▶ 0:14:31The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. We welcome everybody to today's hearing on the FACE Act and the dangers of federalizing criminal law. Before I start, I just want to say thanks for everybody's patience. I think there were some security line issues. Thanks for the witnesses for navigating through those and and thanks to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I apologize for starting a little bit late, but we were trying to deal with with that issue. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
▶ 0:14:57Today, this subcommittee confronts a fundamental question about the proper role of the federal government in our constitutional system. Because the issue before us is not just one statute, it is about a broader and more dangerous trend, the steady expansion of federal criminal law into areas the Constitution traditionally reserves to the states. And when Washington creates these authorities and hands them to unelected bureaucrats, these tools will inevitably be weaponized. The FACE Act is a case study in exactly that problem.
▶ 0:15:21It was sold as a narrow, even-handed tool designed to equally protect access to abortion clinics, pregnancy resource centers, and places of worship by prohibiting threats of force, obstruction, and property damage. But, like so many federal laws before it, it has become a vehicle for selective enforcement, a mechanism for political targeting, and ultimately a weapon used against conservatives and pro-life We don't need to speculate.
▶ 0:15:45We now have clear evidence from the Department of Justice's own report that this law was weaponized by the Biden administration. That report shows how under the Biden administration enforcement of the FACE Act was shaped, if not driven, by outside advocacy The Biden Department of Justice worked in close coordination with extremist NGOs, particularly large, well-funded pro-abortion groups like the National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and the Feminist Majority Foundation. And these groups weren't merely reporting crimes.
▶ 0:16:15They were operating as de facto intelligence-gathering arms, collecting and compiling detailed dossiers on the speech and activities of American citizens uh for federal authorities, mapping their movements, logging protests, and gathering deeply personal information including participation in religious activity, home addresses, license data, even photos of their families and minor children.
▶ 0:16:38All of it fed into the prosecution pipeline, even as DOJ officials themselves recognized much of the underlying activity was protected under the First Amendment. And the DOJ didn't just receive this information, it gave these groups On May 15th, 2023, the National Abortion Federation requested a full internal
▶ 0:16:58of every active FACE Act prosecution in the country. They got it in full within 1 hour. But, when this subcommittee and I, personally, as a member of Congress asked for the exact same information, the DOJ didn't just delay, they stonewalled for over 3 years, from '22 to '24. In October 2022, four more requests ignored. December 2023, asked again under oath, no answer. February [clears throat] 2024, follow up in writing, nothing.
▶ 0:17:27May 2024, response finally comes 16 months later. And it wasn't just Congress, defense counsel and active FACE prosecutors were denied the data outright. In one case, a DOJ official explicitly wrote that providing the information would, quote, open gates we will struggle to close, end quote, implicitly acknowledging that the records would reveal unequal enforcement targeting only pro-lifers. So, they refused, claiming the records didn't exist, even though the same information had been handed to the National Abortion Federation on demand.
▶ 0:17:57Why does an outside abortion advocacy group get immediate access to internal Department of Justice enforcement data, while Congress, pro-life defendants, and the American people are forced to wait years, or are denied altogether?
▶ 0:18:10That is not equal justice under the law. That is a two-tiered system where political allies are treated as partners and dissenters as targets. And it didn't stop there. The bias we're seeing didn't just shape who was investigated, it shaped how these cases were prosecuted in court. In FACE Act trials, we have evidence the DOJ attorneys probed prospective jurors on their religious beliefs and pro-life views, treating constitutionally protected convictions as potential disqualifications for service.
▶ 0:18:36In one instance, a DOJ prosecutor even complained when a judge took care to protect the defendant's First Amendment rights. This is what happens when Washington takes power it was never meant to have, using it to target instead of to serve, while treating constitutional protections as obstacles rather than guarantees. We don't have to imagine what that looks like. We had sitting We see it sitting here before us today. Ms. Eva Edelson is not a violent criminal. She's a 91-year-old survivor of a communist labor camp.
▶ 0:19:04Someone who has lived through the horrors of unchecked government power. Yet, in Biden's America, she was not met with freedom, but with the full force of federal prosecution for a non-violent Having survived the abuses of a 20th century regime built on centralized power, she now faces the consequences of that same dangerous principle right here on American soil decades later. Her case is not an outlier.
▶ 0:19:26It is a warning about what happens when the federal government takes jurisdiction over local conduct and then applies that power selectively, guided not by equal justice, but by political priorities. This should concern every American, regardless of their views on the underlying issue. Because the real problem isn't just how this law has been used, it's the permanent expansion of federal power it represents. When Congress federalizes criminal law, we are not just addressing a single issue in a single moment.
▶ 0:19:55We are creating authorities that do not disappear when political control changes hands. Authorities that will be used again and again by whoever sits in the White House, controls the DOJ, or directs federal law enforcement. And that's why this hearing isn't just about the FACE Act. It is about what happens when Washington takes power it was never meant to have. We are seeing the same impulse in proposals to federalize other areas of criminal law.
▶ 0:20:19New federal penalties layered on top of existing state crimes and efforts to nationalize deeply contested social issues through criminal statutes. Because the real question isn't whether this power delivers you the outcome you want today, it's whether you're willing to hand that same power to your political opponents tomorrow. And the answer should be obvious. It isn't the fight over who controls these the answer is to stop creating them in the first place.
▶ 0:20:44Criminal law enforcement, particularly for conduct that is local in nature, has historically and constitutionally belonged to the states. That division of authority has was not accidental. It was designed as a safeguard against centralized power. When we ignore that structure, we don't just make a policy mistake. We create a system ripe for abuse, a playground for bureaucrats, a lever for political agendas, and a direct threat to the liberties we are sworn to protect. That is why I've called for the repeal of the FACE Act.
▶ 0:21:11Not only because of who it has been used against, but because of what it represents, an expansion of federal power and a breakdown of constitutional limits. The federal government should not be in the business of policing local conduct through expansive criminal statutes. If we are serious about protecting liberty, then we must be serious about limiting power. Because once Washington takes it, it doesn't give it back. One final point, a point of personal privilege, is I've tried to be consistent on this point.
▶ 0:21:38To the extent of opposing or raising questions about legislation that is supported by people that are how shall I say politically aligned typically, or issues that I care passionately about. Issues such as transgender surgeries or issues involving uh law enforcement who are being targeted locally or cops who are killed, but are not getting justice in one jurisdiction or another.
▶ 0:22:02But I believe that we need to have this debate and this conversation about how much authority should be vested in the federal government in the form of criminal laws because I assure you that my colleagues who have concerns about this administration and those of us who had concerns about the last, the point that the founders was making was that we should leave those authorities and those powers to the people and to the governments and the states closest to them and not centralize that power in such a way that it can in fact be used against the
▶ 0:22:33people. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I now yield to the ranking member for her opening statement.
▶ 0:22:40Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, today is the third time in as many years that this subcommittee under Republican leadership is holding a hearing to undermine the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act or the FACE Act. Fourth, if you count the markup of the chairman's FACE Act Repeal Act last year. Eliminating the FACE Act is a right-wing policy priority drawn directly from the extremist Project 2025 Manifesto. Page 558 to be precise.
▶ 0:23:11But no matter how many times the enemies of reproductive rights try to rewrite history or drum up new conspiracies about the FACE Act, the facts stay the We continue to see criminal obstruction of and and threats, intimidation, and violence against abortion providers and women seeking those services. And the FACE Act is needed now as much as it it has ever been.
▶ 0:23:36In 1994, Congress passed the FACE Act with bipartisan support to address rising violence against abortion reproductive health abortion and reproductive health care providers. Over the years, that violence has included arsons, bombings, chemical attacks, blockades, murders, and attempted murders of abortion providers and bystanders.
▶ 0:23:58Specifically, the FACE Act protects the people who work in or seek care at facilities providing access to abortion and other reproductive health care services, as well as places of religious worship. It protects them from the use of force, threats, intimidation, or physical obstruction.
▶ 0:24:16But for decades, the same coordinated, extreme, anti-choice forces whose violent conduct created the need for the FACE Act in the first place have tried to undermine the law as part of their unpopular mission to gut access to reproductive health care and effectively ban abortion in the United Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v.
▶ 0:24:38Wade in 2022, anti-abortion extremists have been emboldened, fueling a resurgence of violence and harassment against abortion providers. A report from the National Abortion Federation documented 777 instances of obstruction of clinics in And in the last 2 years, there have been 296 incidents of death threats and other threats of violence aimed at abortion providers and their patients.
▶ 0:25:07For years, our Republican colleagues have tried to warp reality, and today's hearing is more of the same. They're claiming that people were arrested under the FACE Act for praying. That's just not true. Praying is not unlawful conduct, but you can't mask unlawful conduct, including violent threats or blockading entrances to clinics with performative prayer.
▶ 0:25:31Those threats and physical harassment are crimes, and they jeopardize people's access to potentially life-saving care. Take for example one one woman's story from Michigan. After struggling with infertility, she finally got pregnant, but at 12 weeks, she and her husband got devastating news. Their baby had an extremely rare abnormality, and he wouldn't survive birth.
▶ 0:25:55If she continued the pregnancy, her ability to have children in the future would be at at risk, and her life would be at risk as well. So, she and her husband made the decision to terminate the pregnancy. On the morning of her appointment at a local reproductive health care clinic, she arrived to find people blocking the entrance. A group group approached them trying to force her to take graphic pamphlets and telling her she could stop a murder from happening. The harassment continued even after the couple moved their car.
▶ 0:26:24She and her husband had to leave out of fear for their safety, even though she needed immediate medical attention. They were only able to return after police arrived, arrested the disruptors, and removed them. In another instance, five anti-abortion extremists forced their way into a clinic in Virginia and attempted to grab a patient. The patient's friend had to step in and help the clinic staff usher the invaders out.
▶ 0:26:49We're talking about women and their loved ones facing terror, threats of injury, and having to physically fight people off just to receive legal health care for serious medical needs. It shouldn't be that way. That's why we have the FACE Act. But, Republicans have seized on a false narrative that the Biden Justice Department selectively enforced the law. That's not true.
▶ 0:27:13This month, as Chairman Roy has related, Trump's Department of Justice issued a report claiming that the former administration used the FACE Act to go after allegedly peaceful pro-life I should note that this report has been variously described across multiple outlets as cherry-picked, shoddy, misleading, hypocritical, inaccurate, incomplete, a distortion of the truth that disregards multiple court rulings and jury verdicts.
▶ 0:27:43It parrots long-standing anti-abortion conspiracies, particularly those championed in the extremist Project 2025 There is no credible evidence that prior administrations selectively enforced the FACE Act against anti-abortion protesters. And to the extent that there's any disparity in FACE Act prosecutions of attacks on abortion clinics versus pro-life facilities, it's simply a reflection of the facts.
▶ 0:28:10Abortion providers and their patients face significantly higher threats and levels of violence than other entities covered by the statute. The actions of the Trump administration and its right-wing allies, including our Republican colleagues, to undermine the FACE Act have invited anti-abortion extremists to carry out even more dangerous and hostile acts against women seeking health care and their medical And the president's firing of lawyers who prosecuted FACE Act violations, along with pardons
▶ 0:28:40for people who were convicted by juries of harassing and attacking abortion providers and their patients, only further emboldens people to commit these crimes. In fact, we've already seen pardoned anti-abortion activists go back to commit similar acts. Last July, six people, two of whom received Trump pardons for FACE Act violations, were arrested after invading a clinic in my district in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
▶ 0:29:06And they've gone on to be arrested again after their plea bargains were They lied to get into the Delaware County facility and then harassed patients and staff until the police removed them. If my Republican colleagues want to examine the real dangers of an out-of-control executive using the government to attack its political enemies, they should be holding hearings to examine what the Trump administration is doing right now.
▶ 0:29:31How about deploying American troops and armed and masked federal agents to our city streets to shut down opposition and threatening, assaulting, and even killing people who would hold them How about using warrantless searches to arrest American citizens in their own homes? Or labeling people who disagree with the president's policies as domestic terrorists under NSPM-7? Putting their names on secret government lists and demanding that tech companies hand over the identities of Americans who organize or share their dissenting opinions online?
