first
    offense or not. It is a misdemeanor for a first offense, and
    some of these cases where you get felony levels, are second
    offenses.
        What we see in the DOJ report is that it was effectively
    double for the prolife charge parties, versus the very few on
    the other side. There were only five that were brought recently
    that attacked the pregnancy resource centers. The disparity was
    essentially double.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, then we also have the circumstance where
    they raided, I think it was Mr. Houck's home, in the middle of
    the night, drug him out the door in front of his family, simply
    because he was trying to protect his son from a violent pro-
    abortion demonstrator at a, I believe it was a Planned
    Parenthood facility.
        How do these, what they did under the Biden Administration,
    how does that compare to other Administrations in terms of the
    sentences that they sought as well as the number of
    prosecutions?
        Mr. Severino. Sure. In terms of the numbers, 97 percent of
    the cases were against prolifers. It was about 26.8 months for
    those convictions. About 12 months for the prochoice side.
        You see with the Houck case you mentioned, that is a gross
    abuse where you have armed FBA agents with long guns go into
    this man's house where they were in contact with their
    attorney.
        Normally, under normal circumstances, if they are willing
    to turn themselves in, which in this case they were, they
    turned themselves in. Instead, they made this entire spectacle
    and frightened their families out of their skin to make a
    statement.
        Ms. Hageman. I would argue a very violent spectacle of our
    Federal Government, carried out by our Federal Government. In
    fact, Mr. Houck just received, what was it, $1 million dollars?
    The settlement for the way that he was treated, I believe.
        Federal funds going to him because of the Biden's violation
    of his civil rights. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Severino. I don't know the dollar amount. This was a
    clear violation, because he was completely vindicated at trial.
        It took the jury three hours to say not guilty. He was
    defending his son from a bully and that was--
        Ms. Hageman. A violent bully.
        Mr. Severino. Right.
        Ms. Hageman. A violent prochoice bully.
        Mr. Severino. Yes. They got into, that is why my opening
    statement says, look, these sorts of things, you have a
    weaponized DOJ that says you have this dispute, and a father
    defends his child from a bully, and that becomes a Federal
    offense. Right?
        This is rampant abuse. Then, they have armed a year later,
    a year later, armed Federal agents raid his house in the
    morning. It is just absolute abuse.
        Ms. Hageman. Well, in the case of the United States v.
    Gallagher, when one of the defense counsels contacted the
    Assistant U.S. Attorney, requesting information on the number
    of FACE Act criminal prosecutions in the last 10 years, the
    Biden DOJ prosecutors refused to share it, despite the
    information being readily available.
        Sanjay Patel, the Director of the National Task Force on
    Violence Against Reproductive Healthcare Providers, and a very
    corrupt man, after receiving several requests stated, ``as the
    National Clinic Violence Coordinator, I do not keep the kind of
    records you requested, and as a result, I do not believe that
    we will provide them to you.''
        He was lying through his teeth. They did have those
    records. Sanjay Patel, he referred to the defense counsel to
    DOJ press releases. Then, it is also important to note, as what
    was done by a predecessor, that he actually agreed to be a
    reference on a National Abortion Federation third-party grant
    application.
        The point of this being, the report has demonstrated that
    the Biden Administration violated the Equal Protection Clause
    of the Constitution in the way that they have dealt with
    prolife and prochoice prosecutions under the FACE Act.
        The FACE Act either needs to be reformed or abolished,
    because it has been abused by Democrat Administrations. With
    that, I yield back.
        Mr. Severino. May I answer, Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Roy. Yes.
        Mr. Severino. Yes. When I was at DOJ, if you had a FACE Act
    case, you would actually enter it, there is a particular spot
    in your tracking of time. DOJ knew exactly how many FACE Act
    cases at all times they had opened.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the witness. Thank the gentlelady from
    Wyoming. I will now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee for
    a unanimous consent request.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. A unanimous consent request is
    an article written by Ms. Burton and Ms. Sanchez, and published
    in Ms. Magazine, about the arrest in Memphis that the anti-
    abortion training camp sparked. I would like to enter that for
    the record.
