“From Tool to Weapon: The FACE Act and the Dangers of Federalizing Criminal Law”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                   FROM TOOL TO WEAPON: THE FACE ACT AND5                  THE DANGERS OF FEDERALIZING CRIMINAL LAW6=======================================================================78                                HEARING910                               BEFORE THE1112                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND13                              LIMITED GOVERNMENT1415                                 OF THE1617                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY1819                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2021                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2223                             SECOND SESSION2425                               __________2627                        TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 20262829                               __________3031                           Serial No. 119-653233                               __________3435         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary3637[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3839               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov4041                               __________4243                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4463-601                    WASHINGTON : 202645=======================================================================4647                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4849                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair5051DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking52ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member53TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York54THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California55THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee56CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,57SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia58BEN CLINE, Virginia                  TED LIEU, California59LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington60JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       J. LUIS CORREA, California61TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania62BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JOE NEGUSE, Colorado63HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia64LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina65WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont66RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois67KEVIN KILEY, California              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California68GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida69BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York70MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas71ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       Vacancy72DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas73BRANDON GILL, Texas74MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington7576                                 ------7778        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT7980                         CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair8182TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,83THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Ranking Member84HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             STEVE COHEN, Tennessee85WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington86GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE NEGUSE, Colorado87MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont88ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California89BRANDON GILL, Texas                  DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York9091               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director92                ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director9394                            C O N T E N T S9596                              ----------9798                        TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 202699                           OPENING STATEMENTS100101                                                                   Page102103The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the104  Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas....     1105The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the106  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from107  the State of Pennsylvania......................................     4108The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary109  from the State of Ohio.........................................     6110The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on111  the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     7112113                               WITNESSES114115Eva Edl, Yugoslavian communist concentration camp survivor, Pro-116  life Advocate117  Oral Testimony.................................................    10118  Prepared Testimony.............................................    12119Christopher A. Ferrara, Senior Counsel,Thomas More Society120  Oral Testimony.................................................    14121  Prepared Testimony.............................................    16122Roger T. Severino, Vice President, Economic and Domestic Policy,123  Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage124  Foundation125  Oral Testimony.................................................    27126  Prepared Testimony.............................................    29127Jessica L. Waters, Senior Scholar in Residence, Justice, Law &128  Criminology, American University129  Oral Testimony.................................................    71130  Prepared Testimony.............................................    73131132          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING133134All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution135  and Limited Government, for the record.........................   107136137A statement from Sterling Heights clinic, submitted by the138  Honorable the Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the139  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the140  record141Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking142  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited143  Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record144    An article entitled, ``DOJ's First `Weaponization' Report Is145        a Bust,'' Apr. 20, 2026, The Atlantic146    A press release entitled, ``Ohio Woman Pleads Guilty to147        Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act148        Violation for Damaging Pregnancy Center,'' Dec. 8, 2023,149        Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice150    A press release entitled, ``Wisconsin Man Sentenced to Prison151        for 2022 Firebombing of Madison Building,'' Apr. 10,152        2024, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of153        Justice154    A press release entitled, ``Florida Woman Convicted of Civil155        Rights Conspiracy Targeting Pregnancy Resource Centers,''156        Dec. 20, 2024, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department157        of Justice158    A press release entitled, ``FBI Offering $25,000 Rewards for159        Information in Series of Attacks Against Reproductive160        Health Service Facilities,'' Jan. 19, 2023, Federal161        Bureau of Investigation (FBI)162    An article entitled, ``Separating Fact from Fiction in FACE163        Act Enforcement,'' Apr. 14, 2026, Just Security164    A press release entitled, ``Seven Defendants Convicted of165        Federal Civil Rights Conspiracy and Freedom of Access to166        Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act Offenses for Obstructing167        Access to Reproductive Health Services in Michigan,''168        Aug. 20, 2024, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department169        of Justice170    A statement from Reproductive Freedom For All, Apr. 28, 2026171    A statement from The American College of Obstetricians &172        Gynecologists, Apr. 28, 2026173    A statement from the National Abortion Federation (NAF), Apr.174        28, 2026175    A statement the Center for Reproductive Rights, Apr. 28, 2026176    A statement from David Gunn, Jr. and Wendy Gunn, Apr. 28,177        2026178    Pages from the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, pp. 557-179        558, Apr. 28, 2026180    A statement from Judith C. Appelbaum, Apr. 28, 2026181    An article entitled, ``I testified before Congress on the182        FACE Act--and became a target,'' May 8, 2026, MS Now183An article entitled, ``Arrests in Memphis as Antiabortion184  Training Camp Sparks New Era of Clinic Blockades,'' Nov. 26,185  2025, Ms. Magazine, submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen,186  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited187  Government from the State of Tennessee, for the record188Materials submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the189  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from190  the State of Texas, for the record191    A report entitled,``Fact Sheet: Planned Parenthood's 2024-25192        Annual Report,'' Apr. 7, 2026, Lozier Institute193    The Executive Summary report entitled, ``The Biden194        Administration's Weaponization of the Freedom of Access195        to Clinic Entrances Act,'' Apr. 14, 2026, Office of Legal196        Policy, U.S. Department of Justice197Materials submitted by the Honorable Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a198  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited199  Government from the State of California, for the record200    A statement for the record from Renee Chelian, Founder, CEO,201        Northland Family Planning, Apr. 28, 2026202    An article entitled, ``Trump pardons abortion clinic203        protesters ahead of March for Life,'' Jan. 23, 2025,204        Politico205    An article entitled, ``Fertility clinic bombing suspect was206        `nihilistic' 25-year-old, FBI says,'' May 18, 2025, The207        Washington Post208    A press release entitled, ``More Men Using Family Planning209        Services,'' Jun. 16, 2016, U.S. Department of Health and210        Human Services211    A letter to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee212        on the Constitution and Limited Government from the State213        of Texas, and the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking214        Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and215        Limited Government from the State of Pennsylvania, from216        Amnesty International, Apr. 28, 2026217218                   FROM TOOL TO WEAPON: THE FACE ACT219              AND THE DANGERS OF FEDERALIZING CRIMINAL LAW220221                              ----------222223                        Tuesday, April 28, 2026224225                        House of Representatives226227        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government228229                       Committee on the Judiciary230231                             Washington, DC232233    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room2342141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy [Chair235of the Subcommittee] presiding.236    Members present: Representatives Roy, Jordan, Hageman,237Grothman, Harris, Onder, Gill, Scanlon, Raskin, Cohen, Jayapal,238Balint, and Kamlager-Dove.239    Mr. Roy. [Presiding.] The Committee will come to order.240Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess241at any time. We welcome everybody to today's hearing on the242FACE Act and the dangers of Federalizing criminal law.243    Before I start, I just want to say thanks for everybody's244patience. I think there were some security line issues. Thanks245to the witnesses for navigating through those, and thanks to my246colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I apologize for247starting a little bit late, but we were trying to deal with248that issue.249    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.250    Today, this Subcommittee confronts a fundamental question251about the proper role of the Federal Government in our252constitutional system, because the issue before us is not just253one statute; it is about a broader and more dangerous trend--254the steady expansion of Federal criminal law into areas the255Constitution traditionally reserves to the States. When256Washington creates these authorities and hands them to257unelected bureaucrats, these tools will inevitably be258weaponized.259    The FACE Act is a case study into exactly that problem. It260was sold as a narrow, even-handed tool designed to equally261protect access to abortion clinics, pregnancy resource centers,262and places of worship by prohibiting threats of force,263obstruction, and property damage. Like so many Federal laws264before it, it has become a vehicle for selective enforcement, a265mechanism for political targeting, and ultimately, a weapon266used against conservatives and prolife Americans.267    We don't need to speculate. We now have clear evidence from268the Department of Justice's own report that this law was269weaponized by the Biden Administration. That report shows how,270under the Biden Administration, enforcement of the FACE Act was271shaped, if not driven, by outside advocacy groups.272    The Biden Department of Justice worked in close273coordination with extremist NGOs, particularly large, well-274funded pro-abortion groups, like the National Abortion275Federation, Planned Parenthood, and the Feminist Majority276Foundation. These groups weren't merely reporting crimes.277    They were operating as de facto intelligence-gathering278arms, collecting and compiling detailed dossiers on the speech279and activities of American citizens for Federal authorities280mapping their movements, logging protests, and gathering deeply281personal information, including participation in religious282activity, home addresses, license data, even photos of their283families and minor children all of it fed into the prosecution284pipeline, even as DOJ officials themselves recognized much of285the underlying activity was protected under the First286Amendment.287    The DOJ didn't just receive this information. It gave these288groups privileged access. On May 15, 2023, the National289Abortion Federation requested a full internal list of every290active FACE Act prosecution in the country. They got it in full291within one hour.292    When this Subcommittee and I personally, as a Member of293Congress, asked for the exact same information, the DOJ didn't294just delay. They stonewalled for over three years from 2022-2952024.296    In October 2022, a formal request was ignored. December2972023, asked again under oath: No answer. February 2024,298followup in writing: Nothing. May 2024, response finally comes29916 months later.300    It wasn't just Congress; defense counsel and active FACE301prosecutors were denied the data outright. In one case, a DOJ302official explicitly wrote that providing the information would,303quote, ``open gates we will struggle to close,'' implicitly304acknowledging that the records would reveal unequal enforcement305targeting only prolifers. They refused and claiming the records306didn't exist, even though the same information had been handed307to the National Abortion Federation on demand.308    Why does an outside abortion advocacy group get immediate309access to internal Department of Justice enforcement data,310while Congress, prolife defendants, and the American people are311forced to wait years or are denied altogether? That is not312equal justice under the law. That is a two-tiered system where313political allies are treated as partners and dissenters as314targets.315    It didn't stop there. The bias we are seeing didn't just316shape who was investigated. It shaped how these cases were317prosecuted in court. In FACE Act trials, we have evidence that318DOJ attorneys probed prospective jurors on their religious319beliefs and prolife views, treating constitutionally protected320convictions as potential disqualifications for service.321    In one instance, a DOJ prosecutor even complained when a322judge took care to protect the defendant's First Amendment's323rights. This is what happens when Washington takes power it was324never meant to have, using it to target, instead of to serve,325while treating constitutional protections as obstacles rather326than guarantees.327    We don't have to imagine what that looks like. We see it328sitting here before us today. Ms. Eva Edl is not a violent329criminal. She is a 91-year-old survivor of a communist labor330camp, someone who has lived through the horrors of unchecked331government power. Yet, in Biden's America, she was not met with332freedom, but with the full force of Federal prosecution for a333nonviolent protest. Having survived the abuses of a 20th334century regime built on centralized power, she now faces the335consequences of that same dangerous principle right here on336American soil decades later.337    Her case is not an outlier. It is a warning about what338happens when the Federal Government takes jurisdiction over339local conduct, and then, applies that power selectively guided340not by equal justice, but by political priorities.341    This should concern every American, regardless of their342views on the underlying issue. Because the real problem isn't343just how