▶ 0:30:01And if we're talking about federal intrusion into areas reserved to the states, how about this administration's attempts to federalize our elections and seize state voter rolls? Why aren't we holding hearings about that? If in politicizing a law to meant to keep all Americans safe, anti-abortion extremists are openly attempting to lay the groundwork for a national abortion ban.
▶ 0:30:27Their goal is to scare, threaten, and physically obstruct women from accessing reproductive health care. But the majority of Americans agree. All women deserve the freedom to work with their their and their families to decide on the health care that is right for them without the meddling of radical politicians or religious extremists. No one should be denied medical care because of someone else's religious or political beliefs. I yield back.
▶ 0:30:56I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement.
▶ 0:31:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't think of a better time to have this hearing. Last week we learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center was running a scam. The Southern Poverty Law Center who said, quote, "The pro-life movement is fundamentally anti-democratic" was running a scam. Paying $3 million to, quote, "Informants" to go foment the hate they told the world they were actually supposed to be fighting. This is exactly the right time to have this hearing, for goodness' sake.
▶ 0:31:31I mean, the Southern Poverty Law Center that the Biden Justice Department used to train lawyers to go deal with the FACE Act? You got to be kidding me. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which was cited in the now-famous memorandum, got the Thomas More Society here. They remember this. Where they said pro-life Catholics were extremists, guess who they cited in that memo? The Southern Poverty Law Center.
▶ 0:31:56I remember when Rahm Emanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste." Well, the SPLC took it further. They said, "We're going to create the crisis so we can go after pro-life groups using the FACE Act and whatever else." So, this is the the ranking member can talk about, "Oh, we've had three hearings on this." Well, this one couldn't be better timed.
▶ 0:32:17This is exactly what we need to be talking about in the in light of the fact they've been indicted for running a $3 million scam against the people who were supporting them and going out and going after pro-life people like Eva Edelman. 90-year-old the chair- the the chairman talked about her history and what she's doing, praying at a So, I'm glad you're all here. And I look forward to hearing your testimony. I thank the chairman for putting this hearing together. With that, I yield
▶ 0:32:45I thank the chairman. I'll now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening
▶ 0:32:49Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I want to thank all of the witnesses for joining us today. Uh we are in a weird time warp groove with our friends across the aisle. Most of their energy is now focused on pardoning people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, wounding and injuring 150 of our police officers, disfiguring and dis- disabling some of them for life.
▶ 0:33:13Their time is spent vacating the criminal convictions of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who engaged in seditious conspiracy against the US government, which means conspiring to overthrow and put down the government. And now the Department of Justice wants to vacate those convictions that were handed down by unanimous juries. They want to give millions of dollars to convicted criminals like Michael Flynn, uh for example, the President Trump's disgraced former national security adviser.
▶ 0:33:43They gave him $1.5 million for a lawsuit he brought against the government and already lost. He lost it in court, and nonetheless they wrote him a check for $1.5 million. They wrote a check for another $1.5 million, which or $1.25 million, uh to Carter Page, who unsuccessfully sued the government for damages, losing in four different lawsuits. And nonetheless, they just wrote him a check of the taxpayers' money, $1.25 million.
▶ 0:34:11Um and uh now they're all lining up at the trough. A lot of the January 6th insurrectionists, they want their $1.25 million payout. And Donald Trump has sued the IRS for 10 No, forgive me, not 10 million, 10 billion dollars. He wants 80% of the IRS budget that he's suing the government for.
▶ 0:34:32and he's also suing for the search warrants handed down by an independent neutral magistrate where they executed a search on Mar-a-Lago and found lots of classified documents and confidential and secret documents he shouldn't have had. And he's suing there for several hundred million dollars as well. So, it's a big piggy bank for them. Um but so, now uh we are having our third um about um claim.
▶ 0:35:00I'm not sure I fully understand it, but I think the claim is that the activists who forcibly blocked health clinic entrances and prevented women from accessing lawful reproductive health services were somehow unjustly prosecuted under the FACE Act, which they intimate is unconstitutional, but eight different federal circuit courts have upheld its constitutionality as a perfectly lawful exercise of Congress's powers under the commerce clause and not in any way in violation of the First Amendment.
▶ 0:35:30Okay? But, they continue to want to pander to uh people [music] who think that uh they never should have been prosecuted for their criminal conduct. this hearing is uh an after-the-fact for President Trump's anti-choice pander pardons, which took place last year.
▶ 0:35:53As one of his first acts in office, he pardoned nearly two dozen people convicted again by unanimous juries of FACE Act related crimes, including one of the witnesses here today, um uh Ms. Eddowes.
▶ 0:36:06Uh as with the January 6 rioters and insurrectionists that he pardoned, Trump and his MAGA allies are attempting to rewrite history to portray convicted criminal conduct as peaceful protest and to cast the dedicated public servants who sought to protect patient safety as the villains. So, let's discuss some of the facts of uh uh Mizzetto's case.
▶ 0:36:32She was pardoned by President Trump and I invited, I think, as an example of the so-called peaceful Um a jury convicted her along with six co-conspirators of federal civil rights offenses including a FACE Act violation arising out of their blockade of a reproductive health care clinic in Sterling Heights, Michigan in August of 2020.
▶ 0:36:52A jury of her peers, not deep state prosecutors, a jury of her peers drawn from her community convicted her by unanimous vote after a trial born by an impartial federal judge. She was one of two defendants convicted of another FACE Act violation arising out of their actions in yet another clinic blockade in Saginaw, Michigan.
▶ 0:37:16Now, I I uh I have no problems with the fact that uh Mizzetto and others like her have strong moral convictions about this, as did Martin Luther King and John Lewis. Uh they had strong moral convictions about Jim Crow apartheid and segregation in America, and they participated in civil disobedience.
▶ 0:37:36They violated various trespass laws in different cases, and they were arrested for it, and they were willing to accept their punishment as the price for trying to get uh a law they considered uh or actions by the government uh reversed and to dismantle racial segregation. But what what these protesters have a problem with is other people accessing their own health care.
▶ 0:38:01The civil rights protesters weren't trying to stop people from getting health care, and they were willing to nonetheless accept the consequences of having a sit-in or whatever, but here they don't seem to want to accept it, the fact that they violated the law, and in fact they violated the law precisely in order to prevent other people from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to health care. That's exactly what they were doing. So, I'm afraid there's a huge difference between them and other people who have participated in civil disobedience in the past.
▶ 0:38:31We got a statement from the founder and operator of the Sterling Heights clinic, who was present that day, which I'm going to enter into the record in full, that described what happened. She writes this, "Perhaps the most dangerous and appalling episode of clinic violence I've ever experienced since the FACE Act became law took place in August of 2020.
▶ 0:38:49Our Sterling Heights clinic was blockaded by extremists who prevented me and other staff from entering the Patients were stuck in their cars, including three women who were coming in for medical abortions following the detection of fatal fetal anomalies. One woman was actively losing amniotic fluid and was scheduled for the second day of a two-day procedure. She needed immediate medical attention.
▶ 0:39:14She huddled with her mother and her husband trapped in the parking lot while extremists plastered signs of fake fetuses on her car windows and shouted, 'God loves you. God loves your baby.' And the woman cried back, 'I know God loves me. I know God loves my baby, but my baby is dying.' Her baby was missing most of its brain and had no kidneys. This woman later shared her powerful testimony at trial.
▶ 0:39:39As eight different federal circuit courts have found, Congress has the power under the commerce clause to protect people against being harassed and interfered with as they go to get medical attention. The FACE Act is a legitimate exercise of congressional power, and these people were properly arrested and prosecuted for perhaps their very morally, sincerely held views, but they violated the law.
▶ 0:40:08These politically motivated pardons of FACE Act violate violators, as well as January 6ers and dozens of white-collar criminals and frauds fraudsters, are all part of a political strategy that's got nothing to do with justice. And now, this is the equivalent of the government giving people a green light to go out and break the law. And indeed, there are numerous reports that President Trump has been pardoning promises has been promising pardons, rather, to everyone who works for him.
▶ 0:40:38As President Trump continues to endanger public safety with pardons like this, uh they are making threats against the Southern Poverty Law Center, uh which is the main not-for-profit organizational uh antagonist to the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi and the white extremist groups.
▶ 0:40:57And they're being investigated and prosecuted uh for having sent people undercover to research what's going on in those groups to get the information to government for prosecution. So, now the administration, which has pardoned 1,600 extremists who attacked the US Capitol, who violently assaulted our police officers, and tried to overthrow a presidential election, which Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College.
▶ 0:41:28Well, now uh after having pardoned all of those people, they want to attack the Southern Poverty Law Center. Um and uh that is an amazing attack on the First Amendment, for real. I yield back to you, Mr.
▶ 0:41:44Without objection, all of our opening statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's Ms. Eva Edal. Ms. Edal is a pro-life advocate who came to the United States after surviving a communist concentration camp after the end of World War II. In 2023, she was prosecuted by the Biden administration under the FACE Act for protesting at an abortion clinic. She was pardoned by President Trump in January 2025. Mr.
▶ 0:42:15Christopher Ferrara. Mr. Ferrara is a senior counsel of the Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm. Mr. Ferrara's practice focuses on cases involving the sanctity of life, religious liberty, and parental rights. He founded the American Catholic Lawyers Association in 1990. Mr. Roger Severino. Mr. Severino is the vice president of economic and domestic policy and the Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Andrulik Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He previously served as the director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.
▶ 0:42:45Professor Jessica Waters. Ms. Waters is a senior scholar-in-residence for Justice, Law, and Criminology at the American University Washington College of Law. She previously served as the American University Dean of Undergraduate Education and Vice Provost for Academic Student Services. We thank our witnesses for appearing today and we'll begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
▶ 0:43:12Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you may be Please note that your written testimony will be entered in the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. Ms.
▶ 0:43:37Edel, you may begin, and I'll just remind you to have your microphone turned on, believe it is, and to speak clearly into the microphone.
▶ 0:43:44I'll try.
▶ 0:43:47Might want to pull that microphone a little closer. That's possible. There we Thank you, Ms. Edel. You may begin.
▶ 0:43:56Chairman Roy, ranking member Scanlon, and members of the subcommittee, my name, as I as was said, is Eva Edel. Thank you for inviting me to be to speak to you today. As I say in my biography, as a young child, I was taken to a communist death camp and survived only by the grace of When I came to this country, I was so grateful to see that the respect this country respected life.
▶ 0:44:26But to my horror, even this country lost its moral compass when abortion was legalized in 1973. I knew from basic biology that human life begins when an ovum and sperm I knew I could not remain silent, and I knew I had to speak in defense of the preborn babies.
▶ 0:44:47In 1988, I became aware of the existence of abortion clinics, which I view as our American death On TV, I watched women take their babies inside to be killed. And it reminded me of my ride in the cattle car that took me as a young girl to the death camp. While being locked up in that car, I wished that some people would have put their bodies on those tracks to bring that train to a stop and set us free.
▶ 0:45:18I thought of the word of the Lord Jesus in Matthew 7 that I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me. So, I knew I had to place my body between those victims and the abortionist, no matter what the cost. For the pro-life movement, this is what we call rescue. We call it an interposing, putting ourselves in danger in order to save someone else. In 1988, I also learned of a rescue plan for October in Atlanta.
▶ 0:45:49I decided to join them. People were peacefully sitting in front of the door of the abortion clinic and not moving, consequently shutting the business down at least until everyone was arrested. When we are at clinics like that, it's like sitting in front of the train While we are being arrested, our sidewalk counselors have the opportunity to offer help to young women and hopefully persuade them to give their life give life to their children.
▶ 0:46:19Then in 1994, when I heard that Senator Ted Kennedy introduced the FACE Act, I knew that things would change. I knew that we rescuers would be targeted. And pro-lifers who continue to put their bodies between the abortionist and innocent victims today will continue to be targeted by this unjust law until it is repealed. And yet, despite knowing this, when the Lord asks you to do something, you just simply do it.