        Mr. Roy. Without objection.
        Mr. Cohen. I would also like to correct an error in my
    discussion. I think I said J6 was not, I didn't say 2021, which
    is of course, was the first term, not the second term.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman for the correction. I will
    now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont for her five minutes.
        Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a former history
    teacher, one of the things I always try to make sure that my
    students understand is the importance of context.
        I want to come back to thinking about how we got here, and
    let's consider the history of the anti-abortion violence in the
    United States.
        Since 1977, there have been 11 murders, 26 attempted
    murders, 42 bombings, 200 acts of arson, 100 acid attacks, four
    kidnappings, and over 600 assaults against patients and workers
    at reproductive health facilities.
        It has been nearly a five-decade long terrorist campaign.
    We are talking about militant extremists willing to use deadly
    violence to prevent women from seeking reproductive care and
    from having control over their own bodies.
        Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994, to protect doctors
    and nurses and patients from violent threats, assaults, and
    blockades. That is the history, and the context is important.
        Professor Waters, thank you so much for being here today.
    Can you describe the levels of violence against abortion
    providers and patients at that time, and the reasons why
    Congress had to come together to pass the FACE Act?
        Ms. Waters. I think you just covered many of the reasons
    very well. I will say on a personal note, one of the ways that
    I came to do this work, is I have a vivid memory of the late
    1990s, I was a college student, and I remember hearing that Dr.
    Slepian had been murdered.
        Ms. Balint. Yes.
        Ms. Waters. He was an abortion provider who had just come
    home from a memorial service for his father at his synagogue.
    He was in his kitchen making soup and he was shot through his
    window in front of his child and murdered.
        Ms. Balint. Right.
        Ms. Waters. That is what we are talking about.
        Ms. Balint. Right.
        Ms. Waters. That is the history.
        Ms. Balint. I am so glad you brought that up, because we
    are forgetting, as you said earlier, ``these are real people.''
        Ms. Waters. These are humans.
        Ms. Balint. These are human beings. Actually, I want to
    bring into this conversation also, something that a clinic
    worker said about the kind of environment she has to work in.
    She said,

              When I worked in Louisiana, someone threw a Molotov cocktail
            at the clinic. After that, the clinic couldn't have any windows
            anymore.

              There were literally no windows in the building whatsoever.
            You never knew what time of day it was at work, but it had to
            be like that, because people would just throw Molotov cocktails
            at the building.

    None of this is peaceful, or prayerful, or in the interest of
    not just public safety, but again, we are talking about
    patients trying to seek healthcare.
        Last year, as some of my colleagues have already said, I
    just want to remind everybody, President Trump pardoned 20 FACE
    Act violators. He pardoned people who got due process, and were
    found guilty in our courts of law, beyond a reasonable doubt by
    juries of their peers.
        He pardoned people who blocked off clinics while women who
    urgently needed care, were stuck bleeding and crying outside in
    their cars. Along with the pardons, Trump's Justice Department
    sent a clear message with their charging document.
        I want to read from it. It reads,

            Future abortion related FACE Act prosecutions and civil actions
            will be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances until
            further notice. No new abortion-related FACE Act actions,
            criminal or civil, will be permitted without authorization.

        What this sounds like to me, is a complicated way of
    saying, ``we are not protecting anyone for criminal attacks
    anymore.'' That is what we are talking about here. What kind of
    message does that send, Professor Waters, to violent protestors
    who are part of this movement?
        Ms. Waters. I think it sends several messages. I think it
    sends a message to providers that we will not enforce the
    Federal law, and we will not protect you, and you are on your
    own.
        It sends a message to violent protestors. I want to be very
    clear here we are not talking here about peaceful pickets,
    right?
        Ms. Balint. That is right.
        Ms. Waters. Or praying, right? Peaceful protests, even
    protests that we may disagree vehemently with. What we are
    talking about is sending the message to people who blockade
    clinics, who use violence, that you can get away with it.
        Ms. Balint. I agree. The last thing, I want to take issue
    with something that the Chair of the Full Committee said.