this law has been used. It is the permanent expansion344of Federal power it represents. When Congress Federalizes345criminal law, we are not just addressing a single issue in a346single moment. We are creating authorities that do not347disappear when political control changes hands, authorities348that will be used again and again by whoever sits in the White349House, controls the DOJ, or directs Federal law enforcement.350    That is why this hearing isn't just about the FACE Act. It351is about what happens when Washington takes power it was never352meant to have.353    We are seeing the same impulse in proposals to Federalize354other areas of criminal law. New Federal penalties layered on355top of existing State crimes and efforts to nationalize deeply356contested social issues through criminal statutes. Because the357real question isn't whether this power delivers you the outcome358you want today. It is whether you are willing to hand that same359power to your political opponents tomorrow. The answer should360be obvious. It isn't to fight over who controls these powers.361The answer is to stop creating them in the first place.362    Criminal law enforcement, particularly for conduct that is363local in nature, has historically and constitutionally belonged364to the States. That division of authority was not accidental.365It was designed as a safeguard against centralized power. When366we ignore that structure, we don't just make a policy mistake;367we create a system ripe for abuse, a playground for368bureaucrats, a lever for political agendas, and a direct threat369to the liberties we are sworn to protect.370    That is why I have called for the repeal of the FACE Act,371not only because of who it has been used against, but because372of what is represented, an expansion of Federal power and a373breakdown of constitutional limited. The Federal Government374should not be in the business of policing local conduct through375expansive criminal statutes. If we are serious about protecting376liberty, then we must be serious about limiting power. Because377once Washington takes it, it doesn't give it back.378    One final point, a point of personal privilege, is I have379tried to be consistent on this point to the extent of opposing380or raising questions about legislation that is supported by381people that are, shall I say, politically aligned typically, or382issues that I care passionately about issues such as383transgender surgeries or issues involving law enforcement who384are being targeted locally or cops who are killed, that are not385getting justice in one jurisdiction or another.386    I believe that we need to have this debate and this387conversation about how much authority should be vested in the388Federal Government in the form of criminal laws. Because I389assure you that my colleagues who have concerns about this390administration and those of us who had concerns about the last,391the point that the Founders were making was that we should392leave those authorities and those powers to the people and to393the governments in the States closest to them, and not394centralize that power in such a way that it can, in fact, be395used against the people.396    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.397    I now yield to the Ranking Member for her opening398statement.399    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.400    Well, today is the third time in as many years that this401Subcommittee, under Republican leadership, is holding a hearing402to undermine the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or403the FACE Act, fourth, if you count the markup of the Chair's404FACE Act Repeal Act last year. Eliminating the FACE Act is a405Right-wing policy priority drawn directly from the extremist406Project 2025 manifesto, page 558, to be precise.407    No matter how many times the enemies of reproductive rights408try to rewrite history or drum up new conspiracies about the409FACE Act, the facts stay the same. We continue to see criminal410obstruction of and threats, intimidation, and violence against411abortion providers and women seeking those services. The FACE412Act is needed now as much as it has ever been.413    In 1994, Congress passed the FACE Act with bipartisan414support to address rising violence against abortion and415reproductive healthcare providers. Over the years, that416violence has included arsons, bombings, chemical attacks,417blockades, murders, and attempted murders of abortion providers418and bystanders.419    Specifically, the FACE Act protects the people who work in420or seek care at facilities providing access to abortion and421other reproductive healthcare services, as well as places of422religious worship. It protects them from the use of force,423threats, intimidation, or physical obstruction.424    For decades, the same coordinated extreme anti-choice425forces whose violent conduct created the need for the FACE Act426in the first place have tried to undermine the law as part of427their unpopular mission to gut access to reproductive428healthcare and, effectively, ban abortion in the United States.429    Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022,430anti-abortion extremists have been emboldened, fueling a431resurgence of violence and harassment against abortion432providers. A report from the National Abortion Federation433documented 777 instances of obstruction of clinics in 2024. In434the last two years, there have been 296 incidents of death435threats and other threats of violence aimed at abortion436providers and their patients.437    For years, our Republican colleagues have tried to warp438reality, and today's hearing is more of the same. They are439claiming that people were arrested under the FACE Act for440praying. That's just not true. Praying is not unlawful conduct,441but you can't mask unlawful conduct, including violent threats442or blockading entrances to clinics, with performative prayer.443Those threats and physical harassment are crimes, and they444jeopardize people's access to potentially lifesaving care.445    Take, for example, one woman's story from Michigan. After446struggling with infertility, she finally got pregnant, but at44712 weeks she and her husband got devastating news. Their baby448had an extremely rare abnormality and he wouldn't survive449birth. If she continued the pregnancy, her ability to have450children in the future would be at risk and her life would be451at risk as well. She and her husband made the decision to452terminate the pregnancy.453    On the morning of her appointment at a local reproductive454healthcare clinic, she arrived to find people blocking the455entrance. A group approached them, trying to force her to take456graphic pamphlets and telling her she could stop a murder from457happening. The harassment continued even after the couple moved458their car. She and her husband had to leave out of fear for459their safety, even though she needed immediate medical460attention. They were only able to return after police arrived,461arrested the disruptors, and removed them.462    In another instance, five anti-abortion extremists forced463their way into a clinic in Virginia and attempted to grab a464patient. The patient's friend had to step in and help the465clinic staff usher the invaders out.466    We are talking about women and their loved ones facing467terror, threats of injury, and having to physical fight people468off, just to receive legal healthcare for serious medical469needs. It shouldn't be that way. That is why we have the FACE470Act.471    Republicans have seized on a false narrative that the Biden472Justice Department selectively enforced the law. That's not473true.474    This month, as Chair Roy has related, Trump's Department of475Justice issued a report claiming that the former administration476used the FACE Act to go after allegedly peaceful prolife477protestors. I should note that this report has been variously478described across multiple outlets as cherry-picked, shoddy,479misleading, hypocritical, inaccurate, incomplete, and a480distortion of the truth that disregards multiple court rulings481and jury verdicts. It parrots longstanding anti-abortion482conspiracies, particularly those championed in the extremist483Project 2025 manifesto.484    There is no credible evidence that prior administrations485selectively enforced the FACE Act against anti-abortion486protestors. To the extent that there is any disparity in FACE487Act prosecutions of attacks on abortion clinics versus prolife488facilities, it is simply a reflection of the facts. Abortion489providers and their patients face significantly higher threats490and levels of violence than other entities covered by the491statute.492    The actions of the Trump Administration and its Right-wing493allies, including our Republican colleagues, to undermine the494FACE Act have invited anti-abortion extremists to carry out495even more dangerous and hostile acts against women seeking496healthcare and their medical providers.497    The President's firing of lawyers who prosecuted FACE Act498violations, along with pardons for people who were convicted by499juries of harassing and attacking abortion providers and their500patients, only further emboldens people to commit these crimes.501In fact, we have already seen pardoned anti-abortion activists502go back to commit similar acts.503    Last July, six people, two of whom received Trump pardons504for FACE Act violations, were arrested after invading a clinic505in my District in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. They have gone506on to be arrested again after their plea bargains were507affirmed. They lied to get into the Delaware County facility,508and then harassed patients and staff until the police removed509them.510    If my Republican colleagues want to examine the real511dangers of an out-of-control executive using the government to512attack its political enemies, they should be holding hearings513to examine what the Trump Administration is doing right now.514How about deploying American troops and armed and masked515Federal agents to our city streets to shutdown opposition and516threatening assaulting and even killing people who would hold517them accountable?518    How about using warrantless searches to arrest American519citizens in their own homes? Or labeling people who disagree520with the President's policies as domestic terrorists under521NSPM-7? Putting their names on secret government lists and522demanding that tech companies' hand over the identities of523Americans who organize or share their dissenting opinions524online? If we are talking about Federal intrusion into areas525reserved to the States, how about this administration's526attempts to Federalize our elections and seize State voter527rolls? Why aren't we holding hearings about that?528    In politicizing a law meant to keep all Americans safe,529anti-abortion extremists are openly attempting to lay the530groundwork for a national abortion ban. Their goal is to scare,531threaten, and physically obstruct women from accessing532reproductive healthcare.533    The Majority of Americans agree, all women deserve the534freedom to work with their doctors and their families to decide535on the healthcare that is right for them without the meddling536of radical politicians or religious extremists. No one should537be denied medical care because of someone else's religious or538political beliefs. I yield back.539    Mr. Roy. I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee,540Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement.541    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.542    I can't think of a better time to have this hearing. Last543week, we learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center was544running a scam. The Southern Poverty Law Center who said,545quote, ``The prolife movement is fundamentally antidemocratic,'546'' was running a scam, paying $3 million to, quote,547``informants'' to go foment the hate they told the world they548were actually supposed to be fighting. This is exactly the549right time to have this hearing, for goodness' sake.550    The Southern Poverty Law Center that the Biden Justice551Department used to train lawyers to go deal with the FACE Act?552You've got to be kidding me. The Southern Poverty Law Center,553which was cited in the now famous memorandum--we have the554Thomas More Society here; they remember this--where they said555prolife Catholics were extremists, guess who they cited in that556memo? The Southern Poverty Law Center.557    I remember when Rahm Emanuel said, ``Never let crisis go to558waste.'' Well, the SPLC took it further. They said: We're going559to create the crisis, so we can go after prolife groups using560the FACE Act, and whatever else.561    The Ranking Member can talk about, oh, we have had three562hearings on this. Well, this one couldn't be better timed. This563is exactly what we need to be talking about, in light of the564fact they have been indicted for running a $3 million scam565against the people who were supporting them, and going out and566going after prolife people, like Eva Edl, the 90-year-old. The567Chair talked about her history and what she is doing, praying568at a clinic.569    I'm glad you are all here and I look forward to hearing570your testimony. I thank the Chair for putting this hearing571together. With that, I yield back.572    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair. I will now recognize the573Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his574opening statement.575    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I want to thank576all our witnesses for joining us today.577    We are in a weird time warp groove with our friends across578the aisle. Most of their energy is now focused on pardoning579people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, wounding and580injuring 150 of our police officers, disfiguring and disabling581some of them for life.582    Their time is spent vacating the criminal convictions of583the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who engaged in seditious584conspiracy against the U.S. Government, which means conspiring585to overthrow and put down the government. Now, the Department586of Justice wants to vacate those convictions that were handed587down by unanimous juries.588    They want to give millions of dollars to convicted589criminals like Michael Flynn, for example, President Trump's590disgraced former National Security Advisor. They gave him $1.5591million for a lawsuit he brought against the government and592already lost. He lost it in court, and nonetheless, they wrote593him a check for $1.5 million.594    They wrote a check for another $1.5 million, or $1.25595million, to Carter Page, who unsuccessfully sued the government596for damages and losing four different lawsuits. Nonetheless,597they just wrote him a check of the taxpayers' money, $1.25598million.599    Now, they are all lining up at the trough. A lot of the600January 6th insurrectionists wanted their $1.25 million payout.601    Donald Trump has sued the IRS for 10, no, forgive me, not602$10 million--$10 billion. He wants 80 percent of the IRS budget603that he is suing the government for. He is also suing for the604search warrants handed down by an independent, neutral605magistrate, where they executed a search on Mar-a-Lago and606found lots of classified documents and confidential and secret607documents he shouldn't have had. He is suing there for several608hundred million dollars as well. It is a big piggy bank for609them.610    Now, we are having our third hearing about the claim, I'm611not sure I fully understand it, but I think the claim is that612the activists who forcibly blocked health clinic entrances and613prevented women from accessing lawful reproductive health614services were somehow unjustly prosecuted under the FACE Act,615which they intimate is unconstitutional, but eight different616Federal Circuit Courts have upheld its constitutionality as a617perfectly lawful exercise of Congress' powers under the618Commerce Clause and not in any way in violation of the First619Amendment. OK? They continue to want to pander to people who620think that they should never have been prosecuted for their621criminal conduct.622    This hearing is an after-the-fact justification for623President Trump's antichoice pander pardons which took place624last year. As one of his first acts in office, he pardoned625nearly two dozen people convicted, again, by unanimous juries,626of FACE Act-related crimes, including one of the witnesses here627today, Ms. Edl. As with the January 6th rioters and628insurrectionists that he pardoned, Trump and his MAGA allies629are attempting to rewrite history to portray convicted criminal630conduct as peaceful protests and to cast the dedicated public631servants who sought to protect patient safety as the villains.632    Let's discuss some of the facts of Ms. Edl's case. She was633pardoned by President Trump and invited as an example of the634so-called ``peaceful protestors.'' A jury convicted her, along635with six coconspirators of Federal civil rights offenses,636including a FACE Act violation arising out of their blockade of637a reproductive healthcare clinic in Sterling Heights, Michigan,638in August 2020.639    A jury of her peers, not deep-State prosecutors, a jury of640her peers drawn from her community convicted her by unanimous641vote after a trial by an impartial Federal judge. She was one642of two defendants convicted of another FACE Act violation643arising out of their actions in yet another clinic blockade in644Saginaw, Michigan.645    Now, I have no problems with the fact that Ms. Edl and646others like her have strong