▶ 0:46:50No matter the cost. After all, he gave his life to save us. There are many others who have answered this sacrificial call. In my case, I was only charged with a first offense misdemeanor in Tennessee. But in Michigan, I was convicted of two separate violations of FACE and one violation of conspiracy against rights.
▶ 0:47:15And faced up to 13 years in prison and up to $300,000 in fines. And so I am before you today. I plead with our government to repeal the FACE Act because it is targeting people who want to do right. After all, we have enough laws that if somebody does something wrong, we have the means to punish them.
▶ 0:47:38I plead with our government to stop the killing and go back to the foundational principle that our forefathers built this country on, that all human life has equal value before God. If we do not have an awakening of our national conscience, then we will exterminate our posterity. Indeed, our next victims will be the elderly and the sick through the so-called assisted death.
▶ 0:48:07We are aborting those who would be our country's future, who will take care of us when we are old. When we do not respect human life, it becomes very disposable. And yet, where there is life, there is It is this hope that has carried me over 90 years through World War II, a genocide, Tito's horrific camps, all the way today.
▶ 0:48:32While I may not see the end of abortion in my own lifetime, I have the unshakeable hope that the truth will prevail and that our nation will soon recognize to the value of all human life. Let us act by beginning to repeal the FACE Act. Thank you.
▶ 0:48:52Thank you, Ms. Adell. Mr. Ferrara, you may begin.
▶ 0:48:55I thank the committee for this opportunity to argue in favor of repeal of the FACE Act. The FACE Act was supposedly a viewpoint neutral protection of abortion clinic access. It contained a disclaimer that it would not prohibit First Amendment protected conduct or create new remedies for interference with that But we members of the pro-life bar were not fooled. The FACE Act targeted a particular social justice movement, the pro-life activism movement.
▶ 0:49:21It created a new category of federal offenses, civil and criminal, based on what were purely matters of local law involving citizens and other minor committed in the context of non-violent civil disobedience, no different from what Dr. Martin Luther King defended in his letter from a Birmingham jail. As for the acts of violence in the course of the movement, there were acts of violence and they were prosecuted appropriately under local law. Consider Paul Hill, who was executed under state law in Florida in 2003.
▶ 0:49:51No need of FACE to bring him to justice. I've had 25 years of experience defending FACE almost entirely in opposition to attorneys general, and I have seen how with dreary predictability the terms force, threat of force, and physical obstruction in FACE have become so elastic as to reach even de minimus conduct that would not even warrant a desk appearance ticket under local law. Even the most fleeting physical contact has been found to constitute force.
▶ 0:50:21The most minimal impediments of clinic workers or clients on the sidewalk have been found to constitute physical obstruction. Mere references to God's judgment upon death have been found to constitute threats of force. And the FACE Act has been used to impose ridiculous injunctions, totally unheard in any other context.
▶ 0:50:42Speech-free buffer zones, bubble zones, and even floating bubble zones around clinics have created for pro-life advocates, and them only, exactly what Justice Scalia described in McCullen v. Coakley, quote, "An entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against Consider also FACE's motive requirement.
▶ 0:51:05If you stand in front of an abortion clinic worker outside a clinic to demand money that you're owed, delaying that person, no law is violated. Stand in front of the same person to offer pro-life literature and discuss alternatives to abortion, and you've just violated FACE. Even worse, FACE is being combined with 18 U.S.C. Section 241, prohibiting conspiracies against rights, which elevates misdemeanor FACE violations into federal felonies.
▶ 0:51:34And the result has been preposterous prison sentences. Consider the clinic sit-in at a D.C. abortion clinic in 2020, called a blockade by the government, because a clinic staffer allegedly suffered a sprained ankle. All the participants were found guilty of a crime of violence as co-conspirators and were sent immediately to prison after the verdict. Joan Bell, 27 months in federal prison for a 77-year-old grandmother.
▶ 0:52:01Jean Marshall, 24 months in federal prison for a 77-year-old retired nurse. Heather Idoni, 24 months in federal prison for a 61-year-old grandmother. And consider the case of Beverly Beverly Beatty, 41 months in federal prison for the mother of a 2-year-old girl based on uttering political hyperbole and allegedly causing a minor hand Well, thank God Trump pardoned all these victims of FACE and many more
▶ 0:52:31political prisoners that he rescued from the Biden administration's gulag. And now we have the massive DOJ report on weaponization of FACE by the Biden Justice Department. That report reveals a comment by an assistant US attorney in the case of US versus Zastrow, which says it all concerning the Biden administration's weaponization of FACE against religiously motivated pro-life activists.
▶ 0:52:56And I quote, "Unfortunately, we ended up with a very Catholic magistrate on duty this week and he was very particular about bond conditions and not infringing on First Amendment rights. At the end, we ended up with overly lawyered bond conditions that would be difficult to enforce." End quote. Well, there we have it.
▶ 0:53:18Anti-Catholic bigotry on full display in a public record pertaining to the Biden administration's vindictive FACE Act We have never seen anything like this pernicious law in American history. For the sake of freedom and justice in the FACE Act must be repealed. Thank you.
▶ 0:53:43Thank you, Mr. Ferrara. Mr. Severino, you may begin.
▶ 0:53:47Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to build off comments from your opening statement and to consider a few different scenarios and what could actually be the common thread. So, number one, you want to build a pool in your house and you have the people doing the construction move the dirt from the hole onto some soggy area of your land.
▶ 0:54:07Scenario number two, you're cleaning a gutter from your house and you get up on top and you notice that there is a bird's nest there that you push off to the side to the ground. Scenario number three, you go with your son to a national park and you discover an Indian arrowhead that you keep as a souvenir. And scenario number four, you're walking down the street and you see a protest going on. It could be in front of an abortion clinic, it could be in front of a pregnancy resource center.
▶ 0:54:37You get into a heated debate and there's an altercation that ensues. The common thread among those four is that they may be federal crimes. And the thing is, you're not really sure if they are or they aren't.
▶ 0:54:52It really depends on the prosecution and what their theory of the case is and what facts they cherry-pick and worst of all, whether or not the identity of the alleged perpetrator is perhaps of the same political party or not of the All of these things are a result of over-criminalization.
▶ 0:55:15And FACE Act is a poster child of Now, whatever you think about the uh issue to be addressed on any of those are the wrongs to be addressed at the federal level? Is everything meant to be literally a federal case? Under our constitutional system, it was designed such that the federal government is one of enumerated powers. It only has the power that was given to it by the people specifically in the Constitution.
▶ 0:55:43It cannot act unless Congress is authorized by a specific provision in the Constitution. Now, the problem is Congress has used the Commerce Clause as this catch-all to cover every single aspect of American life such that we have 5,200 different crimes. My former colleague at the Heritage Foundation, John Malcolm Muro, cataloged these crimes. But, his chilling finding was he couldn't be sure, either.
▶ 0:56:12Nobody knows how many federal crimes there are. The Department of Justice was tasked to actually try to figure this out and they gave up. They did not know how many federal crimes there are. And when you add to this the fact that there are 300,000 regulatory crimes. Let me repeat that. 300,000 regulatory crimes where some bureaucrat decided to amend the regulation that then becomes a crime. Well, are we really a nation of laws or not?
▶ 0:56:40We have delegated far too much authority to federal bureaucrats and that discretion has given unchecked power that has been abused with the FACE Act and other cases. Let me give you a few examples. There was a person who was importing undersized lobsters from Honduras. And unfortunately didn't know the Honduran regulations and packed them in plastic bags [music] instead of boxes. What federal crime was violated? What was done? No federal crime, actually.
▶ 0:57:09A Honduran crime perhaps was committed, but because he violated a Honduran crime, that became a federal crime under the Lacey Act. Who knew that if you don't follow Honduras' laws for packing lobsters in plastic versus boxes, you might be committing a federal crime?
▶ 0:57:25Now, sticking with fish and game, in Florida a fisherman was capturing some grouper and they were again undersized and a fish and game warden came by and said, "Wow, they look When the warden left, the fisherman threw some of the fish away to try to kind of hide the evidence.
▶ 0:57:42Now, he was charged with a federal crime under Sarbanes-Oxley, an Enron-related bill that was designed to go after people and accountants that were shredding evidence in But all of a sudden, the federal agent said, "You know what? A fish is a whole lot like a document." And the Supreme Court said, "No, it's not. A fish is a fish.
▶ 0:58:03It's not a document." And I'll end with one more I was the nation's HIPAA regulator, and I had the power to issue regulations, which also had the force and effect of law. The case of Ethan Hein, a whistleblower doctor in Texas, who discovered that Texas Children's Hospital, despite what they were saying, was still giving cross-sex sterilizing treatments to possibly in violation of law.
▶ 0:58:30He blew the whistle, and the Biden DOJ went after him, not the hospital, for an alleged HIPAA violation. 10 years potential prison time for looking into files, not disclosing any protected health information, but verified that in fact the hospital was lying. This shows that our laws have been weaponized such that we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of men with unchecked authority to go after political enemies whenever they like.
▶ 0:59:01Mr. Severino, thank you for your statement. Professor Waters, you may
▶ 0:59:08Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, members of the committee, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me back to testify today. I appreciated our conversation related to FACE during the December 2024 hearing before this committee, and I look forward to additional constructive dialogue today.
▶ 0:59:26The specific provisions of FACE are outlined in my written testimony, but in brief, FACE created criminal penalties and civil remedies against specific types of intentional, violent, threatening, or obstructive conduct directed at people providing or obtaining reproductive health services or seeking to exercise First Amendment religious rights at houses of worship. A few concepts are key there. One, FACE prohibits specific conduct, not speech.
▶ 0:59:54FACE required two, FACE requires that the conduct be intentional. That is directed at preventing the seeking or provision of reproductive health care or the exercise of religious rights at houses of worship. And three, FACE expressly excludes non-threatening, non-obstructive speech from its purview as it must as the First Amendment demands that protection.
▶ 1:00:16We have heard other witnesses opine today that FACE should be repealed and that it is somehow unconstitutional, but let us be clear, that is simply not what the law says. Every federal court to consider such arguments has unequivocally held that FACE was a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority. This is not an area where circuits are split or where the laws are unclear.
▶ 1:00:38Whether the challenge has been on commerce clause grounds, First Amendment speech grounds, First Amendment free exercise grounds, or 10th Amendment grounds, the courts have said the same thing. FACE is constitutionally sound and based on extensive legislative findings about the need for a federal remedy to combat a nationwide campaign of violence. And lest there be any confusion, this unanimity is true both pre- and A few post-Dobbs cases illustrate this point.
▶ 1:01:06For example, in 2025, the Sixth Circuit confronted the question squarely of whether FACE's long-affirmed constitutionality was impact constitutionality was impacted by the Dobbs decision. The Sixth Circuit held that Dobbs had no effect on FACE's constitutionality, finding that quote, "The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs provides no basis to reconsider prior holdings that FACE is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause." End The Sixth Circuit also directly affirmed its prior decisions holding
▶ 1:01:36that FACE did not run a foul of the First Amendment speech or free exercise Notably, in the case in which Ms. Edel was a co-defendant, United States versus Gallagher, the Tennessee District Court confronted this same question and flatly rejected any argument that Dobbs undermined FACE FACE's constitutionality or protections. As the court wrote, and I quote, "What did the holding and essential reasoning of Dobbs change about the interstate nature of the reproductive health field? Nothing.
▶ 1:02:03Those issues were not even remotely raised by the case which involved a state statute." End quote. Other courts to reach this question have found the exact same thing. This includes a New York District Court, the DC District Court, and a Pennsylvania District Court. Where I think Dobbs does matter in this equation is in two areas that actually underscore the need for FACE.
▶ 1:02:25First, Dobbs returned the abortion question to the states, leaving us now in a patchwork of laws across the By the end of 2025, 13 states had total abortion bans and six more had six or 12-week abortion bans. But as has been well documented, the number of abortions did not decline nationwide after these bans went into effect. Instead, what happened is people travel who lived in states with bans traveled to other states that protected access to reproductive health care.
