Chip Roy Leads House Judiciary Committee Hearing Abou 'Federalizing Criminal Law' And The FACE Act

[0:00] will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. [0:04] We welcome everybody to today's hearing on the FACE Act and the dangers of federalizing criminal [0:08] law. Before I start, I just want to say thanks for everybody's patience. I think there were some [0:12] security line issues. Thanks for the witnesses for navigating through those, and thanks to my [0:17] colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I apologize for starting a little bit late, but we [0:20] were trying to deal with that issue. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today, [0:26] this subcommittee confronts a fundamental question about the proper role of the federal government [0:29] in our constitutional system, because the issue before us is not just one statute. It is about [0:33] a broader and more dangerous trend, the steady expansion of federal criminal law into areas [0:38] the Constitution traditionally reserves to the states. And when Washington creates these authorities [0:42] and hands them to unelected bureaucrats, these tools will inevitably be weaponized. The FACE Act is a [0:47] case study in exactly that problem. It was sold as a narrow, even-handed tool designed to equally [0:52] protect access to abortion clinics, pregnancy resource centers, and places of worship by prohibiting threats [0:57] of force obstruction and property damage. But like so many federal laws before it, [1:02] it has become a vehicle for selective enforcement, a mechanism for political targeting, and ultimately, [1:08] a weapon used against conservatives and pro-life Americans. We don't need to speculate. We now have [1:14] clear evidence from the Department of Justice's own report that this law was weaponized by the Biden [1:19] administration. That report shows how, under the Biden administration, enforcement of the FACE Act [1:23] was shaped, if not driven, by outside advocacy groups. The Biden Department of Justice worked in [1:30] close coordination with extremist NGOs, particularly large, well-funded pro-abortion groups like the [1:35] National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, and the Feminist Majority Foundation. And these groups [1:41] weren't merely reporting crimes. They were operating as de facto intelligence-gathering arms, collecting and [1:47] compiling detailed dossiers on the speech and activities of American citizens for federal authorities, [1:52] mapping their movements, logging protests, and gathering deeply personal information, including [1:58] participation in religious activity, home addresses, license data, even photos of their families and [2:04] minor children. All of it fed into the prosecution pipeline, even as DOJ officials themselves recognized [2:11] much of the underlying activity was protected under the First Amendment. And the DOJ didn't just [2:15] receive this information, it gave these groups privileged access. On May 15, 2023, the National Abortion [2:22] Federation Federation requested a full internal list of every active FACE Act prosecution in the country. [2:30] They got it in full within one hour. But when this subcommittee and I personally, as a member of [2:35] Congress, asked for the exact same information, the DOJ didn't just delay, they stonewalled for over [2:41] three years, from 22 to 24. In October 2022, formal requests ignored. December 2023, asked again, [2:50] under oath, no answer. February 2024, follow-up in writing, nothing. May 2024, response finally comes, [2:57] 16 months later. And it wasn't just Congress, defense counsel and active FACE prosecutors were [3:02] denied the data outright. In one case, a DOJ official explicitly wrote that providing the information [3:08] would, quote, open gates we will struggle to close, end quote, implicitly acknowledging that the records [3:14] would reveal unequal enforcement targeting only pro-lifers. So they refused, claiming the records [3:19] didn't exist, even though the same information had been handed to the National Abortion Federation [3:24] on demand. Why does an outside abortion advocacy group get immediate access to internal Department [3:30] of Justice enforcement data, while Congress, pro-life defendants, and the American people are forced to [3:35] wait years or are denied altogether? That is not equal justice under the law. That is a two-tiered system [3:42] where political allies are treated as partners and dissenters as targets. And it didn't stop there. [3:48] The bias we're seeing didn't just shape who was investigated, it shaped how these cases were [3:52] prosecuted in court. In FACE Act trials, we have evidence that DOJ attorneys probed prospective jurors [3:58] on their religious beliefs and pro-life views, treating constitutionally protected convictions as [4:01] potential disqualifications for service. In one instance, a DOJ prosecutor even complained when a judge [4:07] took care to protect the defendant's First Amendment's rights. This is what happens when Washington [4:11] takes power it was never meant to have, using it to target instead of to serve while treating [4:16] constitutional protections as obstacles rather than guarantees. We don't have to imagine what [4:21] that looks like. We see it sitting here before us today. Ms. Ava Edel is not a violent criminal. [4:28] She's a 91-year-old survivor of a communist labor camp, someone who has lived through the horrors of [4:34] unchecked government power. Yet in Biden's America, she was not met with freedom but with the full force of [4:39] federal prosecution for a nonviolent protest. Having survived the abuses of a 20th century regime [4:45] built on centralized power, she now faces the consequences of that same dangerous principle right here [4:50] on American soil decades later. Her case is not an outlier. It is a warning about what happens when the [4:56] federal government takes jurisdiction over local conduct and then applies that power selectively, guided [5:02] not by equal justice, but by political priorities. This should concern every American, regardless of their views on [5:08] the underlying issue. Because the real problem isn't just how this law has been used, it's the permanent [5:13] expansion of federal power it represents. When Congress federalizes criminal law, we are not just addressing [5:20] a single issue in a single moment. We are creating authorities that do not disappear when political [5:25] control changes hands. Authorities that will be used again and again by whoever sits in the White House, controls the [5:31] DOJ, or directs federal law enforcement. And that's why this hearing isn't just about the FACE Act. It is about what [5:38] happens when Washington takes power it was never meant to have. We are seeing the same impulse in [5:44] proposals to federalize other areas of criminal law, new federal penalties layered on top of existing [5:49] state crimes, and efforts to nationalize deeply contested social issues through criminal statutes. [5:55] Because the real question isn't whether this power delivers you the outcome you want today, [5:59] it's whether you're willing to hand that same power to your political opponents tomorrow. And the answer [6:05] should be obvious. It isn't to fight over who control these powers. The answer is to stop creating [6:10] them in the first place. Criminal law enforcement, particularly for conduct that is local in nature, [6:15] has historically and constitutionally belonged to the states. That division of authority was not [6:20] accidental. It was designed as a safeguard against centralized power. When we ignore that structure, [6:25] we don't just make a policy mistake. We create a system ripe for abuse, a playground for bureaucrats, [6:32] a lever for political agendas, and a direct threat to the liberties we are sworn to protect. [6:37] That is why I have called for the repeal of the FACE Act. Not only because of who it has been used [6:41] against, but because of what it represents. An expansion of federal power and a breakdown of [6:46] constitutional limits. The federal government should not be in the business of policing local conduct [6:50] through expansive criminal statutes. If we are serious about protecting liberty, then we must be [6:55] serious about limiting power. Because once Washington takes it, it doesn't give it back. [7:00] One final point, a point of personal privilege, is I've tried to be consistent on this point. To the [7:07] extent of opposing or raising questions about legislation that is supported by people that are, [7:14] shall I say, politically aligned typically. Or issues that I care passionately about. Issues such as [7:20] transgender surgeries or issues involving law enforcement who are being targeted locally or cops [7:26] who are killed but are not getting justice in one jurisdiction or another. But I believe that we [7:32] need to have this debate and this conversation about how much authority should be vested in the [7:37] federal government in the form of criminal laws. Because I assure you that my colleagues who have [7:43] concerns about this administration and those of us who had concerns about the last, the point that [7:48] the founders was making was that we should leave those authorities and those powers to the people and [7:53] to the governments and the states closest to them and not centralize that power in such a way that it can, [7:58] in fact, be used against the people. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I now yield to [8:05] the ranking member for her opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, today is the third time in as [8:12] many years that this subcommittee under Republican leadership is holding a hearing to undermine the [8:18] Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or the FACE Act. Fourth, if you count the markup of the [8:24] Chairman's FACE Act Repeal Act last year, eliminating the FACE Act is a right-wing policy priority drawn directly [8:31] from the extremist Project 2025 Manifesto, page 558 to be precise. But no matter how many times the [8:41] enemies of reproductive rights try to rewrite history or drum up new conspiracies about the FACE Act, the [8:48] facts stay the same. We continue to see criminal obstruction of and threats, intimidation and [8:54] violence against abortion providers and women seeking those services. And the FACE Act is needed [9:00] now as much as it has ever been. In 1994, Congress passed the FACE Act with bipartisan support to address [9:09] rising violence against abortion reproductive health, abortion and reproductive health care providers. [9:14] Over the years, that violence has included arsons, bombings, chemical attacks, blockades, murders, [9:22] and attempted murders of abortion providers and bystanders. Specifically, the FACE Act protects the [9:28] people who work in or seek care at facilities providing access to abortion and other reproductive health [9:34] care services, as well as places of religious worship. It protects them from the use of force, threats, [9:41] intimidation, or physical obstruction. But for decades, the same coordinated, extreme, anti-choice [9:49] forces whose violent conduct created the need for the FACE Act in the first place have tried to [9:55] undermine the law as part of their unpopular mission to gut access to reproductive health care and [10:01] effectively ban abortion in the United States. