Abortion Clinics: Information on the Effectiveness of the Freedom of
Access to Clinic Entrances Act (Letter Report, 11/10/98, GAO/GGD-99-2).

In response to escalating violence against abortion clinics, Congress
passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which made
it a federal offense to engage in violent or obstructive conduct
intended to interfere with people seeking or providing reproductive
health services.  A GAO survey found that most clinics experienced fewer
types of incidents during the two years preceding the survey (April 1996
through March 1998) than they had in the two years before the act's
passage (June 1992 through May 1994).  Most clinics indicated that
picketing continued but involved fewer and more peaceful protesters.
Most of those GAO contacted believed that the act had deterred or
reduced abortion clinic incidents.  Most police departments responding
to the survey told GAO that following the act's enactment they had taken
steps to better prepare officers and clinics for potential incidents.
Representatives of 31 of the 36 U.S. Attorney offices GAO surveyed
reported that their districts had established abortion violence task
forces, and 29 reported such accomplishments as improved coordination
and communication. Most clinics were satisfied with both local and
federal law enforcement. GAO identified 46 criminal and civil cases
related to the act that were either completed or pending as of September
1998.  Many of these cases raised constitutional challenges to the act,
including freedom of speech and religious protection issues, which were
all unsuccessful.  Convictions were obtained in most of the reported
criminal prosecutions under the act, and civil remedies were obtained in
most of the civil lawsuits.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-99-2
     TITLE:  Abortion Clinics: Information on the Effectiveness of the
	     Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
      DATE:  11/10/98
   SUBJECT:  Abortions
	     Police
	     Investigations by federal agencies
	     Constitutional rights
	     Surveys
	     Health centers
	     Law enforcement
	     Womens rights
	     Litigation
	     Convictions

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
ABORTION CLINICS: Information on the Effectiveness of the Freedom
of Access to Clinic Entrances Act GAO/GGD-99-2 United States
General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on

the Judiciary, House of Representatives

November 1998 ABORTION CLINICS Information on the Effectiveness of
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

GAO/GGD-99-2

  GAO/GGD-99-2

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 General Government Division

B-278842 November 10, 1998 The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Crime Committee on the
Judiciary House of Representatives

The 1980s and early 1990s brought escalating levels of violence to
abortion clinics across the country. In response, Congress passed
the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE), 1
which made it a federal offense to engage in violent or
obstructive conduct intended to interfere with people seeking or
providing reproductive health services. Abortion clinic violence
remains an issue of national concern.

In response to your request, this report provides information on
(1) the occurrence of abortion clinic incidents 2 before and after
FACE, as reported to us by representatives of clinics that
abortion rights groups identified as having experienced relatively
high levels of incidents before the enactment of FACE; 3 (2) views
regarding FACE and its effectiveness from representatives of these
clinics, selected police departments and U. S. Attorney offices,
and other representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ),
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), national
abortion rights organizations, and national anti- abortion
organizations; (3) efforts by local and federal law enforcement
agencies following the enactment of FACE, and satisfaction with
these agencies; and (4) any court cases pertaining to FACE and the
courts' rulings in those cases.

To provide this information, we surveyed representatives of 42
clinics that had experienced relatively high levels of incidents
before FACE according to data collected by abortion rights groups,
a sample of 15 police departments that serve the areas where those
clinics are located, and 36 U. S. Attorney offices whose districts
include those clinics. We based our sampling plan on clinics that
reportedly experienced relatively high levels of violence before
FACE; therefore, the views we obtained are illustrative, rather
than representative of all groups in the country. Our survey
results

1 P. L. 103- 259, codified at 18 U. S. C. 248. 2 These incidents
include picketing, hate mail, harassing calls, blockades,
invasions, vandalism, burglary, arson, attempted arson, bombings,
attempted bombings, bomb threats, assault, stalking, and death
threats. Not all these incidents are necessarily violations of
FACE.

3 Throughout this report, we use the term abortion clinics or
clinics to refer to facilities that perform abortions. Although
FACE also applies to hospitals, physicians' offices, as well as
other family planning and reproductive health service facilities,
our study focused on abortion clinics because they reportedly
accounted for the majority of incidents.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 1

B-278842

are not generalizable to all clinics, police departments, and U.
S. Attorney offices. In doing our work we also interviewed other
officials from DOJ and ATF and representatives of national
abortion rights and anti- abortion organizations. We identified
lawsuits that pertained to FACE by reviewing legal databases and
DOJ information.

Results in Brief Our analysis of clinic survey responses indicated
that most of the clinics experienced fewer types of incidents
during the 2 years preceding our

survey (April 1996 through March 1998) than they had in the 2
years prior to the passage of FACE (June 1992 through May 1994).
The types of incidents that declined included blockades,
vandalism, invasions, bomb threats, death threats, assaults, and
stalking. Most of the clinic respondents said that picketing
continued to occur but involved fewer and more peaceful
protesters.

Most of those we contacted believed that FACE had an effect on
clinic incidents. Respondents from 35 of the 42 clinics we
surveyed credited FACE with deterring or reducing abortion clinic
incidents. Respondents from 21 of the 36 U. S. Attorney offices we
surveyed thought that FACE had positively affected incidents,
including deterring or reducing their occurrence. Most of the
other officials whom we interviewed from DOJ and national abortion
rights organizations also felt that FACE has been a deterrent to
clinic violence, particularly blockades. Representatives of the
police departments that we contacted were less consistent in their
views. The representative of one anti- abortion organization
expressed the view that FACE caused more extreme violence because
it has driven peaceful protesters away. In addition to FACE,
factors such as prosecution and penalties under other federal laws
and local injunctions were cited as helping to reduce clinic
incidents.

Most police department respondents told us their departments had
taken steps to better prepare officers and clinics for potential
incidents following the enactment of FACE. Representatives of 9 of
the 15 police departments we contacted said their officers had
received training pertaining to abortion clinics, and 12 said
their departments had conducted outreach and education with
clinics since FACE became law. About half reported engaging in
prevention activities, such as assigning officers to clinic
entrances during all hours of operation and increasing patrols at
high- risk times.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 2

B-278842

Representatives of 31 of the 36 U. S. Attorney offices we surveyed
reported that their districts had established abortion violence
task forces, and 29 reported accomplishments that included
improved coordination and communication. Nearly all the U. S.
Attorney respondents whose districts had task forces reported that
meetings were typically attended by representatives of federal and
local law enforcement agencies.

Most clinic respondents were satisfied with both local and federal
law enforcement. Thirty- three of the 42 clinic respondents were
generally satisfied with the protection provided by local law
enforcement, and 32 were generally satisfied with their
relationship with local law enforcement. Clinic respondents who
observed negative aspects of local law enforcement most often
cited poor response to incidents and poor enforcement of laws.
Thirty of the 42 clinic respondents were generally satisfied with
federal law enforcement, often citing good communication,
proactive steps, and good response to and investigation of
incidents.

We identified 46 criminal and civil cases pertaining to FACE that
were either completed or pending as of September 11, 1998. Many of
these cases raised constitutional challenges to FACE. These
challenges, which included charges that FACE violates the freedom
of speech and religious protection in the First Amendment, were
all ultimately unsuccessful. Convictions were obtained in most of
the reported 5 criminal FACE prosecutions, and civil remedies were
obtained in most of the civil lawsuits in which a FACE violation
was alleged.

Background FACE was enacted on May 26, 1994. The act gave the
federal government a new tool for investigating and prosecuting
abortion- related violence and

disruptions. It established federal criminal penalties and civil
remedies for certain violent, threatening, obstructive and
destructive conduct that is intended to injure, intimidate or
interfere with persons seeking to obtain or provide reproductive
health services. FACE also prohibited the damage or destruction of
property that belongs to a reproductive health care facility.
Appendix I contains the text of FACE in its entirety.

FACE not only sought to protect the rights of those seeking or
providing abortion services, it also sought to protect the rights
of anti- abortion protestors in expressing their views. The act
states that it must not be construed to prohibit any expressive
conduct, including peaceful picketing

5 Reported decisions are those that have been published and a
decision has been rendered on at least part of the case.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 3

B-278842

or other peaceful demonstration, protected by the First Amendment.
Thus, circumstances dictate whether such actions as picketing
violate the law. For example, peaceful, nonobstructive picketing
on public property would not violate FACE; obstructive or
threatening picketing on clinic property could be found to violate
the act.

Criminal and civil FACE cases can be initiated in different ways
and result in different penalties. Criminal FACE prosecutions may
be brought only by the Attorney General of the United States, and
only if an alleged FACE violation has already occurred. The act
sets out criminal penalties of fines, imprisonment, or both,
depending on the nature of the violation and whether it is a first
or subsequent offense. For example, in cases of nonviolent
physical obstructions, first- time offenders can receive a maximum
sentence of 6 months' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. If bodily
injury results from an offense, regardless of whether it is a
first or subsequent offense, the maximum sentence is 10 years; and
if death results, the maximum sentence is any term of years or
life imprisonment. Civil actions may be brought by the Attorney
General of the United States; the Attorney General of any state on
behalf of anyone who is injured or may be injured by a violation
of FACE; or any aggrieved person involved in providing, obtaining,
or seeking to provide or obtain reproductive health services. 4
Courts have the discretion to award appropriate relief, including
injunctions, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.

The Attorney General has vested in DOJ's Civil Rights Division the
federal government's civil and criminal enforcement authority to
bring cases in court under FACE and other federal statutes that
can be applied to abortion clinic violence. According to a high
level DOJ official, the Civil Rights Division has often
investigated and brought cases in collaboration with U. S.
Attorneys' offices in the field, and occasionally U. S. Attorneys'
offices have brought cases on their own. However, all civil and
criminal charging decisions must be approved by the Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights.

In August 1994, shortly after two murders took place outside an
abortion clinic in Florida, the Attorney General formed a federal
task force to investigate the possible existence of a national
conspiracy against reproductive health care providers and to
coordinate federal enforcement activities. The task force
consisted of representatives from DOJ's Criminal Division, Civil
Rights Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and

4 A corporation can qualify as an aggrieved person and thus have
standing to bring suit. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Walton, 1997 WL 734012 at *2, 3 (E. D. PA).

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 4

B-278842

United States Marshals Service; and ATF. This task force played an
important role in the early implementation of FACE, according to a
high- level DOJ official. The task force prompted the first
criminal prosecution under FACE and made federal prosecutors
across the country more aware of the applicability of other
preexisting federal criminal statutes to clinic violence. The
Attorney General's task force went out of existence in early 1997
after its lead prosecutors concluded that it lacked sufficient
evidence to prove the existence of a national conspiracy beyond a
reasonable doubt.

In January 1995, following shootings at clinics in Massachusetts
and Virginia, the President instructed DOJ to take certain steps
to address clinic violence. He instructed DOJ to direct (1) each
United States Attorney to immediately head an abortion violence
task force of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials;
and (2) each U. S. Marshal to consult with clinics regarding
communications with law enforcement agencies. The task force was
to formulate plans to address clinic security. The Attorney
General followed the President's order with a memorandum outlining
the task forces' responsibilities, including developing plans to
address abortion clinic security, coordinating law enforcement
efforts relating to abortion violence, assisting local law
enforcement in responding to abortion clinic incidents, and
ensuring that cases that could be tried under FACE are filed
appropriately.

The Attorney General's memo also lays out in general terms federal
and local law enforcement responsibilities regarding abortion
clinic violence. It states that violence against abortion
providers is, in the first instance, a violation of state and
local law and the duty to prevent such crime and investigate and
prosecute it when it occurs falls primarily to state and local
officials, where they are able to deal effectively with it.
However, the federal government has an important role in assisting
state and local authorities and bringing to bear federal tools and
resources . . . . The memo states that clinics in need of
assistance should be advised to first contact their local police
departments.

In mid- 1997, due to concerns that clinic violence had increased
and federal coordination had declined, the Acting Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights established an Abortion Violence
Working Group. The group was formed to promote communication and
coordination among federal law enforcement components and agencies
involved in investigating and prosecuting abortion violence cases.
Comprising senior representatives of DOJ's Civil Rights Division,
Executive Office for United States Attorneys

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 5

B-278842

(EOUSA), the FBI, the Marshals Service, and senior representatives
of ATF, the group reportedly meets every 5 to 6 weeks to share
information, coordinate law enforcement and litigation strategies,
and formulate plans to respond to perceived threats to providers
of reproductive health services.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our report objectives were to provide information on (1) the
occurrence of abortion clinic incidents before and after FACE, as
reported to us by representatives of clinics that abortion rights
groups identified as having experienced relatively high levels of
incidents before the enactment of FACE; (2) views regarding FACE
and its effectiveness from representatives of these clinics,
selected police departments and U. S. Attorney offices, and other
representatives from DOJ, ATF, three national abortion rights
organizations, and two national anti- abortion organizations; (3)
efforts by local and federal law enforcement agencies following
the enactment of FACE and clinic, U. S. Attorney office, police
department, abortions rights group, and anti- abortion rights
group representatives' satisfaction with these agencies; and (4)
any court cases pertaining to FACE and the courts' rulings in
those cases.