▶ 1:02:52170,000 patients traveled in 2023, 150,000 in 2024, and 140,000 in 2025. That is, patients and clinics engaged in interstate commerce, the very basis on which FACE Finally, following Dobbs, there was an almost immediate spike in major incidents targeting reproductive health care providers, including arsons, burglaries, and death threats.
▶ 1:03:17In 2023 and 2024, the National Abortion Federation documented three arsons, 13 invasions, 169 incidents of vandalism, 621 incidents of trespass, 296 death threats, 38 assaults and battery, 777 counts of obstruction, and 12 bomb Though I wish it wasn't the case, the continued campaign of nationwide intimidation and violence against reproductive health care providers highlights the continued need for FACE.
▶ 1:03:48As I said in 2024, the bottom line is People should be able to seek medical care, and medical professionals should be able to provide it without fear of violence or intimidation. And this is an issue that warrants a federal remedy. I look forward to your
▶ 1:04:07I thank the witness for her testimony. I'll now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina for 5 minutes.
▶ 1:04:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of the witnesses for being a part of this today. Mr. Ferrara, as a pastor and now a congressman, I've unequivocally stood firm on the importance of protecting the sanctity of life. It's undeniable that every life is a precious gift from God, created with inherent dignity and purpose.
▶ 1:04:31And this truth has encouraged pro-lifers across the country to push back on the pro-abortion rhetoric by serving outside of abortion clinics to pray, to counsel women who feel they have run out of options, and to reaffirm the sacred truth that the unborn have value. The way in which the Biden administration weaponized the FACE Act against pro-lifers was indefensible. And it makes me fear that these actions have discouraged others from getting involved in the fight for the unborn.
▶ 1:05:02So, I would ask you, Mr. Ferrara, in your view, do FACE Act prosecutions against pro-lifers create a chilling effect among those in the pro-life movement?
▶ 1:05:12It will certainly do that and it keeps people from As far as you can use your microphone.
▶ 1:05:17They most certainly do as I indicated during my testimony. Justice Scalia rightly observed that we have through the application of the FACE Act a separate and distinct abridged version of the First Amendment for pro-life advocates. The injunctions issued under the authority of FACE have no precedent in American law. They are as I said during my testimony ridiculous.
▶ 1:05:38Bubble zones, floating bubble zones, speech-free areas to prevent even a discussion of alternatives to abortion, all enacted in the name of protect protecting what turned out to be the non-existent right to abortion. So yes, I think that this is a case of unprecedented restrictions on activities, some of which do involve civil disobedience. But civil disobedience, like it or not, is part of the American tradition of social justice movements.
▶ 1:06:08And I'll tell you this, what I don't see in the pro-life movement, even at the height of the rescue movement in the 1990s, is cities burning, police officers being attacked, Molotov cocktails being thrown into police officers being pelted with bottles filled with ice, and not just death threats, but actual acts of violence on a massive scale.
▶ 1:06:31Not the isolated acts we saw in the pro-life movement in the '90s, which were punished appropriately under criminal law as I indicated. Paul Hill was put to death. You can't do better than capital punishment for punishing lawless activity.
▶ 1:06:46So I think and I I think my testimony has made clear that FACE has for the first time in American history singled out a single protest movement for treatment under the law that has never been meted out to any other social justice movement in our nation's
▶ 1:07:02So let me ask you a follow-up to that. During President Trump's first year in office, he took action to correct the injustices that occurred during the Biden-Harris administration's enforcement of the FACE Act by issuing pardons to several of the pro-lifers that were unjustly targeted. Would you say what response have you seen from the pro-life movement and your clients regarding President Trump's actions?
▶ 1:07:27Gratitude. And and thanks to God for justice done. The sentences handed out, some of which I mentioned in my testimony, are absolutely absurd. Years in federal prison for non-violent conduct. The worst of it being someone's hand was injured or there was a sprained ankle. And then with the combination of section 241, conspiracy against rights, multi-year prison sentences for non-violent conduct.
▶ 1:07:54Again, these things could be handled and had always been handled as matters of local law. And by the way, the system is capable of handling these matters. If you have repeat offenders who are trespassing, sooner or later they'll end up in a jail cell. And that might be appropriate.
▶ 1:08:10Correct. Unfortunately, what we're hearing today is part of a larger pattern of an anti-Christian bias we witnessed under the Biden-Harris administration. And thanks to this committee's work in the past, we learned that the Biden-Harris FBI used its resources to spy on Catholics in Richmond. And on top of that, in today's hearings, we're hearing stories of pro-life activists being unjustly targeted by the Biden-Harris DOJ while attacks on churches and pro-life pregnancy centers went largely ignored.
▶ 1:08:38In the last 30 seconds, I just want to ask you, Mr. Ferrara, is it fair to say that the Biden-Harris administration's DOJ displayed clear anti-Christian bias in its actions, including its enforcement of the FACE Act?
▶ 1:08:52Well, there's no question about it. Even FBI Director Wray admitted that the report had been issued out of the Richmond office characterizing traditionalist Catholics, and I'm one of them, and I attend that parish in Richmond as basically domestic terrorists. He he professed to be embarrassed by the memo and said it was only a localized product. We turned to turn out that that was false. This this memo had been widely circulated in FBI channels. So, yes, the answer is yes.
▶ 1:09:18Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield
▶ 1:09:21I thank the gentleman from North Carolina and I'll recognize the ranking member for some unanimous consent
▶ 1:09:25Thanks. First, I have an article from The Atlantic dated April 20th, 2026. The DOJ's first weaponization report is a bust. The document purports to show bias under Biden administration
▶ 1:09:35Without objection.
▶ 1:09:36and failed spectacularly. Uh second, I have a DOJ press release on an Ohio woman who was prosecuted for attacking a pregnancy resource center, December 8th, 2023.
▶ 1:09:49Uh another one, DOJ press release about uh dated April 10th, 2024 concerning prosecution of someone who firebombed uh a Madison building because of
▶ 1:10:02Uh next, I have a press release from the DOJ December 20th, 2024. Florida woman convicted of civil rights conspiracy for targeting pregnancy resource centers.
▶ 1:10:12And another DOJ press release from January 19th, 2023 titled FBI offering $25,000 reward for information and attacks against reproductive health service facilities.
▶ 1:10:23Without objection.
▶ 1:10:24Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 1:10:25Now, I'll recognize the uh ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
▶ 1:10:28Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I I know our friends are desperate to change the subject from President Trump's uh aggressive insults to the Pope saying that he's uh weak on nuclear weapons and weak on crime and his online impersonation of Jesus Christ, who he later claimed that he was actually uh he thought that that was an image of him playing a doctor. Of course, he's not a doctor, either. He's neither a doctor nor Jesus Christ, but in any event, that doesn't make the FACE Act anti-Christian.
▶ 1:10:57And if if you think it is, then go ahead and bring another filed lawsuit against the FACE Act and claim that it violates the free exercise clause. It does not. In 2022, the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case uh reversed itself on Planned Parenthood versus Casey and Roe versus Wade. Um uh the right to abortion was not legalized in 1973. It was legal in most of the country.
▶ 1:11:22What the Supreme Court there did was to strike down abortion bans uh criminalizing uh abortion. But in any event, since uh the Dobbs decision, 21 states now have a total or a substantial ban on abortion affecting the rights directly of 29 million American women, and 169,000 of them at least have had to cross state lines in interstate commerce in order to seek the medical attention that they need.
▶ 1:11:49But it's not enough for our friends now to allow state legislatures to ban other people's medical decisions. They want to repeal the FACE Act so they can directly blockade hospitals and medical clinics. I think that is the very clear implication of what Mr.
▶ 1:12:07Ferrara was just saying, that you should have a constitutional right to do what has been made criminal by Congress in the FACE Act after nine or 10 uh doctors and other medical staff were killed in attacks on people working in abortion clinics. Now, uh Ms. Waters, I want to ask you, is there any reason to think that there's a constitutional right to blockade other people from obtaining medical attention?
▶ 1:12:36Uh there is no reason to think there's a constitutional right to uh interfere with other people seeking uh medical attention. You know, FACE is very clear on this point and very deliberate, and the legislative history is clear this was very deliberate. That what speech gets at what FACE gets at is conduct, right? It's violence. It's threats. It's intimidation. It's blockades. FACE expressly excludes pure speech that does not do those things, right?
▶ 1:13:04So, you know, what we're talking about here is um you know,
▶ 1:13:08I hear talk of like, you know, these these these crimes were minor. These things were insignificant. But, when I look at the stats of what's actually happening on the ground, 11 abortion providers have been murdered. Right? There have been 26 other attempted murders. There have been thousands of blockades. There have been hundreds of arsons. We are not talking about peaceful protest. We are talking about violence, and we are talking about a nationwide campaign of violence.
▶ 1:13:34Well, Mr. Ford makes one good point, it seems to me that he, you know, if they're killing uh doctors who work at reproductive health clinics and other staff, and we know that there've been many cases of that, they're already chargeable and punishable under state laws. But, there's a discrete injury here when people get together and blockade a clinic. And you might not have state legislatures that are willing to uh enact laws to keep them keep them open.
▶ 1:14:02So, obviously, there's a federal interest here, which is why eight federal circuit courts have unanimously around the country upheld the FACE Act against attack. What happens as in the case where Ms. Edele again sincerely goes out to protest, but is part of a protest that blockades people from getting health care? What is the effect on the people who are trying to get in?
▶ 1:14:25So, I think there's a couple of points there. Um the legislative history is replete with references to why a federal remedy was needed. FACE does not stop states from acting, and FACE does not stop states or command that states do anything. What it says is is this is bigger than any individual state. This is a coordinated nationwide campaign that deserves
▶ 1:14:45proud of that, that they travel around.
▶ 1:14:48Um, you know, so I think that's important. But like let's talk about what's actually happening on the ground, right? If you are a doctor going into a clinic and trying to do your job and what you're facing is death threats, what you're facing is blockades, what you're facing is fear that people are going to show up at your home or your children's school and engage in uh campaigns of intimidation, no one should have to go to work that way and no medical professional should have to go to work that way. That's not good care.
▶ 1:15:14And no patient should have to try to scale all those obstacles just to get the attention. Let me ask you finally, this is the third time we've had a hearing on this, but there's no vote and I think it's because our colleagues know that the vast majority of the American people reject this idea and want to make sure that there's safety there, but they keep throwing a bone to the pro-life movement and I wonder if you agree with me that uh they're not willing to put this to the floor.
▶ 1:15:40I mean, I cannot speak to their intentions. Um, you know, what what I can say is I think there's a difference of opinion in this room about um access to abortion care. What there should not be a difference of opinion about and what there cannot be a difference of opinion about is whether we should use violence to to advance those aims. And we can't.
▶ 1:15:57Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:15:59Thank Frank. Member, I'll now recognize gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Ander for 5
▶ 1:16:03Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on the FACE Act uncovered in the DOJ's recent report. The report explains how the Biden-Harris DOJ unevenly enforced the FACE Act and coordinated with anti-life advocacy groups to target pro-life Americans. According to the report, just 1 month after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v.
▶ 1:16:26Wade, then Attorney General Merrick Garland created a national task force that worked hand in glove with Planned Parenthood, the Feminist Majority Foundation, and the National Abortion These groups compiled dossiers, headshots, and travel informations on pro-life individuals that ultimately resulted in search warrants, surveillance, and prosecutions.
▶ 1:16:49In one instance, the National Abortion prepared a law enforcement guide for an upcoming Christian pro-life conference complete with attendees personal personal information. Planned Parenthood provided a similar dossier labeled opposition identified.
▶ 1:17:09Uh, after receiving this intelligence, the Biden-Harris DOJ even assisted these groups in securing private grant funding when the task force was task force director volunteered as a reference for NAF's application. The Biden-Harris administration's conduct during prosecutions was probably most concerning in USV Houck. In it, the Justice Department it authorized an aggressive early morning arrest rather than permitting a voluntary surrender.