        He seemed to imply that women were not actually seeking
    full reproductive care from these clinics. As one of those
    millions of women before the Affordable Care Act was passed,
    and when I didn't have insurance, I got my reproductive care,
    my full reproductive care from a Planned Parenthood facility.
        The 2.2 million visits for birth control, 5.5 million
    visits for STI testing and treatment, nearly 400,000 visits for
    cancer screening, and no patient should have to walk through
    this kind of gauntlet to get care.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. I will
    now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gill, for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for hosting this
    hearing. I certainly appreciate your leadership, especially on
    this topic.
        Ms. Waters, thanks for being here. I really appreciate it.
    Do you believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare?
        Ms. Waters. I believe the abortion decision should be left
    to a patient, their doctor, their family, and their God.
        Mr. Gill. Do you believe it should be safe, legal, and
    rare?
        Ms. Waters. I believe it should be safe, legal, and rare,
    yes.
        Mr. Gill. OK. Why should it be rare?
        Ms. Waters. Because if we are engaging in public health
    activities appropriately, we are able to prevent pregnancies
    when people want to prevent pregnancies. I think a
    conversation--
        Mr. Gill. What is wrong with an abortion then?
        Ms. Waters. May I finish my sentence?
        Mr. Gill. Sure.
        Ms. Waters. If we are actually talking about reproductive
    health, and caring about maternal health, we should be talking
    about, do people have adequate access to preventative care?
    Right?
        Do they have adequate access to contraception? Are they
    able--
        Mr. Gill. Do you support any limits on abortion? Ms. Waters
    I am sorry, I didn't hear your question.
        Mr. Gill. Do you support any limits on abortion?
        Ms. Waters. This is a place where I suspect you and I will
    fundamentally disagree. What I believe, is that the abortion
    decision should fundamentally, because it is medical care--
        Mr. Gill. Do you support any limits at all? It is just yes
    or no.
        Ms. Waters. If you would let me finish my answer.
        Mr. Gill. It is just yes or no, do you think that there
    should be any limits on abortion?
        Ms. Waters. I came here with the goal of providing truthful
    and accurate testimony. To truthfully and accurately answer
    your question, what I would say is, I fundamentally believe
    that the question of abortion should be left to a patient and
    their doctor and their family. I don't want to interfere in
    medical decisions.
        Mr. Gill. OK. I will take that as a no. Is that a good
    summary of your testimony?
        Ms. Waters. I answered your question.
        Mr. Gill. OK. I think that this is a no then. You are an
    advocate for abortion, for abortion policy. What is your
    favorite type of abortion?
        Ms. Waters. I am an advocate for patients having access to
    the full realm of reproductive healthcare.
        Mr. Gill. Do you have a preferred method of abortion that
    you like?
        Ms. Waters. I do not.
        Mr. Gill. Let me read through a couple different methods,
    and I want to get your take on how much you like these.
        The first type is called a suction abortion. This is when
    the cervix is dilated, and a strong suction, 29 times the power
    of a household vacuum cleaner, tears the baby's body apart and
    sucks it through the hose into a container. Do you prefer that
    method?
        Ms. Waters. I stand by my former testimony.
        Mr. Gill. That sounds kind of gross, doesn't it? It sounds
    pretty gruesome. Do you agree? It does to me.
        Ms. Waters. I stand by how I answered your question fully
    and accurately.
        Mr. Gill. OK. What about this one, this one is called
    dilation and curettage. After dilation of the cervix, a sharp
    looped knife is inserted into the uterus. The baby's body is
    cut into pieces and extracted often by suction. Do you prefer
    that method?
        Ms. Waters. What I believe we are here to talk about today
    is the FACE Act. We are not here to talk about the--
        Mr. Gill. No, I am asking you, you are a pro-abortion
    advocate, I am asking if you prefer the dilation and curettage
    method?
        Ms. Waters. I am an access to reproductive healthcare
    advocate.
        Mr. Gill. You don't want to talk about abortion itself. Why
    is that?
        Ms. Waters. I would prefer to talk about the reason that
    the Committee called the hearing.
        Mr. Gill. Is it because it is uncomfortable to talk about?