To obtain information from clinics on changes in the occurrence of
clinic incidents, we conducted structured telephone interviews
with a judgmental sample of representatives of 42 abortion clinics
identified as having experienced relatively high levels of
violence during the 2- year period prior to the passage of FACE.
Three national abortion rights groups used data they had collected
during the 1993 and 1994 time frame to identify these clinics for
us. During the interviews with clinic representatives, we listed
types of incidents that the clinics might have experienced, and we
asked whether each type of incident had occurred at the clinic in
either of the two time periods we were studying. We asked only
whether each incident had occurred, not how many times it
occurred. Furthermore, we did not ask respondents whether each
type of incident they experienced was a violation of FACE, for
this would have required a legal assessment. (See app. II for the
questionnaire we used to interview clinic representatives and
their aggregate responses to these and other questions.)

To obtain the views of representatives from abortion clinics,
police departments, U. S. Attorney offices, and others regarding
the effectiveness of FACE and the efforts of federal and local law
enforcement following the enactment of FACE, we conducted
structured telephone interviews with

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 6

B-278842

representatives of 42 abortion clinics and 15 police departments
selected from a stratified sample of the 40 departments that serve
the locations of the clinics we contacted. In addition, we sent
questionnaires to the 36 U. S. Attorneys who serve the federal
judicial districts in which the clinics we contacted were located.
We also interviewed other officials at DOJ, ATF, and
representatives of three national abortion rights organizations
and two anti- abortion organizations. We reviewed studies and
documents related to FACE and abortion clinic violence. (See app.
II through app. IV for copies of our survey instruments. See app.
V for a listing of the organizations we contacted during our
review.)

Because we did not draw a representative sample of abortion
clinics, police departments, and U. S. Attorney offices, the
results of our structured surveys represent only the clinics,
police departments, and U. S. Attorney offices we contacted.
Nevertheless, these survey results are useful for better
understanding the implications of FACE. In responding to open-
ended survey questions, respondents provided narrative answers
that sometimes involved more than one theme or topic.
Consequently, when we categorize and discuss responses in this
report, the number may appear to exceed the total number of
respondents. (See app. VI for further information on our survey
methodology.)

We took the following steps to identify cases in which FACE was
litigated and the courts' rulings in those cases:

 We obtained from DOJ a summary of all the criminal prosecutions
and civil lawsuits it had initiated or completed pertaining to
FACE as of September 11, 1998.  We conducted a search of WESTLAW
and LEXIS databases to identify any

reported decisions under FACE.  We consulted the National Abortion
Federation's Quarterly Report 6 on

legal issues relating to abortion and a listing of FACE cases
compiled by the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and
Education Fund.

We conducted our work from December 1997 through August 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We received comments on a draft of this report from DOJ and the
Department of the Treasury. These comments are summarized at the
end of this letter.

6 First Amendment Issues Affecting Abortion Providers and Their
Attorneys: Report for First Quarter 1998, the National Abortion
Federation, Washington, D. C. (1988).

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 7

B-278842

Clinic Respondents Reported Experiencing Fewer Types of Incidents
in Past 2 Years

Most of the 42 clinic representatives we interviewed reported
experiencing fewer types of incidents during the 2- year period
before we began our interviews (April 1996 through March 1998)
than they had during the 2- year period before the May 1994
enactment of FACE (June 1992 through May 1994). Many respondents
also indicated that the frequency of incidents had decreased, as
did severity, particularly the severity of picketing.

Although clinics' experiences with anti- abortion incidents
varied, representatives of almost all these clinics told us they
experienced picketing and hate mail or harassing phone calls
during both time periods. In addition, their responses indicated
declines in the number of clinics experiencing blockades,
vandalism, invasions, bomb threats, death threats, assaults, and
stalking of clinic staff or family members. For example, 27 of the
42 respondents told us their clinics had experienced blockades
during the 2 years prior to FACE; 6 said they had experienced
blockades during the most recent 2 years. Thirty- six respondents
told us of vandalism at their clinics during the first time
period; 19 reported vandalism in the more recent period. Table 1
identifies the number of clinic respondents who reported specific
types of incidents as occurring in each of the two time periods we
studied.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 8

B-278842

Table 1: Number of Clinics Experiencing Specific Types of
Incidents During 2- Year Period Preceding FACE (June 1992 Through
May 1994) and 2- Year Period Preceding GAO Survey (April 1996
Through March 1998)

Type of incident Clinics reporting

incident occurred before FACE

(6/ 92 to 5/ 94) Clinics reporting

incident occurred more recently

(4/ 96 to 3/ 98) Change in number

of clinics reporting incident

Blockades 27 6 21 Vandalism 36 19 17 Invasions 25 10 15 Bomb
threats 29 14 15 Death threats 31 16 15 Assault 23 10 13 Stalking
25 12 13 Burglary 6 2 4 Arson 5 1 4 Hate mail/ harassing calls 40
37 3

Bombings 2 0 2 Attempted arson 5 4 1 Attempted bombings 2 1 1
Picketing 41 42 +1 n= 42 Source: GAO survey of selected clinics.

We also asked clinic respondents whether any other incidents had
occurred at their clinics during these two time periods. Twenty-
four of the 42 respondents described additional incidents,
including butyric acid attacks 7 and cases of suspicious packages.

In addition to asking representatives whether their clinics had
experienced each type of incident during the two time periods, we
asked whether, in general, incidents were more or less frequent in
the 2 years preceding our survey compared to the 2 years preceding
the passage of FACE. Thirty- four respondents indicated that
overall, they had seen a pronounced change in the frequency of
incidents at their clinics, noting decreases in the following
types of incidents: hate mail or harassing phone calls (19),
picketing (17), blockades (16), invasions of their clinics (14),
vandalism (13), and stalking (11). At a few clinics, however,
respondents thought that these types of incidents had become more
frequent.

7 Some anti- abortion activists have squirted, sprayed, or
injected this intensely noxious industrial chemical in clinics to
temporarily shut down clinic operations. Butyric acid can damage
property and cause nausea and respiratory problems.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 9

B-278842

We also asked representatives of these clinics whether incidents
were more or less severe in the 2 years preceding our survey
compared to the 2 years preceding the passage of FACE. Of 35
respondents who indicated that overall, they had seen a pronounced
change in the severity of incidents at their clinics, 26 said that
picketing was less severe in the more recent 2- year period than
it had been during the 2 years prior to FACE; 3 said that it was
more severe. Of those explaining how picketing had become less
severe, one respondent told us that picketers were very aggressive
and verbally abusive prior to FACE, but that events are now
quieter and take the form of prayer vigils. Another said that
protestors are still picketing, but they do so in fewer numbers
and they follow the rules. Ten respondents said that hate mail or
threatening phone calls had become less severe, but 1 thought that
this type of incident had increased in severity.

Many Had Positive Views of FACE; Others Had Mixed Views

For the most part, representatives of the clinics and U. S.
Attorney offices we surveyed thought that FACE had made a
difference, often citing its deterrent effect. Representatives of
the three national abortion rights groups and one of the anti-
abortion groups we contacted expressed similar views. A
representative of the other anti- abortion group said that his
group was not affected by FACE because its members do not engage
in activities that would violate the act. Clinic respondents, DOJ
officials, and representatives of national abortion rights groups
said that other factors in addition to FACE, such as local
injunctions, other federal laws, and improved clinic security
measures, also may have reduced incidents. Police department
respondents expressed divergent views about FACE's effectiveness.
A small number of respondents from the U. S. Attorney offices,
police departments, and clinics we contacted during our review
believed that FACE did not have an effect on clinic incidents.
Some said that incidents had already declined before FACE was
enacted, and others mentioned specific weaknesses of the act.

Many View FACE Positively and See It Reducing Incidents

Most clinic and U. S. Attorney office respondents believed that
FACE had a positive effect on clinic incidents, often citing its
deterrent effect. Others we contacted, including DOJ and ATF
officials and representatives of three national abortion rights
and one anti- abortion group, expressed the same belief,
particularly regarding blockades. In addition, U. S. Attorney
office respondents and DOJ officials described strengths of FACE,
such as the additional tools it provides federal agents for
investigating and prosecuting clinic incidents.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 10

B-278842

Thirty- seven of the clinic representatives we interviewed
believed that FACE had an effect on violent or disruptive
incidents at their clinics, and 35 described that effect as
reducing or deterring incidents. For example, one respondent said
that violent demonstrators were given only a slap on the wrist
before FACE, but FACE made them realize that consequences can be
more severe. Another respondent whose clinic had been involved in
a FACE prosecution credited FACE with ending what he described as
a cycle in which some protestors endlessly engaged blockading,
being arrested, spending a few days in jail, and then blockading
again. Five clinic respondents credited FACE with increasing
support or awareness of local law enforcement. For example, one
respondent explained that as a result of FACE, local authorities
more seriously enforced clinic- related violations of the law.

Of the 36 U. S. Attorney office representatives surveyed, 21
believed that FACE had an effect on clinic violence or disruptions
in their districts. In describing the effect of the act, 15
respondents said that FACE, or federal actions taken as a result
of FACE, had reduced or deterred incidents. A representative from
1 U. S. Attorney office stated that his district's prosecutions of
12 individuals in 3 separate physical obstruction cases resulted
in removing the violators from the streets and appeared to have
deterred similar illegal conduct by others. In his view, FACE, in
conjunction with state and local enforcement efforts, appeared to
have reduced the number of illegal protestors to a core group of
offenders who were unlikely to be easily deterred.

Twenty- three of the 36 U. S. Attorney office respondents believed
that FACE enhanced local law enforcement's ability to protect
clinics from violence, and 27 believed it enhanced federal law
enforcement's ability to do the same.

Representatives of 27 U. S. Attorney offices cited strengths they
saw in FACE. Eight respondents focused on the flexibility FACE
provides or the additional federal tools it offers. These
respondents cited federal restraining orders and injunctions and
the law's flexibility that allows for bringing either civil or
criminal causes of action. Seven respondents saw the act's
strength in its establishment of federal authority. For example,
one respondent explained that FACE allows for intervention in an
area that was previously outside federal jurisdiction. To a lesser
extent, respondents cited other strengths of FACE, including the
additional attention it has brought to the issue of clinic
incidents, its harsher penalties, and the communication it
promotes among law enforcement agencies.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 11

B-278842

DOJ officials we contacted said that FACE has been a significant
tool that has allowed the federal government to undertake
investigations, prosecutions, and civil actions in an area in
which it previously had limited criminal authority and no
authority to pursue civil remedies. FACE, in effect, gave the FBI
jurisdiction to investigate abortion clinic violence and, in so
doing, allows the use of FBI resources to augment ATF's continued
role in investigating clinic arsons and bombings. Also, according
to DOJ officials, the existence of FACE, as well as the
prosecutions that result from it, deters such incidents as massive
disruptions and blockades. They said that civil actions brought
under FACE can result in civil remedies, including injunctive
relief, damages, and penalties. An official in the Special
Litigation Section of DOJ's Civil Rights Division stated that
civil cases often lead to an injunction and offered the opinion
that federal court injunctions have been effective in reducing
incidents. Civil injunctions can provide relief, such as
establishing a buffer zone around a clinic entrance that
demonstrators may not enter, or banning excessive noise during a
clinic's hours of operation.

ATF officials with whom we spoke indicated that FACE has made a
difference by making a large dent in more minor incidents, such as
blockades. They believe FACE has deterred more minor crimes
because it attacks violators in the pocketbook by imposing
substantial federal penalties. For example, prior to FACE, it
would not have been a federal offense to throw a stink bomb or
acid into a clinic; FACE made this a federal violation with a
potential fine of up to $10,000. ATF officials added, however,
that if a clinic incident involves an arson or bombing with no
injuries or fatalities, FACE penalties are weak compared to those
provided under the federal statute governing arson and explosives.
8 In such cases, prosecutors may choose not to prosecute under
FACE.

Representatives of two of the national abortion rights
organizations we contacted viewed FACE as a major factor in
deterring anti- abortion violence and saving lives, and a
representative of a third abortion rights organization said that
FACE had deterred blockades. The head of one group expressed the
view that without FACE, violence would have continued to
skyrocket. The head of another group stated that the penalties of
FACE and the threat that federal law enforcement could show up at
any time have deterred blockades. She noted that even though the
number of blockades was falling before FACE was passed, it
declined even further because of FACE. According to these
organizations, blockades that occur now involve fewer people and
fewer clinics.