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, [10:08] anti-abortion extremists have been emboldened, fueling a resurgence of violence and harassment against [10:14] abortion providers. A report from the National Abortion Federation documented 777 instances of [10:22] obstruction of clinics in 2024. And in the last two years, there have been 296 incidents of death threats [10:31] and other threats of violence aimed at abortion providers and their patients. For years, our Republican [10:37] colleagues have tried to warp reality, and today's hearing is more of the same. They're claiming that [10:43] people were arrested under the FACE Act for praying. That's just not true. Praying is not unlawful [10:50] conduct. But you can't mask unlawful conduct, including violent threats or blockading entrances to [10:56] clinics with performative prayer. Those threats and physical harassment are crimes, and they jeopardize [11:03] people's access to potentially life-saving care. Take, for example, one woman's story from Michigan. [11:10] After struggling with infertility, she finally got pregnant. But at 12 weeks, she and her husband got [11:15] devastating news. Their baby had an extremely rare abnormality, and he wouldn't survive birth. If she [11:23] continued the pregnancy, her ability to have children in the future would be at risk, and her life would be at risk as well. [11:30] So she and her husband made the decision to terminate the pregnancy. On the morning of her appointment [11:36] at a local reproductive health care clinic, she arrived to find people blocking the entrance. A group [11:42] approached them, trying to force her to take graphic pamphlets and telling her she could stop a murder [11:47] from happening. The harassment continued even after the couple moved their car. She and her husband had to [11:53] leave out of fear for their safety, even though she needed immediate medical attention. They were only able to [12:00] return after police arrived, arrested the disruptors, and removed them. In another instance, five anti-abortion [12:07] extremists forced their way into a clinic in Virginia and attempted to grab a patient. The patient's friend [12:13] had to step in and help the clinic staff usher the invaders out. We're talking about women and their loved [12:19] ones facing terror, threats of injury, and having to physically fight people off just to receive legal [12:26] health care for serious medical needs. It shouldn't be that way. That's why we have the FACE Act. But [12:33] Republicans have seized on a false narrative that the Biden Justice Department selectively enforced the [12:38] law. That's not true. This month, as Chairman Roy has related, Trump's Department of Justice issued a [12:45] report claiming that the former administration used the FACE Act to go after allegedly peaceful pro-life [12:51] protesters. I should note that this report has been variously described across multiple outlets as [12:58] cherry-picked, shoddy, misleading, hypocritical, inaccurate, incomplete, a distortion of the truth that [13:07] disregards multiple court rulings and jury verdicts. It parrots long-standing anti-abortion conspiracies, [13:15] particularly those championed in the Extremist Project 2025 manifesto. There is no credible evidence [13:22] that prior administrations selectively enforced the FACE Act against anti-abortion protesters. [13:28] And to the extent that there's any disparity in FACE Act prosecutions of attacks on abortion clinics [13:33] versus pro-life facilities, it's simply a reflection of the facts. Abortion providers and their patients [13:40] face significantly higher threats and levels of violence than other entities covered by the statute. [13:47] The actions of the Trump administration and its right-wing allies, including our Republican colleagues, [13:52] to undermine the FACE Act have invited anti-abortion extremists to carry out even more [13:58] dangerous and hostile acts against women seeking health care and their medical providers. And the [14:03] president's firing of lawyers who prosecuted FACE Act violations, along with pardons for people who [14:10] were convicted by juries of harassing and attacking abortion providers and their patients, only further [14:16] emboldens people to commit these crimes. In fact, we've already seen pardoned anti-abortion activists [14:21] go back to commit similar acts. Last July, six people, two of whom received Trump-bardons for FACE Act [14:28] violations, were arrested after invading a clinic in my district in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. And [14:34] they've gone on to be arrested again after their plea bargains were affirmed. They lied to get into the [14:41] Delaware County facility and then harassed patients and staff until the police removed them. If my [14:47] Republican colleagues want to examine the real dangers of an out-of-control executive using the government [14:52] to attack its political enemies, they should be holding hearings to examine what the Trump administration is [14:57] doing right now. How about deploying American troops and armed and masked federal agents to our city streets [15:03] to shut down opposition and threatening, assaulting, and even killing people who would hold them [15:08] accountable? How about using warrantless searches to arrest American citizens in their own homes? [15:14] Or labeling people who disagree with the president's policies as domestic terrorists under NSPM-7, [15:19] putting their names on secret government lists and demanding that tech companies hand over the [15:24] identities of Americans who organize or share their dissenting opinions online? And if we're talking about [15:30] federal intrusion into areas reserved to the states, how about this administration's attempts to federalize [15:37] our elections and seize state voter rules? Why aren't we holding hearings about that? If in politicizing a [15:46] law meant to keep all Americans safe, anti-abortion extremists are openly attempting to lay the groundwork [15:53] for a national abortion ban. Their goal is to scare, threaten, and physically obstruct women from accessing [16:01] reproductive health care. But the majority of Americans agree. All women deserve the freedom [16:07] to work with their doctors and their families to decide on the health care that is right for them [16:12] without the meddling of radical politicians or religious extremists. No one should be denied medical [16:17] care because of someone else's religious or political beliefs. I yield back. I now recognize the [16:25] chairman of the full committee, Mr. Jordan, for his opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't think of a [16:30] better time to have this hearing. Last week, we learned that the Southern Poverty Law Center was running [16:36] a scam. The Southern Poverty Law Center, who said, quote, the pro-life movement is fundamentally [16:42] anti-democratic, was running a scam, paying three million dollars to, quote, informants to go foment the [16:51] hate they told the world they were actually supposed to be fighting. This is exactly the right time to have this [16:57] hearing, for goodness sake. In the Southern Poverty Law Center that the Biden Justice Department used to [17:03] train lawyers to go deal with the FACE Act? You got to be kidding me. The Southern Poverty Law Center, [17:10] which was cited in the now famous memorandum, got the Thomas More Society here, they remember this, [17:16] where they said pro-life Catholics were extremists. Guess who they cited in that memo? The Southern [17:23] Poverty Law Center. I remember when Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste. Well, [17:29] the SPLC took it further. They said, we're going to create the crisis so we can go after pro-life [17:34] groups using the FACE Act and whatever else. So this is the ranking member can talk about all we've [17:41] had three hearings on this. Well, this one couldn't be better timed. This is exactly what we need to be [17:46] talking about in light of the fact they've been indicted for running a three million dollar scam [17:52] against the people who were supporting them and going out and going after pro-life people like Ava [17:59] Edle, 90-year-old. The chairman talked about her history and what she's doing, praying at a clinic. [18:05] So I'm glad you're all here and I look forward to hearing your testimony. I thank the chairman [18:10] for putting this hearing together and with that I yield back. I thank the chairman. I'll now recognize [18:15] the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement. Mr. Chairman, [18:18] thank you very much and I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. We are in a weird [18:23] time warp groove with our friends across the aisle. Most of their energy is now focused [18:28] on pardoning people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, wounding and injuring 150 of our police [18:35] officers, disfiguring and disabling some of them for life. Their time is spent vacating the criminal [18:43] convictions of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who engage in seditious conspiracy against the U.S. [18:50] government, which means conspiring to overthrow and put down the government. And now the Department [18:55] of Justice wants to vacate those convictions that were handed down by unanimous juries. They want to [19:01] give millions of dollars to convicted criminals like Michael Flynn, for example, President Trump's [19:09] disgraced former national security advisor. They gave him 1.5 million dollars for a lawsuit he brought [19:16] against the government and already lost. He lost it in court. And nonetheless, they wrote him a check [19:21] for 1.5 million dollars. They wrote a check for another 1.5 million dollars, which I or 1.25 million [19:28] to Carter Page, who unsuccessfully sued the government for damages, losing four different lawsuits. And [19:34] nonetheless, they just wrote him a check of the taxpayers money, 1.25 million dollars. And now they're all [19:43] lining up at the trough. A lot of the January 6 insurrectionists, they want their 1.25 million [19:48] dollar payout. And Donald Trump has sued the IRS for 10, no, forgive me, not 10 million, 10 billion [19:55] dollars. He wants 80 percent of the IRS budget that he's suing the government for. And he's also suing [20:01] for the search warrant handed down by an independent neutral magistrate, where they executed a search on [20:07] Mar-a-Lago and found lots of classified documents and confidential and secret documents he shouldn't have [20:13] have. And he's suing there for several hundred million dollars as well. So it's a big piggy bank [20:18] for them. But so now we are having our third hearing about the claim. I'm not sure I fully understand it, [20:29] but I think the claim is that the activists who forcibly blocked health clinic entrances and prevented [20:36] women from accessing lawful reproductive health services were somehow unjustly prosecuted under [20:43] the FACE Act, which they intimate is unconstitutional. But eight different federal circuit courts have [20:48] upheld its constitutionality as a perfectly lawful exercise of Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause [20:55] and not in any way in violation of the First Amendment. Okay, but they continue to want to pander [21:02] to people who think that they never should have been prosecuted for their criminal conduct. [21:11] So this hearing is an after the fact justification for President Trump's anti-choice pander pardons, [21:20] which took place last year as one of his first acts in office. He pardoned nearly two dozen people [21:25] convicted again by unanimous juries of FACE Act related crimes, including one of the witnesses here today, [21:32] Ms. Edel. As with the January 6 rioters and insurrectionists that he pardoned, Trump and [21:39] his mega allies are attempting to rewrite history to portray convicted criminal conduct as peaceful [21:46] protest and to cast the dedicated public servants who sought to protect patient safety as the villains. [21:54] So let's discuss some of the facts of Ms. Edel's case. She was pardoned by President Trump and invited, [22:02] I think, as an example of the so-called peaceful protesters. A jury convicted her along with six co-conspirators [22:09] of federal civil rights offenses, including a FACE Act violation arising out of their blockade of a [22:16] reproductive health care clinic in Sterling Heights, Michigan in August of 2020. A jury of her peers, [22:22] not deep state prosecutors, a jury of her peers drawn from her community convicted her by unanimous vote [22:30] after a trial borne by an impartial federal judge. She was one of two defendants convicted of another [22:37] FACE Act violation arising out of their actions and yet another clinic blockade in Saginaw, Michigan. Now, [22:45] I have no problems with the fact that Ms. Edel and others like her have strong moral convictions [22:53] about this, as did Martin Luther King and John Lewis. They had strong moral convictions about Jim Crow [23:00] apartheid and segregation in America and they participated in civil disobedience. They violated [23:05] various trespass laws in different cases and they were arrested for it and they were willing to accept [23:10] their punishment as the price for trying to get a law they considered or actions by the government [23:18] reversed and to dismantle racial segregation. But what these protesters have a problem with is other [23:26] people accessing their own health care. The civil rights protesters weren't trying to stop people from [23:31] getting health care and they were willing to nonetheless accept the consequences of having a sit-in or whatever [23:38] but here they don't seem to want to accept it, the fact that they violated the law and in fact they [23:43] violated the law precisely in order to prevent other people from exercising their constitutionally [23:49] protected rights to health care. That's exactly what they were doing. So I'm afraid there's a huge difference [23:54] between them and other people who have participated in civil disobedience in the past. We got a statement [24:00] from the founder and operator of the Sterling Heights Clinic who was present that day, which I'm going to [24:05] enter into the record in full, that described what happened. She writes this, perhaps the most dangerous [24:10] and appalling episode of clinic violence I've ever experienced since the FACE Act became law took place [24:16] in August of 2020. Our Sterling Heights Clinic was blockaded by extremists who prevented me and other [24:22] staff from entering the clinic. Patients were stuck in their cars, including three women who were coming in [24:29] for medical abortions following the detection of fatal fetal anomalies. One woman was actively losing [24:36] amniotic fluid and was scheduled for the second day of a two-day procedure. She needed immediate medical [24:42] attention. She huddled with her mother and her husband trapped in the parking lot while extremists [24:47] plastered signs of fake fetuses on her car windows and