▶ 1:17:38In USV Gallager, the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense while sharing similar information with the National Abortion Federation. In United States versus Gastro, internal emails show DOJ attorneys strategizing about screening out religious jurors, referring to pro-life Christian activists as culty, and expressing frustration that a Catholic magistrate was on duty. The pattern continued through sentencing.
▶ 1:18:06Under the Biden-Harris DOJ, prosecutors sought an average of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants, which is more than double the 12.3 month average sought for violent anti-life offenders. One senior official in the in the administration even wrote that [snorts] they should, quote, make sure that extremists know we still have this tool, the FACE Act, and we will use it. Mr. Ferrara, all of this is clearly weaponization of the federal government.
▶ 1:18:36Do you believe any of the recently uncovered activities by the Biden-Harris DOJ are criminal?
▶ 1:18:47I would not go so far as to offer an opinion on whether a criminal prosecution is warranted. Uh and I'd have to be careful about that and evaluate the facts of the case. But, you know, let me take this opportunity to take exception to something my um my adversary in this issue said, Ms. Waters, regarding the predicate in the Commerce Clause for the FACE Act. I don't believe there is an adequate predicate. The Lopez and Morrison cases really have eliminated any serious argument for a Commerce Clause predicate.
▶ 1:19:15In Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Freedom School Zones Act, finding that only economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce can be regulated. Citizens don't have that effect. In the Morrison case, the Supreme Court said that there cannot be a regulation of economic activity based upon its supposed aggregate effect on interstate commerce, and therefore struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act.
▶ 1:19:41Uh citizens uh and even what they call blockades of clinics don't have a
▶ 1:19:47local effects, yeah. Um Mr. Severino, how does the uneven application of the FACE Act on pro-life versus pro-abortion groups undermine the Constitution and civil rights
▶ 1:20:00It's an example of the weaponization. So, we believe in equal justice under the law, which means justice is blind, right? That's part of our American ethos. And when you have this rampant uneven enforcement where 97% of cases under the FACE Act have been enforced against pro-life side, when in fact the FACE Act also covers pregnancy resource centers and houses of worship. I was in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as a career attorney under Obama for several years.
▶ 1:20:27There was not a single case of a FACE Act brought prosecution brought for an invasion of a church.
▶ 1:20:34Were there no attacks against churches or pro-life pregnancy centers?
▶ 1:20:38during the Prop 8 debate, there was video of a storming of the Mormon Temple in Westwood, and that was brought to the attention of DOJ Civil Rights, and they
▶ 1:20:46Prop 8 in California.
▶ 1:20:47In California.
▶ 1:20:48Yes, the marriage amendment. Yes. And and the and and again, the DOJ brought no prosecution in that case.
▶ 1:20:57they brought zero with respect to houses of worship under up until very recently, in fact. Under the Trump administration, they finally did.
▶ 1:21:04Thank you very much. I yield back.
▶ 1:21:07I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I'll now recognize the gentlewoman from Washington for 5 minutes.
▶ 1:21:11Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have launched an all-out assault on women. They've advanced the SAVE Act to disenfranchise 69 million married women whose birth certificates don't match their current last name. They've covered up the full Epstein files and refused to meet with Epstein survivors. And they've made significant cuts to Medicaid and SNAP and health care, making it harder for women to take care of their families.
▶ 1:21:38But nowhere is the assault on women more evident than in reproductive health. Donald Trump has cut off abortion options in states that protect those rights, and this administration has withdrawn federal guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortion care when life or health is at risk. It's frozen tens of millions of dollars in Title 10 funding for family planning, and these unprecedented actions are not only unlawful, but they also put women's lives in danger.
▶ 1:22:08Now, Republicans want to repeal the FACE Act, a public safety law that protects health care providers and patients from physical intimidation, harassment, and violence. Now, I am one of the one in four women in this country that has had an abortion. I had to speak out publicly about it frankly when I came to Congress after not speaking about it for decades.
▶ 1:22:31But when I saw the attacks on reproductive care around the country, I felt it was my responsibility to talk about it publicly. I don't begrudge anyone including you Miss Edel from making decisions about your own moral values about the conduct that you would choose for yourself. But I do not appreciate when someone tries to block me from making choices about my body, about my family, about my life.
▶ 1:23:00And I certainly don't appreciate when people try to block other people from getting health care. Professor Waters, at the core of this issue is the basic principle that no one should fear violence in the workplace when seeking health care. Given the misinformation on the issue, could you just give us some detail on what type of violent situations that abortion providers, patients, and volunteers
▶ 1:23:29Um if I may, I'd like to quickly respond to the commerce clause point that um my colleague raised and then would love to get to your question. Um on the point of Lopez and Morrison, um it it is true that the Lopez and Morrison cases um define what is covered by the bounds of the commerce clause. It is also true that most of the cases that we've cited that have said that the FACE Act is upheld are post-Lopez and some of them are post-Morrison. So, um my colleague's point um really doesn't um hold. Um you know, on the question of the type of violence we are seeing on the ground and this is the point, right?
▶ 1:23:59This is why we have FACE. Um we're looking at we're talking about things like murders. We're talking about things like arson. We're talking about things like acid attacks, right? We're talking about, as we heard, women who are trying to get into clinics because they their fetuses are incompatible with life and they are having the worst days of their life and they are blockaded from getting into a clinic and can't get in there. We're talking about harm. We're talking about threats. We're talking about violence. Um, you know, my colleagues keep raising uh hypotheticals about lobsters and and fish, right?
▶ 1:24:30And what we're talking about is real women. What we're talking about is real doctors who are going into work every day in fear of their life.
▶ 1:24:37Instead of addressing the violence, one of the first things that Donald Trump did when he took office was to pardon 23 anti-abortion extremists criminally convicted under the FACE Act. And his Department of Justice released a memo directing prosecutors to cease enforcement of the FACE Act absent {quote} extraordinary circumstances. Based on your research, how did these actions impact women's access to reproductive care?
▶ 1:25:02Yeah, it it's it's ironic to me that we're here um talking about some alleged weaponization or some sort of selective prosecution. Um, you know, in fact the the Biden administration was the first to actually bring cases to protect crisis pregnancy centers, right? So, you know, that was the administration that actually was applying this in a more even um handed way.
▶ 1:25:24Um, you know, when when we're talking about um what President Trump President Trump's um directives and pardons will do, I think it declares open season, right? I think it says to abortion providers and patients, "We're not going to be there to protect you."
▶ 1:25:41And there's some confusion about all the services that people get blocked from when this happens at reproductive health clinics. So, just a quick yes or no, whether it's easier or harder for women to get these services as a result of repealing the FACE Act. Is it easier for women to get STD tr- testing and
▶ 1:26:00Cancer screenings?
▶ 1:26:01Pregnancy testing?
▶ 1:26:03Birth control?
▶ 1:26:04Infertility services?
▶ 1:26:06Prenatal services?
▶ 1:26:08Postpartum services?
▶ 1:26:10Harder. All of these things are harder and by the way, don't make choices about my body. Let me make those decisions for myself. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 1:26:19Thank you, Representative Jaypal from Washington. I'll now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
▶ 1:26:24Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ferrara, um how many churches and crisis pregnancy centers were attacked in the aftermath of the Dobbs leak and the Dobbs decision? Do you remember?
▶ 1:26:36Mr. Ferrara, can you please use your
▶ 1:26:39Don't have the exact number, but it was many and uh I'm involved in one particular case, the firebombing of a pro-life pregnancy center in Amherst, New York, causing $500,000 in damage and injuring two of the firemen.
▶ 1:26:53Well, I I will tell you, I think there were hundreds. I'll just give you a little sampling. You talked about the firebombing of that place. There was another place firebombed in Madison, Wisconsin on May 8th, 2022. Next day, May 9th, three Catholic churches in Texas were attacked. Two days later, in Michigan, activists vandalized the Family Life Services Pregnancy Center. And I have I think it's like 10 pages. We did a list of this back during the leak and the Dobbs opinion.
▶ 1:27:21I have 10 pages just listing churches, crisis pregnancy centers that were attacked. And do you remember the some of the groups that were attacking these churches and crisis pregnancy centers, Mr. Ferrara?
▶ 1:27:30Jane was here.
▶ 1:27:31Yeah, Jane's Revenge, Ruth Sent Us. Do you happen to know if any of those organizations made the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate list?
▶ 1:27:40Of course not.
▶ 1:27:41No, they didn't, did they?
▶ 1:27:42No, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a credible organization. In fact, if if you as a conservative activist are condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center, consider that a resume builder.
▶ 1:27:54They condemned Moms for Liberty. They condemned the Family Research Council. They condemned Alliance Defending Freedom. My goodness, they may have even went after your group, I don't know. I mean, that any any pro-life group, it seemed like they were going to attack. Is that fair to say?
▶ 1:28:09Yes, it is. I'd like to make a point about what Congresswoman Jayapal said regarding a public safety law. There is no federal police power over the states. So the idea that you would like to have a public safety law that caters to your particular interest in receiving reproductive health services is contrary to the whole principle of federalism. And that's the problem with FACE.
▶ 1:28:30That FACE purports to exercise a generalized federal police power in one area and one area only, and that being the activity of pro-life pro-life activists.
▶ 1:28:41Yeah, Mr. Severino, let me get let me come to you. we know that the Biden Justice Department, the Biden FBI was actually paying confidential human sources to do all kinds of things. I mean, we're we're trying to get some answer to that. I'm just curious, do you do you think maybe some of the same folks that the Biden Justice Department was working with the Southern Poverty Law Center to train prosecutors as if they were going to get some great wisdom from the SPLC. They were doing that.
▶ 1:29:10We know they were paying confidential human sources. You think it's a fair question to say, I wonder if any of these quote informants of the SPLC were also being paid by the federal government? Think that's a fair
▶ 1:29:22Yes, absolutely.
▶ 1:29:24I mean, why wouldn't they double dip? It's like if oh, if the Southern Poverty Law Center is training the prosecutors and I know the FBI is going to pay confidential human sources and the and the Southern Poverty Law Center says, well, sugar, I can I can I can I can get money from both of them. $3 million from the SPLC and who knows what the federal government is going to pay out. They got a pretty big bank account, too. I think that's a fair question that we'd like to get the answer to.
▶ 1:29:45We should get to the bottom of it. And what the DOJ report on the FACE Act showed was that in fact DOJ was in cahoots with outside groups.
▶ 1:29:54Similar to SPLC, the left-wing groups, they get together and they pretty much create their own little branch offices within the DOJ whenever you have liberals in power. So SPLC has been talking to DOJ under Biden and certain Obama, Planned Parenthood Federation, National Abortion Federation, all of those folks, they pretty much open up their branch offices in DOJ when the left is in power.
▶ 1:30:16Yes, you anticipated my next question cuz that's exactly where I wanted to go. Do you think any of these informants actually were involved in the attacks on the churches and crisis pregnancy centers? I think that's a fair question as well.
▶ 1:30:26It's a possibility. That would be terrible if in fact our own government was funding
▶ 1:30:31Well, I think I think maybe what the SPLC calls informants we might call Based on what you saw in the indictment last week, um so I don't know that it's out of the realm of possibility if they're if they're if they're I mean, we don't know, but I think it's a fair guess to say they might have been double dipping, getting paid by the government and the SPLC. Maybe they were instigating some of these over 10 pages, 100 different attacks on crisis pregnancy centers and churches in the aftermath of the Dobbs
▶ 1:30:59Well, we know that a DOJ official actually endorsed a grant application for one of these abortion activist groups, which is a clear ethical violation that the DOJ reports that is very likely to be investigated for an ethics breach. So, this sort of too cozy relationship is something that is very common that we see in abortion and SPLC, any of these hot button issues from the left, you see this sort of collusion.