8 18 U. S. C. 844.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 12

B-278842

A representative from one of the two national anti- abortion
groups we contacted said that FACE has had a chilling effect on
the number of people willing to be involved in anti- abortion
activities. He added that FACE has raised the pricetag for
participation because many are not willing to risk federal charges
and prosecution despite their commitment to the anti- abortion
cause. He attributed a decline in his group's anti- abortion
actions to FACE. A representative from the other anti- abortion
organization we contacted said that FACE had not affected his
group's activities because the group does not organize protests,
nor does it support activities that would violate FACE.
Nevertheless, this organization is opposed to FACE because it
believes FACE targets pro- life activists' free speech.

Factors Other Than FACE Also Seen as Reducing Clinic Incidents

Representatives of clinics we surveyed, DOJ officials, police
department representatives, and a national abortion rights study 9
acknowledged that factors other than FACE also played a role in
reducing anti- abortion incidents at clinics. They identified a
variety of factors, including local injunctions, other federal
statutes, strong local law enforcement, and clinic security
measures, as having an effect on clinic incidents.

When asked whether factors other than FACE had an effect on
incidents, most clinic respondents indicated that there were
factors in addition to FACE that had an effect on incidents at
their clinics. Among the 31 respondents who expressed this view,
11 cited other legal actions, such as local injunctions that were
in place prior to the passage of FACE. Ten respondents thought
that negative reactions to violence had caused a reduction in
clinic incidents. As examples, they said that people with anti-
abortion views do not want to be associated with the violent
actions of extremists and that press coverage of the more heinous
acts decreased public support for the anti- abortion position.
Seven respondents credited their local law enforcement agencies
with reducing clinic incidents, and four said that other state or
federal laws decreased clinic violence.

Alleged perpetrators of clinic incidents have been prosecuted
under federal statutes other than FACE. Although DOJ officials
believed FACE had reduced clinic incidents, they found it
difficult to isolate the effects of FACE on convictions because
FACE has been used in conjunction with other statutes. One
official described FACE as one of an arsenal of statutory weapons
available. Depending on the case, federal prosecutors may find it
more effective to use statutes that carry heavier penalties, such
as the

9 1997 Clinic Violence Survey Report conducted by the Feminist
Majority Foundation (1998).

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 13

B-278842

federal statute governing arson and explosives, in addition to or
in place of FACE.

Although we did not ask representatives of police departments to
identify factors other than FACE that affected clinic incidents,
several nevertheless provided information on this subject. Three
respondents believed that their departments' strong response to
clinic incidents before FACE was enacted prevented future
incidents. Three others explained that injunctions or other court
orders prior to FACE curtailed incidents in their communities.

In a report of its 1997 clinic violence survey, the Feminist
Majority Foundation credited several factors, in addition to FACE,
with reducing clinic violence. The report stated that FACE,
increased clinic security, better law enforcement, and community
mobilization all worked toward mitigating violence at abortion
clinics.

Police Expressed Mixed Views About the Effect of FACE

Police department respondents' views regarding the effectiveness
of FACE did not exhibit a clear pattern. Of 15 respondents, 10
said they were knowledgeable about FACE and, therefore, could
answer questions about it. Three said they believed FACE had the
effect of ending blockades, reducing protest activity, or calming
things down. Three of the four respondents who said FACE had not
affected incidents explained that serious incidents at clinics in
their jurisdictions had already stopped before FACE was passed.
Three respondents told us they did not know whether FACE affected
incidents in their jurisdictions.

Nine of these 10 police department respondents described a variety
of strengths they saw in the act. Among the strengths they cited
were that FACE provides a level of consistency, recognizes a
nationwide problem, and deters illegal activity by most
protestors. One respondent told us that the greatest effect of
FACE is that it deters illegal activity by most protestors because
reasonable people are afraid of violating federal laws. Another
respondent explained that being able to prosecute cases at a
federal level under FACE was the tool they needed because the
local district attorney had not been willing to prosecute anti-
abortion activists.

Some Believe FACE Has Not Had Intended Effect, and Some Cite
Weaknesses

Although many of the people we contacted shared positive views of
FACE, some did not think FACE had reduced clinic incidents, in
part because incidents were already down prior to May 1994, when
the act was passed.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 14

B-278842

In addition, some described weaknesses in the act, despite their
belief that it had reduced clinic incidents.

Representatives of 9 of the 36 U. S. Attorney offices we surveyed
believed that FACE had not affected violent or disruptive
incidents in their districts for a variety of reasons. Three
respondents, for example, explained that FACE had no effect
because incidents in their districts were either rare or
nonexistent. Another explained that incidents had already declined
prior to FACE because of civil judgments and a tough state law
covering interference at clinics.

Twenty of the 36 U. S. Attorney office respondents cited
weaknesses of FACE, although most of the 20 had also identified
strengths of the act. Of those citing weaknesses, nine noted that
penalties available under FACE are relatively weak. Some commented
on weak misdemeanor penalties, and others compared FACE's
penalties to stiffer treatment available under other applicable
statutes. Four respondents cited weaknesses that had to do with
FACE not clearly delineating the roles of law enforcement
agencies. As one U. S. Attorney office representative stated,
Local law enforcement agencies get confused over when to call
federal law enforcement and who retains what jurisdiction. Another
expressed the view that it would be helpful to have a state law to
complement federal jurisdiction and give more alternatives to
state and local police.

All 10 of the police department respondents who said they were
knowledgeable about FACE noted weaknesses in the act, with half
focusing on weaknesses with its enforcement. One respondent
explained that the day- to- day workings of FACE are left up to
the local police, although, in the respondent's view, the police
have no authority to enforce it. Four of the 10 respondents
expressed the view that FACE had not affected clinic incidents in
their jurisdictions, but 3 explained that serious problems had
already stopped before FACE was passed.

Only 5 of the 42 clinic respondents indicated that FACE did not
affect clinic incidents and 3 expressed the belief that FACE
actually led to more threatening and violent incidents. One
respondent explained that the extreme fringe, frustrated by a
decline in overall numbers of protests and protestors, has taken
more threatening and violent actions. This view was shared by a
representative of one of the national anti- abortion organizations
we contacted, who believed that FACE has actually caused more
extreme clinic violence because it has driven peaceful protestors
away.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 15

B-278842

Law Enforcement Efforts Following Enactment of FACE

At the local level, representatives of most of the police
departments we surveyed said their departments had taken steps to
better prepare officers or clinics in their jurisdictions to
respond to incidents since FACE was enacted. At the federal level,
most judicial districts we surveyed had established abortion
violence task forces and achieved positive results, according to
representatives of U. S. Attorney offices.

Police Report Doing Training, Outreach, and Prevention to Reduce
Incidents

Representatives of most of the 15 police departments we surveyed
reported their departments had been involved in a variety of
efforts to respond to and reduce clinic incidents since FACE was
passed. Most reported their officers received training about
clinic incidents and that their departments conducted outreach or
education efforts with clinics in their jurisdictions. In
addition, close to half also told us of steps their departments
had taken to prevent incidents from occurring at clinics.

According to police department respondents, officers in nine of
the departments we surveyed received training regarding abortion
clinic violence, although the content and participants varied. The
type of training differed by department and included such topics
as a review of constitutional rights and applicable local
ordinances, civil disobedience arrests, managing blockades, and
dealing with protestors who go limp. Departments also differed
regarding which officers were trained. For example, one respondent
told us all sworn officers were trained, but another reported
training only supervisors. Others said only officers in units that
respond to clinic incidents received training. Departments also
differed in when their training was provided. For example, one
police department respondent told us that most patrol officers in
his department were trained five or six years ago. On the other
hand, another respondent told us uniformed officers and detectives
in his department were trained annually.

Twelve police department respondents said that since FACE was
passed, they had conducted outreach or education with clinic staff
about what to do in the event of violence or disruptions. Nine
described efforts designed to improve communication with clinic
staff, including five who said their departments had assigned
specific officers to serve as liaisons with clinics. Seven
respondents told us of their departments' efforts to improve
clinic security and described a variety of formal and informal
measures. For example, one respondent told us that officers from
his department go to clinics and offer physical and personal
security advice. Another said that officers trained clinic staff
on how to spot suspicious packages.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 16

B-278842

In addition to the outreach and education efforts reported by
police department respondents, seven told us their departments had
taken special steps to prevent violence or disruption at clinics
since the passage of FACE. Five reported they increased patrols at
clinics during high- risk times, such as the anniversary of Roe v.
Wade 10 or on Saturdays, when the most demonstrators are present.
One respondent told us that as a proactive measure, his captain
recently began assigning two officers to every clinic in the
jurisdiction during their hours of operation, posting one officer
at each clinic's front door and one at the back.

Most U. S. Attorneys Contacted Reported Positive Results From Task
Forces

Most of the U. S. Attorney offices we contacted said that their
districts had an abortion violence task force, and almost all
believed that these groups had produced positive results, most
frequently in the area of increased communication and coordination
with other agencies. Most districts formed their task forces
around the same time, but the number of meetings held varied by
district. According to most U. S. Attorney respondents, these
meetings were typically attended by representatives of both
federal and local law enforcement agencies.

Representatives of 31 of the 36 U. S. Attorney offices we surveyed
reported that their districts had an abortion violence task force.
Eighteen of these respondents indicated their task forces were
established in January 1995 the month in which the President
instructed DOJ to direct U. S. Attorneys to immediately head such
a task force. Ten respondents told us their districts had
established task forces prior to 1995. Of the three respondents
reporting that their task forces were established after January
1995, one said the task force was established in March 1995. The
other two respondents said their task forces were established in
early 1998.

Twenty- nine of the 31 U. S. Attorney office respondents who said
their districts had task forces told us they had seen particularly
positive results from these groups. According to 25 of these
respondents, their task forces resulted in increased communication
or coordination within the law enforcement community or with
clinics. For example, one respondent told us that in addition to
significantly increasing all levels of communication, the task
force also helped to coordinate federal enforcement efforts with
state and local prosecutors to identify and implement the most
effective response to a given situation. Nine respondents reported
that their task

10 410 U. S. 113 (1973). This decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States held that states could not ban abortions in cases
where the fetus was not yet viable.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 17

B-278842

forces established procedures for responding to clinic incidents.
Four told us that a greater awareness of FACE or abortion clinics'
problems resulted from their task forces, and six said that fewer
incidents occurred as a result of these groups.

Responses from the U. S. Attorney offices we surveyed showed a
wide range in the frequency of task force meetings. One respondent
said that although her district had established a task force, it
had not held any formal meetings. In contrast, 2 respondents said
their task forces had met 15 times. The median number of times
that task forces had reportedly met was four.

U. S. Attorney representatives from the 31 districts with task
forces said that task force meetings were typically attended by
representatives of the U. S. Attorney's office, the FBI, and the
U. S. Marshals Service. Twenty- seven said that ATF
representatives typically attend task force meetings, 29 said that
local law enforcement representatives typically attend, and 14
said that clinic representatives typically attend. Twenty- nine of
the U. S. Attorney respondents indicated their task forces have
procedures for sharing information or coordinating efforts with
federal law enforcement agencies, and 30 indicated they have
procedures for doing the same with local law enforcement agencies.

Law Enforcement Efforts Generally Viewed Favorably

Clinic and U. S. Attorney office respondents generally viewed both
local and federal law enforcement agencies favorably. Most clinic
respondents were satisfied with the protection provided by local
law enforcement, with their relationship with local law
enforcement, and with the arrests that were made. Most were also
satisfied with federal law enforcement regarding anti- abortion
activities that took place at their clinics. However, several
clinic respondents and representatives of three national abortion
rights groups expressed some dissatisfaction with local and
federal authorities.

Most Clinics and U. S. Attorneys Contacted Generally Satisfied
With Local Law Enforcement Efforts

Most representatives of the clinics and U. S. Attorney offices we
surveyed were satisfied with local law enforcement efforts
regarding FACE during the 1996 to 1998 time period. All 42 clinic
respondents told us that local law enforcement had been contacted
regarding at least 1 type of incident. Most respondents were
generally satisfied when we asked about their overall impressions
of local law enforcement in terms of clinic protection,
relationship with the clinic, and arrests, as well as their
experiences

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 18

B-278842

regarding specific types of incidents. Most U. S. Attorney office
representatives also reported general satisfaction with the local
law enforcement agencies in their districts.

Thirty- three of the 42 clinic respondents said they had been
generally satisfied with the effectiveness of local law
enforcement in protecting their clinics over the past 2 years.
Most often, they pointed to their satisfaction with how local law
enforcement responded to calls or incidents. Nineteen of the
respondents' comments fell into this category, which included
statements about local law enforcement's quick response,
willingness to define limits for protestors, and strong presence
during blockades and picketing. Sixteen noted law enforcement's
good or serious attitude, including remarks about understanding
the severity of the problem or understanding clinics' needs.
Twelve respondents highlighted the proactive aspect of local law
enforcement's protection. For example, one respondent told us that
the police had provided personal and physical plant security
training to clinic staff, and another said that local law
enforcement had participated in the clinic's security planning.
One respondent explained that a police officer is present at the
clinic on the days that abortions are performed and when picketers
are present. Another told us of a panic button that links the
clinic to the police department. Ten respondents spoke of good
communications or relationships with local law enforcement.