        Ms. Waters. I would prefer to--
        Mr. Gill. It should be uncomfortable.
        Ms. Waters. I would prefer, if you would let me finish my
    statement, to talk about the Freedom of Access to Clinic
    Entrances Act, which is what I was asked to come here to talk
    about.
        Mr. Gill. We are talking about what that access--yes, how
    about this one? It is called dilation and evacuation. Forceps
    are inserted into the uterus, grabbing and twisting the baby's
    body to dismember him or her. If the head is too large, it must
    be crushed to remove it. Do you prefer that method?
        Ms. Waters. I would prefer to talk about the reason the
    hearing was called and the basis of my expert testimony.
        Mr. Gill. It is uncomfortable to hear this, isn't it? It
    is. It is, because it is barbaric and evil. How about this one,
    it is called the saline injection. It is when a 20 percent salt
    solution is injected through the mother's abdomen into the
    baby's amniotic fluid. The baby's skin is burned off. The baby
    ingests the solution and dies of salt poisoning, dehydration,
    and hemorrhaging of the brain. Do you prefer that method?
        Ms. Waters. I would prefer to talk about the subject of
    hearing.
        Mr. Gill. This is the subject of the hearing. This is about
    protests outside of abortion clinics. I am asking you about
    abortion.
        Ms. Waters. I stand by my prior testimony.
        Mr. Gill. OK. I wouldn't want to talk about this either if
    I were you, because it is barbaric and evil.
        With that, I yield the remaining time to the Chair. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I will only note
    in the remaining 10 seconds, is that a good deal of the efforts
    by my Democratic colleagues to talk about this issue, has moved
    to the core question of abortion and what is carried on, and
    the activities that are carried out at Planned Parenthood and
    other facilities.
        That question by the gentleman from Texas is in line. I
    will now recognize the gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reality is,
    this hearing is not really about the FACE Act, because that was
    a bipartisan bill passed over 30 years ago that still has
    standing.
        It is a bill that is about protecting worshipers when they
    go to pray, and patients when they are trying to access
    healthcare.
        This is about how laws are enforced and interpreted, and
    how this Administration is cherry-picking and using selective
    prosecution of cases to support their desired claims and
    agenda.
        The claims and the agenda are, to take away rights and to
    silence groups with whom they dislike or disagree. Last month,
    the DOJ released a highly flawed 900-page partisan report,
    purporting to examine prosecutorial decisionmaking under the
    FACE Act, and alleging bias and Federal law enforcement during
    the Biden Administration.
        However, many cases brought between 2020-2024, involved
    serious crimes such as firebombing, arson, bomb threats, and
    coordinated clinic blockades. All which resulted in indictments
    by Federal grand juries and guilty verdicts at trial.
        We are talking about violent and unlawful acts. Professor
    Waters, even though I have answered my own question, but I will
    ask you the question as well. Do those sound like peaceful
    protests to you?
        Ms. Waters. They do not sound like peaceful protests to me.
    When we are talking about the incidents of obstruction and
    violence at clinics, it is important to look at all the cases
    that were not prosecuted, right?
        For example, when I look at the National Abortion
    Federation statistics, and I look at like, for example, the
    number of pickets and protests outside of clinics, there were
    tens of thousands, right?
        What we are talking about under the Biden Administration,
    is 25 prosecutions, not for that activity. The prosecutions are
    for blockades. The prosecutions are for threats. The
    prosecutions are for violence, not protected speech.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I would say that this
    Administration came into power with a real agenda against
    women.
        They have weaponized the DOJ to carry their agenda out,
    because what they didn't include in this 900-page report were a
    number of stories, like the woman who tried for years and years
    and years to get pregnant, and I know what that feels like, and
    miscarried.
        Went to a clinic to help her medically manage the
    miscarriage. She was blocked from seeing her doctor. She was in
    her car sobbing and bleeding out.
        The technical term when you have a miscarriage, and I know
    about this personally, is the doctor will call it an abortion.
    It is violent for anyone, especially a man, to suggest that
    they know more about my body and how I am trying to protect
    myself, in the hopes that I can get pregnant again, based on
    their assumption of me and the kind of healthcare that I
    deserve.