▶ 1:31:22Yeah. I think again, I want to thank our witnesses. Um Ms. Edel, I'm sorry I didn't get to you. I listened to your testimony but I was in a meeting backstage but I when you came on, I turned on the TV to hear what you had to say. So, God bless you. We appreciate your your your Christian witness and your words and with that I yield back to the chairman.
▶ 1:31:37I thank the uh chairman of the committee, Mr. Jordan. I now recognize the ranking member for some unanimous consent requests.
▶ 1:31:43Yes, I just seek unanimous consent for an April 14, 2026 article from Just Security, Separating Fact from Fiction in FACE Act Enforcement. I I too have a unanimous consent request, uh an article from the Loza Institute uh saying that uh Planned Parenthood perform more abortions than care, preventive and primary care tests, prenatal services, HPV examinations, diagnostic procedures for cancer Now recognize the gentleman
▶ 1:32:13from
▶ 1:32:15Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're having this hearing because it's a issue of great importance to both sides. On the Republican side, it can have an effect on different races that will be going on. I think we should have been having hearings on executive orders. Executive orders that have gone way beyond the power that we should Congress should give to the president, which I discussed with the chairman sometime ago.
▶ 1:32:42We had a bill together on it, but it's not gone, and we've let the president overstep his bounds and take over Article 1 powers of the Congress, and we've just gave given them up, and that's a shame, and that's a more important hearing than this. But, this does demonstrate the differences in the parties. Democrats are fighting to ensure that every American can access high-quality health care practice. They faith freely practice their faith freely and rely on the rule of law.
▶ 1:33:05Majority however seeks to hand individual health care decisions to a handful of radical activists and impose their preferred religious views on everyone else and give cover to lawbreakers, even violent ones, when it benefits them It was discussed earlier in a question maybe Mr. Ferrara about pardons that were given out by the president sometime after he pardoned everybody that participated in the insurrection of 20 25, I guess it was.
▶ 1:33:34and he said that there were pardons given to these folks. Um, and thank God. We all have our different theories about God, Mr. Ferrara. I don't think God has anything to do with President Biden's pardons, particularly the ones that were paid and bought and given out to fraudsters and criminals that then committed crimes again. That's another issue. We should be hearing pardon ex- [clears throat] exemptions. We need to reform the pardon power and give less power to the president to give pardons.
▶ 1:34:04They should be restricted as we should be looking at emoluments as well. But back to health care. Every American should have meaningful access to high-quality care. Too many barriers already exist. High prices, health care deserts, biases, which is why I support Medicare for all and have since I came to Congress. The last thing we need is self-appointed monitors preventing people from obtaining basic services. In December, 17 people were arrested for blocking access to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis, only a few blocks from my home.
▶ 1:34:34And it's the only remaining Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis. The other was closed because of the administration's deep Medicaid cuts. The protesters weren't stopping abortions. Abortion in Tennessee is a felony at all stages of pregnancy with no exceptions for rape or incest. The people entering the clinic clinic were seeking routine preventive services like blood pressure checks, breast cancer screenings, and STI treatment. It functions like any other doctor's office, accepting insurance and serving patients whose reason for visiting vary and are private.
▶ 1:35:03This wasn't about protecting life. It was about intimidation and imposing one group's beliefs on everyone else. No one should be prevented from going to their doctor because of what one assumes they're there for. Here's the kicker. Some of those arrested were anti-choice activists who President Trump had recently pardoned for earlier FACE Act violations. They don't stop. These just like the January 6th people didn't stop.
▶ 1:35:27I think 30 of them have been arrested for everything from sex with a child to rape to other heinous offenses. These individuals in Memphis had already been convicted of obstructing access to reproductive health care. The FACE Act plays a critical role in protecting the rights of patients and providers. This administration and the MAGA movement want to dismantle it.
▶ 1:35:49Repealing the FACE Act would give political and legal cover to people who believe they can decide who should and should not receive health This is not about religion, certainly not and not about religious freedom. The FACE Act explicitly protects religious institutions. Repealing it would make them more vulnerable, not Even on a question of abortion, religious perspectives vary widely. Christian denominations do not speak with one voice. Across Judaism, the prevailing view prioritizes is the life and health of the mother.
▶ 1:36:17And Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu teachings vary as well. Repealing the FACE Act would elevate one narrow set of beliefs at the expense of all others. That is the opposite of religious liberty. In the United States, everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, but not the right to impose those beliefs on That's why I'm proud to work with Congresswoman Scott, Raskin, and Scanlon on the Do Not Harm Act. Tomorrow, this committee will hold a hearing on victim services. The majority argues that advancing policy in that area would convey a strong message. Apply that language here.
▶ 1:36:47Advancing FACE Act repeal would send a clear message. Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans believe they should control who gets access to health care, and that those who physically block Americans from seeing a doctor will be encouraged, protected, and empowered. I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 1:37:03Thank you, gentleman from Tennessee. I will now recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming for 5 minutes.
▶ 1:37:08I find it very rich that any Democrat would attempt to lecture us about violence in light of the fact that it was yet another one of theirs who just 3 days ago sought to assassinate our president and his cabinet. And don't get me started on the Democrats' favorite KKK supporter, the Southern Poverty Law Center.
▶ 1:37:32So, spare me your faux outrage about According to the DOJ's report on the Biden administration's weaponization of the FACE Act, quote, "In total, during the 4 years under President Biden, the DOJ charged more than 45 pro-life defendants in over 20 cases with violating the FACE Act in connection with pro-life demonstrations.
▶ 1:37:55This is in stark contrast to largely ignoring attacks on pro-life pregnancy resource centers as Chairman Jordan just pointed out in which the DOJ despite hundreds of cases and hundreds of attacks against pro-life medical centers for women, the DOJ only charged a handful of them. So again, spare me your faux outrage.
▶ 1:38:19The report further reveals that the Biden DOJ prosecutors requested an average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants compared to 12.3 months for pro-choice defendants. Mr. how do these average sentencing amounts correlate to the applicable range in the sentencing guidelines?
▶ 1:38:41It varies depending on whether it's a first offense or not. So it's misdemeanor for a first offense in some of these cases where you get felony levels is second offenses. What we see in the DOJ report is that it was effectively double for the pro-life charged parties versus the very few on the other side. There was only five that were brought recently that attacked the pregnancy resource centers and the disparity was essentially double.
▶ 1:39:08Well, then we also have the circumstance where they raided, I think it was Mr. Houck's home in the middle of the night dragging him out the door in front of his family simply because he was trying to protect his son from a violent pro-abortion demonstrator at a at a I believe it was a Planned Parenthood facility.
▶ 1:39:28Um and and so how do these the what they did under the Biden administration, how does that compare to other administrations in terms of the sentences sentences that they sought as as the number of prosecutions?
▶ 1:39:42Sure. In terms of the numbers, 97% of the cases were against pro-lifers. It was about 26.8 months for those convictions, and about 12 months for the the pro-choice side. Um and you see with with the Houck case you mentioned, that it that is a gross abuse where you have armed FBI agents with long guns go into this man's house where they were in contact with their attorney.
▶ 1:40:06And normally, under normal circumstances, if they're willing to turn themselves in, which in this case they were, they turn themselves in. But instead, they made this entire spectacle and frightened their families out of their skin in order to make a statement. And
▶ 1:40:20I would argue a very violent spectacle of our federal government uh take carried out by our federal government. In fact, Mr. Houck just received what was it? A million dollars as settlement for the way that he was treated, I believe. So, federal funds going to him because the Biden's violation of his civil rights, isn't that correct?
▶ 1:40:37I don't know the dollar amount, but this was a clear violation cuz he was completely vindicated at trial. Took the jury 3 hours to say not guilty. He was defending his son from a bully, and that
▶ 1:40:47A violent bully.
▶ 1:40:49A violent pro-choice bully.
▶ 1:40:51Yeah, so they got into That's why my opening statement said, "Look, these sorts of things, you have weaponized DOJ that says you have this dispute and a father defends his child from a bully, and that becomes a federal offense, right? This is This is the the rampant abuse." And then they have armed a year later, a year later, armed federal agents raid his house in the morning. It's It's just absolute, you know, abuse.
▶ 1:41:13Well, in the in the case of the United States versus Gallagher, when when one of the defense counsel contacted the assistant US attorney requesting information on the number of FACE Act criminal prosecutions in the last 10 years, the Biden DOJ prosecutors refused to share it despite the information being readily available.
▶ 1:41:31Sanjay Patel, the director of the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers, and a very corrupt man after receiving several requests stated quote as the national clinic violence coordinator I do not keep that kind of records you requested and as a result I do not believe that we will provide them to you and he was lying through his teeth. They did have those records.
▶ 1:41:53Sanjay Patel he referred defense counsel to DOJ press releases and then it's also important to note as what was done by a predecessor that he actually agreed to be a reference on a national abortion federation third party grant application. The point of this being the report has demonstrated that the Biden administration violated the the equal protection clause of the Constitution in the way that they dealt with pro-life and pro-choice prosecutions under the FACE Act.
▶ 1:42:20The FACE Act either needs to be reformed or abolished because it has been abused by Democratic administrations. With that I yield back.
▶ 1:42:28May I ask Mr. Chairman? when I was at DOJ, if you had a FACE Act case, you would actually enter it. Those this this particular particular spot in your tracking of time. So DOJ knew exactly how many FACE Act cases at all times they had open.
▶ 1:42:44I thank the witness. Thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming. I'll now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee for unanimous consent request.
▶ 1:42:49Thank you, sir. Unanimous consent request is an article written by Miss Miss Burton and Miss Sanchez and published in Ms. Magazine about the arrest in Memphis at the anti-abortion training camp sparked. And I like to enter that for the record.
▶ 1:43:02Without objection.
▶ 1:43:03I'd also like to correct an error in my the discussion. I think I said J6 was not I didn't say 2021 which is of course the first term, not the second term.
▶ 1:43:12I thank the gentleman for the correction. I'll now recognize the gentlewoman from Vermont for her 5
▶ 1:43:16Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a former history teacher, one of the things I always try to make sure that my students understand is the importance of context. So I want to come back to Um, about how we got here, and let's consider the history of the anti-abortion violence in the United States.
▶ 1:43:40So, since 1977, there have been 11 murders, 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 200 acts of arson, 100 acid attacks, four kidnappings, and over 600 assaults against patients and workers at reproductive health facilities. It's been nearly a five-decade-long terrorist campaign.
▶ 1:44:07And we're talking about militant willing to use deadly violence to prevent women from seeking reproductive care and from having control over their own bodies. And Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994 to protect doctors and nurses and patients from violent threats, assaults, and blockades. That's That's the history, and the context is important.
▶ 1:44:38Professor Waters, thank you so much for being here today. Can you describe the levels of violence against abortion providers and patients at that time and the reasons why Congress had to come together to pass the FACE Act?
▶ 1:44:53Um, I think you just covered [laughter] many of the reasons very well. Um, you know, I will say on a on a personal note, one of the ways that I came to do this work is I have a a vivid memory um, in the late '90s. I was a college student, and I remember hearing that Dr. Slepian had been murdered.
▶ 1:45:11And he was an abortion provider who had just come home
▶ 1:45:15from a memorial service for his father at his synagogue. And he was in his kitchen making soup, [clears throat] and he was shot through his window in front of his child and murdered. Right? That is what we're talking about. That's the history.
▶ 1:45:28I'm so glad you brought that up um because we are forgetting as you had said earlier, these are real people.
▶ 1:45:35These are humans.
▶ 1:45:36These are human beings and actually I want to bring into this conversation also um something that a a clinic worker said about the kind of environment she has to work in. She said, "When I worked in Louisiana, someone threw a Molotov cocktail at the clinic. After that, the clinic couldn't have any windows anymore. So, there were literally no windows in the building whatsoever.
▶ 1:46:00You never knew what time of day it was at work, but it had to be like that because people would just throw Molotov cocktails at the building. None of this is peaceful or prayerful or in the interest of not just public safety, but again, we're talking about patients trying to seek health care. And last year, as you know, some of my colleagues have already said, I just want to remind everybody, President Trump pardoned 20 FACE Act violators.