Clinic respondents also reported general satisfaction with their
relationship with local law enforcement and the appropriateness of
arrests made over the past 2 years. Thirty- two of the 42 clinic
respondents told us they were generally satisfied with their
clinics' relationships with local law enforcement. Of 35
respondents who answered our question about the appropriateness of
arrests made by local law enforcement, 19 indicated that they were
satisfied. Seven of the 42 respondents indicated that the question
about arrests was not applicable to their clinics.

Thirty- four clinic respondents said they had observed
particularly positive aspects of local law enforcement actions,
with half describing positive responses to calls or incidents. For
example, one respondent told us that the police had intervened
between clinic staff and demonstrators and helped bring about
peaceful resolutions to incidents. Another explained that the
police department had created a strong presence during blockades
and picketing and sent a strong message that breaking the law
would not be tolerated. Nine respondents described proactive steps
local authorities had taken. For example, one respondent said that
the police

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 19

B-278842

randomly drop by and check in with clinic staff. Another reported
that the police had scheduled a meeting with representatives of
both sides of the issue. When the anti- abortion faction did not
attend, the police scheduled separate meetings with each side.
Nine respondents described a good attitude on the part of local
law enforcement, and eight talked about good communication or
relationships between clinics and their local law enforcement
agencies.

For the most part, clinic respondents told us they were also
satisfied when local law enforcement was contacted about specific
types of incidents that occurred at their clinics during the past
2 years, although satisfaction varied by incident. For example, 8
of the 10 respondents who said local law enforcement had been
contacted about invasions at their clinics in the past 2 years
said they were generally satisfied with local law enforcement's
response; only 5 of the 10 who reported local law enforcement was
contacted about stalking were generally satisfied. See table 2 for
information on clinic respondents' satisfaction when local law
enforcement was contacted about different types of incidents.

Table 2: Clinic Respondents' Satisfaction With Local Law
Enforcement, by Type of Incident (April 1996 Through March 1998)

Level of satisfaction Type of incident

Number reporting contact with

local law enforcement Generally

satisfied Neither

satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally

dissatisfied

Picketing 41 30 4 7 Hate mail/ harassing calls 22 13 4 5

Blockades 6 4 1 1 Invasions 10 8 0 2 Vandalism 17 12 3 2 Burglary
2 0 0 2 Arson 1 1 0 0 Attempted arson 4 2 1 1 Bomb threats 12 9 2
1 Assaults 10 7 2 1 Stalking 10 5 3 2 Death threats 12 7 4 1 n= 42
Source: GAO survey of selected clinics.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 20

B-278842

All of the police department representatives we surveyed indicated
that their departments would respond to all of the types of
incidents we asked about in our survey. One respondent noted that
his department generally would not respond to picketing if it
simply involved someone holding a sign on public property.

All the representatives of the U. S. Attorney offices we surveyed
expressed general satisfaction with the way in which at least some
of the local law enforcement agencies protected clinics over the
past 2 years. Thirty- two respondents said they were generally
satisfied with the effectiveness of all or most local law
enforcement agencies in protecting clinics in their districts.
Four reported general satisfaction with some of their districts'
local law enforcement agencies.

Some Cite Dissatisfaction With Local Law Enforcement

Although most representatives of clinics we surveyed told us they
were generally satisfied with several dimensions of local law
enforcement, some indicated they were dissatisfied with local law
enforcement responses, including arrests. Representatives of two
of the national abortion rights groups we contacted expressed
concern over the uneven enforcement of FACE at the local level, as
did a representative of one national anti- abortion group.

Most of the 42 clinic respondents said they were generally
satisfied with the effectiveness of local law enforcement in
protecting their clinics over the past 2 years, yet 7 respondents
told us that they were generally dissatisfied with this aspect of
local law enforcement. Five of these respondents explained they
were dissatisfied because of poor response on the part of local
law enforcement, including slow response or even a lack of
response. Other reasons respondents cited for their
dissatisfaction included that response or enforcement varied by
individual officer. Five clinic respondents said they were
generally dissatisfied with their clinics' relationships with
local law enforcement. Again, these respondents mostly (4) pointed
to local law enforcement's poor response as the cause of their
dissatisfaction.

Of 35 respondents who answered our question about the
appropriateness of arrests made by local law enforcement, 9
reported being dissatisfied. Some reasons included local law
enforcement failing to strictly enforce local ordinances or
failing to make arrests when respondents believed arrests were
warranted.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 21

B-278842

Fourteen clinic respondents said they had observed particularly
negative aspects of local law enforcement's actions over the past
2 years, although 8 of these respondents also told us of
particularly positive actions they had observed. Eight of the
respondents providing negative comments described poor response or
enforcement on the part of local law enforcement. For example, one
respondent described an incident in which fuel was spread on the
clinic's floor, but no fire was set. Although the clinic had
experienced arson twice before, the respondent said it took 2
calls and 25 minutes before the police, located 4 blocks away,
responded to the calls. Another respondent told us that upon
responding to incidents, officers had suggested the clinic would
not have these problems if it closed.

A representative of one of the national abortion rights
organizations we contacted expressed the view that local
authorities' enforcement of FACE was relatively poor until the
past year. In her opinion, as local authorities have witnessed the
same anti- abortion activists repeatedly breaking the law, they
have taken a more serious and professional approach to clinic
violence.

Representatives of the other two national abortion rights
organizations with whom we spoke expressed concerns that local law
enforcement has been uneven in its enforcement of FACE. The head
of one of these groups stated that in some cities local law
enforcement has done an excellent job, but in other locations
local enforcement of FACE has been a problem. She believed that
there are communities where local law enforcement lacks the
commitment to enforce FACE.

A representative of one of the national anti- abortion
organizations with whom we spoke also believed that FACE has not
been evenly enforced. In his view, some police do not charge
protestors or call in federal authorities if the police officer's
ideology is pro- life. In other cases, he believed that pro- life
advocates are sometimes unfairly arrested for actions such as
kneeling on a public sidewalk and praying.

According to representatives of the police departments we
surveyed, their departments enforce the law regardless of the
personal views of their officers. Eleven of the 15 respondents
indicated that police officers' personal ideologies or religious
beliefs about abortion did not interfere with their carrying out
their duties when violent or disruptive incidents occurred at
abortion clinics. Of the four who indicated that they had
encountered problems, all said they had found ways to avoid these

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 22

B-278842

officers' involvement with clinics. For example, one respondent
told us of an officer who had refused to intervene at a clinic
because of religious beliefs. The officer was subsequently
disciplined and not allowed to respond to future clinic incidents.
A respondent from another police department said that officers who
have alerted the department that their religious beliefs would
make it difficult to respond to a clinic have been assigned other
duties.

Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Generally Viewed Positively

Most of the representatives of the clinics and U. S. Attorney
offices we surveyed said that, overall, they were satisfied with
federal law enforcement efforts. To a lesser extent, so were the
representatives of police departments we surveyed. Most clinic
respondents had observed particularly positive federal efforts
that often involved good communication. Also, for the most part,
clinic respondents said they were satisfied with their experiences
with federal law enforcement regarding specific incidents at their
clinics. Representatives of the three national abortion rights
groups we contacted expressed positive views of federal
authorities, but they also voiced some concerns.

Thirty of the 42 clinic respondents said that they were generally
satisfied with federal law enforcement regarding anti- abortion
activities, and 30 said they had observed particularly positive
aspects of federal law enforcement. Most often, respondents
described good communication efforts, with 16 providing responses
that fell into this category. For example, one respondent told us
that federal law enforcement kept the lines of communication open
by just calling to see how things were going at the clinic.
Thirteen respondents made positive observations having to do with
proactive steps such as federal agents helping the clinic
establish its security system. Ten respondents cited responses to
and investigations of incidents as positive aspects of federal law
enforcement.

For most types of incidents about which clinics contacted federal
law enforcement during the past 2 years, clinic respondents said
they were generally satisfied with federal law enforcement. Thirty
of the 42 respondents told us that federal law enforcement had
been contacted about at least 1 type of incident during the past 2
years. The relative number of clinics that were satisfied varied
depending on the type of incident. For example, 9 out of the 12
who reported that federal law enforcement had been contacted about
picketing said they were generally satisfied. However, two of the
five respondents who said federal authorities had been contacted
about assaults said they were generally

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 23

B-278842

satisfied. Table 3 shows clinic respondents' satisfaction with
federal law enforcement when contacted about different types of
incidents.

Table 3: Clinic Respondents' Satisfaction With Federal Law
Enforcement, by Type of Incident (April 1996 Through March 1998)
Level of satisfaction

Type of incident Number

reporting contact with

federal law enforcement Generally

satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Generally

dissatisfied

Picketing 12 9 2 1 Hate mail/ harassing calls 18 12 4 2

Blockades 5 3 1 1 Invasions 4 3 0 1 Vandalism 4 2 1 1 Burglary 1 1
0 0 Arson 1 1 0 0 Attempted arson 4 4 0 0 Bomb threats 8 6 2 0
Assaults 5 2 1 2 Stalking 7 4 2 1 Death threats 10 8 1 1 n= 42
Source: GAO survey of selected clinics.

Representatives of the police departments and U. S. Attorney
offices we surveyed were generally satisfied with federal law
enforcement. Eight of the 15 police department respondents said
their departments had called federal authorities regarding
incidents at clinics in their jurisdictions, and 5 of these 8 told
us they were generally satisfied with the support they received
from federal law enforcement. The remaining three respondents said
they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Thirty of the 36 U.
S. Attorney office respondents reported being generally satisfied
with all or most federal law enforcement agencies regarding anti-
abortion activities directed at clinics in their district. Of the
remainder, five said they were generally satisfied with some
federal law enforcement agencies, and one did not know.

Representatives of the three national abortion rights
organizations we contacted voiced praise for, as well as some
concerns about, federal authorities. According to the head of one
group, federal efforts to identify

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 24

B-278842

and protect clinics and doctors most at risk have saved lives. She
further pointed to improved federal law enforcement reaction to
clinic violence since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. However, she
expressed concern about some federal agents and her belief that
some are on the anti- abortion side. Since reporting specific
concerns to DOJ, she believes this situation has improved. The
head of another group stated that FACE has saved lives and reduced
violence where aggressively enforced, but it has not been
uniformly and appropriately enforced. She believes this problem
exists at all levels of enforcement, including federal law
enforcement agencies and U. S. Attorney offices. She further
criticized DOJ for not pursuing more FACE cases. A representative
of the third group we contacted said that federal law enforcement
did not aggressively enforce FACE in the first years following the
enactment of FACE. However, as federal law enforcement's
experience with clinic violence grew, so did its effectiveness.
She observed that some federal agents have a strong commitment to
enforce FACE regardless of their beliefs about abortion.

Court Rulings in FACE Cases

Constitutional arguments have been raised in most of the reported
FACE cases we identified, but they have ultimately proven
unsuccessful. Constitutional challenges have included charges that
FACE violates the freedom of speech and religion protections in
the First Amendment.

FACE creates both criminal penalties and civil remedies against
those who use force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to
interfere with persons obtaining or providing reproductive health
services. We identified a total of 46 criminal and civil cases
that were either completed or pending as of September 11, 1998. 11
In 15 of the 17 criminal cases we identified, defendants pled
guilty or were found guilty of FACE violations. Many of the 29
civil cases we identified resulted in civil remedies, including
injunctive relief. Appendix VII contains summaries of these cases.

Constitutionality of FACE Upheld

The constitutionality of FACE has been challenged in various
courts and on many grounds beginning on the day of its enactment.
Constitutional arguments were raised in 24 of the 28 reported
cases we identified but, ultimately, the courts all have found
FACE to be constitutional. Although two district court decisions
did hold FACE unconstitutional, they were

11 We identified a total of 46 cases 28 reported and 18 unreported
or pending cases. Of the 28 reported cases, 8 are criminal cases
and 20 are civil lawsuits. Of the 18 unreported or pending cases,
9 are criminal and 9 are civil. Unreported cases are court
decisions that have not been published.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 25

B-278842

reversed on appeal. 12 To date, the U. S. Supreme Court has
declined to review any of the U. S. courts of appeals' decisions
upholding FACE. Constitutional challenges were raised in all 8 of
the reported criminal cases we identified and in 16 of the 20
reported civil lawsuits we identified. We could not identify
whether constitutional challenges were raised in the unreported or
pending cases because we had limited information on these cases.