moral convictions about this, as647did Martin Luther King and John Lewis. They had strong moral648convictions about Jim Crow apartheid and segregation in649America, and they participated in civil disobedience. They650violated various trespass laws in different cases, and they651were arrested for it, and they were willing to accept their652punishment as the price for trying to get a law they considered653or actions by the government reversed and to dismantle racial654segregation.655    What these protestors have a problem with is other people656accessing their own healthcare. The civil rights protestors657weren't trying to stop people from getting healthcare, and they658were willing to, nonetheless, accept the consequences of having659a sit-in, or whatever. Here, they don't seem to want to accept660the fact that they violated the law. In fact, they violated the661law precisely to prevent other people from exercising their662constitutionally protected rights to healthcare. That is663exactly what they were doing. I'm afraid there is a huge664difference between them and other people who have participated665in civil disobedience in the past.666    We got a statement from the founder and operator of the667Sterling Heights clinic, who was present that day, which I'm668going to enter into the record in full, that described what669happened.670    Mr. Raskin. She writes this:671672          Perhaps the most dangerous and appalling episode of clinic673        violence I've ever experienced since the FACE Act became law674        took place in August 2020. Our Sterling Heights clinic was675        blockaded by extremists who prevented me and other staff from676        entering the clinic. Patients were stuck in their cars,677        including three women who were coming in for medical abortions678        following the detection of fatal fetal anomalies.679680          One woman was actively losing amniotic fluid and was681        scheduled for the second day of a two-day procedure. She needed682        immediate medical attention. She huddled with her mother and683        her husband trapped in the parking lot while extremists684        plastered signs of fake fetuses on her car windows and shouted,685        ``God loves you. God loves your baby.'' The woman cried back,686        ``I know God loves me. I know God loves my baby, but my baby is687        dying.'' Her baby was missing most of its brain and had no688        kidneys. This woman later shared her powerful testimony at689        trial.690691    As eight different Circuit Courts have found, Congress has692the power under the Commerce Clause to protect people against693being harassed and interfered with as they go to get medical694attention. The FACE Act is a legitimate exercise of695Congressional power, and they people were properly arrested and696prosecuted for perhaps their very morally, sincerely held697views, but they violated the law.698    These politically motivated pardons of FACE Act violators,699as well as January 6ers and dozens of white-collar criminals700and fraudsters, are all part of a political strategy that has701got nothing to do with justice. Now, this is the equivalent of702the government giving people a green light to go out and break703the law. Indeed, there are numerous reports that President704Trump has been pardoning promises, has been promising pardons705rather, to everyone who works for him.706    As President Trump continues to endanger public safety with707pardons like this, they are making threats against the Southern708Poverty Law Center, which is the main not-for-profit709organizational antagonist to the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi710and the White extremist groups. They are being investigated and711prosecuted for having sent people undercover to research what712is going on in those groups, to get the information to713government for prosecution.714    Now, the administration, which has pardoned 1,600715extremists who attacked the U.S. Capitol, who violently716assaulted our police officers, and tried to overthrow a717Presidential election, which Joe Biden won by more than seven718million votes, 306-232 in the Electoral College, well, now,719after having pardoned all of those people, they want to attack720the Southern Poverty Law Center. That is an amazing attack on721the First Amendment for real.722    I yield back to you, Mr. Chair.723    Mr. Roy. Without objection, all other opening statements724will be included in the record.725    Mr. Roy. We will now introduce today's witnesses.726    Ms. Eva Edl. Ms. Edl is a prolife advocate who came to the727United States after surviving a communist concentration camp728after the end of World War II. In 2023, she was prosecuted by729the Biden Administration under the FACE Act for protesting at730an abortion clinic. She was pardoned by President Trump in731January 2025.732    Mr. Christopher Ferrara. Mr. Ferrara is a Senior Counsel at733the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm. Mr.734Ferrara's practice focuses on cases involving the sanctity of735life, religious liberty, and parental rights. He founded the736American Catholic Lawyers Association in 1990.737    Mr. Roger Severino. Mr. Severino is the Vice President of738Economic and Domestic Policy and the Joseph C. and Elizabeth A.739Anderlik Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He previously740served as the Director of the Office of Civil Rights at the741Department of Health and Human Services.742    Professor Jessica Waters. Ms. Waters is a Senior Scholar in743residence for Justice, Law, and Criminology at the American744University Washington College of Law. She previously served as745the American University Dean of Undergraduate Education and746Vice Provost for Academic Student Services.747    We thank our witnesses for appearing today.748    We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and749raise your right hand?750    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the751testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best752of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?753    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in754the affirmative.755    Thank you, and you may be seated.756    Please know that your written testimony will be entered in757the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you758summarize your testimony in five minutes.759    Ms. Edl, you may begin. I will just remind you to have your760microphone turned on, I believe it is, and to speak clearly761into the microphone.762763                      STATEMENT OF EVA EDL764765    Ms. Edl. I'll try.766    Mr. Roy. You might want to pull that microphone a little767closer, if that's possible. There we go. Thank you, Ms. Edl.768You may begin.769    Ms. Edl. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the Members770of the Subcommittee, my name, as I have said, is Eva Edl. Thank771you for inviting me to speak to you today.772    As I say in my biography, as a young child, I was taken to773a communist death camp and survived only by the grace of God.774    When I came to this country, I was so grateful to see that775the respect-that this country respected life. To my horror,776even this country lost its moral compass when abortion was777legalized in 1973.778    I knew from basic biology that human life begins when an779ovum and sperm unite. I knew I could not remain silent, and I780knew I had to speak in defense of the preborn babies.781    In 1988, I became aware of the existence of abortion782clinics, which I view as our American death camps. On TV, I783watched women take their babies inside to be killed, and it784reminded me of my ride in the cattle car that took me as a785young girl to the death camp.786    While being locked up in that car, I wished that some787people would have put their bodies on those tracks to bring788that train to a stop and set us free.789    I thought of the word of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 7,790``that I should do unto others as I would have them do unto791me.'' I knew I had to place my body between those victims and792the abortionists, no matter what the cost.793    For the prolife movement, this is what we call ``rescue.''794We call it an interposing, putting ourselves in danger to save795someone else.796    In 1988, I also learned of a rescue plan for October in797Atlanta. I decided to join them. People were peacefully sitting798in front of the door of the abortion clinic and not moving;799consequently, shutting the business down at least until800everyone was arrested.801    When we are at clinics like that, it's like sitting in802front of the train tracks. While we are being arrested, our803sidewalk counselors have the opportunity to offer help to young804women, and hopefully, persuade them to give their life to their805children.806    Then, in 1994, when I heard that Senator Ted Kennedy807introduced the FACE Act, I knew that things would change. I808knew that we rescuers would be targeted.809    Prolifers who continue to put their bodies between the810abortionists and innocent victims today will continue to be811targeted by this unjust law until it is repealed.812    Yet, despite knowing this, when the Lord asks you to do813something, you just simply do it, no matter the cost. After814all, he gave his life to save us.815    There are many others who have answered this sacrificial816call. In my case, I was only charged with a first offense817misdemeanor in Tennessee, but in Michigan, I was convicted of818two separate violations of FACE and one violation of conspiracy819against rights and faced up to 13 years in prison and up to820$300,000 in fines.821    I am before you today. I plead with our government to822repeal the FACE Act because it is targeting people who want to823do right. After all, we have enough laws that, if somebody does824something wrong, we have the means to punish them.825    I plead with our government to stop the killing and go back826to the foundational principle that our forefathers built this827country on: That all human life has equal value before God.828    If we do not have an awakening of our national conscious,829then we will exterminate our posterity. Indeed, our next830victims will be the elderly and the sick through the so-called831``assisted death.''832    We are aborting those who would be our country's future,833who will take care of us when we are old. When we do not834respect human life, it becomes very disposable.835    Yet, where there is life, there is hope. It is this hope836that has carried me over 90 years through World War II, a837genocide, and Tito's horrific camps, all the way to today.838    While I may not see the end of abortion in my own lifetime,839I have the unshakeable hope that the truth will prevail and840that our Nation will soon recognize the value of all human841life.842    Let us act by beginning to repeal the FACE Act. Thank you.843    [The prepared statement of Ms. Edl follows:]844    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]845846    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Edl. Mr. Ferrara, you may begin.847848              STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. FERRARA849850    Mr. Ferrara. I thank the Committee for this opportunity to851argue in favor of repeal of the FACE Act.852    The FACE Act was supposedly a viewpoint-neutral protection853of abortion clinic access. It contained a disclaimer that it854would not prohibit First Amendment protected conduct or create855new remedies for interference with that conduct.856    We members of the prolife bar were not fooled. The FACE Act857targeted a particular social justice movement, the prolife858activist movement. It created a new category of Federal859offenses, civil and criminal, based on what were purely matters860of local law involving citizens and other minor offenses861committed in the context of nonviolent civil disobedience no862different from what Dr. Martin Luther King defended in his863Letter from a Birmingham Jail.864    As for the acts of violence in the course of the movement,865there were acts of violence, and they were prosecuted866appropriately under local law. Consider Paul Hill, who was867executed under State law in Florida in 2003. No need of FACE to868bring him to justice.869    I've had 25 years of experience defending FACE claims,870almost entirely in opposition to attorneys general, and I have871seen how, with dreary predictability, the terms ``force,''872``threat of force,'' and ``physical obstruction'' in FACE have873become so elastic as to reach even de minimis conduct that874would not even warrant a desk appearance ticket under local875law.876    Even the most fleeting physical contact has been found to877constitute force. The most minimal impediments of clinic878workers or clients on the sidewalk have been found to879constitute physical obstruction. Mere references to God's880judgment on death have been found to constitute threats of881force.882    The FACE Act has been used to impose ridiculous883injunctions; totally unheard of in any other context. Speech-884free buffer zones, bubble zones, and even floating bubble zones885around clinics have created for prolife advocates, and them886only, exactly what Justice Scalia described in McCullen v.887Coakley., quote: ``An entirely separate abridged edition of the888First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion.''889    Consider, also, FACE's mode of requirement. If you stand in890front of an abortion clinic worker outside a clinic to demand891money that you are owed, delaying that person, no law is892violated. Stand in front of the same person to offer prolife893literature and discuss alternatives to abortion, and you've894just violated FACE.895    Even worse, FACE is being combined with 18 U.S.C. 241,896prohibiting conspiracies against rights, which elevates897misdemeanor FACE violations into Federal felonies. The result898has been preposterous prison sentences.899    Consider the clinic sit-in at a D.C. abortion clinic in9002020 called a ``blockade'' by the government. Because a clinic901staffer allegedly suffered from a sprained ankle, all the902participants were found guilty of a crime of violence, as903coconspirators, and were sent immediately to prison after the904verdict.905    Joan Bell, 27 months in Federal prison for a 77-year-old906grandmother.907    Jean Marshall, 24 months in Federal prison for a 77-year-908old retired nurse.909    Heather Idoni, 24 months in Federal prison for a 61-year-910old grandmother.911    Consider the case of Beverlyn-Bevelyn Beatty, 41 months in912Federal prison for the mother of a two-year-old girl, based on913uttering political hyperbole and allegedly causing a minor hand914injury.915    Well, thank God Trump pardoned all these victims of FACE916and many more political prisoners that he rescued from the917Biden Administration's Gulag.918    Now, we have the massive DOJ report on weaponization of919FACE by the Biden Justice Department. That report reveals a920comment by an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the case of U.S. v.921Jastrow, which says it all concerning the Biden922Administration's weaponization of FACE against religiously923motivated prolife activists. I quote,924925        Unfortunately, we ended up with a very Catholic magistrate on926        duty this week and he was very particular about bond conditions927        and not infringing on First Amendment rights. At the end, we928        ended up with overly lawyered bond conditions that would be929        difficult to enforce.930931Well, there we have it anti-Catholic bigotry on full display in932a public record pertaining to the Biden Administration's933vindictive FACE Act prosecutions.934    We have never seen anything like this pernicious law in935American history. For the sake of freedom and justice in936America, the FACE Act must be repealed.937    Thank you.938    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrara follows:]939    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]940941    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Ferrara. Mr. Severino, you may942begin.943944                 STATEMENT OF ROGER T. SEVERINO945946    Mr. Severino. Thank you, Mr. Chair.947    I want to build off comments from your opening statement948and to consider a few different scenarios, and what could949actually be the common thread.950    Scenario 1. You want to build a pool in your house, and the951people doing the construction move the dirt from the hole into952some soggy area of your land.953    Scenario 2. You're cleaning a gutter from your house, and954you get up on top and you notice that there is a bird nest955there that you push off to the side to the ground.956    Scenario 3. You go with your son to a National Park, and957you discover an Indian arrowhead that you keep as a souvenir.958    Scenario 4. You're walking down the street, and you see a959protest going on. It could be in front of an abortion clinic.960It could be in front of a pregnancy resource center. You get961into a heated debate and there's an altercation that ensues.962    The common thread among those four scenarios is that they963may be Federal crimes. The thing is, you're not really sure if964they are or they aren't. It really depends on the prosecution965and what their theory of the case is, and what facts they966cherry-pick, and worst of all, whether or not the identity of967the alleged perpetrator is perhaps of the same political party968or not of the prosecutor. All these things are a result of969overcriminalization. The FACE Act is a poster child of970overcriminalization. Now, whatever you think about the971underlying issue to be addressed in any of