        We should also remind folks and include the incident that
    happened last year in a clinic in California, where the clinic
    was set on fire. Last month a clinic in Ohio was set on fire.
        These are about patients, doctors, and workers going to get
    some healthcare. Let me tell you something, when you go to a
    clinic, you are not wearing a sign that says, hey, I am getting
    an abortion. You could go to a clinic to get a pap smear, to
    get IVF, and a vasectomy.
        In the few seconds that I have remaining, I would be remiss
    if I didn't draw the Subcommittee's attention to the murders on
    the streets of Minneapolis by ICE, and the use of the FACE Act
    to charge two journalists, two black journalists, Ms. Fort and
    Mr. Lemon.
        These folks were documenting protest activities that the
    church, was happening at a church because its pastor was a key
    official in the ICE response to Minneapolis.
        I know my time is running up, but I just want to say that
    this Chair himself has said in other contexts, that free
    Americans should never live in fear of their government
    targeting them.
        Yet, that is exactly what happened to these two journalists
    and others. They were inappropriately charged under the FACE
    Act. Meanwhile, a MAGA influencer, Ms. Gomez, who also
    interrupted an LGBTQ friendly worship service, was neither
    charged nor arrested.
        I have receipts when I am saying that we are cherry-picking
    and using selective prosecution to go after folks that we want
    to sideline.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I do also have some--
        Mr. Roy. Consent requests?
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes. A testimony of Renee Chelian,
    founder and CEO of Northland Family Planning. Her testimony
    before the House Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent.
        An article in Politico, ``Trump pardons abortion clinic
    protestors ahead of March for Life.'' This was January 23,
    2025.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. FBI investigating fertility clinic
    bomb suspects, possible antinationalist manifesto. From May 18,
    2025.
        CDC archive, ``More men using family planning services.''
    This is June 16, 2016.
        Last, our letter to the Chair and the Ranking Member,
    Amnesty International USA submits this letter to the House
    Subcommittee on the Constitution for their upcoming hearing
    from tool to weapon, the FACE Act--
        Mr. Roy. Without objection. I will now recognize the
    gentleman from Wisconsin for five minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having
    this hearing. A very timely and always very interesting, kind
    of an appropriate hearing to have in Wisconsin today.
        I know in the last year, for the first time in many years,
    we opened a third abortion clinic in the city of Milwaukee.
        It is something that I hadn't seen before in Wisconsin. It
    is something you hear about in other parts of the country.
        The clinic was in a neighborhood clearly designed to deal
    almost exclusively with customers or patients of color. I
    thought that was kind of illuminating, because that gets to the
    underlying goal of so many people in the pro-abortion movement.
        In any event, we will start off with Mr. Severino. Thank
    you for being here today. In light of your experience as a
    trial attorney at Justice's Civil Rights division, how did the
    Biden-Harris Administration's approach to prosecuting alleged
    violators of the FACE Act comport with the standard practices
    in this division?
        Mr. Severino. It was all one-sided. I saw that directly in
    the Obama administration.
        Mr. Grothman. Oh, I am sorry, always what?
        Mr. Severino. One-sided.
        Mr. Grothman. Oh, OK.
        Mr. Severino. The prosecutions were against the prolife
    side. It was mentioned earlier by one of the Members on the
    other side that now it is being enforced for churches.
        Well, now it is the first time it is being enforced to
    protect churches, because neither the Biden Administration nor
    the Obama Administration lifted a finger when we had hundreds
    of violations, including burnings and vandalizing of churches,
    especially after the Dobbs decision.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. How does this uneven application of the
    FACE Act on prolife or pro-abortion groups undermine the
    Constitution, in your opinion, and the civil rights protections
    for all Americans?
        Mr. Severino. Sure. It is the notion of equal justice under
    the law, right? People should not get favor from the
    government.
        The political identity of a party should not matter. What
    we saw with, especially the DOJ report that just came out, was
    that you had Left-wing activists, pro-abortion groups, who were
    surveilling American citizens and doing things that the Federal
    Government could not do themselves.