Opponents have challenged the constitutionality of FACE on a
number of grounds. For example, they have argued that Congress
lacked the authority under the Commerce Clause to pass such a
statute. This provision of the Constitution gave Congress the
power to regulate interstate commerce. The courts have
consistently held that the enactment of FACE was a valid exercise
of the commerce power. The courts reasoned that because Congress
rationally determined that violence at reproductive health
facilities affects interstate commerce, Congress had the authority
to regulate that activity. 13

Some First Amendment challenges to FACE have been based on freedom
of speech. Courts have held that FACE was content neutral because
it did not outlaw conduct for expressing an idea but rather sought
to protect safety and interstate commerce. 14 Furthermore, the act
explicitly stated that nothing shall be construed to interfere
with the exercise of protected First Amendment rights. 15 Courts
have also held that FACE was viewpoint neutral, as it sought to
protect access to all reproductive health services, including both
abortions and services connected to carrying a fetus to term. 16
Also, arguments that FACE was unconstitutionally overbroad and
vague and, thus, had a chilling effect on peaceful activities have
been unsuccessful. 17

Other First Amendment challenges have been based on the Free
Exercise of Religion clause. Courts have determined that FACE has
been applied

12 United States v. Wilson, 880 F. Supp. 621 (E. D. Wis. 1995),
rev'd 73 F. 3d 675 (7th Cir. 1995), reh'g en banc denied, 1996 U.
S. App. LEXIS 2870 (7th Cir. Feb. 21, 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 47 (1996); Hoffman v. Hunt, 923 F. Supp. 791 (W. D. N. C.
1996), rev'd, 126 F. 3d 575 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.
Ct. 1838 (1998).

13 United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F. 3d 913, 920- 921 (8th Cir.
1996). 14 American Life League, Inc. v. Reno, 47 F. 3d 642, 649
(4th Cir. 1995). 15 18 U. S. C. 248 (d). 16 American Life League,
47 F. 3d at 649. 17 Terry v. Reno, 101 F. 3d 1412, 1421 (D. C.
Cir. 1996).

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 26

B-278842

neutrally towards all religions, as it sought only to punish
violent, forceful or threatening conduct without regard to
expressive content or viewpoint.

FACE has been challenged on grounds that it violated other
constitutional amendments, too. Opponents have argued that the
penalties imposed by FACE were excessive and, thus, violated the
Eighth Amendment proscription against excessive fines. These
challenges have consistently been dismissed due to the charges not
being ripe, that is, not ready for the courts to address. Courts
have also struck down arguments that by enacting FACE, Congress
exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and, thus,
usurped powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. 18

Criminal Prosecutions Have Resulted in Fines and Prison Sentences

In 15 of 17 criminal cases, defendants pled guilty or were found
guilty of FACE violations. Of the remaining two cases, one
resulted in the defendant receiving pretrial diversion, and one
case is ongoing.

Criminal FACE cases have involved prosecution for activities
ranging from nonviolent physical obstruction of clinic entrances
to the use of force or threatening conduct. The criminal
prosecutions we identified generally resulted in fines,
incarceration, or both. The nature of the activity prosecuted and
the sentence received varied considerably. For example, in one
case a defendant was found guilty of throwing a bottle at a
doctor's car when the doctor attempted to enter the clinic
property. The defendant was sentenced to 1 year in prison followed
by 1 year of supervised release with the special condition that he
stay at least 1,000 feet from any abortion clinic. The defendant
was also ordered to pay restitution to the doctor for damage to
the car. 19 In another case, a defendant found guilty of fatally
shooting a doctor and shooting two escorts one fatally was
sentenced to life in prison without parole. 20

Criminal FACE charges may be brought in conjunction with charges
of a violation of another federal statute. For example, other
federal statutes DOJ has used in conjunction with FACE include the
arson and explosives statute, which, among other things, prohibits
threatening to use fire and

18 Planned Parenthood Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
Walton, 949 F. Supp. 290, 294- 295 (E. D. Pa. 1996). 19 U. S. v.
Bird, 124 F. 3d 667 (5th Cir. 1997). 20 U. S. v. Hill, 893 F.
Supp. 1034 (N. D. 1994), 893 F. Supp. 1039 (N. D. Fla. 1994), 893
F. Supp. 1044 (N. D. Fla. 1944), 893 F. Supp. 1048 (N. D. Fla.
1994). This case was also prosecuted locally and resulted in the
imposition of the death penalty.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 27

B-278842

explosives to damage a building (18 U. S. C. 844); the statute
prohibiting solicitation to commit a crime (18 U. S. C. 373); and
the statute prohibiting the use of interstate commerce to
communicate a threat (18 U. S. C. 875). 21

In addition to charging FACE violations, one of the eight reported
cases also included a federal charge for knowingly using and
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence (in violation of 18
U. S. C. 924( c)). According to summary case information provided
by DOJ, four of the nine unreported or pending cases included
additional federal charges, such as a violation of the arson and
explosives statute.

Civil Lawsuits Have Led to a Variety of Remedies

We identified 29 civil lawsuits involving FACE 17 brought by DOJ
against alleged FACE violators and 12 brought by private parties.
In 14 of the 17 lawsuits DOJ brought against alleged violators,
the courts awarded injunctive relief, damages, and/ or civil
penalties; in the remaining 3 lawsuits, no decision had been
rendered as of September 11, 1998. The other 12 lawsuits were
brought by private parties, including anti- abortion activists
challenging the constitutionality of FACE and abortion clinics
filing civil actions against alleged FACE violators. In one case,
Greenhut v. Hand, the court noted that FACE was being invoked to
penalize threats against an anti- abortion volunteer. 22

Civil lawsuits initiated by DOJ have involved a range of offenses,
including clinic obstruction, the use of physical force outside
abortion clinics, and verbal threats to clinic staff and to
physicians. Relief has included preliminary and permanent
injunctions, damages, and civil penalties. Various remedies have
been imposed depending on the nature of the activity litigated.
For example, in 1 lawsuit where 35 defendants were charged with
blocking the entrances to an abortion clinic for several hours,
the court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the
defendants from entering clinic property and later granted a
motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction. 23 In
another lawsuit, defendants stalked an abortion clinic doctor and
his wife and gathered on a weekly basis near their home and
chanted, shouted, and displayed signs protesting abortion. In this
case, the court granted a preliminary

21 In some prosecutions of abortion- related violence, DOJ has
elected to bring charges solely under federal statutes that carry
heavier penalties than FACE, according to DOJ officials. We did
not include information on these cases in our report because the
scope of our case review was limited to FACE violations.

22 996 F. Supp. 372 (D. N. J. 1998). 23 U. S. v. Roach, et al.,
947 F. Supp. 872 (E. D. Pa. 1996).

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 28

B-278842

injunction, which became permanent, prohibiting the defendants
from demonstrating, congregating, or picketing within 45 feet of
the intersection near the doctor's home, coming closer than 15
feet of the doctor or his wife, or driving within 3 car lengths of
their cars. 24

Agency Comments We requested comments on a draft of this report
from the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury or
their designees. DOJ provided

us suggested clarifications and technical comments, which we
incorporated into the report where appropriate. The Department of
the Treasury provided written comments stating that it was unaware
of any evidence that FACE has supplemented ATF's role in
investigating arson and bombing cases by giving the FBI
jurisdiction to investigate abortion clinic violence, and that
ATF's response to arson and bombing incidents has not changed
since the enactment of FACE. We did not intend to suggest that
FACE changed ATF's jurisdiction in bombing and arson incidents at
abortion clinics. Nevertheless, FACE did give the FBI a role in
these types of incidents, and we revised the report to clarify
this point. Treasury's comments also stated that ATF sees no
advantage to the FACE statute when it applies to arson and
explosives cases because a violation of FACE is usually a
misdemeanor charge. This reiterates a point we addressed in the
report that ATF views FACE penalties as weak for arson and
explosives incidents that do not involve injury or death.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of your
Subcommittee, the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the
Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary, the Chairmen and
Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, the Attorney General of the United States, and the
Secretary of the Treasury. Copies also will be made available to
others upon request.

24 U. S. v. White, 893 F. Supp. 1430 (C. D. Cal. 1995).

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 29

B-278842

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix XIII.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please contact me or Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director, on (202)
512- 8777.

Sincerely yours, Richard M. Stana Associate Director
Administration of Justice Issues

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 30

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 31

Contents Letter 1 Appendix I Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
Act of 1994

34 Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

38 Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

67 Appendix IV Questionnaire Used to Interview U. S. Attorney
Office Representatives

77 Appendix V Organizations Contacted During Our Review

79 Federal Departments 79 Abortion Rights Organizations 80 Anti-
Abortion Organizations 80 Others 80

Appendix VI Survey Methodology

81 Data Collection 81 Analysis 84 Nonsampling Errors 85

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 32

Contents

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

86 Criminal Cases Prosecuted by the Department of Justice 86 Civil
Lawsuits Initiated by the Department of Justice and Private

Parties 93

Appendix VIII Major Contributors to This Report

108 Tables Table 1: Number of Clinics Experiencing Specific Types
of

Incidents During 2- Year Period Preceding FACE and 2- Year Period
Preceding GAO Survey

9 Table 2: Clinic Respondents' Satisfaction With Local Law

Enforcement, by Type of Incident 20

Table 3: Clinic Respondents' Satisfaction With Federal Law
Enforcement, by Type of Incident

24 Table VI. 1: Survey Sample Selection and Response Rates 84

Abbreviations

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms DOJ Department of
Justice EOUSA Executive Office for United States Attorneys FACE
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 FBI Federal
Bureau of Investigation ORICO Oregon Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 33

Appendix I Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 34

Appendix I Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 35

Appendix I Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 36

Appendix I Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 37

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 38

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 39

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 40

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 41

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 42

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 43

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 44

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 45

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 46

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 47

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 48

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 49

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 50

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 51

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 52

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 53

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 54

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 55

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 56

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 57

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 58

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 59

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 60

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 61

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 62

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 63

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 64

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 65

Appendix II Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion Clinic
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 66

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 67

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 68

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 69

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 70

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 71

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 72

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 73

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 74

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 75

Appendix III Questionnaire Used to Interview Police Department
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 76

Appendix IV Questionnaire Used to Interview U. S. Attorney Office
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 77

Appendix IV Questionnaire Used to Interview U. S. Attorney Office
Representatives

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 78

Appendix V Organizations Contacted During Our Review

We conducted structured interviews with representatives of 42
abortion clinics and 15 police departments. Because of concerns
about possible future incidents at abortion clinics, we assured
representatives of these clinics and police departments that we
would not report their names or locations. We contacted the
following additional organizations during our review:

Federal Departments Department of Justice Executive Office for
United States Attorneys Civil Rights Division Federal Bureau of
Investigation U. S. Marshals Service U. S. Attorney Offices:

Northern District of Alabama Southern District of Alabama District
of Arizona Eastern District of Arkansas Central District of
California Eastern District of California District of Colorado
District of Columbia Middle District of Florida Northern District
of Florida Central District of Illinois Southern District of
Illinois Northern District of Indiana Southern District of Iowa
District of Kansas Eastern District of Michigan Western District
of Michigan District of Minnesota Western District of Missouri
District of Montana District of Nebraska District of New Hampshire
District of New Jersey Western District of New York Western
District of North Carolina District of North Dakota District of
Oregon

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 79

Appendix V Organizations Contacted During Our Review

Eastern District of Pennsylvania District of Rhode Island District
of South Carolina Eastern District of Tennessee Northern District
of Texas Southern District of Texas Eastern District of Virginia
Eastern District of Wisconsin Western District of Wisconsin

Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Abortion Rights Organizations

Feminist Majority Foundation National Abortion Federation Planned
Parenthood Federation of America

Anti- Abortion Organizations

National Right to Life Committee Operation Rescue

Others Police Executive Research Forum Alan Guttmacher Institute 1

1 A nonprofit corporation for reproductive health research, policy
analysis, and public education.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 80

Appendix VI Survey Methodology

In order to obtain information on the first three research
objectives, we surveyed representatives from three groups:
abortion clinics, local police departments, and U. S. Attorney
offices. We conducted structured telephone interviews with the
first two groups and arranged for the Executive Office for United
States Attorneys (EOUSA) to send a survey to the third group.

To obtain views of clinic representatives, we contacted clinics
that reportedly had experienced relatively high levels of violence
or disruption prior to the passage of FACE. We believed that such
clinics were in a position to be particularly affected by the act.
To get a better perspective on how key parties viewed the effects
and enforcement of FACE, we also surveyed representatives from
local police departments and U. S. Attorney offices whose
jurisdictions covered the locations of the clinics included in our
study.

Data Collection Our staff, who had been trained in telephone
interviewing skills, conducted the structured telephone
interviews. The training covered

general telephone interviewing techniques, as well as information
specific to the surveys.

To determine whether clinic and police department respondents
believed that abortion clinic incidents had increased, decreased,
or stayed the same since the passage of FACE in May 1994, we chose
two specific time periods of equal length for respondents to
compare. The first time period was the 2 years preceding FACE
(June 1992 through May 1994), and the second was the most recent
2- year period at the time we began our interviews (April 1996
through March 1998).