shouted, God loves you, God loves your baby. And the [24:53] woman cried back, I know God loves me. I know God loves my baby, but my baby is dying. Her baby was missing [25:00] most of its brain and had no kidneys. This woman later shared her powerful testimony at trial. As eight [25:07] different federal circuit courts have found, Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to protect [25:13] people against being harassed and interfered with as they go to get medical attention. The FACE Act is a [25:21] legitimate exercise of congressional power. And these people were properly arrested and prosecuted [25:28] for perhaps their very morally, sincerely held views, but they violated the law. These politically [25:37] motivated pardons of FACE Act violators, as well as January Sixers and dozens of white-collar criminals [25:44] and fraudsters are all part of a political strategy that's got nothing to do with justice. [25:49] And now this is the equivalent of the government giving people green light to go out and break the [25:55] law. And indeed, there are numerous reports that President Trump has been pardoning promises, [26:01] has been promising pardons rather, to everyone who works for him. As President Trump continues to [26:07] endanger public safety with pardons like this, they are making threats against the Southern Poverty Law Center, [26:15] which is the main not-for-profit organizational antagonist to the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazi and the white [26:24] extremist groups. And they're being investigated and prosecuted for having sent people undercover to [26:32] research what's going on in those groups to get the information to government for prosecution. So now the [26:38] administration, which has pardoned 1,600 extremists who attacked the U.S. Capitol, who violently [26:45] assaulted our police officers and tried to overthrow a presidential election, which Joe Biden won by more [26:51] than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. Well, now, after having pardoned all of [26:59] those people, they want to attack the Southern Poverty Law Center. And that is an amazing attack [27:06] on the First Amendment for real. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. Without objection, all other opening [27:14] statements will be included in the record. We will now introduce today's witnesses. Ms. Ava Edel. Ms. [27:21] Edel is a pro-life advocate who came to the United States after surviving a communist concentration camp [27:27] after the end of World War II. In 2023, she was prosecuted by the Biden administration under the [27:35] FACE Act for protesting at an abortion clinic. She was pardoned by President Trump in January 2025. [27:42] Mr. Christopher Ferraro. Mr. Ferraro is a senior counsel at the Thomas More Society, a public interest [27:48] law firm. Mr. Ferraro's practice focuses on cases involving the sanctity of life, religious liberty, [27:52] and parental rights. He founded the American Catholic Lawyers Association in 1990. Mr. Roger Severino. [28:00] Mr. Severino is the Vice President of Economic and Domestic Policy and the Joseph C. and Elizabeth [28:04] A. Anderlich Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He previously served as the Director of the Office [28:09] of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services. Professor Jessica Waters. Ms. Waters is [28:15] a senior scholar in residence for justice, law, and criminology at the American University, [28:19] Washington College of Law. She previously served as the American University Dean of Undergraduate [28:24] Education and Vice Provost for Academic Student Services. We thank our witnesses for appearing today [28:30] and will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand? Do you swear or [28:41] affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the [28:46] best of your knowledge, information, and belief? So help you God. Let the record reflect that the [28:52] witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you and you may be seated. Please know that your [28:57] written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you [29:02] summarize your testimony in five minutes. Ms. Edel, you may begin. And I'll just remind you to have [29:07] your microphone turned on, I believe it is, and to speak clearly into the microphone. You might want [29:15] to pull that microphone a little closer, if that's possible. There we go. Thank you, Ms. Edel. You may begin. [29:24] Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and members of the subcommittee, my name, as I said, is Eva Edel. [29:33] Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. As I say in my biography, as a young child, [29:41] I was taken to a communist death camp and survived only by the grace of God. When I came to this country, [29:49] I was so grateful to see that this country respected life. But to my horror, even this country lost its [29:57] moral compass when abortion was legalized in 1973. I knew from basic biology that human [30:04] life begins when an ovum and sperm unite. I knew I could not remain silent, and I knew I had to speak [30:12] in defense of the pre-born babies. In 1988, I became aware of the existence of abortion clinics, [30:20] which I view as our American death camps. On TV, I watched women take their babies inside to be killed, [30:29] and it reminded me of my ride in the cattle car that took me as a young girl to the death camp. [30:35] While being locked up in that car, I wished that some people would have put their bodies on those [30:40] tracks to bring that train to a stop and set us free. I thought of the word of the Lord Jesus in [30:49] 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 [30:56] between those victims and the abortionists, no matter what the cost. For the pro-life movement, [31:03] this is what we call rescue. We call it an interposing, putting ourselves in danger in order to save [31:10] someone else. In 1988, I also learned of a rescue plan for October in Atlanta. I decided to join them. [31:19] People were peacefully sitting in front of the door of the abortion clinic and not moving, [31:24] consequently shutting the business down, at least until everyone was arrested. When we are at clinics [31:32] like that, it's like sitting in front of the train tracks. While we are being arrested, our sidewalk [31:38] counselors have the opportunity to offer help to young women and hopefully persuade them to give [31:44] their life, give life to their children. Then in 1994, when I heard that Senator Ted Kennedy introduced [31:51] the FACE Act, I knew that things would change. I knew that we rescuers would be targeted. And pro-lifers [31:59] who continue to put their bodies between the abortionists and innocent victims today will [32:04] continue to be targeted by this unjust law until it is repealed. And yet, despite knowing this, [32:13] when the Lord asks you to do something, you just simply do it, no matter the cost. After all, [32:20] he gave his life to save us. There are many others who have answered this sacrificial call. In my case, [32:29] I was only charged with the first offense misdemeanor in Tennessee. But in Michigan, I was convicted of [32:36] two separate violations of FACE and one violation of conspiracy against rights and faced up to 13 [32:44] years in prison and up to $300,000 in fines. And so I am before you today, I plead with our government [32:54] to repeal the FACE Act because it is targeting people who want to do right. After all, we have [33:00] enough laws that if somebody does something wrong, we have the means to punish them. I plead with [33:07] our government to stop the killing and go back to the foundational principle that our forefathers [33:14] built this country on, that all human life has equal value before God. If we do not have an awakening of [33:22] our national conscience, then we will exterminate our posterity. Indeed, our next victims will be the [33:30] elderly and the sick through the so-called assisted death. We are aborting those who would be our [33:37] country's future, who will take care of us when we are old. When we do not respect human life, [33:43] it becomes very disposable. And yet, where there is life, there is hope. It is this hope that has carried [33:51] me over 90 years, through World War II, a genocide, Tito's horrific camps, all the way today. While I may [34:00] not see the end of abortion in my own lifetime, I have the unshakable hope that the truth will prevail and [34:08] that our nation will soon recognize the value of all human life. Let us act by beginning to repeal the [34:15] FACE Act. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Edel. Mr. Ferrara, you may begin. I thank the committee for this [34:24] opportunity to argue in favor of repeal of the FACE Act. The FACE Act was supposedly a viewpoint neutral [34:30] protection of abortion clinic access. It contained a disclaimer that it would not prohibit First Amendment [34:36] protected conduct or create new remedies for interference with that conduct. But we members of the [34:41] pro-life bar were not fooled. The FACE Act targeted a particular social justice movement, the pro-life [34:48] activist movement. It created a new category of federal offenses, civil and criminal, based on what [34:53] were purely matters of local law involving citizens and other minor offenses committed in the context of [34:59] nonviolent civil disobedience, no different from what Dr. Martin Luther King defended in his letter from [35:05] a Birmingham jail. As for the acts of violence in the course of the movement, there were acts of violence, [35:11] and they were prosecuted appropriately under local law. Consider Paul Hill, who was executed under state [35:17] law in Florida in 2003. No need of FACE to bring him to justice. I've had 25 years of experience [35:24] defending FACE claims, almost entirely in opposition to attorneys general, and I have seen, now with dreary [35:31] predictability, the terms force, threat of force, and physical obstruction in FACE have become so elastic as [35:39] to reach even de minimus conduct that would not even warrant a desk appearance ticket under local law. [35:45] Even the most fleeting physical contact has been found to constitute force. The most minimal [35:50] impediments of clinic workers or clients on the sidewalk have been found to constitute physical [35:55] obstruction. Mere references to God's judgment upon death have been found to constitute threats of [36:01] force. And the FACE Act has been used to impose ridiculous injunctions, totally unheard of, [36:08] in any other context. Speech-free buffer zones, bubble zones, and even floating bubble zones around [36:14] clinics have created for pro-life advocates, and them only, exactly what Justice Scalia described in [36:21] Macaulain v. Coakley, quote, an entirely separate abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to [36:27] speech against abortion. Consider also FACE's motive requirement. If you stand in front of an abortion [36:34] clinic worker outside a clinic to demand money that you're owed, delaying that person, no law is [36:40] violated. Stand in front of the same person to offer pro-life literature and discuss alternatives to [36:47] abortion, and you've just violated FACE. Even worse, FACE is being combined with 18 U.S.C. Section 241, [36:54] prohibiting conspiracies against rights, which elevates misdemeanor FACE violations into federal [37:00] felonies. And the result has been preposterous prison sentences. Consider the clinic sit-in at a D.C. [37:07] abortion clinic in 2020, called a blockade by the government. Because a clinic staffer allegedly [37:14] suffered a sprained ankle, all the participants were found guilty of a crime of violence as co-conspirators [37:20] and were sent immediately to prison after the verdict. Joan Bell, 27 months in federal prison, [37:27] for a 77-year-old grandmother. Jean Marshall, 24 months in federal prison for a 77-year-old retired [37:35] nurse. Heather Idoni, 24 months in federal prison for a 61-year-old grandmother. And consider the case [37:42] of Beverly Beatty, 41 months in federal prison for the mother of a two-year-old girl based on uttering [37:50] political hyperbole and allegedly causing a minor hand injury. Well, thank God Trump pardoned all these [37:57] victims of FACE and many more political prisoners that he rescued from the Biden administration's [38:03] gulag. And now we have the massive DOJ report on weaponization of FACE by the Biden Justice Department. [38:10] That report reveals a comment by an assistant U.S. attorney in the case of U.S. v. Jastrow, [38:17] which says it all concerning the Biden administration's weaponization of FACE against religiously [38:23] motivated pro-life activists. And I quote, unfortunately, we ended up with a very Catholic [38:29] magistrate on duty this week. And he was very particular about bond conditions and not infringing [38:36] on First Amendment rights. At the end, we ended up with overly lawyered bond conditions that would be [38:42] difficult to enforce, end quote. Well, there we have it. Anti-Catholic bigotry on full display [38:49] and a public record pertaining to the Biden administration's vindictive FACE Act prosecutions. [38:56] We have never seen