        They were outsourcing, DOJ was essentially outsourcing
    their investigatory functions to activist groups. Those
    activist groups, they don't care about the Constitution, right?
        They are not Federal agents, so they could do whatever they
    want to track people, get their licenses, see where they live,
    and track their religious exercise. Then, they packaged that
    and handed it over to DOJ, right?
        They did the dirty work on the front end, then DOJ on the
    back end, picked it up. By the way, the abortion clinics
    themselves weren't the ones complaining.
        These were the activist umbrella groups that were combining
    dossiers on people and giving them to DOJ to prosecute.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. Can you speak of your experience in the
    civil rights division on how the Federal Government can play a
    more responsible role in preventing the overfederalization of
    criminal law?
        Mr. Severino. Yes. The overfederalization is a horrific
    problem, if we do not know what crimes we may be committing in
    our everyday lives.
        The examples I said earlier, why could it be a crime for
    taking a nest off your roof? Well, there is a Migratory Bird
    Treaty Act that covers 1,100 bird species, and if you mess with
    their nests, you are committing a Federal crime.
        The DOJ has to go through every statute, finely count
    everyone, tell the American people, these are our crimes that
    you could be liable for. Then, Congress needs to repeal every
    one that doesn't have a constitutional basis.
        The FACE Act is one of those that does not have a
    sufficient constitutional basis. It is emblematic of the
    overcriminalization that you are talking about.
        Mr. Grothman. OK. A recent Justice Department report issued
    by the Trump Administration stated that Biden-Harris
    prosecutors withheld evidence that defense counsel requested to
    prepare an affirmative defense.
        In U.S. v. Gallagher, prosecutors had information readily
    available that they did not share with the defendants, while
    sharing substantially identical information with the National
    Abortion Fund.
        Mr. Ferrara, were there times you requested information
    that the Biden-Harris DOJ prosecutors refused to provide?
        Mr. Ferrara. I have operated on the civil side, not the
    criminal side, so I can't really respond to that question.
        I would note one thing; there have been a lot of references
    to acts of violence. Let's talk about what happens in those
    cases.
        The killer of Dr. Gunn got life in prison. The killer of
    Dr. Britton and his escort, death. The killer of Dr. Slepian,
    life plus ten. The killer of Dr. Tiller, 25 years to life.
        The criminal justice system under State law addresses acts
    of violence. There was no need for FACE in any of those cases.
        Which is the problem with FACE is that it usurps the role
    that is properly assigned to local law under State and local
    judicial systems, including the severest possible penalties for
    people who commit violence. We don't need this statute and
    never had needed it.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
        Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his
    questions. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon, for
    five minutes.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Given some of the prior questions
    that we have heard, that it is important to note the importance
    of Planned Parenthood and other reproductive healthcare
    providers across our country.
        Two of my colleagues have already mentioned that they have
    sought services from Planned Parenthood at various times, as
    did I.
        When my husband and I were starting our family, we lived
    three blocks from a Planned Parenthood clinic. Went there
    frequently to get information, to consult books, and to buy
    books on having a baby.
        The attacks on Planned Parenthood are really, really
    important to note, because as funding is attacked and
    everything else, that it is often the only source of
    reproductive healthcare in so many of our neighborhoods.
        At any rate, we have heard a lot of really gross
    misstatements of facts, et cetera. I would refer people back to
    Ms. Waters' testimony and the articles I have submitted with
    respect to the complete misrepresentations in the recent DOJ
    report.
        I wanted to focus on a couple things here, Ms. Waters. One
    is we have heard a lot about disparities in prosecution and
    sentencing.
        I will give you two questions, and you can address as you
    will, which are not supported by the evidence. Then, also, I
    don't think there has been enough discussion of the fact that
    this is a national campaign of violence by anti-abortion
    activists.
        I mentioned earlier that six people were arrested in my
    district in July 2025, for trespassing at a clinic and
    harassing patients and staff. These six people were not local
    protestors.
        They came from New Jersey, Wisconsin, Texas, Michigan,
    Minnesota, and Ohio. Two had been pardoned by Trump for prior
    offenses in other States, FACE Act violations.