All survey questions that asked the respondent to characterize his
or her response along a continuum utilized a three- point scale.
For example, in question 3 on the clinic survey, the respondent
was asked whether he or she was very knowledgeable, moderately
knowledgeable, or not knowledgeable about what activities are
legal or illegal under FACE. In question 6A1 on the same survey,
the respondent was asked whether he or she was generally
satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, or generally
dissatisfied with law enforcement's response to picketing.

Abortion Clinics We asked three national abortion rights groups to
use data they had collected prior to FACE in order to help us
identify clinics that had

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 81

Appendix VI Survey Methodology

experienced relatively high levels of violence and/ or disruption
during the 2 years prior to the act's passage. (See app. V for the
names of these national groups.)

In identifying clinics, representatives of these groups considered
their 1993 and 1994 incident data on clinics that had provided
such data to them, as well as their knowledge of incidents at
other clinics. They agreed on 45 clinics as having high violence
before FACE. Most of these clinics had experienced at least three
different types of incidents in the 1- to 2- year period prior to
FACE. At our request, they included reproductive health service
facilities that perform abortions, but not doctors' offices or
hospitals.

According to a national reproductive health organization and one
of the national abortion rights groups we contacted, there are
roughly 900 clinics in the country, but these estimates include
some doctors' offices. Because the clinics in our sample were
selected judgmentally and therefore subject to potential selection
bias and not selected using probability sampling from a known
universe, our clinic survey results cannot be generalized either
to all abortion clinics nationwide, or to all abortion clinics
that experienced high violence during the June 1992 through May
1994 period.

The three national abortion rights groups faxed a joint letter to
all abortion clinics in our sample. The letter alerted the clinics
to the upcoming study and encouraged them to participate. We
followed up with our own letter and then called clinic
representatives to schedule a telephone interview. To ensure the
anonymity of the clinic respondents, we discarded the cover page
of each survey form upon completion of our study. Because the
cover page was the only page that contained identifying
information on respondents, its removal ensured that a link could
not be made between respondents' identities and their survey
responses.

We sought to interview the person who had the most knowledge of
incidents that occurred at the clinic during the time periods of
interest. We interviewed 15 clinic directors; 10 administrators;
and 17 other representatives, including owners, presidents,
managers, and security directors. On average, representatives with
whom we spoke had been with the clinic for 12 years.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 82

Appendix VI Survey Methodology

We used a structured interview format to interview abortion clinic
representatives. The interview included both close- ended and
open- ended questions, and each interview lasted about 1 hour.

Two of the 45 clinics selected had closed; our resulting sampling
frame consisted of 43 clinics. We completed interviews with
representatives from 42 of these 43 clinics, for a response rate
of 98 percent. (The one nonrespondent clinic could not provide a
staff member who had been there long enough to answer our
questions.)

Police Departments We identified 40 local police departments that
served the 42 clinics we surveyed. We developed 3 strata from
which we selected our sample of 15: (1) departments with which
clinic respondents were satisfied; (2) departments with which
clinic respondents were dissatisfied; and (3) departments whose
jurisdiction covered multiple clinics in our sample, and those
clinics differed in their level of satisfaction with the
department. We determined satisfaction on the basis of the clinic
respondent's answers to clinic survey questions regarding
effectiveness in protecting the clinic, making appropriate
arrests, and the clinic's relationship with the department
(questions 48, 49, and 50 from the clinic interview instrument).

We selected all five of the police departments where clinic
respondents reported dissatisfaction with local law enforcement,
the two departments with jurisdiction over multiple clinics in our
sample where local law enforcement received mixed ratings, and
eight randomly selected departments where clinic respondents said
they were satisfied with local law enforcement on all of the
applicable questions. 1

We completed interviews with all 15 of the local law enforcement
agencies we selected, for a 100 percent response rate. As with the
clinic interviews, we ensured local law enforcement respondents'
anonymity by discarding information that could be used to identify
them, thereby severing the link between respondents' identities
and their survey responses. On average, the respondents we spoke
with had been involved with handling abortion clinic violence and
disruption for 9 years.

1 In some cases, the respondent answered not applicable to the
question asking whether appropriate arrests were made. In such
cases, our decision on whether to include the police department in
our sample was based on clinics' responses to the other two
questions regarding effectiveness in protecting the clinic and the
clinic's relationship with the department.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 83

Appendix VI Survey Methodology

U. S. Attorney Offices We identified 36 U. S. Attorney offices
with judicial districts that included the clinics we surveyed.
EOUSA reviewed our instrument for appropriate language and clarity
and e- mailed the survey to all 36 U. S. Attorney offices in our
sample. It included a cover memorandum explaining the study and
requesting that the appropriate person complete and return the
survey to us. We telephoned nonrespondents to encourage
participation and obtained a 100 percent response rate.

Sample Selection and Response Rate

Table VI. 1 summarizes the selection of potential respondents and
response rates obtained for all three surveys.

Table VI. 1: Survey Sample Selection and Response Rates

Group surveyed

Number selected for

sample Response

rate (percent) Selection process

Clinics 43 98 Identified jointly by three national abortion

rights groups Police departments 15 100 Sample selected from the
departments

that serve the 42 participating clinics U. S. Attorney offices 36
100 Included all U. S. Attorney offices with

jurisdiction over the 42 participating clinics Source: GAO survey
of selected clinic, police department, and U. S. Attorney office
representatives.

Analysis In analyzing the three surveys, we computed descriptive
statistics on the close- ended survey responses, and we conducted
a systematic content

analysis of the open- ended survey responses. For the content
analysis of the open- ended responses, two staff members reviewed
all the narrative responses to a particular question and mutually
agreed on response categories. Then, two staff members, at least
one of whom had not worked on developing the categories,
independently placed responses into the appropriate response
categories. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved.

The number of narrative response categories varied by question, as
did the number of responses in each of the categories. In general,
we have reported the response categories that were the most
frequent or common.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 84

Appendix VI Survey Methodology

Because of the way we selected our samples, the results of our
structured surveys are not generalizable to the universes of
clinics, police departments, or U. S. Attorneys in the country.
Reported responses to the surveys are illustrative rather than
representative; statements represent only the views of the
individual respondents.

Nonsampling Errors We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors. 2
Draft questionnaires were designed by social science survey
specialists and reviewed by

representatives of organizations who were knowledgeable about both
the subject matter and the terms used by the respondents. The
three national abortion rights groups reviewed the clinic
questionnaire, and EOUSA reviewed the instrument for the U. S.
Attorneys. The clinic interview was pretested with two abortion
clinic representatives, and the local law enforcement interview
was pretested with two police departments.

We kept in mind that the national abortion rights groups hold a
position on the issue of abortion, and their input did not cause
us to make any substantive changes to our instrument. However, the
groups were in a position to offer useful advice on words and
phrases that would be best understood by the abortion clinics. The
groups also encouraged the participation of the abortion clinic
representatives in the study, which reduced nonresponse bias.

We took steps to minimize nonresponse bias by following up with
potential respondents to encourage them to participate. We
obtained a 100 percent response rate from the police department
interviews and U. S. Attorney surveys and a 98 percent response
rate from the clinic interviews.

All data were double- keyed and verified after data entry, and
computer analyses were double- checked against hand- tallies of
key information. All computer programs were also checked by a
second independent programmer.

2 Because we do not generalize our survey findings to a larger
population, it is not appropriate to calculate sampling errors for
this study. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any
survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to
as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a
particular question is interpreted or in the sources of
information that are available to respondents can introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 85

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

This appendix contains summaries of reported and unreported or
pending cases brought under the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE). The summaries of reported cases are
based on the text of written decisions and additional information
from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that updated the status of
these cases. We based our summaries of unreported or pending cases
on information provided by DOJ. We were not able to identify cases
relating to actions brought by private parties in unreported or
pending status because no central databases exist for identifying
this information.

Criminal Cases Prosecuted by the Department of Justice

Reported Criminal Cases: United States Courts of Appeals Decisions

1. United States v. Bird, 124 F. 3d 667 (5th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 118 S. Ct. 1189 (March 9, 1998).

The defendant, an abortion protestor, was charged under FACE with
use of force and threat of force for throwing a bottle through a
window of a car being driven by an abortion provider and making
death threats. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the
district court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for 1 year,
followed by 1 year of supervised release with the special
condition that he stay at least 1,000 feet from any abortion
clinic. The defendant was also required to pay restitution to the
doctor for damage to the car. On appeal, the defendant challenged
the constitutionality of FACE; however, he did not contest his
guilt under FACE. The court of appeals affirmed the district
court's opinion. It held that FACE was a legitimate regulation of
interstate activity having substantial effect on interstate
commerce; that the defendant lacked standing to advance a claim
that FACE was unconstitutional because it protected certain
relationships, but failed to protect others; and that FACE was
neither overbroad nor vague. The court also held that the special
condition that the defendant stay at least 1,000 feet away from
abortion clinics did not violate the First Amendment. The Supreme
Court denied a petition to review the court of appeals' decision.

2. United States v. Brock, et al., 863 F. Supp. 851 (E. D. Wis.
1994), mandamus denied sub nom., Hatch v. Stadtmuller, 41 F. 3d
1510 (7th Cir. 1994) (table) (unpublished order), aff'd sub nom.,
United States v.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 86

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

Soderna, 82 F. 3d 1370 (7th Cir. 1996) cert. denied sub nom.,
Hatch v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 507 (1996).

Six defendants were charged with violating FACE for physical
obstruction of a Milwaukee, WI, clinic. The complaint was based on
an affidavit that stated that the defendants blockaded both doors
to the clinic with automobiles, to which they secured themselves
using cement and steel devices. The defendants argued that FACE
was constitutionally infirm because it was a content- based
regulation of expressive activity and because it was vague and
overbroad. They requested a jury trial. The district court held
that FACE was not unconstitutional and that it was neither a
content- based restriction of speech nor vague or overbroad.
Although FACE itself was silent on the issue of whether a jury
trial was required, the court determined that the defendants were
not entitled to a jury trial because the maximum possible sentence
constituted a petty offense. The defendants were convicted of
violating FACE. Fines and incarceration terms of various lengths
were imposed, the maximum being 6 months. The defendants appealed
their convictions, raising a variety of constitutional questions.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that FACE did not exceed
Congress' constitutional authority to regulate interstate
commerce; that FACE did not violate the defendants' First
Amendment rights; that FACE's proscription against obstruction of
facilities was not unconstitutionally vague, so as to violate the
First Amendment; and that the defendants were not entitled to a
jury trial. The Supreme Court denied a petition to review the
court of appeals' decision.

3. United States v. Unterburger, Olson 97 F. 3d 1413 (11th Cir.
1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2517 (1997).

The defendants were charged under FACE with physical obstruction
of an abortion clinic in Lake Clark Shores, FL, for chaining
themselves to the main entrance of the clinic. Because the
defendants had no prior convictions under FACE and the alleged
offense involved exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction,
the defendants faced a maximum prison term of 6 months and a
maximum fine of $10,000. The defendants requested a jury trial,
but the district court agreed with the magistrate judge that the
charged offense was not sufficiently serious to trigger the
constitutional right to a jury trial. Both defendants were
convicted and sentenced to time served during pretrial detention
and supervised release. The defendants appealed. The court of
appeals affirmed, holding that FACE did not violate the First or
Tenth Amendments, as FACE was both content and viewpoint neutral
and was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 87

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

The court also held that a sentence of 6 months and a fine of
$10,000 constituted a petty offense, and thus the defendants were
not entitled to a jury trial. The Supreme Court denied a petition
to review the court of appeals' decision.

4. United States v. Weslin, et al., 964 F. Supp. 93 (W. D. N. Y.
1997), __ F. 3d __, 1998 WL 537941 (2nd Cir. N. Y. Aug. 25, 1998).

The 11 defendants, anti- abortion activists, were charged with
violating FACE for blocking the entrances to a reproductive health
facility in Rochester, NY. One of the defendants moved to dismiss
the charges on the grounds that FACE violated the First Amendment.
The defendant argued that FACE was an impermissible content- based
regulation because it was aimed at speech and expressive conduct
intended to prevent persons from providing or obtaining
reproductive health services. The Court held that FACE did not
violate the free speech or free exercise clause of the First
Amendment and that FACE did not exceed Congress' authority to
regulate interstate commerce.

Two of the 11 defendants were sentenced to 4 months in prison, and
2 other defendants were sentenced to 2 months in prison. The
remaining seven defendants were sentenced to time served,
supervised release, and community service. All of the defendants
were ordered to pay $105 restitution for the damage to the clinic
doors.

The defendants filed an appeal. The court of appeals affirmed,
holding that FACE was constitutional under the Free Speech clause
of the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

5. United States v. Wilson, 880 F. Supp. 621 (E. D. Wis. 1995),
rev'd 73 F. 3d 675 (7th Cir. 1995), reh'g en banc denied, 1996 U.
S. App. LEXIS 2870 (7th Cir. Feb. 21, 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 47 (1996).

