House Hearing Focuses on DOJ’s Enforcement of FACE Act Against Pro-Life Protesters

A recent House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight hearing delved into allegations of the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) systematically targeting pro-life protesters. The hearing, titled "Entering the Golden Age: Ending the Weaponization of the Justice Department," featured testimony from Peter Breen, the Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at the Thomas More Society, a Christian nonprofit law firm.

Breen asserted that the Biden DOJ engaged in a "systematic campaign to abuse the power of the federal government against pro-life advocates," while allegedly overlooking numerous acts of vandalism and violence directed at pro-life churches, pregnancy help centers, and other related organizations. This claim centers around the DOJ’s prosecution of 23 pro-life protesters who participated in a large-scale abortion clinic blockade in Washington, D.C., during 2020. These individuals were charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and subsequently sentenced to prison terms.

The FACE Act, enacted in 1994, prohibits the use of physical force, threats of force, or intentional property damage to prevent individuals from obtaining or providing abortion services. According to the DOJ, the pro-life activists employed force and physical obstruction to carry out the clinic blockade. The DOJ further stated that the protestors’ forced entry into the clinic resulted in injury to a clinic nurse. The announcement of the indictments also alleges that one patient was forced to climb through a receptionist window to gain access to the clinic, while another was left in physical distress in the hallway, unable to enter.

The Thomas More Society represented several of the imprisoned activists and advocated for their pardon. Former President Donald Trump granted pardons to all 23 activists in one of his first executive actions. Trump stated that the activists "should not have been prosecuted" and that many of them were elderly. Breen conveyed gratitude to President Trump and members of the House who supported the pardon effort, asserting that the pardons sent a "powerful message" that the federal government should not be weaponized against Americans for their beliefs in the sanctity of human life.

Breen highlighted the pro-life movement’s opposition to the FACE Act, arguing that it infringes upon the First Amendment, unduly restricts the freedom to protest, and unfairly targets anti-abortion activists. The Thomas More Society is urging Congress to repeal the FACE Act, claiming it is selectively and illegally enforced by pro-abortion presidential administrations. Breen also suggested concrete steps Congress could take, in collaboration with the new administration, to define the proper scope of the laws and to defend the rights of pro-life Americans.

Other witnesses who testified at the hearing included Chris Swecker, former FBI Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigations Unit, Jonathan Fahey, a legal partner at Holtzman Vogel, and Brendan Ballou, a federal prosecutor. Their testimonies contributed to the broader discussion on the alleged weaponization of the Justice Department.

The hearing also touched upon a controversial 2023 Richmond FBI internal memo. This memo, titled "Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities," sparked concerns about potential targeting of religious groups.

This hearing highlights the ongoing tension surrounding abortion rights and the enforcement of laws related to protests and access to abortion clinics. The allegations of selective enforcement of the FACE Act and the discussion about the FBI memo reveal the complexity of balancing freedom of speech and religious expression with the protection of individuals seeking access to healthcare services and the prevention of violence and intimidation.

The DOJ has yet to issue a formal response to the allegations presented during the House hearing. The outcome of the hearing and any subsequent investigations could have significant implications for the future enforcement of the FACE Act and the broader debate surrounding abortion rights in the United States.

The controversy surrounding the FACE Act and its enforcement underscores the deeply divided opinions on abortion rights. Pro-life advocates believe that the law is used to silence their voices and prevent them from peacefully protesting abortion. On the other hand, pro-choice advocates argue that the FACE Act is necessary to protect access to abortion services and prevent intimidation and violence against patients and healthcare providers.
The accusations made during the hearing and the discussions regarding the FBI memo bring to light the crucial need to ensure impartiality and fairness in law enforcement, guarding against the potential for political or ideological biases to influence investigations and prosecutions. The debate is sure to continue in the coming months.