        At least one was arrested in D.C. just days after
    submitting a plea bargain with respect to the incident in my
    district. She was in D.C. to join other anti-abortion activists
    to plan their next national activities.
        If you can comment on the fact, comment on both the alleged
    disparity in prosecution and sentencing, and why, again, a
    national FACE Act is important?
        Ms. Waters. I will start with the second. The need for the
    National FACE Act was well documented in the legislative record
    at the time, right?
        What we saw, was local and State law enforcement saying, we
    can't handle this, right? Hundreds of people show up, and if my
    force goes to that clinic, we are not doing anything else in
    the State, right?
        We saw it as State law enforcement saying, this is very
    needed. We also saw ample evidence that a lot of this violence
    was cross State, right?
        State's jurisdiction ends where its borders end, right?
    They were having a hard time being able to prosecute this
    multistate violence going across State lines.
        That hasn't changed today. As I said in my testimony, we
    are in a time that, thanks to Dobbs, the State laws differ
    dramatically, and people are traveling at increased rates
    across State lines to both provide and obtain reproductive
    healthcare.
        The interstate commerce and the multistate aspect here is
    even more severe than it was at the time that FACE was enacted.
        On the question of the disparities, I read the DOJ report
    with interest. I am an academic, right? I looked at it and I
    have a lot of questions. My first reaction was, this would not
    pass peer review, right?
        I have a lot of questions about, for example, if we look at
    sentencing disparities, like yes, they are different. Because
    people committed crimes more than once.
        FACE specifically provides that each time you commit a
    crime, the penalties go up, right? People committed different
    crimes.
        We would be remiss not to look at the fact that there are
    at least four District courts that have, in the past two years,
    looked at this question of was DOJ engaging in selective
    prosecution.
        They have squarely been asked that question, including in
    the Gallagher case, which we have discussed quite a bit. Each
    time the court has said no, right?
        Some of the courts have said, look, like, if there is not a
    disparity, if where we are seeing the violence is against
    clinics that provide reproductive healthcare, that is not a
    disparity.
        The courts have also said there is no malfeasance if law
    enforcement offices have priorities. People do that. The courts
    have said post Dobbs, it makes some sense, given that we saw
    the increase in violence of clinics, that we would see
    prosecutions against people engaging in that violence.
        Four District courts have looked at this, and a circuit
    court actually, and have said there is not biased prosecution
    here.
        Ms. Scanlon. It is fair to say that if you look apples to
    apples, instead of apples to oranges, any disparities can be
    explained.
        Ms. Waters. Yes. I think they--I have questions, like I
    said, right?
        Ms. Scanlon. Sure.
        Ms. Waters. When I look at the report, I am not in the
    particulars of every individual case.
        Ms. Scanlon. Right.
        Ms. Waters. Those are the types of questions I would ask.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you for your thoughtful testimony. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Roy. Ms. Edl, you are a survivor, and I remind you to
    turn your microphone on. You are a survivor of a communist
    concentration camp in former Yugoslavia post-World War II. Is
    that correct?
        Ms. Edl. Correct.
        Mr. Roy. You testified that you have, in significant part,
    dedicated your life to the cause of defending the innocent
    unborn since the Roe decision in the subsequent 50 years.
        Ms. Edl. Correct.
        Mr. Roy. When you were arrested and then convicted for your
    actions in Michigan, did you assault anyone?
        Ms. Edl. No.
        Mr. Roy. You were present in a protest at this clinic, and
    you were obstructing people's access?
        Ms. Edl. Well, I stood in front of the door, yes.
        Mr. Roy. Now, you were convicted and you faced a sentence
    of up to 13 years. Is that correct?
        Ms. Edl. That is correct.
        Mr. Roy. You are, at the current time, 91?
        Ms. Edl. I will be 91 on Sunday.
        Mr. Roy. Well, happy birthday in advance.
        Ms. Edl. Thank you.
        Mr. Roy. At the time you were arrested, you were 89?
        Ms. Edl. Yes.
