Rep. Roy Says He’s Prepared to Force a Vote on FACE Act’s Repeal

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) says he is prepared to force a vote on his FACE Act Repeal Act if his fellow Republicans won’t move the bill forward.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, bars individuals from blocking the entrances to abortion clinics, pro-life pregnancy centers, and houses of worship, though the law has largely been enforced against pro-life activists since its 1994 passage.

Many Republicans and pro-life organizations have called for the FACE Act’s repeal. But while speaking at a Heritage Foundation event in Washington on March 5, Roy said his GOP colleagues were blocking his bill’s advancement.

“We have not had a vote on it in committee. We have not had a vote on it on the floor, because there are people in our own Republican Party who are too afraid to touch it,” he said.

Roy said lawmakers fear that repealing the law “might be a little more controversial than just moving another continuing resolution.” But he urged them to take action.

“If my Republican colleagues continue to refuse to bring the FACE Act up for a vote in committee or the floor, I will file a discharge petition, and I will start to try to move the bill, irrespective of the normal procedures,” Roy said.

Related Stories

House members can “discharge” legislation that has sat idle in committee for at least 30 legislative days if a majority of the chamber, or 218 members, sign a petition. After seven days, the petition’s signatories can call for a vote on the motion to discharge, and if that passes, an immediate motion to consider the bill can be made.

Even if a repeal should pass the House, it will likely face an uphill battle in the Senate. While the GOP has a slim 53-vote majority there, it takes 60 votes to clear the procedural hurdles that come before a final vote.

One of those pardoned activists was Paul Vaughn, who was convicted for participating in a March 2021 abortion clinic blockade in Mount Juliet, Tennessee.

While other participants blocked the entrance to the clinic, Vaughn stood down the hall, away from the door, praying and singing hymns. Some 18 months later, four FBI agents pulled up to his house in tactical gear to arrest him at gunpoint in front of his family.

“Seven of my 11 children were home that day,” he recalled.

Vaughn was ultimately sentenced to three years of supervised release. Still, he noted that for the duration of his trial, he had the possibility of spending more than a decade in prison hanging over his head.

Andy Bath, executive vice president of the Thomas More Society, said that threatening lengthy prison sentences is meant to punish defendants.

“They know that the process is the punishment. Even if we get an acquittal at the end of the day, they’ve had the punishment,” Bath said.

Proponents of the FACE Act say it protects the safety of clinic patients and staff.

“Even with this law in place, anti-abortion activists have threatened to kill providers, have bombed their clinics, and have harassed their patients,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, noted in a Jan. 24 statement.

Jipping, however, said the law had been unevenly applied against those with pro-life views.

“This is purely viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional,” he said.

Jipping also said that, in his view, Congress never had the authority to pass the FACE Act.

“Congress needs to identify a specific delegated power for every law that it passes,” he noted.

In the case of the FACE Act, lawmakers identified two: the 14th Amendment right to have an abortion and the power to regulate interstate commerce.

In 2022, the Supreme Court clarified that there is no constitutional right to abortion and never was. That includes when the FACE Act was passed in 1994, Jipping said.

“And, of course, the FACE Act doesn’t regulate any sort of economic activity at all,” he contended.

Bath further argued that the law is unnecessary as it prohibits actions that are already illegal under state and local laws.

“There’s no need for this at all. There’s no constitutional warrant for it, and it’s very problematic,” he said. “For Congress to intrude into what should be a state and local legal issue threatens our whole scheme of separation of powers.”

As for the prevention of violence, Bath noted that the FACE Act also criminalizes violence against churches and pro-life organizations, yet the perpetrators of those crimes are rarely prosecuted under the law.

But if Congress won’t act on a repeal, Vaughn offered another pathway to the FACE Act’s nullification: “By confronting the FACE Act and saying, ‘You know what? This law is unjust, and we’re going to put it back in the courts and have the courts deal with it once and for all.’”