anything like this pernicious law in American history. For the sake of freedom [39:03] and justice in America, the FACE Act must be repealed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ferrara. Mr. Severino, [39:14] you may begin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to build off comments from your opening statement and to [39:20] consider a few different scenarios and what could actually be the common thread. So number one, [39:25] you want to build a pool in your house. You have the people doing the construction move the dirt [39:31] from the hole onto some soggy area of your land. Scenario number two, you're cleaning a gutter [39:39] from your house and you get up on top and you notice that there is a bird nest there that you push off to [39:45] the side to the ground. Scenario number three, you go with your son to a national park and you discover an [39:53] Indian arrowhead that you keep as a souvenir. And scenario number four, you're walking down the [39:59] street and you see a protest going on. It could be in front of an abortion clinic. It could be in [40:03] front of a pregnancy resource center. You get into a heated debate and there's an altercation that [40:08] ensues. The common thread among those four scenarios is that they may be federal crimes. And the thing is, [40:17] you're not really sure if they are or they aren't. It really depends on the prosecution and what their [40:24] theory of the case is and what facts they cherry pick. And worst of all, whether or not the identity [40:31] of the alleged perpetrator is perhaps of the same political party or not of the prosecutor. All of [40:38] these things are a result of over criminalization. And FACE Act is the poster child of over criminalization. [40:47] Now, whatever you think about the underlying issue to be addressed on any of those cases, are the wrongs to [40:55] be addressed at the federal level? Is everything meant to be literally a federal case? Under a [41:00] constitutional system, it was designed such that the federal government is one of enumerated powers. [41:06] It only has the power that was given to it by the people specifically in the constitution. It cannot act [41:12] unless Congress is authorized by a specific provision in the constitution. Now, the problem is Congress has [41:19] used the Commerce Clause as its catch-all to cover every single aspect of American life, such that we [41:26] have 5,200 different crimes. My former colleague at the Heritage Foundation, Giancarlo Canaparo, cataloged [41:34] these crimes, but his chilling finding was he couldn't be sure either. Nobody knows how many federal crimes [41:42] there are. The Department of Justice was tasked to actually try to figure this out, and they gave up. [41:47] They did not know how many federal crimes there are. And when you add to this the fact that there [41:52] are 300,000 regulatory crimes—repeat that—300,000 regulatory crimes where some bureaucrat decided [42:00] to amend a regulation that then becomes a crime, well, are we really a nation of laws or not? We have [42:09] delegated far too much authority to federal bureaucrats, and that discretion has given unchecked power that has [42:15] been abused with the FACE Act and other cases. Let me give you a few examples. There was a person who [42:21] was importing undersized lobsters from Honduras and, unfortunately, didn't know the Honduran regulations [42:28] and packed them in plastic bags instead of boxes. What federal crime was violated? Well, it was done—no [42:35] federal crime, actually. A Honduran crime, perhaps, was committed, but because he violated a Honduran crime, [42:41] that became a federal crime under the Lacey Act. Who knew that if you don't follow Honduras laws for [42:48] packing lobsters in plastic versus boxes, you might be committing a federal crime? Now, sticking with [42:55] fish and game, in Florida, a fisherman was capturing some grouper, and they were, again, undersized, [43:01] and the fish and game warden came by and said, wow, they look undersized. When the warden left, the [43:06] fisherman threw some of the fish away to try to kind of hide the evidence. Now, he was charged with a [43:12] federal crime under Sarbanes-Oxley, an Enron-related bill that was designed to go after people and [43:19] accountants that were shredding evidence in an investigation. But all of a sudden, the federal [43:24] agent said, you know what? A fish is a whole lot like a document. And the Supreme Court said, no, [43:30] it's not. A fish is a fish. It's not a document. And on with one more example. I was the nation's [43:36] HIPAA regulator, and I had the power to issue regulations, which also had the force and effect [43:42] of law. The case of Eitan Heim, a whistleblower doctor in Texas, who discovered that Texas Children's [43:49] Hospital, despite what they were saying, was still giving cross-sex sterilizing treatments to minors, [43:56] possibly in violation of law. He blew the whistle, and the Biden DOJ went after him, [44:01] not the hospital, for an alleged HIPAA violation. Ten years potential prison time for looking into [44:08] files, not disclosing any protected health information, but verified that, in fact, the [44:14] hospital was lying. This shows that our laws have been weaponized, such that we are no longer a nation [44:20] of laws, but a nation of men with unchecked authority to go after political enemies whenever they like. [44:27] Mr. Severino, thank you for your statement. Professor Waters, you may begin. [44:36] Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, members of the committee and members of the subcommittee, [44:41] thank you for inviting me back to testify today. I appreciated our conversation [44:46] related to FACE during the December 2024 hearing before this committee, and I look forward to [44:51] additional constructive dialogue today. The specific provisions of FACE are outlined in my written [44:57] testimony, but in brief. FACE created criminal penalties and civil remedies against specific [45:02] types of intentional violent, threatening, or obstructive conduct directed at people providing [45:08] or obtaining reproductive health services or seeking to exercise First Amendment religious [45:13] rights at houses of worship. A few concepts are key there. One, FACE prohibits specific conduct, [45:20] not speech. Two, FACE requires that the conduct be intentional, that is, directed at preventing the [45:28] seeking or provision of reproductive health care or the exercise of religious rights at houses of worship. [45:33] And three, FACE expressly excludes non-threatening, non-obstructive speech from its purview, [45:40] as it must as the First Amendment demands that protection. We have heard other witnesses opine today [45:46] that FACE should be repealed and that it is somehow unconstitutional. But let us be clear, [45:51] that is simply not what the law says. Every federal court to consider such arguments has unequivocally [45:57] held that FACE was a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority. This is not an area where [46:03] circuits are split or where the laws are unclear. Whether the challenge has been on Commerce Clause [46:08] grounds, First Amendment speech grounds, First Amendment free exercise grounds, or Tenth Amendment grounds, [46:14] the courts have said the same thing. FACE is constitutionally sound and based on extensive [46:19] legislative findings about the need for a federal remedy to combat a nationwide campaign of violence. [46:25] And lest there be any confusion, this unanimity is true both pre and post-Dobbs. A few post-Dobbs cases [46:33] illustrate this point. For example, in 2025, the Sixth Circuit confronted the question squarely of whether [46:39] FACE's long-affirmed constitutionality was impacted by the Dobbs decision. The Sixth Circuit held that Dobbs had no [46:47] effect on FACE's constitutionality, finding that, quote, the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs provides [46:53] no basis to reconsider prior holdings that FACE is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power [46:59] under the Commerce Clause, end quote. The Sixth Circuit also directly affirmed its prior decisions, [47:04] holding that FACE did not run afoul of the First Amendment speech or free exercise protections. [47:10] Notably, in the case in which Ms. Edel was a co-defendant, United States v. Gallagher, [47:14] the Tennessee District Court confronted this same question and flatly rejected any argument that Dobbs [47:20] undermined FACE's constitutionality or protections. As the court wrote, and I quote, [47:25] what did the holding and essential reasoning of Dobbs change about the interstate nature of the [47:29] reproductive health field? Nothing. Those issues were not even remotely raised by the case which [47:34] involved a state statute, end quote. Other courts to reach this question have found the exact same thing. [47:40] This includes a New York District Court, the D.C. District Court, and a Pennsylvania District Court. [47:46] Where I think Dobbs does matter in this equation is in two areas that actually underscore the need [47:51] for FACE. First, Dobbs returned the abortion question to the states, leaving us now in a patchwork [47:57] of laws across the country. By the end of 2025, 13 states had total abortion bans and six more had six [48:04] or 12-week abortion bans. But as has been well documented, the number of abortions did not decline [48:09] nationwide after these bans went into effect. Instead, what happened is people who lived in states with [48:16] bans traveled to other states that protected access to reproductive health care. 170,000 patients [48:22] traveled in 2023, 150,000 in 2024, and 140,000 in 2025. That is, patients and clinics engaged in interstate [48:32] commerce, the very basis on which FACE rests. Finally, following Dobbs, there was an almost immediate [48:39] spike in major incidents targeting reproductive health care providers, including arsons, [48:43] burglaries, and death threats. In 2023 and 2024, the National Abortion Federation documented three [48:50] arsons, 13 invasions, 169 incidents of vandalism, 621 incidents of trespass, 296 death threats, [49:00] 38 assaults and battery, 777 counts of obstruction, and 12 bomb threats. Though I wish it wasn't the case, [49:07] the continued campaign of nationwide intimidation and violence against reproductive health care [49:12] providers highlights the continued need for FACE. As I said in 2024, the bottom line is this. [49:19] People should be able to seek medical care, and medical professionals should be able to provide it [49:24] without fear of violence or intimidation. And this is an issue that warrants a federal remedy. I look [49:30] forward to your questions. I thank the witness for her testimony. I'll now recognize the gentleman from [49:38] North Carolina for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of the witnesses for [49:43] being a part of this today. Mr. Ferrara, as a pastor and now a congressman, I've unequivocally stood firm [49:51] on the importance of protecting the sanctity of life. It's undeniable that every life is a precious gift [49:56] from God created with inherent dignity and purpose. And this truth has encouraged pro-lifers across the [50:03] country to push back on the pro-abortion rhetoric by serving outside of abortion clinics to pray, [50:09] to counsel women who feel they have run out of options, and to reaffirm the sacred truth that the [50:14] unborn have value. The way in which the Biden administration weaponized the FACE Act against [50:20] pro-lifers was indefensible. And it makes me fear that these actions have discouraged others from getting [50:27] involved in the fight for the unborn. So I would ask you, Mr. Ferrara, in your view, do FACE Act [50:34] prosecutions against pro-lifers create a chilling effect among those in the pro-life movement? [50:40] Mr. Ferrara, can you use your microphone? They most certainly do. As I indicated [50:47] during my testimony, Justice Scalia rightly observed that we have, through the application of the FACE Act, [50:53] a separate and distinct abridged version of the First Amendment for pro-life advocates. [50:58] The injunctions issued under the authority of FACE have no precedent in American law. They are, [51:04] as I said during my testimony, ridiculous. Bubble zones, floating bubble zones, speech-free areas to [51:11] prevent even a discussion of alternatives to abortion, all enacted in the name of protecting what [51:17] turned out to be the non-existent right to abortion. So yes, I think that this is a case of unprecedented [51:25] restrictions on activities, some of which do involve civil disobedience. But civil disobedience, [51:31] like it or not, is part of the American tradition of social justice movements. And I'll tell you this, [51:37] what I don't see in the pro-life movement, even at the height of the rescue movement in the 1990s, [51:43] is cities burning, police officers being attacked, Molotov cocktails being thrown into businesses, [51:50] police officers being pelted with bottles filled with ice, and not just death threats, but actual acts [51:57] of violence on a massive scale. Not the isolated acts we saw in the pro-life movement in the 90s, [52:03] which