▶ 1:46:30He pardoned people who got due process, were found guilty in our courts of law beyond a reasonable doubt by juries of their peers. He pardoned people who blocked off clinics while women who urgently urgently needed care were stuck bleeding and crying outside in their cars. And along with the pardons, Trump's Justice Department sent a clear message with their charging document. And I want to read from it.
▶ 1:47:00It reads, "Future abortion-related FACE Act prosecutions and civil actions will be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances until further notice. No new abortion-related FACE Act actions, criminal or civil, will be permitted without authorization." And what this sounds like to me is a complicated way of saying, quote, "We're not protecting anyone from criminal attacks anymore." That's what we're talking about here.
▶ 1:47:29And so, what kind of message does that Professor Waters, to violent protesters who are part of this
▶ 1:47:39Uh I think it sends several messages. I think it sends a message to providers that we will not enforce the federal law and we will not protect you and you are on your own. Um I think it sends a message to um violent protesters. And I want to be very clear here. Um you know, what we're not talk We're not talking here about peaceful pickets, right? Or praying, right? Or peaceful protest, even protest that we may disagree vehemently with.
▶ 1:48:05What we're talking about is um sending the message to people who blockade clinics, who use violence, that you can get away with it.
▶ 1:48:15I agree. And the last thing I want to take issue with something um that the chair of the full committee said. Um he seemed to imply that women were not actually seeking full reproductive care from these clinics. As one of those millions of before the Affordable Care Act was passed and when I didn't have insurance, I got my reproductive care, my full reproductive care, from a Planned Parenthood facility.
▶ 1:48:42And 2.2 million visits for birth control, 5.5 million visits for STI testing and treatment, nearly 400,000 visits for cancer screening, and no patient should have to walk through this kind of gauntlet in order to get care. And I yield back.
▶ 1:48:59gentlewoman for questions. I'll now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5 minutes.
▶ 1:49:05Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for hosting [clears throat] this hearing. Um certainly appreciate your leadership, especially on on this topic. Uh Ms. Waters, thanks thanks for being here. Really appreciate it. Um do you believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and
▶ 1:49:23Um I believe the abortion decision should be left to a patient and their doctor and their family and their God.
▶ 1:49:31Do you believe it should be safe, legal, and rare?
▶ 1:49:33I believe it should be safe, legal, and rare, yes.
▶ 1:49:35Okay. Why should it be rare?
▶ 1:49:37Um because if we are engaging in public health activities appropriately, we are able to prevent pregnancies when people want to prevent pregnancies. So, I think the
▶ 1:49:48What's wrong with an abortion then?
▶ 1:49:50May I finish my sentence?
▶ 1:49:52Um you know, I think if we're actually talking about reproductive health and caring about maternal health, we should be talking about do people have adequate access to preventative care, right? Do they have adequate access to contraception?
▶ 1:50:05Do you support any limits on abortion?
▶ 1:50:07I didn't hear your question.
▶ 1:50:08support any limits on abortion?
▶ 1:50:10Um you know, I think this is a place I suspect you and I will fundamentally You know, what I believe is that the abortion decision should fundamentally, because it is medical care
▶ 1:50:22any limits at all? It's just yes or no.
▶ 1:50:24let me finish my my
▶ 1:50:25It's just a yes or no. Do you think that there should be any limits on abortion?
▶ 1:50:28You know, I came here with the goal of providing truthful and accurate testimony. And so, in order to truthfully and accurately answer your question, what I would say is I fundamentally believe that the question of abortion should be left to a patient and their doctor and their family. I don't want to interfere in medical
▶ 1:50:49Okay. So, I'll I'll take that as a no. Is that a good summary of your
▶ 1:50:53I think I answered the question.
▶ 1:50:54Okay. I I think that that's a no then. You're You're an advocate for abortion for for abortion policy. What's your favorite type of abortion?
▶ 1:51:05Uh I'm an advocate for patients having access to the full realm of reproductive health care.
▶ 1:51:10But do you have a a preferred method of abortion that that you that you like?
▶ 1:51:14I do not.
▶ 1:51:15Let me read through a couple different methods and I want to get your take on on how much you like these. Um the first type is called a suction Um this is uh when the the cervix is dilated and a strong suction, 29 times the power of a household vacuum cleaner, tears the baby's body apart and sucks it through the hose into a container. Do you prefer that method?
▶ 1:51:40I stand by my former testimony.
▶ 1:51:42That sounds kind of gross, doesn't it? That was pretty gruesome. Do you agree? It does to me.
▶ 1:51:49by um how I answered your question fully and accurately.
▶ 1:51:52Okay, what about this one? This one is called dilation and curettage. Um after dilation of the cervix, a sharp looped knife is inserted into the uterus. The baby's body is cut into pieces and extracted, often by suction. Uh do you prefer that method?
▶ 1:52:10What I believe we are here to talk about today is the FACE Act. We are not here to talk about the FACE
▶ 1:52:14you're pro-abortion advocate. I'm asking if if you prefer the dilation dilation and curettage method.
▶ 1:52:20I am a uh access to reproductive health care advocate.
▶ 1:52:24You don't you don't want to talk about abortion itself. Why is that?
▶ 1:52:28Um I would prefer to talk about the reason that the committee called the
▶ 1:52:31because it's uncomfortable to talk
▶ 1:52:33I'm would prefer to
▶ 1:52:34be uncomfortable.
▶ 1:52:35I would prefer, if you would let me finish my statement, to talk about freedom of access to clinic entrances act, which is what I was asked to come here to
▶ 1:52:43access gets. How about this one? It's called dilation and evacuation. Forceps are inserted into the uterus, grabbing and twisting the baby's body to dismember him or her. If the head is too large, it must be crushed in order to remove it. Do you prefer that method?
▶ 1:53:00I would prefer to talk about the reason the hearing was called and the basis of my expert testimony.
▶ 1:53:05It's uncomfortable to hear this, isn't It is. I think it is cuz it's barbaric and evil. How about this one? It's called the saline injection. Um it's when a a 20% salt solution is injected through the mother's abdomen into the baby's amniotic fluid. The baby's skin is burned off. The baby ingests the solution and dies of salt poisoning, dehydration, and hemorrhaging of the brain. Do you prefer that method?
▶ 1:53:31I would prefer to talk about the subject of the hearing.
▶ 1:53:34This is the subject of the hearing. This is about protests outside of abortion clinics. I'm asking you about abortion.
▶ 1:53:41I stand by my uh prior testimony.
▶ 1:53:43Okay. I I wouldn't want to talk about this either if I were you because it is barbaric and evil. Um with that I yield the remaining uh time to the chairman. Thank you.
▶ 1:53:52I I thank the uh gentleman from Texas and I only note in the remaining 10 seconds is that a good deal of the efforts by my Democratic colleagues to talk about this issue has moved to the core question of abortion and what is carried on and the activities are carried on at uh Planned Parenthood and other facilities. So, I think the question uh by the gentleman from Texas is in line. I'll now recognize the gentlelady from California.
▶ 1:54:16I thank you, Mr. Chair. Um the reality is this hearing is not really about uh the FACE Act because that was a bipartisan bill passed over 3 years ago that still has standing. It is a bill that is about protecting when they go to pray and patients when they are trying to access health care.
▶ 1:54:43This is about how laws are enforced and interpreted and how this administration is cherry-picking and using selective prosecution of cases to support their desired claims and agenda. And the claims and the agenda are to take away rights and to silence groups with whom they dislike or disagree.
▶ 1:55:08Last month, the DOJ released a highly flawed 900-page partisan report purporting to examine prosecutorial decision-making under the FACE Act and alleging bias in federal law enforcement during the Biden administration.
▶ 1:55:25However, many cases brought between 2020 and 2024 involved serious crimes such as firebombing, arson, bomb threats, and coordinated clinic blockades, all of which resulted in indictments by federal grand juries and guilty verdicts at trial. We are talking about a violent and unlawful acts.
▶ 1:55:49So, Professor Waters, even though I answered my own question, but I will ask you the question as well. Do those sound like peaceful protests to
▶ 1:56:02Uh they they do not sound like peaceful protests to me. And you know, I think when we're talking about the incidents of obstruction and violence at clinics, it's important to look at all of the cases that were not prosecuted. Right? So, for example, when I look at the National Abortion Federation statistics, and I look at like for example, the number of pickets and protests outside of clinics, there were tens of thousands, right?
▶ 1:56:28And what we're talking about under the Biden administration is 25 prosecutions, not for that activity. The prosecutions are for blockades. The prosecutions are for threats. The prosecutions are for violence, not protected speech.
▶ 1:56:42Thank you. And I would say that this administration came into power with a real agenda against women, and they weaponized the DOJ in order to carry their agenda out. Cuz what they didn't include in this 900-page report were a number of the woman who tried for years and years and years to get pregnant. And I know what that feels like. And miscarried.
▶ 1:57:13And went to a clinic to help her medically manage the miscarriage. And she was blocked from seeing her doctor. She was in her car sobbing and bleeding out. The technical term when you have a miscarriage, and I know about this personally, is the doctor will call it an abortion.
▶ 1:57:41I think it is violent for anyone, especially a man, to suggest that they know more about my body and how I'm trying to protect myself in the hopes that I can get pregnant again based on their assumption of me and the kind of health care that I We should also remind folks and include the incident that happened last
▶ 1:58:11year in a clinic in California where the clinic was set on fire. Last month, where a clinic in Ohio was set on fire. And these are about patients and doctors and workers going to get some health care. And let me tell you something, when you go to a clinic, you're not wearing a sign that says, "Hey, I'm getting an abortion." You could be going to a clinic to get a Pap smear, to get IVF, a vasectomy. A vasectomy.
▶ 1:58:43So, in the few seconds that I have remaining, I would be remiss if I didn't draw the subcommittee's attention to the murders on the streets of Minneapolis by And the use of the FACE Act to charge two journalists, two black journalists, Ms. Sport and Ms. Lamon. these folks were documenting protest activities that the church uh was happening at a church because its pastor was a key official in the ICE response to Minneapolis.
▶ 1:59:10And I know my time is running up, but I just want to say that this chairman himself has said in other context that free Americans should never live in fear of their government targeting them. And yet that is exactly what happened to these two journalists and others, and they were inappropriately charged under the FACE Act. Meanwhile, a MAGA influencer, Ms. Gomez, who also interrupted an LGBTQ friendly worship service, was neither charged nor arrested.
▶ 1:59:40I have receipts when I am saying that we are cherry-picking and using selective prosecution to go after folks that we want to silence. And Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do also have some A testimony of Renee Chelian, founder and CEO of Northland Family Planning. Her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. I ask you now Article in Politico, Trump pardons abortion clinic protesters ahead of March for Life.
▶ 2:00:10This was January 23rd, Thank you, Mr. Chair. FBI investigating fertility clinic bomb suspects possible anti-nationalist manifesto. May 18th, 2025. CDC archive, more men using family planning services.
▶ 2:00:29This is June 16th, And lastly, our letter to the chair and the ranking member, Amnesty International USA submits this letter to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution for their upcoming hearing from tool to weapon, the FACE Act and the federal law.
▶ 2:00:47Now I'll now rec- recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for 5 minutes.
▶ 2:00:51Thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. Uh very timely and always uh very interesting. Um kind of an appropriate hearing to have in Wisconsin today. I know in the last year, for the first time in many years, we opened a third abortion clinic in the city of Milwaukee. Uh it's something that I hadn't seen before in Wisconsin, but it's something you hear about in other parts of the country.
▶ 2:01:20The clinic was in a neighborhood clearly designed to uh deal almost exclusively with customers or patients of color. And uh I thought that was kind of illuminating because that kind of gets the underlying goal of I think so many in the pro-abortion movement. In any event, we'll start off with Mr. Severino. Thank you for being here today.
▶ 2:01:45In light of your experience as a trial attorney at uh Justice's Civil Rights Division, how did the Biden-Harris administration's approach to prosecuting alleged violators of the FACE Act comport with the standard practices in this division?