Six defendants were charged under FACE with blockading the doors
of a Milwaukee, WI, clinic using a method similar to the one used
in Brock. The district court held that FACE exceeded Congress'
power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The court also held
that because FACE was invalid under the Commerce Clause, it
violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it was an impermissible
regulation of private conduct. The court of appeals reversed,
holding that FACE was constitutional under the Commerce Clause as
a regulation that substantially affected interstate

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 88

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

commerce. The Supreme Court denied a petition to review the court
of appeals' decision.

The bench trial concluded on May 27, 1997. On April 30, 1998, the
court found the defendants guilty of violating FACE as charged.
One of the six defendants was sentenced to 167 days' confinement.
No jail time was imposed at sentencing for the other five
defendants. All the defendants were ordered to pay restitution to
the clinic in the total amount of $1,759.04. Two of the defendants
filed appeals.

6. United States v. Wilson and Hudson, __ F. 3d __, 1998 WL 452342
(7th Cir. Wis. Aug. 6, 1998).

The defendants were convicted on April 24, 1997, under FACE and
conspiracy to commit a violation of FACE, for positioning
themselves inside vehicles and blocking the front and rear
entrances to the Wisconsin Women's Health Care Center. This was
the second obstruction at the same clinic, see United States v.
Wilson, 73 F. 3d 675 (7th Cir. 1995). One defendant was sentenced
to 120 days in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $1,500 and
restitution of $454.97. The other defendant was sentenced to 24
months in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $3,000 and
restitution of $454.97. Additionally, he was ordered to serve 3
years' supervised release following incarceration. As a special
condition of his supervised release, he was also required to
participate in a mental health treatment program. The defendants
appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's
opinion. It held that FACE did not violate the First Amendment
rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. The court
also held that the defendants' conspiracy convictions did not
violate the First Amendment and that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by requiring one defendant to participate in
a mental health program as a condition of supervised release.

Reported Criminal Cases: United States District Court Decisions

1. United States v. Hill, 893 F. Supp. 1034 (N. D. Fla. 1994), 893
F. Supp. 1039 (N. D. Fla. 1994), 893 F. Supp. 1044 (N. D. Fla.
1994), 893 F. Supp. 1048 (N. D. Fla. 1994).

On July 29, 1994, a doctor and two escorts were shot while outside
of the Ladies Center clinic in Pensacola, FL. The doctor and one
escort were killed, and the other escort was wounded. The
defendant was charged with intentionally injuring and interfering
with individuals who had been providing reproductive health
services. He was also charged with

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 89

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

knowingly using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence
for which he may be prosecuted in federal court, in violation of
18 U. S. C. 942( c). The defendant moved to dismiss the
indictment, alleging that FACE was unconstitutional and that its
vagueness precluded escorts from being considered providers of
reproductive services. The district court held that Congress had
the power under the Commerce Clause to enact FACE. The court also
held that FACE, in light of its purpose and legislative history,
included a doctor's escort in the definition of provider, at least
where, as here, the escort was performing his or her duties at the
time of the alleged violation of the act. In a subsequent
decision, the district court entered an order granting the
government's motion to exclude evidence offered by the defendant
on the necessity or justification defense (which excuses criminal
conduct committed in order to prevent an imminent greater harm).
The court held that the defense could not be applied to justify
averting acts that have expressly been declared by the Supreme
Court to be constitutional and legally protected.

The defendant was convicted of violating FACE with death resulting
and was sentenced to life without parole. A local murder
prosecution resulted in imposition of the death penalty. The
defendant withdrew his federal appeal.

2. United States v. Lucero and Lacroix, 895 F. Supp. 1419 (D. Kan.
1995), 895 F. Supp. 1421 (D. Kan. 1995).

The defendants were charged with interfering by physical
obstruction with persons obtaining or providing reproductive
health services in violation of FACE after blocking the entrances
to a clinic in Wichita, KS, where abortions were performed. The
defendants' conduct amounted to exclusively a nonviolent physical
obstruction, subjecting the defendants to a maximum term of
imprisonment of 6 months and a maximum fine of $10,000 for the
first offense. The United States moved for a nonjury trial of the
defendants. The district court held that the maximum penalty that
could be imposed on the defendants exceeded the statutory
definition of petty offense one that carries a maximum penalty of
no more than 6 months' imprisonment and a $5,000 fine and thus,
the defendants were entitled to a jury trial. The defendants moved
for dismissal of the charges on the ground that FACE was
unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the First
Amendment. The district court held that FACE was not
unconstitutional, as it was content and viewpoint neutral and
Congress acted within its power to regulate interstate commerce.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 90

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

Both defendants were found guilty after a jury trial, and each was
sentenced to 6 months' incarceration and 1 year supervised
release.

Unreported or Pending Criminal Cases

The nine summaries in this section were prepared by DOJ. 1. United
States v. Blackburn (D. Mont.). The defendant was indicted on May
19, 1995, for making threatening telephone calls to numerous
clinics that provided abortion services. The defendant was charged
with six counts of violating FACE and six counts of violating 18
U. S. C. 844( e), threatening to use fire and explosives to damage
a building. On October 26, 1995, the defendant pled guilty to one
count of FACE and one count of 844( e). The defendant was
sentenced on February 21, 1996, to 5 years' probation with
mandatory psychological treatment.

2. United States v. Cabanies (W. D. Okla.). The defendant pled
guilty to entering a clinic in Warr Acres, OK, on January 24,
1998, and physically assaulting the clinic's only doctor. Prior to
entering the clinic, the defendant had been protesting outside the
building. The defendant pled guilty to one FACE violation. The
defendant was sentenced to 3 months in prison to be followed by 3
years' supervised release with a special condition of 90 days'
home detention. The defendant was also ordered to pay $700
restitution to the doctor for medical expenses.

3. United States v. Embry (W. D. Ky.). The defendant pled guilty
to telephoning a bomb threat to a Women's Choice Clinic in
Indianapolis, IN, on January 4, 1994, in violation of FACE. The
defendant was sentenced to 2 years' probation and ordered to
perform 100 hours of community service.

4. United States v. Hart (E. D. Ark.). The defendant was charged
with two FACE violations for abandoning two Ryder trucks in front
of the Little Rock Family Planning Services and Women's Community
Health Center clinics on September 25, 1997, in a manner as to
communicate a credible bomb threat to the clinics' staff. Each
truck obstructed vehicular access to the respective clinic's
parking

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 91

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

areas. Several businesses and residences near the clinics'
locations were evacuated for several hours while bomb and arson
experts investigated the trucks.

5. United States v. Lang (N. D. Ala.). The defendant was charged
with a FACE violation after threatening to kill a doctor during a
telephone call to a TV reporter on January 8, 1995, in Huntsville,
AL. The defendant received pretrial diversion on February 24,
1995.

6. United States v. Mathison (E. D. Wash.). The defendant was
indicted in Yakima, WA, for making a series of threatening calls,
some interstate, to an anti- abortion counseling and referral
service on December 31, 1994. The defendant was charged with a
violation of FACE and a violation of 18 U. S. C. 875, use of
interstate commerce to communicate a threat. In these calls, the
defendant stated he had a gun and threatened to kill as many
office workers as he could find. The defendant pled guilty to the
FACE count on June 6, 1995. Sentencing on August 31, 1995,
resulted in 5 years probation with 30 days' home detention and 10
weekends' confinement, as well as mandatory substance abuse
treatment. The defendant did not appeal his conviction.

7. United States v. McDonald (D. N. M.). The defendant pled guilty
on June 24, 1996, to chaining clinic doors shut on January 2,
1995, and setting fire to the same clinic on February 24, 1995, in
violation of FACE and arson statutes. The defendant was sentenced
to 30 months in prison on October 22, 1996.

8. United Stated v. Priestley (D. Or.) The defendant pled guilty
on September 27, 1995, to an unrelated arson charge in Eugene, OR,
as well as a threat to commit arson at a clinic in Grants Pass,
OR, on January 19, 1995, in violation of FACE. The defendant was
sentenced to 58 months in prison on April 9, 1996.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 92

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

9. United States v. McManus (D. Mass). The defendant pled guilty
to two counts of FACE and two counts of 18 U. S. C. 844( e),
threatening to use fire and explosives to damage a building, for
making threatening telephone calls on May 21, 1996, to the Planned
Parenthood in Worcester, MA, and to the Repro Associates in
Brookline, MA. On March 24, 1997, the defendant was sentenced to
27 months in prison and 2 years' supervised release.

Civil Lawsuits Initiated by the Department of Justice and Private
Parties

Reported Civil Cases: United States Courts of Appeals Decisions

1. American Life League v. Reno, 855 F. Supp. 137 (E. D. Va.
1994), aff'd, 47 F. 3d 642 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.
Ct. 55 (1995).

The plaintiffs brought an action challenging the constitutionality
of FACE. They argued that Congress lacked the authority to enact
FACE. They also argued that FACE violated the Free Exercise of
Religion clause of the First Amendment, was unconstitutionally
vague, and was overbroad because it prohibited protected First
Amendment expression. The district court dismissed the case. The
plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.
It concluded that FACE was within Congress' authority to regulate
commerce because Congress rationally concluded that reproductive
health services affect interstate commerce and that FACE was
reasonably adapted to permissible ends. The court also concluded
that FACE did not violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause
because FACE was content and viewpoint neutral and targeted
unprotected expression. The court ruled that the liquidated
damages provision did not subject anyone to damages caused by
protected expression and was therefore constitutionally valid. It
also concluded that FACE was neither overbroad nor vague and did
not violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. The
Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition to review the
court of appeals' decision.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 93

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

2. Cheffer v. Reno, No. 94- 611- CIV- ORL- 18 (M. D. Fla. July 26,
1994), aff'd, 55 F. 3d 1517 (11th Cir. 1995).

Anti- abortion activists brought suit challenging the
constitutionality of FACE. The district court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that
FACE withstood the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges.
Specifically, the court found that FACE constituted a valid
exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause and did not
infringe on state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The court
also found that FACE was not content or viewpoint based, was not
unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, did not violate the
appellants' First Amendment rights, and did not threaten any of
their lawful expressive activities. The court declined to review
the plaintiffs' claim that the act violated the Eighth Amendment
by imposing excessive fines on the basis that the claim was not
ripe, that is, not ready for the court to address.

3. Cook v. Reno, 859 F. Supp. 1008 (W. D. La. 1994), vacated, 74
F. 3d 97 (5th Cir. 1996).

The plaintiffs were anti- abortion demonstrators who sought to
enjoin the use and implementation of FACE. The district court
denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction,
finding that they did not have a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits. In its ruling, the district court rejected all of
the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges and found FACE narrowly
tailored to its purpose of curbing violence without burdening
freedom of speech. The government moved to dismiss the plaintiffs'
suit for lack of standing, a jurisdictional requirement that the
plaintiffs are entitled to have the court decide the merits of the
case. According to the government, the plaintiffs' complaint was
carefully worded to refer only to peaceful, nonconfrontational
activities. Thus, the government asserted that the plaintiffs
failed to allege that they intend to participate in any activity
that will violate FACE. The district court, concurring with the
government's reading of the plaintiffs' complaint and finding that
FACE was constitutional, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for lack
of standing. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling. The court of
appeals held that the district court improperly considered the
merits of the demonstrators' claim when deciding the issue of
standing and rejected the plaintiffs' request that the matter be
remanded to a different trial judge. The court of appeals vacated
the district court's judgment and remanded this suit for further
proceedings after the plaintiffs have been provided with an
opportunity to amend their complaint.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 94

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

4. Hoffman v. Hunt, 923 F. Supp. 791 (W. D. N. C. 1996), rev'd 126
F. 3d 575 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1838 (May 26,
1998).

Anti- abortion activists brought action seeking a judgment that a
North Carolina statute prohibiting obstruction of health care
facilities violated their First Amendment rights. The district
court determined that North Carolina law enforcement officers
threatened the plaintiffs with arrest for attempting to distribute
literature to persons entering clinics and for merely being
present at clinics. The plaintiffs later amended their complaint
to add a claim challenging the constitutionality of FACE. The
district court held that the North Carolina law violated the First
Amendment because it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad,
both on its face and as applied. Similarly, it held that FACE was
impermissibly vague and overbroad and that Congress lacked the
authority to enact FACE under the Commerce Clause, as not all
forms of reproductive health services affect interstate commerce.
The court of appeals reversed the district court's decision. It
held that although the North Carolina statute, on its face, was
neither vague nor overbroad, law enforcement officers exceeded
their authority in threatening the plaintiffs with arrest for
attempting to distribute literature to persons entering clinics
and merely being present at clinics. The court of appeals also
held that Congress acted within its authority under the Commerce
Clause in enacting FACE and that the statute did not violate the
First Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition to review the court of appeals' decision.