those cases, are the972wrongs to be addressed at the Federal level? Is everything973meant to be, literally, a Federal case?974    Under our constitutional system, it was designed such that975the Federal Government is one of enumerated powers. It only has976the power that was given to it by the people specifically in977the Constitution. It cannot act unless Congress is authorized978by a specific provision in the Constitution.979    Now, the problem is, Congress has used the Commerce Clause980as its catchall to cover every single aspect of American life,981such that we have 5,200 different crimes. My former colleague982at the Heritage Foundation, Giancarlo Canaparo, catalogued983these crimes, but his chilling finding was he couldn't be sure,984either.985    Nobody knows how many Federal crimes there are. The986Department of Justice was tasked to actually try to figure this987out and they gave up. They did not know how many Federal crimes988there are.989    When you add to this the fact that there are 300,000990regulatory crimes, let me repeat that, 300,000 regulatory991crimes, where some bureaucrat decided to amend a regulation992that then becomes a crime, well, are we really a Nation of laws993or not?994    We have delegated far too much authority to Federal995bureaucrats, and that discretion has given unchecked power that996has been abused with the FACE Act and other cases. Let me give997you a few examples.998    There was a person who was importing undersized lobsters999from Honduras, and unfortunately, didn't know the Honduran1000regulations and packed them in plastic bags instead of boxes.1001What Federal crime was violated? Well, it was done--no Federal1002crime actually. A Honduran crime perhaps was committed, but1003because he violated a Honduran crime, that became a Federal1004crime under the Lacey Act. Who knew that, if you don't follow1005Honduras' laws for packing lobsters in plastic versus boxes,1006you might be committing a Federal crime?1007    Now, sticking with Fish and Game, in Florida, a fisherman1008was capturing some grouper, and they were, again, undersized. A1009Fish and Game Warden came by and said, ``Wow, they look1010undersized.'' When the warden left, the fisherman threw some of1011the fish away to try to kind of hide the evidence.1012    Now, he was charged with a Federal crime under Sarbanes-1013Oxley, an Enron-related bill that was designed to go after1014people and accountants that were shredding evidence in an1015investigation. All of a sudden, the Federal agent said, ``You1016know what? A fish is a whole lot like a document.'' The Supreme1017Court said, ``no, it's not; a fish is a fish; it's not a1018document.''1019    On with one more example. I was the Nation's HIPAA1020regulator, and I had the power to issue regulations which also1021had the force and effect of law.1022    The case of Eithan Haim, a whistleblower doctor in Texas1023who discovered that Texas Children's Hospital, despite what1024they were saying, was still giving cross-sex sterilizing1025treatments to minors possibly in violation of law.1026    He blew the whistle, and the Biden DOJ went after him, not1027the hospital, for an alleged HIPAA violation 10 years potential1028prison time for looking into files, not disclosing any1029protected health information, but verified that, in fact, the1030hospital was lying.1031    This shows that our laws have been weaponized, such that we1032are no longer a Nation of laws, but a Nation of men with1033unchecked authority to go after political enemies whenever they1034like.1035    [The prepared statement of Mr. Severino follows:]1036    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]10371038    Mr. Roy. Mr. Severino, thank you for your statement.1039Professor Waters, you may begin.10401041                 STATEMENT OF JESSICA L. WATERS10421043    Ms. Waters. Chair Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and the1044Members of the Committee, and the Members of the Subcommittee,1045thank you for inviting me back to testify today. I appreciated1046our conversation related to FACE during the December 20241047hearing before this Committee, and I look forward to additional1048constructive dialog today.1049    The specific provisions of FACE are outlined in my written1050testimony, but in brief, FACE created criminal penalties and1051civil remedies against specific types of intentional violent,1052threatening, or obstructive conduct directed at people1053providing or obtaining reproductive health services or seeking1054to exercise First Amendment religious rights at houses of1055worship.1056    A few concepts are key there:10571058(1)  FACE prohibits specific conduct, not speech.1059(2)  FACE requires that the conduct be intentional; that is,1060directed at preventing the seeking or provision of reproductive1061health-1062care or the exercise of religious rights at houses of worship.1063(3)  FACE expressly excludes nonthreatening, nonobstructive1064speech from its purview, as it must, as the First Amendment1065demands that protection.10661067    We have heard other witnesses opine today that FACE should1068be repealed and that it is somehow unconstitutional. Let us be1069clear: That is simply not what the law says.1070    Every Federal court to consider such arguments has1071unequivocally held that FACE was a constitutional exercise of1072Congress' authority. This is not an area where circuits are1073split or where the laws are unclear. Whether the challenge has1074been on Commerce Clause grounds, First Amendment speech1075grounds, First Amendment free exercise grounds, or Tenth1076Amendment grounds, the courts have said the same thing: FACE is1077constitutionally sound and based on extensive legislative1078findings about the need for a Federal remedy to combat a1079nationwide campaign of violence.1080    Lest there be any confusion, this unanimity is true both1081pre- and post-Dobbs. A few post-Dobbs cases illustrate this1082point.1083    For example, in 2025, the Sixth Circuit confronted the1084question squarely of whether FACE's long-affirmed1085constitutionally constitutionality was impacted by the Dobbs1086decision. The Sixth Circuit held that Dobbs had no effect on1087FACE's constitutionality, finding that, quote,10881089        The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs provides no basis to1090        reconsider prior holdings that FACE is a constitutional1091        exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.10921093The Sixth Circuit also directly affirmed its prior decisions1094holding that FACE did not run afoul of the First Amendment1095speech or free exercise protections.1096    Notably, in the case in which Ms. Edl was a codefendant,1097United States v. Gallagher, the Tennessee District Court1098confronted this same question and flatly rejected any argument1099that Dobbs undermined FACE--FACE's constitutionality or1100protections. As the Court wrote, and I quote,11011102        What did the holding and essential reasoning of Dobbs change1103        about the interstate nature of the reproductive health field?1104        Nothing. Those issues were not even remotely raised by the case1105        which involved a State statute.11061107    Other courts to reach this question have found the exact1108same thing. This includes a New York Court, the D.C. District1109Court, and a Pennsylvania District Court.1110    Where I think Dobbs does matter in this equation is in two1111areas that actually underscore the need for FACE.1112    First, Dobbs returned the abortion question to the States,1113leaving us now in a patchwork of laws across the country. By1114the end of 2025, 13 States had total abortion bans and six more1115have 6-12-weeks abortion bans.1116    As has been well-documented, the number of abortions did1117not decline nationwide after these bans went into effect.1118Instead, what happened is people who lived in States with bans1119traveled to other States that protected access to reproductive1120healthcare. A hundred and seventy thousand patients traveled in11212023; 150,000 in 2024, and 140,000 in 2025. That is, patients1122and clinics engaged in interstate commerce, the very basis on1123which FACE left rests.1124    Finally, following Dobbs, there was an almost immediate1125spike in major incidents targeting reproductive healthcare1126providers, including arsons, burglaries, and death threats. In11272023 and 2024, the National Abortion Federation documented1128three arsons, 13 invasions, 169 incidents of vandalism, 6211129incidents of trespass, 296 death threats, 38 assaults and1130battery, 777 counts of obstruction, and 12 bomb threats.1131    Though I wish it wasn't the case, the continued campaign of1132nationwide intimidation and violence against reproductive1133healthcare providers highlight the continued need for FACE. As1134I said in 2024, the bottom line is this: People should be able1135to seek medical care, and medical professionals should be able1136to provide it, without fear of violence or intimidation. This1137is an issue that warrants a Federal remedy.1138    I look forward to your questions.1139    [The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]1140    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]11411142    Mr. Roy. I thank the witness for her testimony. I will now1143recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for five minutes.1144    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all the1145witnesses for being a part of this today.1146    Mr. Ferrara, as a pastor, and now, a Congressman, I have1147unequivocally stood firm on the importance of protecting the1148sanctity of life. It is undeniable that every life is a1149precious gift from God, created with inherent dignity and1150purpose. This truth has encouraged prolifers across the country1151to push back on the pro-abortion rhetoric by serving outside of1152abortion clinic to pray, to counsel women who feel they have1153run out of options, and to reaffirm the sacred truth that the1154unborn have value.1155    The way in which the Biden Administration weaponized the1156FACE Act against prolifers was indefensible and it makes me1157fear that these actions have discouraged others from getting1158involved in the fight for the unborn.1159    I would ask you, Mr. Ferrara, in your view, do FACE Act1160prosecutions against prolifers create a chilling effect among1161those in the prolive movement?1162    Mr. Roy. Mr. Ferrara, can you use your microphone?1163    Mr. Harris. Your mic, please.1164    Mr. Ferrara. They most certainly do. As I indicated during1165my testimony, Justice Scalia rightly observed that we have,1166through the application of the FACE Act, a separate and1167distinct abridged version of the First Amendment for prolife1168advocates.1169    The injunctions issued under the authority of FACE have no1170precedent in American law. They are, as I said during my1171testimony, ridiculous. Bubble zones, floating bubble zones,1172speech-free areas to prevent even a discussion of alternatives1173to abortion, all enacted in the name of protecting what turned1174out to be the nonexistent right to abortion.1175    Yes, I think that this is a case of unprecedented1176restrictions on activities, some of which do involve civil1177disobedience. Civil disobedience, like it or not, is part of1178the American tradition of social justice movements.1179    I'll tell you this: What I don't see in the prolife1180movement, even at the height of the rescue movement in the11811990s, is cities burning; police officers being attacked;1182Molotov cocktails being thrown into businesses; police officers1183being pelted with bottles filled with ice, and not just death1184threats, but actual acts of violence on a massive scale not the1185isolated acts we saw in the prolife movement in the nineties,1186which were punished appropriately under criminal law. As I1187indicated, Paul Hill was put to death. You can't do better than1188capital punishment for punishing lawless activity.1189    My testimony has made clear, that FACE has, for the first1190time in American history, singled out a single protest movement1191for treatment under the law that has never been meted out to1192any other social justice movement in our Nation's history.1193    Mr. Harris. Let me ask you a followup to that. During1194President Trump's first year in office, he took action to1195correct the injustices that occurred during the Biden-Harris1196Administration's enforcement of the FACE Act by issuing pardons1197to several of the prolifers that were unjustly targeted. Would1198you say what response have you seen from the prolife movement1199and your clients regarding President Trump's actions?1200    Mr. Ferrara. Gratitude, and thanks to God for justice done.1201    The sentences handed out, some of which I mentioned in my1202testimony, are absolutely absurd years in Federal prison for1203nonviolent conduct, the worst of it being someone's hand was1204injured or there was a sprained ankle. Then, with the1205combination of Section 241, conspiracy against rights,1206multiyear prison sentences for nonviolent conduct.1207    Again, these things could be handled, and had always been1208handled, as matters of local law. By the way, the system is1209capable of handling these matters. If you have repeat offenders1210who are trespassing, sooner or later, they'll end up in a jail1211cell, and that might be appropriate.1212    Mr. Harris. Correct. Unfortunately, what we are hearing1213today is part of a larger pattern of an anti-Christian bias we1214witnessed under the Biden-Harris Administration. Thanks to this1215Committee's work in the past, we learned that the Biden-Harris1216FBI used its resources to spy on Catholics in Richmond. On top1217of that, in today's hearings, we are hearing stories of prolife1218activists being unjustly targeted by the Biden-Harris DOJ,1219while attacks on churches and prolife pregnancy centers went1220largely ignored.1221    In the last 30 seconds, I just want to ask you, Mr.1222Ferrara, is it fair to say that the Biden-Harris1223Administration's DOJ displayed clear anti-Christian bias in its1224actions, including its enforcement of the FACE Act?1225    Mr. Ferrara. Well, there's no question about it. Even FBI1226Director Wray admitted that the report had been issued out of1227the Richmond office, characterizing traditionalist Catholics1228and I'm one of them, and I attend that parish in Richmond as,1229basically, domestic terrorists. He professed to be embarrassed1230by the memo and said it was only a localized product. It turned1231out that this was false. This memo had been widely circulated1232in FBI channels. Yes, the answer is yes.1233    Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, I yield back.1234    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I will1235recognize the Ranking Member first and the unanimous consent1236request.1237    Ms. Scanlon. Thanks. First, I have an article from The1238Atlantic, dated April 20, 2026, ``The DOJ's First1239`Weaponization' Report Is a Bust. The document purports to show1240bias under Biden Administration--and fails spectacularly.''1241    Second, I have a DOJ press release on an Ohio woman who was1242prosecuted for attacking a pregnancy resource center, December12438, 2023.1244    Another one, DOJ press release about dated April 10, 2024,1245concerning prosecution of someone who fire-bombed a Madison1246building because of anti-abortion.1247    Next, I have a press release from the DOJ, December 20,12482024, ``Florida Woman Convicted of Civil Rights Conspiracy for1249Targeting Pregnancy Resource Centers.''1250    Another DOJ press release from January 19, 2023, titled,1251``FBI Offering $25,000 Reward for information on attacks1252against reproductive health service facilities.''1253    Mr. Roy. Without objection.1254    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.1255    Mr. Roy. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full1256Committee, Mr. Raskin.1257    Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.1258    I know our friends are desperate to change the subject from1259President Trump's aggressive insults to the Pope, saying that1260he is weak on nuclear weapons and weak on crime, and his online1261impersonation of Jesus Christ, who he later claimed he was1262actually he thought that was an image of him playing a doctor.1263Of course, he is not a doctor, either. He is neither a doctor1264nor Jesus Christ.1265    In any event, that doesn't make the FACE Act anti-1266Christian, and if you think it is, then go ahead and bring1267another failed lawsuit against the FACE Act and claim that it1268violates the Free Exercise Clause. It does not.1269    In 2022, the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case reversed1270itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Roe v. Wade. The1271right to abortion was not legalized in 1973. It was legal in1272most of the country. What the Supreme Court did was strike down1273abortion bans criminalizing abortion.1274    In any event, since the Dobbs decision, 21 States now have1275a total or a substantial ban on abortion affecting the rights1276directly of 29 million American women. The 169,000 of them at1277least, they have had to cross State lines in interstate1278commerce to seek the medical attention that they need.1279    It is not enough for our friends now to allow State1280legislatures to ban other people's medical decisions. They want1281to repeal the FACE Act, so they can directly blockade hospitals1282and medical clinics. That is the very clear implication of what1283Mr. Ferrara was just saying that you should have a1284constitutional right to do what has been made criminal by1285Congress in the FACE Act, after nine or ten doctors and other1286medical staff were killed in attacks on people working in1287abortion clinics.1288    Now, Ms. Waters, I want to ask you, is there any reason to1289think that there is a constitutional right to blockade other1290people from obtaining medical attention?1291    Ms. Waters. There is no reason to think there's a1292constitutional right to interfere with other people seeking1293medical attention. FACE is very clear on this point and very1294deliberate, and the legislative history is clear. This was very1295deliberate.1296    What speech gets at, or what FACE gets at is conduct,1297right? It's violence. It's threats. It's intimidation. It's1298blockades. FACE expressly excludes pure speech that does not do1299those things. Right?1300    What we're talking about here is I hear talk of these1301crimes were minor and these things were insignificant. When I1302look at the stats of what's actually happening on the ground,130311 abortion providers have been murdered. Right? There have1304been 26 other attempted murders. There have been thousands of1305blockades. There have been hundreds of arsons. We are not1306talking about peaceful protests. We are talking about violence,1307and we are talking about a nationwide campaign of violence.1308    Mr. Raskin. Well, Mr. Ferrara makes one good point, it1309seems to me; that if they are killing doctors who work at1310reproductive health clinics and other staff and we know that1311there have been many cases of that--they are already chargeable1312and punishable under State laws.1313    There's a discrete injury here when people get together and1314blockade a clinic. You might not have State legislatures that1315are willing to enact laws to keep them, keep them open.1316Obviously, there is a Federal interest here, which is why eight1317Federal Circuit Courts have unanimously around the country1318upheld the FACE Act against attack.1319    What happens, as in the case where Ms. Edl, again,1320sincerely goes out to protest, but is part of a protest that1321blockades people from getting healthcare? What is the effect on1322the people who are trying to get in?1323    Ms. Waters. There are a couple of points there. The1324legislative history is replete with references to why a Federal1325remedy was needed.1326    FACE does not stop States from acting, and FACE does not1327stop States or command that States do anything. What it says is1328this is bigger than any individual State. This is a coordinated1329nationwide campaign that deserves a remedy.1330    Mr. Raskin. You are proud of them that they travel around.1331    Ms. Waters. Absolutely.1332    Mr. Raskin. Yes.1333    Ms. Waters. I think that is important. Let's talk about1334what is actually happening on the ground, right.1335    If you are a doctor going into a clinic and trying to do1336your job, and what you are facing are death threats. What you1337are facing are blockades.1338    What you are facing is fear that people are going to show1339up at your home or at your children's school and engage in1340campaigns and intimidation, no one should have to go to work1341that way, and no medical professional should have to go to work1342that way. That is not good care. That is not going to help your1343health.1344    Mr. Raskin. No patient should have to try to scale--1345    Ms. Waters. No patient--1346    Mr. Raskin. All those obstacles just to get attention. Let1347me ask you finely, this is the third time we have had a hearing1348on this, but there is no vote.1349    It is because our colleagues know that the vast majority of1350the American people reject this idea and want to make sure that1351there is safety there. They keep throwing a bone to the prolife1352movement.1353    I wonder if you agree with me that they are not willing to1354put this to the floor.1355    Ms. Waters. I cannot speak to their intentions. What I can1356say is, there is a difference of opinion in this room about1357access to abortion care.1358    What there should not be a difference of opinion about, and1359what there cannot be a difference of opinion about, is whether1360we should use violence to advance those aims. We can't.1361    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.1362    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member. I will now recognize1363the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder, for five minutes.1364    Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this important1365hearing on the FACE Act abuse uncovered in the DOJ's recent1366report.1367    The report explains how the Biden-Harris DOJ unevenly1368enforced the FACE Act and coordinated with antilife advocacy1369groups to target prolife Americans.1370    According to the report, just one month after the Supreme1371Court overturned Roe v. Wade, then Attorney General Merrick1372Garland, created a National Task Force that worked hand in1373glove with Planned Parenthood, the Feminist Majority1374Foundation, and the National Abortion Federation.1375    These groups compiled dossiers, headshots, and travel1376information on prolife individuals that ultimately resulted in1377search warrants, surveillance, and prosecutions.1378    In one instant, the National Abortion Federation prepared a1379law enforcement guide for an upcoming Christian prolife1380conference, complete with attendees' personal information.1381Planned Parent provided a similar dossier labeled opposition1382identified.1383    After receiving this intelligence, the Biden-Harris DOJ1384even assisted these groups in securing private grant funding1385when the Task Force Director volunteered as a reference for1386NAF's application.1387    The Biden-Harris Administration's conduct during1388prosecutions was probably most concerning in U.S. v. Houck. In1389it, the Justice Department authorized an aggressive early1390morning arrest rather than permitting a voluntary surrender.1391    In U.S. v. Gallagher, the prosecutors withheld evidence1392from the defense, while sharing similar information with the1393National Abortion Federation.1394    In United States v. Zastrow, internal emails show DOJ1395attorneys strategizing about screening out religious jurors,1396referring to prolife Christian activists as culty, and1397expressing frustration that a Catholic magistrate was on duty.1398    The pattern continued through sentencing. Under the Biden-1399Harris DOJ, prosecutors sought an average of 26.8 months for1400prolife defendants, which is more than double the 12.3-month1401average sought for violent antilife offenders.1402    One senior official in the administration even wrote that1403they should ``make sure that extremists know we still have this1404tool, the FACE Act, and we will use it.''1405    Mr. Ferrara, all of this is clearly weaponization of the1406Federal Government. Do you believe any of the recently1407uncovered activities by the Biden-Harris DOJ are criminal?1408    Mr. Ferrara. I would not go so far as to offer an opinion1409on whether criminal prosecution is warranted. I would have to1410be careful about that and evaluate the facts of the case.1411    Mr. Onder. Yes.1412    Mr. Ferrara. Let me take this opportunity to take exception1413to something my adversary in this issue said, Ms. Waters.1414    Mr. Onder. Please do.1415    Mr. Ferrara. Regarding the predicate in the Commerce Clause1416for the FACE Act.1417    I don't believe there is an adequate predicate. The Lopez1418and Morrison cases really have eliminated any serious argument1419for a Commerce Clause predicate.1420    In Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun Free School1421Zones Act, finding that only economic activity that has a1422substantial effect on interstate commerce can be regulated.1423Citizens don't have that effect.1424    In the Morrison case, the Supreme Court said that there1425cannot be a regulation of economic activity based on its1426supposed aggregate effect on interstate commerce, and1427therefore, struck down a provision of the Violence Against1428Women Act.1429    Sit-ins and even what they call blockades of clinics don't1430have a serious local effect.1431    Mr. Onder. They are local effects, yes. Mr. Severino, how1432does the uneven application of the FACE Act on prolife versus1433pro-abortion groups undermine the Constitution and civil rights1434protections?1435    Mr. Severino. It is an example of the weaponization. We1436believe in equal justice under the law, which means justice is1437blind, right?1438    That is part of our American ethos. When you have this1439rampant uneven enforcement where 97 percent of cases under the1440FACE Act have been enforced against the prolife side, when in1441fact the FACE Act also covers pregnancy resource centers and1442houses of worship.1443    I was in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as1444a career attorney under Obama for several years. There was not1445a single case of a FACE Act prosecution brought for the1446invasion of a church.1447    Mr. Onder. Were there no attacks against churches or1448prolife pregnancy centers?1449    Mr. Severino. There were. Yes, during the Prop. 8 debate,1450there was video of a storming of the Mormon Temple in Westwood.1451That was brought to the attention of DOJ civil rights.1452    Mr. Onder. Prop. 8 in California.1453    Mr. Severino. In California, yes.1454    Mr. Onder. Yes, the marriage amendment.1455    Mr. Severino. Correct.1456    Mr. Onder. Yes. Again, the DOJ brought no prosecution in1457that case?1458    Mr. Severino. They brought zero with respect to houses of1459worship, up until very recently, in fact. Under the Trump1460Administration, they finally did.1461    Mr. Onder. Thank you very much. I yield back.1462    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I will now1463recognize the gentlelady from Washington for five minutes.1464    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Trump Administration1465and Congressional Republicans have launched an all-out assault1466on women.1467    They have advanced the SAVE Act to disenfranchise 691468million married women whose birth certificates don't match1469their current last name. They have covered up the full Epstein1470files and refused to meet with Epstein survivors.1471    They have made significant cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and1472health-1473care, making it harder for women to take care of their1474families. Nowhere is the assault on women more evident than in1475reproductive health.1476    Donald Trump has cutoff abortion options in States that1477protect those rights. This Administration has withdrawn Federal1478guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortion care1479when life or health is at risk.1480    It has frozen tens of millions of dollars in Title X1481funding for family planning. These unprecedented actions are1482not only unlawful, but they also put women's lives in danger.1483    Now, Republicans want to repeal the FACE Act, a public1484safety law that protects healthcare providers and patients from1485physical intimidation, harassment, and violence.1486    Now, I am one of the one-in-four women in this country that1487has had an abortion. I had to speak out publicly about it,1488frankly, when I came to Congress after not speaking about it1489for decades.1490    When I saw the attacks on reproductive care around the1491country, I felt it was my responsibility to talk about it1492publicly. I don't begrudge anyone, including you, Ms. Edl, from1493making decisions about your own moral values, about the conduct1494that you would choose for yourself.1495    I do not appreciate it when someone tries to block me from1496making choices about my body, about my family, and about my1497life. I certainly don't appreciate it when people try to block1498other people from getting healthcare.1499    Professor Waters, at the core of this issue, is the basic1500principle that no one should fear violence in the workplace1501when seeking healthcare.1502    Given the misinformation on the issue, could you just give1503us some details on what type of violent situations that1504abortion providers, patients, and volunteers face?1505    Ms. Waters. If I may, I would like to quickly respond to1506the Commerce Clause point that my colleague raised. Then, I1507would love to get to your question.1508    On the point of Lopez and Morrison, it is true that the1509Lopez and Morrison cases define what is covered by the bounds1510of the Commerce Clause.1511    It is also true that most of the cases that we have cited1512that have said that the FACE Act is upheld are post-Lopez and1513some of them are post-Morrison. My colleague's point really1514doesn't hold.1515    On the question of the type of violence, we were seeing on1516the ground, and this is the point, right, this is why we have1517FACE.1518    If we are looking, we are talking about things like1519murders. We are talking about things like arson. We are talking1520about things like asset attacks, right?1521    We are talking about, as we heard, women who are trying to1522get into clinics, because their fetuses are incompatible with1523life. They are having the worst days of their life, and they1524are blockaded from getting into a clinic and can't get in1525there.1526    We are talking about harm. We are talking about threats. We1527are talking about violence. My colleagues keep raising1528hypotheti-cals about lobsters and fish, right?1529    What we are talking about are real women. What we are1530talking about are real doctors who are going into work every1531day in fear of their life.1532    Ms. Jayapal. Instead of addressing the violence, one of the1533first things that Donald Trump did when he took office was to1534pardon 23 anti-abortion extremists criminally convicted under1535the FACE Act. His Department of Justice released a memo1536directing prosecutors to cease enforcement of the FACE Act1537absent ``extraordinary ccircumstances.'' Based on your1538research, how did these actions impact women's access to1539reproductive care?1540    Ms. Waters. Yes, it is ironic to me that we are here1541talking about some alleged weaponization, or some sort of1542selective prosecution. in fact, the Biden Administration was1543the first to actually bring cases to protect crisis pregnancy1544centers. Right?1545    Ms. Jayapal. That is right.1546    Ms. Waters. That was the administration that actually was1547applying this in a more even-handed way. When we are talking1548about what President Trump's directives and pardons will do, it1549declares open season, right?1550    Ms. Jayapal. Yes.1551    Ms. Waters. It says to abortion providers and patients, we1552are not going to be there to protect you.1553    Ms. Jayapal. There is some confusion about all the services1554that people get blocked from when this happens at reproductive1555health clinics.1556    Just a quick yes or no, whether it is easier or harder for1557women to get these services as a result of repealing the FACE1558Act. Is it easier for women to get STD testing and treatment?1559    Ms. Waters. Harder.1560    Ms. Jayapal. Cancer screenings?1561    Ms. Waters. Harder. Ms. Jayapal Pregnancy testing?1562    Ms. Waters. Harder.1563    Ms. Jayapal. Birth control?1564    Ms. Waters. Harder.1565    Ms. Jayapal. Infertility services?1566    Ms. Waters. Harder.1567    Ms. Jayapal. Prenatal services?1568    Ms. Waters. Harder.1569    Ms. Jayapal. Postpartum services?1570    Ms. Waters. Harder.1571    Ms. Jayapal. Harder. All these things are harder. By the1572way, don't make choices about my body. Let me make those1573decisions for myself. Thank you. I yield back.1574    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Washington. I will now1575recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan.1576    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ferrara, how many1577churches and crisis pregnancy centers were attacked in the1578aftermath of the Dobbs leak in the Dobbs decision, do you1579remember?1580    Mr. Roy. Mr. Ferraro, can you please use your microphone?1581    Mr. Ferrara. I don't have the exact number, but there were1582many. I am involved in one particular case, the firebombing of1583a prolife pregnancy center in Amherst, New York, causing1584$500,000 in damage and injuring two of the firemen.1585    Chair Jordan. Well, I will tell you, there were hundreds. I1586will just give you a little sampling, you talked about the1587firebombing of that place.1588    There was another place firebombed in Madison, Wisconsin on1589May 8, 2022. The next day, May 9th, three Catholic churches in1590Texas were attacked. Two days later in Michigan, activists1591vandalized the Family Life Services Pregnancy Center.1592    I have actually it is like ten pages. We did a list of this1593back during the leak in the Dobbs opinion. I have ten pages1594just listing churches, crisis pregnancy centers that were1595attacked.1596    Do you remember some of the groups that were attacking1597these churches and crisis pregnancy centers, Mr. Ferrara?1598    Mr. Ferrara. Jane was here.1599    Chair Jordan. Yes, Jane's Revenge, Ruth Sent Us. Do you1600happen to know if any of those organizations made the Southern1601Poverty Law Centers hate list?1602    Mr. Ferrara. Of course not.1603    Chair Jordan. No, they didn't, did they?1604    Mr. Ferrara. No. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a1605credible organization. In fact, if you, as a conservative1606activist, are condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center,1607consider that a resume builder.1608    Chair Jordan. They condemned Moms for Liberty. They1609condemned the Family Research Council. They condemned Alliance1610Defending Freedom.1611    My guess, they may have gone after your group. I don't1612know. Any prolife group, it seemed like they were going to1613attack. Is that fair to say?1614    Mr. Ferrara. Yes, it is. I would like to make a point about1615what Congresswoman Jayapal said, regarding public safety law.1616``There is no Federal police power over the States.'' The idea1617that you would like to have a public safety law that caters to1618your particular interest in receiving reproductive health1619services, is contrary to the whole principle of federalism.1620    That is the problem with FACE. That FACE purports to1621exercise generalized Federal police power in one area and one1622area only, and that being the activity of prolife activists.1623    Chair Jordan. Yes. Mr. Severino, let me come to you. We1624know that the Biden Justice Department, the Biden FBI was1625actually paying confidential human sources to do all kinds of1626things.1627    Well, we are trying to get some answers to that. I am just1628curious, do you think maybe some of the same folks, so, the1629Biden Justice Department was working with the Southern Poverty1630Law Center to train prosecutors, as if they were going to get1631some great wisdom from the SPLC, they were doing that.1632    We know they were paying the confidential human sources. Do1633you think it is a fair question to say, I wonder if any of1634these ``informants of the SPLC, were also being paid by the1635Federal Government.''1636    Do you think that is a fair question?1637    Mr. Severino. Yes, absolutely.1638    Chair Jordan. Why wouldn't they double dip? It is like if,1639oh, if the Southern Poverty Law Center is training the1640prosecutors, and I know the FBI is going to pay confidential1641human sources in the Southern Poverty Law Center, well, sugar,1642I can get money from both of them.1643    Three million dollars from the SPLC and who knows what the1644Federal Government is going to pay out. They got a pretty big1645bank account too. That is a fair question that we would like to1646get the answer to.1647    Mr. Severino. We should get to the bottom of it. What the1648DOJ report on the FACE Act showed was that in fact, DOJ was in1649cahoots with outside groups--1650    Chair Jordan. Exactly.1651    Mr. Severino. Similar to SPLC. The Left-wing groups, they1652get together and they pretty much create their own little1653branch offices within the DOJ whenever we have liberals in1654power.1655    The SPLC has been talking to DOJ under Biden and certainly1656Obama, Planned Parenthood Federation, National Abortion1657Federation, all those folks, they pretty much open up their1658branch offices in DOJ when the Left is in power.1659    Chair Jordan. Yes. You anticipated my next question,1660because that is exactly where I wanted to go. Do you think any1661of these informants actually were involved in the attacks on1662the churches and crisis pregnancy centers? I think that is a1663fair question as well.1664    Mr. Severino. It is a possibility. That would be terrible1665if in fact, our own government was funding--1666    Chair Jordan. Well, maybe what the SPLC calls informants,1667we might call instigators, based on what you saw in the1668indictment last week.1669    Mr. Severino. Sure.1670    Chair Jordan. I don't know that it is out of the realm of1671possibility if they are, we don't know, but I think it is a1672fair guess to say they might have been double dipping, getting1673paid by the government and the SPLC.1674    Maybe they were instigating some of these over ten pages,1675100 different attacks on crisis pregnancy centers and churches1676in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision.1677    Mr. Severino. Well, we know that a DOJ official actually1678endorsed a grant application for one of these abortion activist1679groups. Which is a clear ethical violation that the DOJ report1680said, ``it is very likely to be investigated for an ethics1681breach.''1682    This sort of too cozy relationship, is something that is1683very common that we see in abortion and SPLC. Any of these hot1684button issues from the Left, you see this sort of collusion.1685    Chair Jordan. Yes. Again, I want to thank our witnesses.1686Ms. Edl, I am sorry I didn't to you. I listened to your1687testimony, but I was in a meeting backstage.1688    When you came on, I turned on the TV to hear what you had1689to say. God bless you. We appreciate your Christian witness and1690your words.1691    With that, I yield back to the Chair.1692    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Jordan. I1693now recognize the Ranking Member for some unanimous consent1694requests.1695    Ms. Scanlon. Yes. I just seek unanimous consent for an1696April 14, 2026, article from Justice Security, ``Separating1697Fact From Fiction in FACE Act Enforcement.''1698    Mr. Roy. Without objection. All right. I too, have a1699unanimous count request, an article from the Lozier Institute,1700saying that Planned Parenthood performed more abortions than1701pap tests, miscarriage care, preventative and primary care1702tests, prenatal services, HPV examinations, diagnostic1703procedures for cancer, combined. Without objection. I now1704recognize the gentleman from Tennessee.1705    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are having this hearing1706because it is a political issue of great importance to both1707sides.1708    On the Republican side, it can have an effect on different1709races that will be going on. I think we should have been having1710hearings on Executive Orders.1711    Executive Orders that have gone way beyond the power that1712Congress should give to the President, and which I discussed1713with the Chair some time ago when we had a bill together on it.1714    It is not gone and we have let the President overstep his1715bounds and take over Article I powers of the Congress. We have1716just given them up and that is a shame.1717    That is a more important hearing than this. This does1718demonstrate the differences in the parties. Democrats are1719fighting to ensure that every American can access high quality1720healthcare practice, their faith freely, practice their faith1721freely, and rely on the rule of law.1722    The Majority, however, seeks to hand individual healthcare1723decisions to a handful of radical activists, impose their1724preferred religious views on everyone else, and give cover to1725law breakers, even violent ones, when it benefits them1726politically.1727    It was discussed earlier in a question to maybe Mr.1728Ferrara, about pardons that were given out by the President1729sometime after he pardoned everybody that participated in the1730insurrection of January 2025, I guess it was.1731    He said that there were pardons given to these folks and1732thank God. We all have our different theories about God, Mr.1733Ferrara.1734    I don't think God has anything to do with President Biden's1735pardons, particularly the ones that were paid, and bought, and1736given out to fraudsters and criminals that then committed1737crimes again. That is another issue.1738    We should be hearing pardon exemptions. We need to reform1739the pardon power and give less power to the President to give1740pardons. It should be restricted, as we should be looking at1741emoluments as well.1742    Back to healthcare. Every American should have meaningful1743access to high quality care. Too many barriers already exist.1744High prices, healthcare deserts, biases, which is why I support1745Medicare for all and have since I came to Congress. The last1746thing we need is self-appointed monitors preventing people from1747obtaining basic services.1748    In December, 17 people were arrested for blocking access to1749the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Memphis, only a few blocks1750from my home. It is the only remaining Planned Parenthood1751clinic in Memphis. The other was closed because of the1752administration's deep Medicaid cuts.1753    The protestors weren't stopping abortions. Abortion in1754Tennessee is a felony at all stages of pregnancy with no1755exceptions for rape or incest.1756    The people entering the clinic were seeking routine1757preventative services like blood pressure checks, breast cancer1758screenings, and STI treatment. It functions like any other1759doctor's office, accepting insurance and serving patients whose1760reasons for visiting vary and are private.1761    This wasn't about protecting life; it was about1762intimidation and imposing one groups' beliefs on everyone else.1763No one should be prevented from going to their doctor because1764of what one assumes they are there for.1765    Here is the kicker, some of those arrested were antichoice1766activists whom President Trump had recently pardoned for1767earlier FACE Act violations. They don't stop.1768    These, just like the January 6th people didn't stop. I1769think 30 of them have been arrested for everything from sex1770with a child, to rape, and to other heinous offenses.1771    These individuals in Memphis had already been convicted of1772obstructing access to reproductive healthcare. The FACE Act1773plays a critical role in protecting the rights of patients and1774providers.1775    This Administration and the MAGA movement want to dismantle1776it. Repealing the FACE Act would give political and legal cover1777to people who believe they can decide who should and should not1778receive healthcare.1779    This is not about religion; it certainly is not about1780religious freedom. The FACE Act explicitly protects religious1781institutions.1782    Repealing it would make them more vulnerable, not less.1783Even on the question of abortion, religion's perspectives vary1784widely. Christian denominations do not speak with one voice.1785    Across Judaism, the prevailing view prioritizes the life1786and health of the mother. Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu teachings1787vary as well.1788    Repealing the FACE Act will elevate one narrow set of1789beliefs at the expense of all others. That is the opposite of1790religious liberty.1791    In the United States, everyone has a right to their1792religious beliefs, but not the right to impose those beliefs on1793others. That is why I am proud to work with Congressmen Scott,1794Raskin, and Scanlon on the Do Not Harm Act.1795    Tomorrow, this Committee will hold a hearing on victim1796services. The Majority argues that advancing policy in that1797area would convey a strong message.1798    Apply that language here. Advancing FACE Act repeal would1799send a clear message. Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans believe1800they should control who gets access to healthcare, and that1801those who physically block Americans from seeing a doctor will1802be encouraged, protected, and empowered.1803    I yield back the balance of my time.1804    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I will now1805recognize the gentle lady from Wyoming for five minutes.1806    Ms. Hageman. I find it very rich that any Democrat would1807attempt to lecture us about violence in light of the fact that1808it was yet another one of theirs who just three days ago sought1809to assassinate our President and his cabinet.1810    Don't get me started on the Democrat's favorite KKK1811supporter, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Spare me your faux1812outrage about violence.1813    According to the DOJ's report on the Biden Administration's1814weaponization of the FACE Act, ``in total, during the four-1815years under President Biden, the DOJ charged more than 451816prolife defendants, in over 20 cases, with violating the FACE1817Act in connection with prolife demonstrations.''1818    This is in stark contrast to largely ignoring attacks on1819prolife pregnancy resource centers, as Chair Jordan just1820pointed out, in which the DOJ, despite hundreds of cases and1821hundreds of attacks against prolife medical centers for women,1822the DOJ only charged a handful of them.1823    Again, spare me your faux outrage. The report further1824reveals that the Biden DOJ prosecutors requested an average1825sentence of 26.8 months for prolife defendants, compared to182612.3 months for prochoice defendants.1827    Mr. Severino, how do these average sentencing amounts1828correlate to the applicable range in the sentencing guidelines?1829    Mr. Severino. It varies depending on whether it is a first1830offense or not. It is a misdemeanor for a first offense, and1831some of these cases where you get felony levels, are second1832offenses.1833    What we see in the DOJ report is that it was effectively1834double for the prolife charge parties, versus the very few on1835the other side. There were only five that were brought recently1836that attacked the pregnancy resource centers. The disparity was1837essentially double.1838    Ms. Hageman. Well, then we also have the circumstance where1839they raided, I think it was Mr. Houck's home, in the middle of1840the night, drug him out the door in front of his family, simply1841because he was trying to protect his son from a violent pro-1842abortion demonstrator at a, I believe it was a Planned1843Parenthood facility.1844    How do these, what they did under the Biden Administration,1845how does that compare to other Administrations in terms of the1846sentences that they sought as well as the number of1847prosecutions?1848    Mr. Severino. Sure. In terms of the numbers, 97 percent of1849the cases were against prolifers. It was about 26.8 months for1850those convictions. About 12 months for the prochoice side.1851    You see with the Houck case you mentioned, that is a gross1852abuse where you have armed FBA agents with long guns go into1853this man's house where they were in contact with their1854attorney.1855    Normally, under normal circumstances, if they are willing1856to turn themselves in, which in this case they were, they1857turned themselves in. Instead, they made this entire spectacle1858and frightened their families out of their skin to make a1859statement.1860    Ms. Hageman. I would argue a very violent spectacle of our1861Federal Government, carried out by our Federal Government. In1862fact, Mr. Houck just received, what was it, $1 million dollars?1863The settlement for the way that he was treated, I believe.1864    Federal funds going to him because of the Biden's violation1865of his civil rights. Isn't that correct?1866    Mr. Severino. I don't know the dollar amount. This was a1867clear violation, because he was completely vindicated at trial.1868    It took the jury three hours to say not guilty. He was1869defending his son from a bully and that was--1870    Ms. Hageman. A violent bully.1871    Mr. Severino. Right.1872    Ms. Hageman. A violent prochoice bully.1873    Mr. Severino. Yes. They got into, that is why my opening1874statement says, look, these sorts of things, you have a1875weaponized DOJ that says you have this dispute, and a father1876defends his child from a bully, and that becomes a Federal1877offense. Right?1878    This is rampant abuse. Then, they have armed a year later,1879a year later, armed Federal agents raid his house in the1880morning. It is just absolute abuse.1881    Ms. Hageman. Well, in the case of the United States v.1882Gallagher, when one of the defense counsels contacted the1883Assistant U.S. Attorney, requesting information on the number1884of FACE Act criminal prosecutions in the last 10 years, the1885Biden DOJ prosecutors refused to share it, despite the1886information being readily available.1887    Sanjay Patel, the Director of the National Task Force on1888Violence Against Reproductive Healthcare Providers, and a very1889corrupt man, after receiving several requests stated, ``as the1890National Clinic Violence Coordinator, I do not keep the kind of1891records you requested, and as a result, I do not believe that1892we will provide them to you.''1893    He was lying through his teeth. They did have those1894records. Sanjay Patel, he referred to the defense counsel to1895DOJ press releases. Then, it is also important to note, as what1896was done by a predecessor, that he actually agreed to be a1897reference on a National Abortion Federation third-party grant1898application.1899    The point of this being, the report has demonstrated that1900the Biden Administration violated the Equal Protection Clause1901of the Constitution in the way that they have dealt with1902prolife and prochoice prosecutions under the FACE Act.1903    The FACE Act either needs to be reformed or abolished,1904because it has been abused by Democrat Administrations. With1905that, I yield back.1906    Mr. Severino. May I answer, Mr. Chair?1907    Mr. Roy. Yes.1908    Mr. Severino. Yes. When I was at DOJ, if you had a FACE Act1909case, you would actually enter it, there is a particular spot1910in your tracking of time. DOJ knew exactly how many FACE Act1911cases at all times they had opened.1912    Mr. Roy. I thank the witness. Thank the gentlelady from1913Wyoming. I will now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee for1914a unanimous consent request.1915    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. A unanimous consent request is1916an article written by Ms. Burton and Ms. Sanchez, and published1917in Ms. Magazine, about the arrest in Memphis that the anti-1918abortion training camp sparked. I would like to enter that for1919the record.1920    Mr. Roy. Without objection.1921    Mr. Cohen. I would also like to correct an error in my1922discussion. I think I said J6 was not, I didn't say 2021, which1923is of course, was the first term, not the second term.1924    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman for the correction. I will1925now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont for her five minutes.1926    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a former history1927teacher, one of the things I always try to make sure that my1928students understand is the importance of context.1929    I want to come back to thinking about how we got here, and1930let's consider the history of the anti-abortion violence in the1931United States.1932    Since 1977, there have been 11 murders, 26 attempted1933murders, 42 bombings, 200 acts of arson, 100 acid attacks, four1934kidnappings, and over 600 assaults against patients and workers1935at reproductive health facilities.1936    It has been nearly a five-decade long terrorist campaign.1937We are talking about militant extremists willing to use deadly1938violence to prevent women from seeking reproductive care and1939from having control over their own bodies.1940    Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994, to protect doctors1941and nurses and patients from violent threats, assaults, and1942blockades. That is the history, and the context is important.1943    Professor Waters, thank you so much for being here today.1944Can you describe the levels of violence against abortion1945providers and patients at that time, and the reasons why1946Congress had to come together to pass the FACE Act?1947    Ms. Waters. I think you just covered many of the reasons1948very well. I will say on a personal note, one of the ways that1949I came to do this work, is I have a vivid memory of the late19501990s, I was a college student, and I remember hearing that Dr.1951Slepian had been murdered.1952    Ms. Balint. Yes.1953    Ms. Waters. He was an abortion provider who had just come1954home from a memorial service for his father at his synagogue.1955He was in his kitchen making soup and he was shot through his1956window in front of his child and murdered.1957    Ms. Balint. Right.1958    Ms. Waters. That is what we are talking about.1959    Ms. Balint. Right.1960    Ms. Waters. That is the history.1961    Ms. Balint. I am so glad you brought that up, because we1962are forgetting, as you said earlier, ``these are real people.''1963    Ms. Waters. These are humans.1964    Ms. Balint. These are human beings. Actually, I want to1965bring into this conversation also, something that a clinic1966worker said about the kind of environment she has to work in.1967She said,19681969          When I worked in Louisiana, someone threw a Molotov cocktail1970        at the clinic. After that, the clinic couldn't have any windows1971        anymore.19721973          There were literally no windows in the building whatsoever.1974        You never knew what time of day it was at work, but it had to1975        be like that, because people would just throw Molotov cocktails1976        at the building.19771978None of this is peaceful, or prayerful, or in the interest of1979not just public safety, but again, we are talking about1980patients trying to seek healthcare.1981    Last year, as some of my colleagues have already said, I1982just want to remind everybody, President Trump pardoned 20 FACE1983Act violators. He pardoned people who got due process, and were1984found guilty in our courts of law, beyond a reasonable doubt by1985juries of their peers.1986    He pardoned people who blocked off clinics while women who1987urgently needed care, were stuck bleeding and crying outside in1988their cars. Along with the pardons, Trump's Justice Department1989sent a clear message with their charging document.1990    I want to read from it. It reads,19911992        Future abortion related FACE Act prosecutions and civil actions1993        will be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances until1994        further notice. No new abortion-related FACE Act actions,1995        criminal or civil, will be permitted without authorization.19961997    What this sounds like to me, is a complicated way of1998saying, ``we are not protecting anyone for criminal attacks1999anymore.'' That is what we are talking about here. What kind of2000message does that send, Professor Waters, to violent protestors2001who are part of this movement?2002    Ms. Waters. I think it sends several messages. I think it2003sends a message to providers that we will not enforce the2004Federal law, and we will not protect you, and you are on your2005own.2006    It sends a message to violent protestors. I want to be very2007clear here we are not talking here about peaceful pickets,2008right?2009    Ms. Balint. That is right.2010    Ms. Waters. Or praying, right? Peaceful protests, even2011protests that we may disagree vehemently with. What we are2012talking about is sending the message to people who blockade2013clinics, who use violence, that you can get away with it.2014    Ms. Balint. I agree. The last thing, I want to take issue2015with something that the Chair of the Full Committee said.2016    He seemed to imply that women were not actually seeking2017full reproductive care from these clinics. As one of those2018millions of women before the Affordable Care Act was passed,2019and when I didn't have insurance, I got my reproductive care,2020my full reproductive care from a Planned Parenthood facility.2021    The 2.2 million visits for birth control, 5.5 million2022visits for STI testing and treatment, nearly 400,000 visits for2023cancer screening, and no patient should have to walk through2024this kind of gauntlet to get care.2025    I yield back.2026    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. I will2027now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gill, for five2028minutes.2029    Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for hosting this2030hearing. I certainly appreciate your leadership, especially on2031this topic.2032    Ms. Waters, thanks for being here. I really appreciate it.2033Do you believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare?2034    Ms. Waters. I believe the abortion decision should be left2035to a patient, their doctor, their family, and their God.2036    Mr. Gill. Do you believe it should be safe, legal, and2037rare?2038    Ms. Waters. I believe it should be safe, legal, and rare,2039yes.2040    Mr. Gill. OK. Why should it be rare?2041    Ms. Waters. Because if we are engaging in public health2042activities appropriately, we are able to prevent pregnancies2043when people want to prevent pregnancies. I think a2044conversation--2045    Mr. Gill. What is wrong with an abortion then?2046    Ms. Waters. May I finish my sentence?2047    Mr. Gill. Sure.2048    Ms. Waters. If we are actually talking about reproductive2049health, and caring about maternal health, we should be talking2050about, do people have adequate access to preventative care?2051Right?2052    Do they have adequate access to contraception? Are they2053able--2054    Mr. Gill. Do you support any limits on abortion? Ms. Waters2055I am sorry, I didn't hear your question.2056    Mr. Gill. Do you support any limits on abortion?2057    Ms. Waters. This is a place where I suspect you and I will2058fundamentally disagree. What I believe, is that the abortion2059decision should fundamentally, because it is medical care--2060    Mr. Gill. Do you support any limits at all? It is just yes2061or no.2062    Ms. Waters. If you would let me finish my answer.2063    Mr. Gill. It is just yes or no, do you think that there2064should be any limits on abortion?2065    Ms. Waters. I came here with the goal of providing truthful2066and accurate testimony. To truthfully and accurately answer2067your question, what I would say is, I fundamentally believe2068that the question of abortion should be left to a patient and2069their doctor and their family. I don't want to interfere in2070medical decisions.2071    Mr. Gill. OK. I will take that as a no. Is that a good2072summary of your testimony?2073    Ms. Waters. I answered your question.2074    Mr. Gill. OK. I think that this is a no then. You are an2075advocate for abortion, for abortion policy. What is your2076favorite type of abortion?2077    Ms. Waters. I am an advocate for patients having access to2078the full realm of reproductive healthcare.2079    Mr. Gill. Do you have a preferred method of abortion that2080you like?2081    Ms. Waters. I do not.2082    Mr. Gill. Let me read through a couple different methods,2083and I want to get your take on how much you like these.2084    The first type is called a suction abortion. This is when2085the cervix is dilated, and a strong suction, 29 times the power2086of a household vacuum cleaner, tears the baby's body apart and2087sucks it through the hose into a container. Do you prefer that2088method?2089    Ms. Waters. I stand by my former testimony.2090    Mr. Gill. That sounds kind of gross, doesn't it? It sounds2091pretty gruesome. Do you agree? It does to me.2092    Ms. Waters. I stand by how I answered your question fully2093and accurately.2094    Mr. Gill. OK. What about this one, this one is called2095dilation and curettage. After dilation of the cervix, a sharp2096looped knife is inserted into the uterus. The baby's body is2097cut into pieces and extracted often by suction. Do you prefer2098that method?2099    Ms. Waters. What I believe we are here to talk about today2100is the FACE Act. We are not here to talk about the--2101    Mr. Gill. No, I am asking you, you are a pro-abortion2102advocate, I am asking if you prefer the dilation and curettage2103method?2104    Ms. Waters. I am an access to reproductive healthcare2105advocate.2106    Mr. Gill. You don't want to talk about abortion itself. Why2107is that?2108    Ms. Waters. I would prefer to talk about the reason that2109the Committee called the hearing.2110    Mr. Gill. Is it because it is uncomfortable to talk about?2111    Ms. Waters. I would prefer to--2112    Mr. Gill. It should be uncomfortable.2113    Ms. Waters. I would prefer, if you would let me finish my2114statement, to talk about the Freedom of Access to Clinic2115Entrances Act, which is what I was asked to come here to talk2116about.2117    Mr. Gill. We are talking about what that access--yes, how2118about this one? It is called dilation and evacuation. Forceps2119are inserted into the uterus, grabbing and twisting the baby's2120body to dismember him or her. If the head is too large, it must2121be crushed to remove it. Do you prefer that method?2122    Ms. Waters. I would prefer to talk about the reason the2123hearing was called and the basis of my expert testimony.2124    Mr. Gill. It is uncomfortable to hear this, isn't it? It2125is. It is, because it is barbaric and evil. How about this one,2126it is called the saline injection. It is when a 20 percent salt2127solution is injected through the mother's abdomen into the2128baby's amniotic fluid. The baby's skin is burned off. The baby2129ingests the solution and dies of salt poisoning, dehydration,2130and hemorrhaging of the brain. Do you prefer that method?2131    Ms. Waters. I would prefer to talk about the subject of2132hearing.2133    Mr. Gill. This is the subject of the hearing. This is about2134protests outside of abortion clinics. I am asking you about2135abortion.2136    Ms. Waters. I stand by my prior testimony.2137    Mr. Gill. OK. I wouldn't want to talk about this either if2138I were you, because it is barbaric and evil.2139    With that, I yield the remaining time to the Chair. Thank2140you.2141    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I will only note2142in the remaining 10 seconds, is that a good deal of the efforts2143by my Democratic colleagues to talk about this issue, has moved2144to the core question of abortion and what is carried on, and2145the activities that are carried out at Planned Parenthood and2146other facilities.2147    That question by the gentleman from Texas is in line. I2148will now recognize the gentlelady from California.2149    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reality is,2150this hearing is not really about the FACE Act, because that was2151a bipartisan bill passed over 30 years ago that still has2152standing.2153    It is a bill that is about protecting worshipers when they2154go to pray, and patients when they are trying to access2155healthcare.2156    This is about how laws are enforced and interpreted, and2157how this Administration is cherry-picking and using selective2158prosecution of cases to support their desired claims and2159agenda.2160    The claims and the agenda are, to take away rights and to2161silence groups with whom they dislike or disagree. Last month,2162the DOJ released a highly flawed 900-page partisan report,2163purporting to examine prosecutorial decisionmaking under the2164FACE Act, and alleging bias and Federal law enforcement during2165the Biden Administration.2166    However, many cases brought between 2020-2024, involved2167serious crimes such as firebombing, arson, bomb threats, and2168coordinated clinic blockades. All which resulted in indictments2169by Federal grand juries and guilty verdicts at trial.2170    We are talking about violent and unlawful acts. Professor2171Waters, even though I have answered my own question, but I will2172ask you the question as well. Do those sound like peaceful2173protests to you?2174    Ms. Waters. They do not sound like peaceful protests to me.2175When we are talking about the incidents of obstruction and2176violence at clinics, it is important to look at all the cases2177that were not prosecuted, right?2178    For example, when I look at the National Abortion2179Federation statistics, and I look at like, for example, the2180number of pickets and protests outside of clinics, there were2181tens of thousands, right?2182    What we are talking about under the Biden Administration,2183is 25 prosecutions, not for that activity. The prosecutions are2184for blockades. The prosecutions are for threats. The2185prosecutions are for violence, not protected speech.2186    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I would say that this2187Administration came into power with a real agenda against2188women.2189    They have weaponized the DOJ to carry their agenda out,2190because what they didn't include in this 900-page report were a2191number of stories, like the woman who tried for years and years2192and years to get pregnant, and I know what that feels like, and2193miscarried.2194    Went to a clinic to help her medically manage the2195miscarriage. She was blocked from seeing her doctor. She was in2196her car sobbing and bleeding out.2197    The technical term when you have a miscarriage, and I know2198about this personally, is the doctor will call it an abortion.2199It is violent for anyone, especially a man, to suggest that2200they know more about my body and how I am trying to protect2201myself, in the hopes that I can get pregnant again, based on2202their assumption of me and the kind of healthcare that I2203deserve.2204    We should also remind folks and include the incident that2205happened last year in a clinic in California, where the clinic2206was set on fire. Last month a clinic in Ohio was set on fire.2207    These are about patients, doctors, and workers going to get2208some healthcare. Let me tell you something, when you go to a2209clinic, you are not wearing a sign that says, hey, I am getting2210an abortion. You could go to a clinic to get a pap smear, to2211get IVF, and a vasectomy.2212    In the few seconds that I have remaining, I would be remiss2213if I didn't draw the Subcommittee's attention to the murders on2214the streets of Minneapolis by ICE, and the use of the FACE Act2215to charge two journalists, two black journalists, Ms. Fort and2216Mr. Lemon.2217    These folks were documenting protest activities that the2218church, was happening at a church because its pastor was a key2219official in the ICE response to Minneapolis.2220    I know my time is running up, but I just want to say that2221this Chair himself has said in other contexts, that free2222Americans should never live in fear of their government2223targeting them.2224    Yet, that is exactly what happened to these two journalists2225and others. They were inappropriately charged under the FACE2226Act. Meanwhile, a MAGA influencer, Ms. Gomez, who also2227interrupted an LGBTQ friendly worship service, was neither2228charged nor arrested.2229    I have receipts when I am saying that we are cherry-picking2230and using selective prosecution to go after folks that we want2231to sideline.2232    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from California.2233    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.2234    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from California.2235    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I do also have some--2236    Mr. Roy. Consent requests?2237    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes. A testimony of Renee Chelian,2238founder and CEO of Northland Family Planning. Her testimony2239before the House Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent.2240    An article in Politico, ``Trump pardons abortion clinic2241protestors ahead of March for Life.'' This was January 23,22422025.2243    Thank you, Mr. Chair. FBI investigating fertility clinic2244bomb suspects, possible antinationalist manifesto. From May 18,22452025.2246    CDC archive, ``More men using family planning services.''2247This is June 16, 2016.2248    Last, our letter to the Chair and the Ranking Member,2249Amnesty International USA submits this letter to the House2250Subcommittee on the Constitution for their upcoming hearing2251from tool to weapon, the FACE Act--2252    Mr. Roy. Without objection. I will now recognize the2253gentleman from Wisconsin for five minutes.2254    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having2255this hearing. A very