were punished appropriately under criminal law, as I indicated. Paul Hill was put to death. [52:10] You can't do better than capital punishment for punishing lawless activity. So I think, and I think my [52:16] testimony has made clear that FACE has, for the first time in American history, singled out a [52:23] single protest movement for treatment under the law that has never been meted out to any other social [52:29] justice movement in our nation's history. So let me ask you a follow-up to that. During President [52:33] Trump's first year in office, he took action to correct the injustices that occurred during the [52:39] Biden-Harris administration's enforcement of the FACE Act by issuing pardons to several of [52:45] the pro-lifers that were unjustly targeted. Would you say what response have you seen [52:50] from the pro-life movement and your clients regarding President Trump's actions? [52:55] Gratitude and thanks to God for justice done. The sentences handed out, some of which I mentioned [53:02] in my testimony, are absolutely absurd. Years in federal prison for non-violent conduct, [53:10] the worst of it being someone's hand was injured or there was a sprained ankle, [53:14] and then with the combination of Section 241, uh, conspiracy against rights, [53:20] multi-year prison sentences for non-violent conduct. Again, these things could be handled [53:25] and had always been handled as matters of local law. And by the way, the system is capable of [53:31] handling these matters. If you have repeat offenders who are trespassing, sooner or later, [53:35] they'll end up in a jail cell. And that might be appropriate. [53:38] Correct. Unfortunately, what we're hearing today is part of a larger pattern [53:42] of an anti-Christian bias we witnessed under the Biden-Harris administration. And [53:46] thanks to this committee's work in the past, we learned that the Biden-Harris FBI [53:50] used its resources to spy on Catholics in Richmond. And on top of that, in today's hearings, [53:56] we're hearing stories of pro-life activists being unjustly targeted by the Biden-Harris DOJ, [54:02] while attacks on churches and pro-life pregnancy centers went largely ignored. [54:06] In the last 30 seconds, I just want to ask you, Mr. Ferrara, is it fair to say that the Biden-Harris [54:11] administration's DOJ displayed clear anti-Christian bias in its actions, including its enforcement of [54:19] the FACE Act? Well, there's no question about it. Even FBI Director Wray admitted that the report had [54:24] been issued out of the Richmond office characterizing traditionalist Catholics. And I'm one of them, [54:29] and I attend that parish in Richmond, as basically domestic terrorists. He professed to be embarrassed [54:36] by the memo and said it was only a localized product. It turned out that that was false. This [54:42] this memo had been widely circulated in FBI channels. So yes, the answer is yes. Thank you, [54:47] sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and I'll recognize [54:51] the ranking member for some unanimous consent requests. Thanks. First, I have an article from [54:55] The Atlantic dated April 20th, 2026. The DOJ's first weaponization report is a bust. The document [55:01] purports to show bias under Biden administration. Without objection. And fails spectacularly. [55:07] Second, I have a DOJ press release on an Ohio woman who was prosecuted for attacking a pregnancy [55:13] resource center December 8th, 2023. Without objection. Another one DOJ press release about [55:21] dated April 10, 2024, concerning prosecution of someone who firebombed a Madison building because [55:28] of anti-abortion. Without objection. Next, I have a press release from the DOJ December 20th, 2024. [55:35] Florida woman convicted of civil rights conspiracy for targeting pregnancy resource centers. Without [55:40] objection. And another DOJ press release from January 19, 2023, titled FBI offering $25,000 reward [55:48] for information and attacks against reproductive health service facilities. Without objection. [55:52] Thank you. I yield back. I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin. [55:56] Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I know our friends are desperate to change the subject from [56:00] President Trump's aggressive insults to the pope, saying that he's weak on nuclear weapons and weak [56:08] on crime and his online impersonation of Jesus Christ. We later claimed he was actually, he thought that [56:16] that was an image of him playing a doctor. Of course, he's not a doctor either. He's neither a doctor [56:20] nor Jesus Christ. But in any event, that doesn't make the FACE Act anti-Christian. And if you think [56:26] it is, then go ahead and bring another failed lawsuit against the FACE Act and claim that it violates [56:31] the Free Exercise Clause. It does not. In 2022, the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case [56:39] reversed itself on Planned Parenthood versus Casey and Roe versus Wade. The right to abortion was not [56:47] legalized in 1973. It was legal in most of the country. What the Supreme Court there did was to [56:52] strike down abortion bans, criminalizing abortion. But in any event, since the Dobbs decision, 21 states [57:01] now have a total or substantial ban on abortion affecting the rights directly of 29 million [57:07] American women and 169,000 of them at least have had to cross state lines in interstate commerce [57:15] in order to seek the medical attention that they need. But it's not enough for our friends now to [57:21] allow state legislatures to ban other people's medical decisions. They want to repeal the FACE Act [57:29] so they can directly blockade hospitals and medical clinics. I think that is the very clear [57:34] implication of what Mr. Farrar was just saying, that you should have a constitutional right to do [57:39] what has been made criminal by Congress in the FACE Act after nine or ten doctors and other medical [57:47] staff were killed in attacks on people working in abortion clinics. Now, Ms. Waters, I want to ask you, [57:55] is there any reason to think that there's a constitutional right to blockade other people [58:00] from obtaining medical attention? There is no reason to think there's a constitutional right to [58:08] interfere with other people seeking medical attention. You know, FACE is very clear on this [58:14] point and very deliberate, and the legislative history is clear this was very deliberate, [58:18] that what speech gets at, what FACE gets at, is conduct, right? It's violence, it's threats, [58:24] it's intimidation, it's blockades. FACE expressly excludes pure speech that does not do those things, [58:31] right? So, you know, what we're talking about here is, you know, I hear talk of like, you know, [58:38] these crimes were minor, these things were insignificant, but when I look at the stats of [58:43] what's actually happening on the ground, 11 abortion providers have been murdered, right? There have been [58:48] 26 other attempted murders. There have been thousands of blockades. There have been hundreds of arsons. [58:56] We are not talking about peaceful protest. We are talking about violence, and we were talking about [59:01] a nationwide campaign of violence. Well, Mr. Farr makes one good point, it seems to me, that, you know, [59:05] if they're killing doctors who work at reproductive health clinics and other staff, and we know that [59:12] there have been many cases of that, they're already chargeable and punishable under state laws. But [59:18] there's a discrete injury here when people get together and blockade a clinic, and you might not [59:24] have state legislatures that are willing to enact laws to keep them open. So, obviously, there's a [59:31] federal interest here, which is why eight federal circuit courts have unanimously around the country [59:36] upheld the FACE Act against attack. What happens, as in the case where Ms. Etel, again, sincerely goes [59:44] out to protest, but is part of a protest that blockades people from getting health care? What is [59:49] the effect on the people who are trying to get in? So, I think there's a couple of points there. The [59:55] legislative history is replete with references to why a federal remedy was needed. FACE does not stop [1:00:01] states from acting, and FACE does not stop states or command that states do anything. What it says is, [1:00:07] this is bigger than any individual state. This is a coordinated nationwide campaign that deserves [1:00:13] And they're proud of that, that they travel around. Absolutely. So, I think that's important, [1:00:18] but let's talk about what's actually happening on the ground. If you are a doctor going into a clinic [1:00:23] and trying to do your job, and what you're facing is death threats, what you're facing is blockades, [1:00:29] what you're facing is fear that people are going to show up at your home or your children's school [1:00:33] and engage in campaigns of intimidation. No one should have to go to work that way, [1:00:38] and no medical professional should have to go to work that way. That's not good care. [1:00:42] And no patient should have to try to scale all those obstacles just to get the attention. Let me [1:00:46] ask you finally, this is the third time we've had a hearing on this, but there's no vote. And I think [1:00:51] it's because our colleagues know that the vast majority of the American people reject this idea and [1:00:56] want to make sure that there's safety there. But they keep throwing a bone [1:01:00] to the pro-life movement. And I wonder if you agree with me that they're not willing to put this to [1:01:06] the floor. I cannot speak to their intentions. What I can say is I think there's a difference of opinion [1:01:13] in this room about access to abortion care. What there should not be a difference of opinion about, [1:01:19] and what there cannot be a difference of opinion about, is whether we should use violence to advance [1:01:24] those aims. And we can't. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Frank. A member, [1:01:28] I'll now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder, for five minutes. [1:01:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing on the FACE Act abuse [1:01:36] uncovered in the DOJ's recent report. The report explains how the Biden-Harris DOJ unevenly enforced [1:01:43] the FACE Act and coordinated with anti-life advocacy groups to target pro-life Americans. [1:01:50] According to the report, just one month after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, [1:01:54] then Attorney General Merrick Garland created a national task force that worked hand in glove [1:02:01] with Planned Parenthood, the Feminist Majority Foundation, and the National Abortion Federation. [1:02:06] These groups compiled dossiers, headshots, and travel information on pro-life individuals [1:02:12] that ultimately resulted in search warrants, surveillance, and prosecutions. In one instant, [1:02:18] the National Abortion Federation prepared a law enforcement guide for an upcoming Christian pro-life [1:02:26] conference complete with attendees' personal information. Planned Parenthood provided a similar [1:02:34] dossier labeled Opposition Identified. After receiving this intelligence, the Biden-Harris DOJ even [1:02:41] assisted these groups in securing private grant funding when the task force was – the task force [1:02:47] director volunteered as a reference for NAF's application. The Biden-Harris administration's [1:02:53] conduct during prosecutions was probably most concerning in U.S. v. Hauck. In it, the Justice [1:03:00] Department authorized an aggressive early morning arrest rather than permitting a voluntary surrender. [1:03:07] In U.S. v. Gallagher, the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense while sharing similar [1:03:12] information with the National Abortion Federation. In U.S. v. Gastro, internal emails show DOJ attorneys [1:03:20] strategizing about screening out religious jurors, referring to pro-life Christian activists as [1:03:27] culty and expressing frustration that a Catholic magistrate was on duty. The pattern continued through [1:03:33] sentencing. Under the Biden-Harris, DOJ prosecutors sought an average of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants, [1:03:41] which is more than double the 12.3-month average sought for violent anti-life offenders. One senior [1:03:48] official in the administration even wrote that they should, quote, make sure that extremists know [1:03:56] we still have this tool, the FACE Act, and we will use it. Mr. Ferrara, all of this is clearly [1:04:02] weaponization of the federal government. Do you believe any of the recently uncovered activities by the [1:04:07] Biden-Harris DOJ are criminal? I would not go so far as to offer an opinion on whether criminal [1:04:18] prosecution is warranted. I'd have to be careful about that and evaluate the facts of the case. [1:04:24] But, you know, let me take this opportunity to take exception to something my adversary in this [1:04:30] issue said, Ms. Waters, regarding the predicate in the Commerce Clause for the FACE Act. I don't [1:04:35] believe there is an adequate predicate. The Lopez and Morrison cases really have eliminated any serious [1:04:40] argument for a Commerce Clause predicate. In Lopez, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School [1:04:46] Zones Act, finding that only economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce can [1:04:52] be regulated. Sit-ins don't have that effect. In the Morrison case, the Supreme Court said that [1:04:58] there cannot be a regulation of economic activity based upon its supposed aggregate effect on [1:05:03] interstate commerce and therefore struck down a provision of the Violence Against Women Act. [1:05:10] Sit-ins and even what they call blockades of clinics don't have a serious effect. [1:05:14] They're local effects, yeah. Mr. Severino, how does the uneven application of the FACE Act on pro-life [1:05:21] versus pro-abortion groups undermine the Constitution and civil rights protections? [1:05:28] It's an example of the weaponization. So we believe in equal justice under the law, [1:05:33] which means justice is blind, right? That's part of our American ethos. [1:05:37] And when you have this rampant, uneven enforcement where 97% of cases under the FACE Act have been [1:05:44] enforced against pro-life side, when in fact the FACE Act also covers pregnancy resource centers [1:05:49] and houses of worship. I was in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division as a career attorney [1:05:53] under Obama for several years. There was not a single case of a FACE Act prosecution brought for an [1:06:01] invasion of a church. Were there no attacks against churches or pro-life pregnancy centers? [1:06:06] During the Prop 8 debate, there was video of a storming of the Mormon Temple in Westwood, [1:06:12] and that was brought to the attention of DOJ civil rights. [1:06:14] Prop 8 in California? In California, yes. The marriage amendment, yes. [1:06:22] And again, the DOJ brought no prosecution in that case. They brought zero with respect to houses of [1:06:27] worship under — up until very recently, in fact, under the Trump administration. They finally did. [1:06:32] Thank you very much. I yield back. [1:06:34] I thank the gentleman from Missouri. I'll now recognize the gentlelady from Washington for five minutes. [1:06:39] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have launched an [1:06:43] all-out assault on women. They've advanced the SAVE Act to disenfranchise 69 million married women [1:06:50] whose birth certificates don't match their current last name. They've covered up the full Epstein files and [1:06:56] refused to meet with Epstein survivors. And they've made significant cuts to Medicaid and SNAP and [1:07:02] health care, making it harder for women to take care of their families. But nowhere is the assault on women [1:07:08] more evident than in reproductive health. Donald Trump has cut off abortion options in states that protect [1:07:15] those rights, and this administration has withdrawn federal guidance requiring hospitals to provide [1:07:21] emergency abortion care when life or health is at risk. It's frozen tens of millions of dollars in Title [1:07:27] X funding for family planning. And these unprecedented actions are not only unlawful, but they also put [1:07:34] women's lives in danger. Now Republicans want to repeal the FACE Act, a public safety law that protects [1:07:41] health care providers and patients from physical intimidation, harassment, and violence. [1:07:48] Now, I am one of the one in four women in this country that has had an abortion. I had to speak out [1:07:54] publicly about it, frankly, when I came to Congress after not speaking about it for decades. But when I saw [1:08:00] the attacks on reproductive care around the country, I felt it was my responsibility to talk about it [1:08:07] publicly. I don't begrudge anyone, including you, Ms. Etel, from making decisions about your own moral values, [1:08:16] about the conduct that you would choose for yourself. But I do not appreciate when someone tries to block [1:08:23] me from making choices about my body, about my family, about my life. And I certainly don't [1:08:29] appreciate when people try to block other people from getting health care. Professor Waters, at the core [1:08:38] of this issue is the basic principle that no one should fear violence in the workplace when seeking [1:08:44] health care. Given the misinformation on the issue, could you just give us some detail on what type [1:08:50] of violent situations that abortion providers, patients, and volunteers face? If I may, I'd like to [1:08:58] quickly respond to the Commerce Clause point that my colleague raised and then would love to get to [1:09:03] your question. On the point of Lopez and Morrison, it is true that the Lopez and Morrison cases define what [1:09:10] is covered by the bounds of the Commerce Clause. It is also true that most of the cases that we've [1:09:14] cited that have said that the FACE Act is upheld are post Lopez, and some of them are post Morrison. [1:09:20] So my colleague's point really doesn't hold. You know, on the question of the type of violence we [1:09:25] are seeing on the ground, and this is the point, right? This is why we have FACE. If we're looking, [1:09:31] we're talking about things like murders. We're talking about things like arson. We're talking about [1:09:34] things like asset attacks, right? We're talking about, as we heard, women who are trying to get into [1:09:39] clinics because their fetuses are incompatible with life, and they are having the worst days of [1:09:45] their life, and they are blockaded from getting into a clinic and can't get in there. We're talking [1:09:49] about harm. We're talking about threats. We're talking about violence. You know, my colleagues [1:09:53] keep raising hypotheticals about lobsters and fish, right? And what we're talking about is real women. [1:09:59] What we're talking about is real doctors who are going into work every day in fear of their life. [1:10:05] Instead of addressing the violence, one of the first things that Donald Trump did when he took office [1:10:09] was to pardon 23 anti-abortion extremists criminally convicted under the FACE Act, [1:10:15] and his Department of Justice released a memo directing prosecutors to cease enforcement [1:10:20] of the FACE Act absent, quote, extraordinary circumstances. Based on your research, [1:10:26] how do these actions impact women's access to reproductive care? Yeah, it's ironic to me that we're [1:10:32] here talking about some alleged weaponization or some sort of selective prosecution. You know, [1:10:39] in fact, the Biden administration was the first to actually bring cases to protect crisis pregnancy [1:10:46] centers, right? So that was the administration that actually was applying this in a more even-handed [1:10:51] way. You know, when we're talking about what President Trump's directives and pardons will do, [1:11:01] I think it declares open season, right? I think it says to abortion providers and patients, [1:11:06] we're not going to be there to protect you. And there's some confusion about all the services that [1:11:12] people get blocked from when this happens at reproductive health clinics. So just a quick yes [1:11:17] or no, whether it's easier or harder for women to get these services as a result of repealing the FACE Act. [1:11:23] Is it easier for women to get STD testing and treatment? Harder. Cancer screenings? Harder. [1:11:30] Pregnancy testing? Harder. Birth control? Harder. Infertility services? Harder. Prenatal services? Harder. [1:11:36] Postpartum services? Harder. Harder. All of these things are harder. And by the way, [1:11:41] don't make choices about my body. Let me make those decisions for myself. Thank you. I yield back. [1:11:47] Thank you, General Lee from Washington. I'll now recognize the chairman of the full committee, [1:11:51] Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ferrara, how many churches and crisis pregnancy centers were [1:11:58] attacked in the aftermath of the Dobbs leak and the Dobbs decision? Do you remember? [1:12:03] Mr. Ferrara, can you please use your microphone? I don't have the exact number, but it was many. And [1:12:09] I'm involved in one particular case, the firebombing of a pro-life pregnancy center in Amherst, New York, [1:12:17] causing $500,000 in damage and injuring two of the firemen. Well, I will tell you, [1:12:22] I think there were hundreds. I'll just give you a little sampling. You talked about the firebombing [1:12:27] of that place. There was another place firebombed in Madison, Wisconsin on May 8th, 2022. Next day, [1:12:33] May 9th, three Catholic churches in Texas were attacked. Two days later, in Michigan, [1:12:38] activists vandalized the Family Life Services Pregnancy Center. And I have actually, I think it's [1:12:44] like 10 pages. We did a list of this back during the leak and the Dobbs opinion. I have 10 pages [1:12:50] just listing churches, crisis pregnancy centers that were attacked. And do you remember some of [1:12:55] the groups that were attacking these churches and crisis pregnancy centers, Mr. Ferrara? [1:12:58] Jane was here. Yeah. Jane's Revenge. Ruth sent us. Do you happen to know if any of those [1:13:05] organizations made the Southern Poverty Law Centers hateless? Of course not. No, they didn't. Did they? [1:13:10] No. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a credible organization. In fact, if you as a [1:13:16] conservative activist are condemned by the Southern Poverty Law Center, consider that a resume builder. [1:13:22] They condemn Moms for Liberty. They condemned the Family Research Council. They condemned Alliance [1:13:26] Defending Freedom. They maybe went after your group. I don't know. I mean, any pro-life group, [1:13:33] it seemed like they were going to attack. Is that fair to say? Yes, it is. And I'd like to make a point [1:13:39] about what Congresswoman Jay Powell said regarding a public safety law. There is no federal police power [1:13:45] over the states. So the idea that you would like to have a public safety law that caters to your [1:13:51] particular interest in receiving reproductive health services is contrary to the whole principle [1:13:56] of federalism. And that's the problem with FACE, that FACE purports to exercise a generalized federal [1:14:02] police power in one area and one area only. And that being the activity of pro-life activists. [1:14:09] Yeah. Mr. Severano, let me get let me come to you. We know that the Biden Justice Department, [1:14:13] the Biden FBI was actually paying confidential human sources to do all kinds of things. I mean, [1:14:23] we're trying to get some answer to that. I'm just curious, do you do you think maybe some of the same [1:14:27] folks that the Biden Justice Department was working with the Southern Poverty Law Center to train [1:14:32] prosecutors as if they were going to get some great wisdom from the SPLC? They were doing that. We know [1:14:38] they were paying confidential human sources. You think it's a fair question to say, I wonder if any [1:14:43] of these quote informants of the SPLC were also being paid by the federal government? I think that's [1:14:48] a fair question. Yes, absolutely. I mean, why wouldn't they double dip? It's like if, oh, if the Southern [1:14:55] Poverty Law Center is training the prosecutors and I know the FBI is going to pay confidential human [1:14:59] sources and the Southern Poverty Law Center, well, sugar, I can get money from both of them. [1:15:05] Three million dollars from the SPLC and who knows what the federal government is going to pay out? [1:15:08] They got a pretty big bank account too. I think that's a fair question that we'd like to get the [1:15:12] answer to. We should get to the bottom of it. And what the DOJ report on the FACE Act showed was that, [1:15:18] in fact, DOJ was in cahoots with outside groups. Exactly. Similar to SPLC, the left-wing groups, [1:15:24] they get together and they pretty much create their own little branch offices within the DOJ [1:15:29] whenever you have liberals in power. So SPLC has been talking to DOJ under Biden and certain Obama, [1:15:36] Planned Parenthood Federation, National Abortion Federation, all those folks, they pretty much [1:15:40] open up their branch offices in DOJ when the left is in power. Yes, you anticipated my next question, [1:15:45] because that's exactly where I wanted to go. Do you think any of these informants actually were [1:15:49] involved in the attacks on the churches and crisis pregnancy centers? I think that's a fair question as well. [1:15:54] It's a possibility. That would be terrible if, in fact, our own government was funding. [1:15:59] Well, I think maybe what the SPLC calls informants, we might call instigators, [1:16:04] based on what you saw in the indictment last week. So I don't know that it's out of the realm [1:16:09] of possibility. I mean, we don't know, but I think it's a fair guess to say they might have been [1:16:15] double dipping, getting paid by the government and the SPLC. Maybe they were instigating some of these [1:16:20] over 10 pages, a hundred different attacks on crisis pregnancy centers and churches in the [1:16:26] aftermath of the Dobbs. Well, we know that a DOJ official actually endorsed a grant application for [1:16:32] one of these abortion activist groups, which is a clear