5. Terry v. Reno, No. 94- 1154 ( D. D. C. Nov. 21, 1995), aff'd,
101 F. 3d 1412 (D. C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2431
(1997).

The plaintiffs were anti- abortion activists who filed suit
challenging the constitutionality of FACE both on its face and as
applied or threatened to be applied to them. The district court
granted the government's motion for judgment on the pleading. The
court ruled that Congress had the power to enact the statute under
the Commerce Clause and that it did not violate the First
Amendment. The district court also ruled that FACE did not violate
principles of due process or equal protection and that the
plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims were not ripe. The court of
appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court. It held that
in enacting FACE, Congress did not exceed its Commerce Clause
power, that the statute was compatible with freedom of speech
under the First Amendment, and that FACE was not overbroad or
unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court of the United States
denied a petition to review the court of appeals' decision.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 95

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

6. United States v. Dinwiddie, 885 F. Supp. 1286 (W. D. Mo. 1995),
885 F. Supp. 1299 (W. D. Mo. 1995), aff'd in part, remanded in
part, 76 F. 3d 913 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 613
(1996).

The Attorney General brought a civil action seeking a temporary
restraining order and permanent injunction alleging that an
abortion protestor's conduct directed at a Kansas City, MO,
abortion clinic violated FACE. The district court found that the
defendant violated FACE by obstructing, using physical force
against, and threatening to use physical force against a number of
Planned Parenthood's patients and members of its staff. The court
issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the protestor from being
within 500 feet of an entrance of any facility in the United
States that provides reproductive health services except for the
purposes of engaging in legitimate personal activity that could
not be remotely construed to violate the statute.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the motive requirement, which
limits application to those who obstruct, threaten, or use force
because [the victim] is or has been, or in order to intimidate
[the victim] from, obtaining or providing a reproductive health
service, transformed FACE into a content- based statute, as it
punished only abortion- related expressive conduct. The court
ruled that this type of restriction was quite common and prevented
random crimes committed in the vicinity of abortion clinics from
being federalized. The court of appeals held that FACE was within
the commerce power of Congress, was not inconsistent with the
First Amendment, and not overbroad or vague. In ruling that FACE
was not vague, the court articulated definitions for several terms
in the statute. It said the following nonexhaustive and
nonconclusive factors can be used to determine whether a statement
constitutes a threat: the reaction of the recipient and other
listeners to the statement; whether the statement was communicated
directly to the victim; if similar statements had previously been
made to the victim; and whether the victim had a reason to believe
the speaker had a propensity to engage in violence. It also upheld
the permanent injunction, with some modifications, ruling that
portions of the injunction were inconsistent with the First
Amendment, such as the prohibition of certain types of
nonthreatening speech and other forms of expression. However, it
said a permanent injunction that is more limited in scope would be
constitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition to review the court of appeals' decision.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 96

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

7. Woodall v. Reno, 47 F. 3d 656 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,
115 S. Ct. 2577 (1995).

The plaintiffs, a demonstrator and an anti- abortion women's
organization, alleged that they pray peacefully in front of
abortion clinic entrances and nonviolently discourage access to
the entrances. The plaintiffs raised a challenge on constitutional
grounds to FACE. The district court dismissed their complaint and
the plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeals rejected the
plaintiffs' claim that FACE violated the First Amendment or was
vague and overbroad and affirmed on the reasoning of the opinion
in American Life League, a decision the court handed down on the
same day as Woodall. The plaintiffs also argued that FACE was
unconstitutional because it allowed the Attorney General to seek
injunctive relief if he/ she had reasonable cause to believe that
a person might be injured by conduct violating FACE, and thus it
constituted prior restraint. Because they were not subject to an
injunction under FACE at the time, however, the court ruled that
their claim was being raised prematurely. The Supreme Court of the
United States denied a petition to review the court of appeals'
decision.

Reported Civil Cases: United States District Court Decisions

1. Council for Life Coalition v. Reno, 856 F. Supp. 422 (S. D.
Cal. 1994). The plaintiffs brought an action for declaratory and
injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the enforcement of FACE on a
variety of constitutional and statutory grounds. The court held
that FACE did not infringe the plaintiffs' rights under the First
and Fifth Amendments, and Congress had full authority to enact
FACE under the Commerce Clause. The defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint was granted. The plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiffs failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

2. Greenhut v. Hand, 996 F. Supp. 372 (D. N. J. 1998). The
plaintiff was a volunteer for an anti- abortion organization. The
defendant left a telephone message at the plaintiff's residence
that stated Hello, Janet. Get your murderers away from abortion
clinics now or you will be killed. About 1 hour and 15 minutes
later, the defendant left a second message that stated, Janet, get
your pro- lifers away from our clinics or we will kill you.
Criminal charges were brought against the defendant and on
December 11, 1995, she pled guilty to one count of making
terroristic threats in violation of a New Jersey statute.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed this civil action seeking relief
against the

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 97

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

defendant under FACE. The district court noted that FACE was being
invoked to penalize threats directed against an anti- abortion
volunteer. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had not
satisfied two elements under FACE; namely, the plaintiff was not
providing reproductive health services and the defendant did not
act with the requisite intent. The district court held that FACE
covered the plaintiff's activities, since her organization
provided emotional support and guidance to pregnant women, and
other courts ruled that FACE was not limited to medical services.
The court also held that the defendant had the requisite intent to
impede, interfere with, or intimidate the plaintiff from
furnishing reproductive health services. The court awarded the
plaintiff $10,000 in statutory damages under FACE.

3. Lucero v. Trosch, 904 F. Supp. 1336 (S. D. Ala. 1995), 928 F.
Supp. 1124 (S. D. Ala. 1996), aff'd in part, vacated in part, and
remanded, 121 F. 3d 591 (11th Cir. 1997).

A physician and a health care clinic sued an anti- abortion
activist for violation of FACE and for private nuisance based on
statements the defendant made to the physician on a television
show at which they appeared together as guests. The defendant
moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court held
that a reasonable jury could have found that the anti- abortion
activist's statements to the physician that he should be dead and
that the activist would kill the abortion doctor if he had a gun
in his hand were threats of force for purposes of FACE even though
the speaker did not expressly tell the physician that he was going
to kill him at some future time. The court also held that FACE was
not unconstitutional and that statements made during the
television show did not constitute actionable private nuisance to
the physician's clinic under Alabama law. In a subsequent
decision, the district court held that the activist's statements
did not constitute threats of force that were violative of FACE.

The physician and health care clinic also sued abortion protestors
for their protest activities held outside the clinic. The court of
appeals held that (1) the provisions of a preliminary injunction
enjoining the defendants from congregating, picketing, praying,
loitering, patrolling, demonstrating, or communicating with others
orally, by signs, or otherwise, within 25 feet of the clinic did
not seem unreasonable and does not burden speech more than
necessary to preserve the patients', doctors', and staff's right
to enter the clinic; (2) a provision of a preliminary injunction
enjoining the defendants from approaching, congregating,
picketing, patrolling,

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 98

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

demonstrating, or using bullhorns or other sound amplification
equipment within 200 feet of the residences of the clinic's staff
operated as a generalized restriction on protesting and thus was
unconstitutional under the First Amendment; (3) a provision
enjoining the defendants from blocking or attempting to block,
barricade, or obstruct the entrances, exits, or driveways of the
residences of the clinic staff; and inhibiting or impeding or
attempting to impede the free ingress and egress of persons to any
street providing the sole access to the residences of clinic staff
did not burden speech more than was necessary to serve the state's
significant interest in promoting the free flow of traffic on
public streets; and (4) a provision enjoining the defendants from
knowingly being within 20 feet of any person seeking to obtain or
provide clinic services was unconstitutional because it burdened
speech more than was necessary to serve the significant government
interests. On the basis of these rulings, the case was remanded so
that the district court would revise the preliminary injunction.

4. Milwaukee Women's Medical Center, Inc., and United States v.
Brock et al., 1998 WL 228158 (E. D. Wis. April 30, 1998).

This civil lawsuit arose out of the Milwaukee Clinic blockade for
which the defendants were criminally prosecuted in United States
v. Brock, 863 F. Supp. 851 (E. D. Wis. 1994), mandamus denied sub
nom., Hatch v. Stadtmuller, 41 F. 3d 1510 (7th Cir. 1994)
(unpublished order), aff'd sub nom., United States v. Soderna, 82
F. 3d 1370 (7th Cir. 1996) cert. denied sub nom., Hatch v. United
States, 117 S. Ct. 507 (1996). This was DOJ's only FACE lawsuit
prosecuted both criminally and civilly.

The clinic filed a civil action against the defendants seeking (1)
a declaration that the defendants violated FACE, (2) injunctive
relief, and (3) statutory damages. The parties agreed to stay the
matter pending resolution of the criminal proceedings. On December
20, 1994, approximately 1 month after the criminal convictions
were obtained, DOJ intervened in the civil FACE lawsuit. The suit
sought a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction enjoining
the defendants from blocking access to the clinic, and $5,000 in
statutory damages against each defendant as well as separate
awards for punitive damages. The presiding district court judge
stayed this case for almost a year pending the outcome of
appellate and Supreme Court review of his decision in United
States v. Wilson, 880 F. Supp. 621 (E. D. Wis. 1995), a criminal
FACE prosecution in which he had declared the statute
unconstitutional. The Seventh Circuit ultimately reversed the
district court's decision, and the Supreme Court

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 99

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

denied a petition to review the court of appeals' decision. United
States v. Wilson, 73 F. 3d 675 (7th Cir. 1995); cert. denied
Wilson v. United States, 47 S. Ct. 117 (1996).

The court (1) granted summary judgment and issued a declaratory
judgment in the clinic's and the government's favor against six of
eight defendants stating that the defendants violated FACE; (2)
awarded compensatory damages in the total amount of $5,000, for
which the defendants were each jointly and severally liable; and
(3) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from
rendering impassable the entry to and exit from the clinic or
rendering passage to or from the clinic unreasonably difficult or
hazardous. The court rejected the claim for punitive damages,
holding that the peaceful obstruction of entrances did not warrant
the imposition of punitive damages. At the time of our review, the
case remained pending against the other two defendants.

5. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/ Wilmette, Inc. et al. v.
American Coalition of Life Activists, et al., 945 F. Supp. 1355
(D. Oregon 1996).

The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants alleging
violations of FACE and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act and a similar provision of Oregon law,
the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(ORICO). The individual plaintiffs were doctors who performed
abortions; the two corporate plaintiffs operated clinics and
provided health services, including abortions. The defendants
included associations that oppose abortions and individuals from
the associations. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
conspired to violate FACE by intending to injure, threaten, and
intimidate the plaintiffs through the dissemination of posters
that accused individual abortion providers of murder and provided
their descriptions, addresses, and phone numbers. The plaintiffs
alleged that the defendants violated FACE by threatening,
injuring, and intimidating them because they provided reproductive
health services. The district court held that (1) the defendants
were subject to personal jurisdiction in Oregon, (2) FACE was
within Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, (3) FACE did not
violate the First Amendment, and (4) the plaintiffs adequately
stated RICO and ORICO claims against all but one of the
defendants.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 100

Appendix VII Summaries of Cases Brought Under the Freedom of
Access to Clinic the Entrances Act of 1994

6. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Walton, 949
F. Supp. 290 (E. D. Pa. 1996), 1997 WL 734012 (E. D. Pa. Nov. 14,
1997), 1998 WL 88373 (E. D. Pa. Feb. 12, 1998).

The plaintiff, a reproductive counseling association, brought
action under FACE against a number of anti- abortion activists for
obstructing access to the plaintiff's Philadelphia, PA, clinic.
The district court held FACE to be constitutional. It concluded
that (1) FACE did not violate the First Amendment, (2) Eighth
Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment claims were not ripe, and
(3) enactment of FACE was within Congress' authority under the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. In a subsequent
action, the defendants challenged the plaintiff's ability to bring
suit under FACE, claiming that they lacked standing. The district
court held that under the plain language of FACE, the plaintiff
corporation qualified as a person involved in providing or seeking
to provide . . . services within the meaning of the statute and
thus had standing to bring an action under FACE. On February 12,
1998, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment, granted a permanent injunction, and awarded statutory
damages.

7. Riely v. Reno, 860 F. Supp. 693 (D. Ariz. 1994). The plaintiffs
filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of FACE. The
defendants moved for dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiffs'
claims were not ripe for review and on the alternative grounds
that their complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. The district court found that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The
court found (1) that Congress acted within its authority under the
Commerce Clause when it enacted FACE, (2) that FACE did not
impermissibly regulate protected expression or burden religion,
(3) the plaintiffs failed to show that FACE was vague or
overbroad, (4) the punishments imposed and statutory damages
allowed by FACE did not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines, and (5)
finally, having found that FACE did not violate the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Eighth, or Tenth Amendments, that the enforcement of FACE
by state officials did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics Page 101

*** End of document. ***