timely and always very interesting, kind2256of an appropriate hearing to have in Wisconsin today.2257    I know in the last year, for the first time in many years,2258we opened a third abortion clinic in the city of Milwaukee.2259    It is something that I hadn't seen before in Wisconsin. It2260is something you hear about in other parts of the country.2261    The clinic was in a neighborhood clearly designed to deal2262almost exclusively with customers or patients of color. I2263thought that was kind of illuminating, because that gets to the2264underlying goal of so many people in the pro-abortion movement.2265    In any event, we will start off with Mr. Severino. Thank2266you for being here today. In light of your experience as a2267trial attorney at Justice's Civil Rights division, how did the2268Biden-Harris Administration's approach to prosecuting alleged2269violators of the FACE Act comport with the standard practices2270in this division?2271    Mr. Severino. It was all one-sided. I saw that directly in2272the Obama administration.2273    Mr. Grothman. Oh, I am sorry, always what?2274    Mr. Severino. One-sided.2275    Mr. Grothman. Oh, OK.2276    Mr. Severino. The prosecutions were against the prolife2277side. It was mentioned earlier by one of the Members on the2278other side that now it is being enforced for churches.2279    Well, now it is the first time it is being enforced to2280protect churches, because neither the Biden Administration nor2281the Obama Administration lifted a finger when we had hundreds2282of violations, including burnings and vandalizing of churches,2283especially after the Dobbs decision.2284    Mr. Grothman. OK. How does this uneven application of the2285FACE Act on prolife or pro-abortion groups undermine the2286Constitution, in your opinion, and the civil rights protections2287for all Americans?2288    Mr. Severino. Sure. It is the notion of equal justice under2289the law, right? People should not get favor from the2290government.2291    The political identity of a party should not matter. What2292we saw with, especially the DOJ report that just came out, was2293that you had Left-wing activists, pro-abortion groups, who were2294surveilling American citizens and doing things that the Federal2295Government could not do themselves.2296    They were outsourcing, DOJ was essentially outsourcing2297their investigatory functions to activist groups. Those2298activist groups, they don't care about the Constitution, right?2299    They are not Federal agents, so they could do whatever they2300want to track people, get their licenses, see where they live,2301and track their religious exercise. Then, they packaged that2302and handed it over to DOJ, right?2303    They did the dirty work on the front end, then DOJ on the2304back end, picked it up. By the way, the abortion clinics2305themselves weren't the ones complaining.2306    These were the activist umbrella groups that were combining2307dossiers on people and giving them to DOJ to prosecute.2308    Mr. Grothman. OK. Can you speak of your experience in the2309civil rights division on how the Federal Government can play a2310more responsible role in preventing the overfederalization of2311criminal law?2312    Mr. Severino. Yes. The overfederalization is a horrific2313problem, if we do not know what crimes we may be committing in2314our everyday lives.2315    The examples I said earlier, why could it be a crime for2316taking a nest off your roof? Well, there is a Migratory Bird2317Treaty Act that covers 1,100 bird species, and if you mess with2318their nests, you are committing a Federal crime.2319    The DOJ has to go through every statute, finely count2320everyone, tell the American people, these are our crimes that2321you could be liable for. Then, Congress needs to repeal every2322one that doesn't have a constitutional basis.2323    The FACE Act is one of those that does not have a2324sufficient constitutional basis. It is emblematic of the2325overcriminalization that you are talking about.2326    Mr. Grothman. OK. A recent Justice Department report issued2327by the Trump Administration stated that Biden-Harris2328prosecutors withheld evidence that defense counsel requested to2329prepare an affirmative defense.2330    In U.S. v. Gallagher, prosecutors had information readily2331available that they did not share with the defendants, while2332sharing substantially identical information with the National2333Abortion Fund.2334    Mr. Ferrara, were there times you requested information2335that the Biden-Harris DOJ prosecutors refused to provide?2336    Mr. Ferrara. I have operated on the civil side, not the2337criminal side, so I can't really respond to that question.2338    I would note one thing; there have been a lot of references2339to acts of violence. Let's talk about what happens in those2340cases.2341    The killer of Dr. Gunn got life in prison. The killer of2342Dr. Britton and his escort, death. The killer of Dr. Slepian,2343life plus ten. The killer of Dr. Tiller, 25 years to life.2344    The criminal justice system under State law addresses acts2345of violence. There was no need for FACE in any of those cases.2346    Which is the problem with FACE is that it usurps the role2347that is properly assigned to local law under State and local2348judicial systems, including the severest possible penalties for2349people who commit violence. We don't need this statute and2350never had needed it.2351    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.2352    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his2353questions. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Scanlon, for2354five minutes.2355    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Given some of the prior questions2356that we have heard, that it is important to note the importance2357of Planned Parenthood and other reproductive healthcare2358providers across our country.2359    Two of my colleagues have already mentioned that they have2360sought services from Planned Parenthood at various times, as2361did I.2362    When my husband and I were starting our family, we lived2363three blocks from a Planned Parenthood clinic. Went there2364frequently to get information, to consult books, and to buy2365books on having a baby.2366    The attacks on Planned Parenthood are really, really2367important to note, because as funding is attacked and2368everything else, that it is often the only source of2369reproductive healthcare in so many of our neighborhoods.2370    At any rate, we have heard a lot of really gross2371misstatements of facts, et cetera. I would refer people back to2372Ms. Waters' testimony and the articles I have submitted with2373respect to the complete misrepresentations in the recent DOJ2374report.2375    I wanted to focus on a couple things here, Ms. Waters. One2376is we have heard a lot about disparities in prosecution and2377sentencing.2378    I will give you two questions, and you can address as you2379will, which are not supported by the evidence. Then, also, I2380don't think there has been enough discussion of the fact that2381this is a national campaign of violence by anti-abortion2382activists.2383    I mentioned earlier that six people were arrested in my2384district in July 2025, for trespassing at a clinic and2385harassing patients and staff. These six people were not local2386protestors.2387    They came from New Jersey, Wisconsin, Texas, Michigan,2388Minnesota, and Ohio. Two had been pardoned by Trump for prior2389offenses in other States, FACE Act violations.2390    At least one was arrested in D.C. just days after2391submitting a plea bargain with respect to the incident in my2392district. She was in D.C. to join other anti-abortion activists2393to plan their next national activities.2394    If you can comment on the fact, comment on both the alleged2395disparity in prosecution and sentencing, and why, again, a2396national FACE Act is important?2397    Ms. Waters. I will start with the second. The need for the2398National FACE Act was well documented in the legislative record2399at the time, right?2400    What we saw, was local and State law enforcement saying, we2401can't handle this, right? Hundreds of people show up, and if my2402force goes to that clinic, we are not doing anything else in2403the State, right?2404    We saw it as State law enforcement saying, this is very2405needed. We also saw ample evidence that a lot of this violence2406was cross State, right?2407    State's jurisdiction ends where its borders end, right?2408They were having a hard time being able to prosecute this2409multistate violence going across State lines.2410    That hasn't changed today. As I said in my testimony, we2411are in a time that, thanks to Dobbs, the State laws differ2412dramatically, and people are traveling at increased rates2413across State lines to both provide and obtain reproductive2414healthcare.2415    The interstate commerce and the multistate aspect here is2416even more severe than it was at the time that FACE was enacted.2417    On the question of the disparities, I read the DOJ report2418with interest. I am an academic, right? I looked at it and I2419have a lot of questions. My first reaction was, this would not2420pass peer review, right?2421    I have a lot of questions about, for example, if we look at2422sentencing disparities, like yes, they are different. Because2423people committed crimes more than once.2424    FACE specifically provides that each time you commit a2425crime, the penalties go up, right? People committed different2426crimes.2427    We would be remiss not to look at the fact that there are2428at least four District courts that have, in the past two years,2429looked at this question of was DOJ engaging in selective2430prosecution.2431    They have squarely been asked that question, including in2432the Gallagher case, which we have discussed quite a bit. Each2433time the court has said no, right?2434    Some of the courts have said, look, like, if there is not a2435disparity, if where we are seeing the violence is against2436clinics that provide reproductive healthcare, that is not a2437disparity.2438    The courts have also said there is no malfeasance if law2439enforcement offices have priorities. People do that. The courts2440have said post Dobbs, it makes some sense, given that we saw2441the increase in violence of clinics, that we would see2442prosecutions against people engaging in that violence.2443    Four District courts have looked at this, and a circuit2444court actually, and have said there is not biased prosecution2445here.2446    Ms. Scanlon. It is fair to say that if you look apples to2447apples, instead of apples to oranges, any disparities can be2448explained.2449    Ms. Waters. Yes. I think they--I have questions, like I2450said, right?2451    Ms. Scanlon. Sure.2452    Ms. Waters. When I look at the report, I am not in the2453particulars of every individual case.2454    Ms. Scanlon. Right.2455    Ms. Waters. Those are the types of questions I would ask.2456    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you for your thoughtful testimony. I2457yield back.2458    Mr. Roy. Ms. Edl, you are a survivor, and I remind you to2459turn your microphone on. You are a survivor of a communist2460concentration camp in former Yugoslavia post-World War II. Is2461that correct?2462    Ms. Edl. Correct.2463    Mr. Roy. You testified that you have, in significant part,2464dedicated your life to the cause of defending the innocent2465unborn since the Roe decision in the subsequent 50 years.2466    Ms. Edl. Correct.2467    Mr. Roy. When you were arrested and then convicted for your2468actions in Michigan, did you assault anyone?2469    Ms. Edl. No.2470    Mr. Roy. You were present in a protest at this clinic, and2471you were obstructing people's access?2472    Ms. Edl. Well, I stood in front of the door, yes.2473    Mr. Roy. Now, you were convicted and you faced a sentence2474of up to 13 years. Is that correct?2475    Ms. Edl. That is correct.2476    Mr. Roy. You are, at the current time, 91?2477    Ms. Edl. I will be 91 on Sunday.2478    Mr. Roy. Well, happy birthday in advance.2479    Ms. Edl. Thank you.2480    Mr. Roy. At the time you were arrested, you were 89?2481    Ms. Edl. Yes.2482    Mr. Roy. Do you think that the use of the FACE Act, and2483then conspiracy charge under the KKK statute, do you think that2484is an appropriate sentence for someone, or the potential2485sentence, because you were not sentenced yet, but up to 132486years, for being present and expressing your views that2487abortion is in fact murder?2488    Along the lines of my friend from Texas' description of the2489horrific and barbaric practices of abortion, do you think that2490an individual should be charged federally with up to 13 years2491in prison at the age of 89, or at all, for carrying out that2492activity?2493    Ms. Edl. At any age, murder is taking place in those.2494Nobody seems to mention that. Murder is taking place inside2495those clinics. I am sorry, I--2496    Mr. Roy. No, go ahead.2497    Ms. Edl. It is no different than in Nazi Germany or2498Yugoslavia, where I was. People would have probably, at that2499time, protected the law to kill us.2500    Now, those that would have tried to save us would be called2501heroes. Why? Because we finally recognized that even I, as a2502child, was a human being then.2503    These babies are human beings from a moment of conception2504on. Either in the process of growth or in the process of2505decline.2506    Like I said, we are headed toward killing the elderly.2507First, they will be identified, they will be vilified, they2508will be dehumanized and then destroyed.2509    I am trying to do what God calls us to do, protect human2510life. Not with violence, just placing my body in between the2511victim and the perpetrator.2512    Mr. Roy. Ms. Edl, you witnessed, with respect to World War2513II and post-World War II, in Yugoslavia and generally,2514individuals who were being carried off to be murdered and2515executed, correct?2516    Ms. Edl. Yes. I heard about it through my father when they2517took the Jewish families from our town. He was livid.2518    Mr. Roy. You experienced the concentration camp yourself?2519    Ms. Edl. Yes, I did.2520    Mr. Roy. You equate, appropriately in my view, you equate2521the murder of the innocent unborn, with the murder of those2522people murdered at the hands of government authority, every bit2523the same.2524    Ms. Edl. Exactly. Yes.2525    Mr. Roy. Because of that belief, without assaulting anyone,2526the Federal Government was using the full power of its force to2527prosecute you, and to put you in jail for up to 13 years, using2528the full power of the Federal Government to do so. Is that2529correct?2530    Ms. Edl. That is correct.2531    Mr. Roy. Well, I want to thank you for your life, your life2532story, your dedication to life, and for fearlessly standing2533against the power of government being used against your God-2534given ability to try to stand up in defense of the innocent.2535    In the false name of healthcare, in the false name of2536healthcare, the murder of the unborn. God bless you for2537standing up for that.2538    God bless you for your courage. God will bless you when he2539welcomes you home someday long in the future. I appreciate it2540very much.2541    Ms. Edl. Thank you.2542    Mr. Roy. I appreciate all the witnesses. I appreciate your2543testimony. I will recognize the gentlelady for a consent2544request.2545    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter2546into the record, a press release from the DOJ dated August 20,25472024, entitled, ``Seven defendants, including Ms. Edl,2548convicted of Federal civil rights conspiracy and freedom of2549access to clinical entrances.''2550    I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record, the2551following statements all dated April 28, 2026, from2552Reproductive Freedom for All, the American College of2553Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Abortion2554Federation, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.2555    I also have a unanimous consent request to enter into the2556record, a statement from David Gunn Jr. and Wendy Gunn, whose2557father, Dr. David Gunn, was murdered by an anti-abortion2558extremist and whose murder helped propel passage of the FACE2559Act.2560    I would also enter into the record, pages 557 and 558 of2561Project 2025, detailing the push to repeal the FACE Act.2562    Mr. Roy. Without objection. I would like unanimous consent2563to enter into the record, I will only ask for the Executive2564Summary portion of the Department of Justice Report, given the2565length of the full report being 800 pages.2566    The Executive Summary of the Department of Justice Report2567outlining the extent to which there was deep coordination2568between the Department of Justice and abortion activists, and2569the collusion between the two, as well as lack of reporting to2570Congress.2571    Mr. Roy. I appreciate that. Anything else from the2572gentlelady?2573    That concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for2574appearing before the Subcommittee today. Without objection, all2575Members will have five legislative days to submit additional2576written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for2577the record.2578    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.2579    [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]25802581    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the2582Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can2583be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent2584.aspx?EventID=119234.25852586                                 [all]