        Mr. Roy. Do you think that the use of the FACE Act, and
    then conspiracy charge under the KKK statute, do you think that
    is an appropriate sentence for someone, or the potential
    sentence, because you were not sentenced yet, but up to 13
    years, for being present and expressing your views that
    abortion is in fact murder?
        Along the lines of my friend from Texas' description of the
    horrific and barbaric practices of abortion, do you think that
    an individual should be charged federally with up to 13 years
    in prison at the age of 89, or at all, for carrying out that
    activity?
        Ms. Edl. At any age, murder is taking place in those.
    Nobody seems to mention that. Murder is taking place inside
    those clinics. I am sorry, I--
        Mr. Roy. No, go ahead.
        Ms. Edl. It is no different than in Nazi Germany or
    Yugoslavia, where I was. People would have probably, at that
    time, protected the law to kill us.
        Now, those that would have tried to save us would be called
    heroes. Why? Because we finally recognized that even I, as a
    child, was a human being then.
        These babies are human beings from a moment of conception
    on. Either in the process of growth or in the process of
    decline.
        Like I said, we are headed toward killing the elderly.
    First, they will be identified, they will be vilified, they
    will be dehumanized and then destroyed.
        I am trying to do what God calls us to do, protect human
    life. Not with violence, just placing my body in between the
    victim and the perpetrator.
        Mr. Roy. Ms. Edl, you witnessed, with respect to World War
    II and post-World War II, in Yugoslavia and generally,
    individuals who were being carried off to be murdered and
    executed, correct?
        Ms. Edl. Yes. I heard about it through my father when they
    took the Jewish families from our town. He was livid.
        Mr. Roy. You experienced the concentration camp yourself?
        Ms. Edl. Yes, I did.
        Mr. Roy. You equate, appropriately in my view, you equate
    the murder of the innocent unborn, with the murder of those
    people murdered at the hands of government authority, every bit
    the same.
        Ms. Edl. Exactly. Yes.
        Mr. Roy. Because of that belief, without assaulting anyone,
    the Federal Government was using the full power of its force to
    prosecute you, and to put you in jail for up to 13 years, using
    the full power of the Federal Government to do so. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Edl. That is correct.
        Mr. Roy. Well, I want to thank you for your life, your life
    story, your dedication to life, and for fearlessly standing
    against the power of government being used against your God-
    given ability to try to stand up in defense of the innocent.
        In the false name of healthcare, in the false name of
    healthcare, the murder of the unborn. God bless you for
    standing up for that.
        God bless you for your courage. God will bless you when he
    welcomes you home someday long in the future. I appreciate it
    very much.
        Ms. Edl. Thank you.
        Mr. Roy. I appreciate all the witnesses. I appreciate your
    testimony. I will recognize the gentlelady for a consent
    request.
        Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record, a press release from the DOJ dated August 20,
    2024, entitled, ``Seven defendants, including Ms. Edl,
    convicted of Federal civil rights conspiracy and freedom of
    access to clinical entrances.''
        I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, the
    following statements all dated April 28, 2026, from
    Reproductive Freedom for All, the American College of
    Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Abortion
    Federation, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
        I also have a unanimous consent request to enter into the
    record, a statement from David Gunn Jr. and Wendy Gunn, whose
    father, Dr. David Gunn, was murdered by an anti-abortion
    extremist and whose murder helped propel passage of the FACE
    Act.
        I would also enter into the record, pages 557 and 558 of
    Project 2025, detailing the push to repeal the FACE Act.
        Mr. Roy. Without objection. I would like unanimous consent
    to enter into the record, I will only ask for the Executive
    Summary portion of the Department of Justice Report, given the
    length of the full report being 800 pages.
        The Executive Summary of the Department of Justice Report
    outlining the extent to which there was deep coordination
    between the Department of Justice and abortion activists, and
    the collusion between the two, as well as lack of reporting to
    Congress.
        Mr. Roy. I appreciate that. Anything else from the
    gentlelady?
        That concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for
    appearing before the Subcommittee today. Without objection, all
    Members will have five legislative days to submit additional
    written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for
    the record.
        Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 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=119234.

                                     [all]