▶ 2:02:01It was all one-sided. Um I saw that directly in the Obama
▶ 2:02:07say always what?
▶ 2:02:10The prosecutions were against the pro-life side, and it was mentioned earlier by one of the members on the other side that now it's being enforced for churches. Well, now it's the first time it's being enforced [clears throat] to protect churches cuz neither the Biden administration nor the Obama lifted a finger when we had hundreds of violations, including burnings and vandal- vandalizing of churches, especially after the Dobbs decision.
▶ 2:02:34Okay. How How does this uneven uh application [clears throat] of FACE FACE Act on pro-life or pro-abortion groups undermine the Constitution in your opinion and the civil rights protections for all
▶ 2:02:48Sure, it's the notion of equal justice under the law, right? People should not get favor from the government. The political identity of a party should not matter. And what we saw with especially the DOJ report that just came out was that you had left-wing activist pro-abortion groups who were surveilling American citizens and doing things that the federal government could not do themselves. And they were outsourcing DOJ was essentially outsourcing their investigatory functions to activist groups.
▶ 2:03:17Those activist groups, they don't care about the Constitution, right? They're not federal agents. So, they could do whatever they want to track people, get their licenses, see where they live, track their religious exercise, and then they package that and handed it over to DOJ. Right? So, they did the dirty work on the front end then DOJ on the back end picked it up. And by the way, the abortion clinics themselves weren't the ones complaining. These were the activist umbrella groups that were compiling dossiers on people and giving it to DOJ to prosecute.
▶ 2:03:47can you speak of your experience in the civil rights division and how the federal government can play a more responsible role in preventing the over-federalization of criminal law?
▶ 2:03:58Yeah, the over-federalization is is a horrific problem, right? If we do not know what crimes we may be committing in our everyday lives. And the examples I said earlier, why could it be a crime from take for taking a nest off of your uh um your roof? Well, there's a migratory bird treaty act that covers 1,100 bird species.
▶ 2:04:23And if you mess with their nests, you're committing a federal So, the DOJ has to go through every statute, finally count every one, tell the American people these are our crimes that you could be liable for, and then Congress needs to repeal everyone that doesn't have a constitutional basis. FACE Act is one of those that does not have a sufficient constitutional basis, but it is emblematic of the over-criminalization that you're talking about.
▶ 2:04:50A recent Justice Department report issued by the Trump administration stated the Biden-Harris prosecutors withheld evidence that defense counsel requested to prepare an affirmative defense. In US versus Gallagher, prosecutors had information readily available that they did not share with the defendants while sharing substantially identical information with the National Abortion Fund. Um Mr. Ferrer, were there times you requested information that the Biden-Harris DOJ prosecutors refused to
▶ 2:05:24I've operated on the civil side, not the criminal side, so I can't really respond to that question, but I would note one thing. There's been a lot of references to acts of violence. Let's talk about what happens in those cases. The uh killer of Dr. Gunn got life in The killer of Dr. Britton and his escort, death. Killer of Dr. Slepian, life plus 10. Killer of Dr. Tiller, 25 years to life. The criminal justice system under state law addresses acts of violence.
▶ 2:05:54There was no need for FACE in any of those cases, which is the problem with FACE that it usurps the role that is properly assigned to local law under state and local judicial systems, including the severest possible penalties for people who commit violence. We don't need this statute and never have needed it.
▶ 2:06:16Thank you. Thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his questions, and I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Scanlon, for 5
▶ 2:06:24Thank you. Um I think, given some of the prior questions that we've heard, that it's important to note the importance of Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health care providers across our country. Two of my colleagues have already mentioned that they've sought services from Planned Parenthood at various times.
▶ 2:06:41As did I when I was when my husband and I were starting our family, we lived three blocks from a Planned Parenthood um clinic and went there frequently to get information, to consult books, to buy books on having a baby. So, um the attacks on Planned Parenthood are are really really important to note because as funding is attacked and everything else, that is often the only source of reproductive health care in so many of our neighborhoods.
▶ 2:07:10So, at any rate, um we've heard a lot of really gross misstatements of facts, etc. and I would refer people back to Ms. Waters' testimony and the articles I've submitted with respect to the um complete misrepresentations in the recent DOJ um report. But, I wanted to focus on a couple things here, Ms. Waters. One is we've heard a lot about disparities in prosecution and sentencing um and I'll I'll give you two questions and you can address as you will.
▶ 2:07:40Um which are not supported by the evidence. And then also, um I don't think there's been enough discussion of the fact that the this is a national campaign of violence by anti-abortion activists. I mean, I mentioned earlier that six people were arrested in my district in July of 2025 for trespassing at a clinic and harassing patients and staff. These six people were not local protesters.
▶ 2:08:07They had come from New Jersey, Wisconsin, Texas, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. Two had been pardoned by Trump for prior offenses in other states, FACE Act violations. Um at least one was arrested in DC just days after submitting a plea bargain with respect to the incident in my district and she was in DC to join other anti-abortion activists to plan their next national activities.
▶ 2:08:35So, if you can, you know, comment on the fact comment on both the alleged disparity in prosecution and sentencing and why again a national national FACE Act [music] is important.
▶ 2:08:52I'll start with the second. So, you know, the need for the national FACE Act was well documented in the legislative record at the time, right? And what we saw was local and state law enforcement saying, "We can't handle this, right? Hundreds of people show up and if my force goes to that clinic, we're not doing anything else in the state, right?" So, we saw as a state law enforcement saying this is very needed. We also saw ample evidence that a lot of can the violence was cross state, right?
▶ 2:09:20And state's jurisdiction ends where its borders end, right? And they were having a hard time being able to prosecute this multi-state violence going across state lines. That hasn't changed today. As I said in my testimony, we are in a in a time that thanks to Dobbs, um state laws differ dramatically and people are traveling at increased rates across state lines to both provide and obtain reproductive health care.
▶ 2:09:45So, the interstate commerce and the multi-state aspect here is even more severe than it was um um at the time that FACE was enacted. On the question of the disparities, you know, I've read the DOJ report with interest and you know, I'm an academic, right? So, I looked at it and I have a lot of questions. You know, my first reaction was was this would not pass peer review, right?
▶ 2:10:08And I have a lot of questions about for example, if we look at sentencing disparities, like yeah, they're different because people committed crimes more than once and FACE specifically provides each time you commit a crime, the penalties go up, right? People committed different crimes. And you know, we would be remiss not to look at the fact that there are at least four district courts that have in the past 2 years looked at this question of was DOJ in engaging in selective prosecution?
▶ 2:10:37And they've squarely been asked that question including in the Gallagher case which we've discussed quite a bit. And each time the court has said no, right? And some of the courts have said, "Look, like if there's not a disparity if where we're seeing the violence is against clinics that provide reproductive health care, that's not a disparity." And the courts have also said there is no malfeasance if law enforcement offices have priorities. People do that.
▶ 2:11:03And the courts have said post Dobbs it makes some sense given that we saw the increase in violence at clinics that we would see prosecutions against people engaging in that violence. So four district courts have looked at this and a circuit court actually and have said there is not biased prosecution here.
▶ 2:11:20So it's fair to say that if you look apples to apples instead of apples to oranges, any disparities can be
▶ 2:11:26Yeah, I think they you know, I have questions like I said, right? Like you know, I when I look at the report, you know, I'm not in the particulars of every individual case, but those are the types of questions I would ask.
▶ 2:11:36Thank you for your thoughtful testimony. I yield back.
▶ 2:11:41Ms. Odell, you are a survivor and I remind you to turn your microphone on. You are a survivor of a communist concentration camp in former Yugoslavia post World War II. Is that correct?
▶ 2:11:54You testified that you have in significant part dedicated your life to the cause of defending the innocent unborn since the Roe decision and in the you know, subsequent 50 years.
▶ 2:12:09Um when you were um arrested and then convicted for your your actions in Michigan, you Did you assault anyone?
▶ 2:12:24So, you were present uh in a protest at this clinic and and you were uh obstructing people's access?
▶ 2:12:33Well, I stood in front of the door, yes.
▶ 2:12:36Now, you were convicted and you faced a sentence of up to 13 years. Is that
▶ 2:12:42That's correct.
▶ 2:12:44And you are at the current time 91?
▶ 2:12:47I'll be 91 on Sunday.
▶ 2:12:49Well, happy birthday in advance.
▶ 2:12:51Um and at the time you were arrested, you were 89?
▶ 2:12:56Uh do you think that the use of the FACE Act and then conspiracy charge under the KK statute, that you think that is an appropriate sentence for someone or the potential sentence, cuz you were not sentenced yet, but up to 13 years for being present and expressing your views that abortion is in fact murder, along the lines of my friend from Texas's description of the horrific and barbaric practices of abortion?
▶ 2:13:23Do you think that an individual should be charged federally with up to 13 years in prison at the age of 89 or at all for carrying out that
▶ 2:13:33At any age because murder is taking place in those Nobody seems to mention M- Murder is taking place in inside those clinics. I'm sorry. I I
▶ 2:13:45No, go ahead.
▶ 2:13:47And and uh it's no different than in in Nazi Germany or Yugoslavia, where I was, uh people would have probably under at that time protected the law to kill us. But now those that would have tried to save us would be called heroes. Why? Because we finally recognized that even I as a child was a human being then.
▶ 2:14:14And these babies are human beings from a moment of conception on. Either in the process of growth or we're in the process of decline. And like I said, uh we're we're headed towards killing the the elderly. First, they will be identified, they'll be vilified, they will be be dehumanized, and then destroyed.
▶ 2:14:37And I'm trying to do what God calls us to do, protect human And not with violence. Just placing my body in between the victim and the perpetrator.
▶ 2:14:51Is that what you witnessed in with respect to World War II and post-World War II in Yugoslavia and generally individuals who were being carried off to be murdered and executed,
▶ 2:15:03Yes, I I heard about it through my father when they took the Jewish families from our town. He was livid.
▶ 2:15:10And you experienced concentration camp
▶ 2:15:13Yes, I did.
▶ 2:15:14And you equate appropriately, in my view, you equate the murder of the innocent unborn with the murder of those people murdered at the hands of government authority. Uh every bit the same.
▶ 2:15:29Exactly. Yes.
▶ 2:15:31And because of that belief, without assaulting anyone, the federal government was using the full power of its force to prosecute you and to put you in jail for up to 13 Using the full power of the federal government to do so. Is that correct?
▶ 2:15:53Well, I want to thank you for your your life story, your dedication to and for fearlessly standing against the power of government being used against your God-given ability to try to stand up in defense of the innocent in the false name of health care.
▶ 2:16:19In the false name of health care the murder of the unborn. God bless you for standing up for that. God bless you for your courage and God will bless you when he welcomes you home someday long in the future. And I appreciate it very much.
▶ 2:16:40Thank you.
▶ 2:16:40I appreciate all the witnesses. I appreciate your testimony. I will recognize the gentle lady for consent
▶ 2:16:46Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a press release from the DOJ dated August 20, 2024 entitled seven defendants including Miss Eydel convicted of federal civil rights conspiracy and freedom of access to
▶ 2:17:02I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following statements all dated April 28, 2026 from Reproductive Freedom for All, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
▶ 2:17:17Without objection.
▶ 2:17:18Also having unanimous consent request to enter into the record a statement from David Gunn Jr. and Wendy Gunn whose father Dr. David Gunn was murdered by an anti-abortion extremist and whose murder helped propel passage of the FACE Act.
▶ 2:17:30Without objection.
▶ 2:17:31And I would also enter into the record pages 557 and 58 of Project 2025 detailing the push to repeal the FACE
▶ 2:17:42Without objection. I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record I will only ask the executive summary portion of the Department of Justice report given the length of the full report being 800 pages but the executive summary of the Department of Justice report outlining the extent to which there was deep coordination between the Department of Justice and abortion activist and the the collusion between the two as well as lack of reporting to Congress and appreciate that and anything else from the general lady?
▶ 2:18:12That concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today without objection all members will have five legislative days submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record without objection. The hearing is adjourned.