ethical violation that the DOJ reports that [1:16:37] it's very likely to be investigated for an ethics breach. So this sort of too cozy relationship is [1:16:43] something that is very common that we see in abortion and SPLC. Any of these hot-button issues [1:16:47] from the left, you see this sort of collusion. Yeah. I think, again, I want to thank our witnesses. [1:16:52] Ms. Edel, I'm sorry I didn't get to you. I listened to your testimony, but I was in a meeting [1:16:55] backstage. But when you came on, I turned on the TV to hear what you had to say. So God bless you. [1:17:00] We appreciate your Christian witness and your words. And with that, I yield back to the chairman. [1:17:05] I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Jordan. I now recognize the ranking [1:17:08] member for some unanimous consent requests. Yes, I just seek unanimous consent for an [1:17:13] April 14, 2026 article from Just Security, separating fact from fiction in FACE Act enforcement. [1:17:21] Without objection. I too have a unanimous consent request, an article from the Lozier Institute [1:17:27] saying that Planned Parenthood before more abortions than PAP test, miscarriage care, [1:17:31] preventative and primary care test, prenatal services, HPV examinations, diagnostic procedures [1:17:36] for cancer combined. Objection. And I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee. [1:17:43] Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're having this hearing because it's a political issue of great importance [1:17:50] to both sides. On the Republican side, it can have an effect on different races that'll be going on. [1:17:57] I think we should have been having hearings on executive orders, executive orders that have gone [1:18:03] way beyond the power that Congress should give to the president, which I discussed with the chairman [1:18:09] some time ago, and we had a bill together on it, but it's not gone. And we've let the president [1:18:13] overstep his bounds and take over Article I powers of the Congress. And we've just [1:18:18] given them up. And that's a shame. And that's a more important hearing than this. [1:18:22] But this does demonstrate the differences in the parties. Democrats are fighting to ensure that [1:18:26] every American can access high-quality health care practice, their faith freely, [1:18:30] practice their faith freely, and rely on the rule of law. The majority, however, [1:18:34] seeks to hand individual health care decisions to a handful of radical activists to impose their [1:18:38] preferred religious views on everyone else and give cover to lawbreakers. Even violent ones would [1:18:42] have benefits them politically. It was discussed earlier in a question to maybe Mr. Ferrara about [1:18:48] pardons that were given out by the president sometime after he pardoned everybody that participated in [1:18:53] the insurrection of January 2025, I guess it was. And he said that there were pardons given to these [1:19:04] folks. And thank God. We all have our different theories about God, Mr. Ferrara. I don't think [1:19:11] God has anything to do with President Biden's pardons, particularly the ones that were paid and [1:19:16] bought and given out to fraudsters and criminals that then committed crimes again. That's another issue. [1:19:24] We should be hearing pardon exemptions. We need to reform the pardon power and give less power to the [1:19:30] president to give pardons. They should be restricted, as we should be looking at emoluments as well. But [1:19:36] back to health care. Every American should have meaningful access to high quality care. [1:19:41] Too many barriers already exist. High prices, health care deserts, biases, which is why I support [1:19:46] Medicare for All and have since I came to Congress. The last thing we need is self-appointed monitors [1:19:51] preventing people from obtaining basic services. In December, 17 people were arrested for blocking access [1:19:58] to the Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis, only a few blocks from my home, and is the only remaining [1:20:03] Planned Parenthood clinic in Memphis. The other was closed because of the administration's deep [1:20:08] Medicaid cuts. The protesters weren't stopping abortions. Abortion in Tennessee is a felony at [1:20:13] all stages of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest. The people entering the clinic were [1:20:18] seeking routine preventative services like blood pressure checks, breast cancer screenings, and STI [1:20:24] treatment. It functions like any other doctor's office, accepting insurance and serving patients [1:20:29] whose reasons for visiting vary and are private. This wasn't about protecting life. It was about [1:20:34] intimidation and imposing one group's beliefs on everyone else. No one should be prevented from [1:20:38] going to their doctor because of what one assumes they're there for. Here's the kicker. Some of those [1:20:44] arrested were anti-choice activists whom President Trump had recently pardoned for earlier FACE Act [1:20:50] violations. They don't stop. These, just like the January 6 people, didn't stop. I think 30 of them [1:20:56] have been arrested for everything from sex with a child to rape to other heinous offenses. These [1:21:04] individuals in Memphis had already been convicted of obstructing access to reproductive health care. [1:21:09] The FACE Act plays a critical role in protecting the rights of patients and providers. This administration [1:21:15] and the MAGA movement want to dismantle it. Repealing the FACE Act would give political and legal cover [1:21:20] to people who believe they can decide who should and should not receive health care. This is not about [1:21:25] religion, certainly not about religious freedom. The FACE Act explicitly protects religious institutions, [1:21:31] repealing it would make them more vulnerable, not less. Even on a question of abortion, [1:21:35] religion's perspectives vary widely. Christian denominations do not speak with one voice. [1:21:40] Across Judaism, the prevailing view prioritized is the life and health of the mother, and Muslim, [1:21:46] Buddhist, and Hindu teachings vary as well. Repealing the FACE Act will elevate one narrow [1:21:51] set of beliefs at the expense of all others. That is the opposite of religious liberty. In the United [1:21:56] States, everyone has a right to their religious beliefs, but not the right to impose those beliefs [1:22:00] on others. That's why I'm proud to work with Congressman Scott Raskin and Scanlon on the Do Not [1:22:04] Harm Act. Tomorrow, this committee will hold a hearing on victim services. The majority argues that [1:22:10] advancing policy in that area would convey a strong message. Apply that language here. Advancing FACE Act [1:22:16] repeal would send a clear message. Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans believe they should control who gets [1:22:21] access to health care, and if those who physically block Americans from seeing a doctor will be [1:22:25] encouraged, protected, and empowered. I yield back to the balance of my time. [1:22:31] Thank you, gentlemen, from Tennessee. I will now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming for five minutes. [1:22:36] I find it very rich that any Democrat would attempt to lecture us about violence in light of the fact [1:22:43] that it was yet another one of theirs who just three days ago sought to assassinate our president [1:22:48] and his cabinet. And don't get me started on the Democrats' favorite KKK supporter, [1:22:57] the Southern Poverty Law Center. So spare me your faux outrage about violence. [1:23:04] According to the DOJ's report on the Biden administration's weaponization of the FACE Act, [1:23:10] quote, in total, during the four years under President Biden, the DOJ charged more than 45 [1:23:17] pro-life defendants in over 20 cases with violating the FACE Act in connection with pro-life demonstrations. [1:23:23] This is in stark contrast to largely ignoring attacks on pro-life pregnancy resource centers, [1:23:29] as Chairman Jordan just pointed out, in which the DOJ, despite hundreds of cases and hundreds of attacks [1:23:37] against pro-life medical centers for women, the DOJ only charged a handful of them. So again, [1:23:45] spare me your faux outrage. The report further reveals that the Biden DOJ prosecutors requested [1:23:52] an average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants compared to 12.3 months for pro-choice [1:23:59] defendants. Mr. Severino, how do these average sentencing amounts correlate to the applicable [1:24:05] range in the sentencing guidelines? It varies depending on whether it's a first offense or not. [1:24:13] So it's misdemeanor for a first offense in some of these cases where you get felony levels is second [1:24:19] offenses. What we see in the DOJ report is that it was effectively double for the pro-life charge [1:24:25] parties versus the very few on the other side. There was only five that were brought recently that [1:24:32] attacked the pregnancy resource centers, and the disparity was essentially double. [1:24:36] Well, then we also have the circumstance where they raided, I think it was Mr. Houck's home in the [1:24:41] middle of the night, drug him out the door in front of his family, simply because he was trying to [1:24:47] protect his son from a violent pro-abortion demonstrator at a, I believe it was a Planned Parenthood facility. [1:24:55] And so how do these, what they did under the Biden administration, how does that compare to other [1:25:03] administrations in terms of the sentences that they sought, as well as the number of prosecutions? [1:25:09] Sure. In terms of the numbers, 97% of the cases were against pro-lifers. It was about 26.8 months for [1:25:18] those convictions and about 12 months for the pro-choice side. And you see with the Houck case [1:25:25] you mentioned, that is a gross abuse where you have armed FBI agents with long guns go into this [1:25:31] man's house where they were in contact with their attorney. And normally, under normal circumstances, [1:25:37] if they're willing to turn themselves in, which in this case they were, they turned themselves in. [1:25:41] But instead, they made this entire spectacle and frightened their families out of their skin [1:25:45] in order to make a statement. I would argue a very violent spectacle of our federal government, [1:25:51] uh, carried out by our federal government. In fact, Mr. Houck just received, what was it, [1:25:56] a million dollars, a settlement for the way that he was treated, I believe. So federal funds going to [1:26:00] him because the Biden's violation of his civil rights. Isn't that correct? I don't know the dollar [1:26:05] amount, but this was a clear violation because he was completely vindicated at trial. It took the jury [1:26:10] three hours to say not guilty. He was defending his son from a bully and that- [1:26:15] A violent bully. Right. A violent pro-choice bully. Yeah. So they got into, that's what my [1:26:20] opening statement said, look, these sorts of things, you have weaponized DOJ that says you [1:26:25] have this dispute and a father defends his child from a bully and that becomes a federal offense, [1:26:31] right? This is, this is the, the rampant abuse. And then they have armed a year later, [1:26:35] a year later, armed federal agents raid his house in the morning. It's just absolute, you know, abuse. [1:26:41] Well, in the, in the case of the United States versus Gallagher, when, when one of the defense [1:26:45] counsel contacted the assistant U.S. attorney requesting information on the number of face [1:26:50] act criminal prosecutions in the last 10 years, the Biden DOJ prosecutors refused to share it, [1:26:56] despite the information being readily available. Sanjay Patel, the director of the national task force [1:27:02] on violence against reproductive health care providers and a very corrupt man, after receiving [1:27:08] several requests stated, quote, as the national clinic violence coordinator, I do not keep that [1:27:13] kind of records you requested. And as a result, I do not believe that we will provide them to you. [1:27:17] And he was lying through his teeth. They did have those records. Sanjay Patel, [1:27:22] he referred defense counsel to DOJ press releases. And then it's also important to note as what was done [1:27:28] by a predecessor that he actually agreed to be a reference on a national abortion federation third [1:27:33] party grant application. The point of this being the report has demonstrated that the Biden [1:27:38] administration violated the equal protection clause of the constitution in the way that they [1:27:44] dealt with pro-life and pro-choice prosecutions under the face act. The face act either needs to [1:27:49] be reformed or abolished because it has been abused by Democrat administrations. With that, I yield back. [1:27:55] May I answer, Mr. Chairman? Yeah. When I was at DOJ, if you had a face act case, you would actually enter it. [1:28:02] Those are particular, particular spot in your tracking of time. So DOJ knew exactly how many [1:28:09] face act cases at all times they had open. I thank the witness. I thank the gentleman [1:28:13] lady from Wyoming. I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee for unanimous consent request. [1:28:17] Thank you, sir. Unanimous consent request is an article written by Ms. Burton and Ms. Sanchez and [1:28:24] published in Ms. Magazine about the arrest in Memphis at the anti-abortion training camp [1:28:28] sparked. I'd like to enter that for the record. Without objection. [1:28:31] I'd also like to correct an error in my discussion. I think I said J-6 was not, [1:28:35] I didn't say 2021, which is of course the first term, not the second term. [1:28:40] Thanks, gentlemen, for the correction. I'll now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont [1:28:43] for her five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a former history teacher, [1:28:47] one of the things I always try to make sure that my students understand is the importance of context. [1:28:55] So I want to come back to thinking about how we got here. And let's consider the history of the [1:29:05] anti-abortion violence in the United States. So since 1977, there have been 11 murders, 26 attempted [1:29:13] murders, 42 bombings, 200 acts of arson, 100 acid attacks, 4 kidnappings, and over 600 assaults against [1:29:24] patients and workers at reproductive health facilities. It's been nearly a five-decade-long [1:29:32] terrorist campaign. And we're talking about militant extremists willing to use deadly violence [1:29:42] to prevent women from seeking reproductive care and from having control over their own bodies. And [1:29:49] Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994 to protect doctors and nurses and patients from violent threats, [1:30:00] assaults, and blockades. That's the history. And the context is important. Professor Waters, [1:30:07] thank you so much for being here today. Can you describe the levels of violence against abortion [1:30:12] providers and patients at that time and the reasons why Congress had to come together to pass the FACE Act? [1:30:19] I think you just covered many of the reasons very well. You know, I will say on a personal note, [1:30:27] one of the ways that I came to do this work is I have a vivid memory. In the late 90s, I was a college [1:30:34] student. And I remember hearing that Dr. Slepian had been murdered. And he was an abortion provider who [1:30:41] had just come home from a memorial service for his father at his synagogue. And he was in his kitchen [1:30:47] making soup. And he was shot through his window in front of his child and murdered. That is what we're [1:30:54] talking about. That's the history. I'm so glad you brought that up. Because we are forgetting, [1:31:01] as you had said earlier, these are real people. These are humans. These are human beings. And [1:31:05] actually, I want to bring into this conversation also something that a clinic worker said about the [1:31:14] kind of environment she has to work in. She said, when I worked in Louisiana, someone threw a Molotov cocktail [1:31:20] at the clinic. After that, the clinic couldn't have any windows anymore. So there were literally [1:31:25] no windows in the building whatsoever. You never knew what time of day it was at work. But it had to [1:31:31] be like that, because people would just throw Molotov cocktails at the building. None of this is peaceful, [1:31:40] or prayerful, or in the interest of not just public safety. But again, we're talking about patients [1:31:46] trying to seek health care. And last year, as you know, some of my colleagues have already said, [1:31:53] I just want to remind everybody, President Trump pardoned 20 face act violators. He pardoned people [1:31:59] who got due process, were found guilty in our courts of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, by juries of their [1:32:08] peers. He pardoned people who blocked off clinics while women who urgently urgently needed care were stuck [1:32:17] bleeding and crying outside in their cars. And along with the pardons, Trump's Justice Department [1:32:23] sent a clear message with their charging document. And I want to read from it. It reads, [1:32:29] future abortion related face act prosecutions and civil actions will be permitted only in extraordinary [1:32:37] circumstances until further notice. No new abortion related face act actions, criminal or civil, [1:32:44] will be permitted without authorization. And what this sounds like to me is a complicated way of [1:32:50] saying, quote, we're not protecting anyone for criminal attacks anymore. That's what we're talking [1:32:56] about here. And so what kind of message does that send, Professor Waters, to violent protesters who are [1:33:05] part of this movement? I think it sends several messages. I think it sends a message to providers that we [1:33:11] will not enforce the federal law and we will not protect you and you are on your own. I think it [1:33:17] sends a message to violent protesters. And I want to be very clear here. You know, what we're not [1:33:24] taught, we're not talking here about peaceful pickets. That's right. Or praying, right. Or peaceful protest, [1:33:29] even protests that we may disagree vehemently with. What we're talking about is sending the message to [1:33:38] people who blockade clinics, who use violence, that you can get away with it. I agree. And the last thing [1:33:45] I want to take issue with something that the chair of the full committee said. He seemed to imply that [1:33:52] women were not actually seeking full reproductive care from these clinics. As one of those millions of [1:33:59] women before the Affordable Care Act was passed and when I didn't have insurance, I got my reproductive [1:34:05] care, my full reproductive care from a Planned Parenthood facility. And 2.2 million visits for [1:34:13] birth control, 5.5 million visits for STI testing and treatment, nearly 400,000 visits for cancer [1:34:21] screening, and no patient should have to walk through this kind of gauntlet in order to get care. And I [1:34:27] yield back. Thank the gentlelady for questions. I'll now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gill, for five minutes. [1:34:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for for hosting this hearing. Certainly appreciate your [1:34:39] leadership, especially on this topic. Miss Waters, thanks. Thanks for being here. Really appreciate [1:34:45] it. Do you believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare? I believe the abortion decision should [1:34:53] be left to a patient and their doctor and their family and their God. Do you believe it should be safe, [1:35:00] legal and rare? I believe it should be safe, legal and rare. Yes. Okay. Why should it be rare? [1:35:04] Because if we are engaging in public health activities appropriately, we are able to prevent [1:35:12] pregnancies when people want to prevent pregnancies. What's wrong with an abortion? May I finish my [1:35:19] sentence? Sure. You know, I think if we're actually talking about reproductive health and caring about [1:35:24] maternal health, we should be talking about do people have adequate access to preventative care, [1:35:30] right? Do they have adequate access to contraception? Do you support any limits on abortion? I didn't [1:35:35] hear your question. Do you support any limits on abortion? You know, I think this is a place where [1:35:41] I suspect you and I will fundamentally disagree. You know, what I believe is that the abortion decision [1:35:47] should fundamentally, because it is medical care- Do you support any limits at all? It's just yes or no. [1:35:52] If you would let me finish my- It's just yes or no. Do you think that there should be any limits on [1:35:55] abortion? You know, I came here with the goal of providing truthful and accurate testimony. And so [1:36:01] in order to truthfully and accurately answer your question, what I would say is I fundamentally believe [1:36:07] that the question of abortion should be left to a patient and their doctor and their family. I don't [1:36:14] want to interfere in medical decisions. Okay. So I'll take that as a no. Is that a good summary of your [1:36:20] testimony? I think I answered your question. Okay. I think that that's a no then. You're an advocate [1:36:27] for abortion, for abortion policy. What's your favorite type of abortion? I am an advocate for [1:36:34] patients having access to the full realm of reproductive health care. But do you have a [1:36:39] preferred method of abortion that you like? I do not. I mean, read through a couple different methods, [1:36:46] and I want to get your take on how much you like these. The first type is called a suction abortion. [1:36:53] This is when the cervix is dilated and a strong suction 29 times the power of a household vacuum [1:37:00] cleaner tears the baby's body apart and sucks it through the hose into a container. Do you prefer [1:37:06] that method? I stand by my former testimony. That sounds kind of gross, doesn't it? Sounds pretty [1:37:13] gruesome. Do you agree? It does to me. I stand by how I answered your question fully and accurately. Okay. [1:37:20] What about this one? This one is called deletion and curatage. After deletion of the cervix, [1:37:27] a sharp looped knife is inserted into the uterus. The baby's body is cut into pieces and extracted, [1:37:33] often by suction. Do you prefer that method? What I believe we are here to talk about today [1:37:40] is the FACE Act. We are not here to talk about the legality of abortion. I'm asking if you prefer [1:37:45] the deletion and curatage method. I am an access to reproductive health care advocate. You don't [1:37:53] want to talk about abortion itself. Why is that? I would prefer to talk about the reason that the [1:37:57] committee called the hearing. Is it because it's uncomfortable to talk about? It should be [1:38:02] uncomfortable. I would prefer, if you would let me finish my statement, to talk about the Freedom [1:38:07] of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which is what I was asked to come here to talk about. We're talking [1:38:10] about what that access gets. How about this one? It's called deletion and evacuation. Forceps are [1:38:17] inserted into the uterus, grabbing and twisting the baby's body to dismember him or her. If the head is [1:38:23] too large, it must be crushed in order to remove it. Do you prefer that method? I would [1:38:28] prefer to talk about the reason the hearing was called and the basis of my expert testimony. It's [1:38:33] uncomfortable to hear this, isn't it? It is. I think it is because it's barbaric and evil. How [1:38:39] about this one? It's called the saline injection. It's when a 20% salt solution is injected through [1:38:46] the mother's abdomen into the baby's amniotic fluid. The baby's skin is burned off. The baby ingests [1:38:52] the solution and dies of salt poisoning dehydration and hemorrhaging of the brain. Do you prefer that method? [1:38:59] I would prefer to talk about the subject of the hearing. This is the subject of the hearing. [1:39:04] This is about protests outside of abortion clinics. I'm asking you about abortion. [1:39:08] I stand by my prior testimony. Okay. I wouldn't want to talk about this [1:39:13] either if I were you because it is barbaric and evil. With that, I yield the remaining time to the [1:39:18] chairman. Thank you. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I'll only note in the remaining 10 seconds is [1:39:25] that a good deal of the efforts by my Democratic colleagues to talk about this issue has moved to the [1:39:31] core question of abortion and what is carried on and the activities are carried on at Planned [1:39:37] Parenthood and other facilities. So I think the question by the gentleman from Texas is in line. [1:39:41] I will now recognize the gentlelady from California. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reality is this hearing [1:39:48] is not really about the FACE Act because that was a bipartisan bill passed over 30 years ago that still [1:39:58] has standing. It is a bill that is about protecting worshipers when they go to pray and patients when they [1:40:08] are trying to access health care. This is about how laws are enforced and interpreted and how this [1:40:17] administration is cherry picking and using selective prosecution of cases to support their desired claims [1:40:25] and agenda. And the claims and the agenda are to take away rights and to silence groups with whom they [1:40:33] dislike or disagree. Last month, the DOJ released a highly flawed 900 page partisan report purporting to examine [1:40:43] prosecutorial decision making under the FACE Act and alleging bias in federal law enforcement during the Biden [1:40:51] administration. However, many cases brought between 2020 and 2024 involved serious crimes such as firebombing, arson, [1:41:01] bomb threats and coordinated clinic blockades, all of which resulted in indictments by federal grand juries [1:41:09] and guilty verdicts at trial. We are talking about violent and unlawful acts. So Professor Waters, [1:41:19] even though I answered my own question, but I will ask you the question as well. Do those sound like [1:41:27] peaceful protests to you? They do not sound like peaceful protests to me. And you know, I think when [1:41:34] we're talking about the incidents of obstruction and violence at clinics, it's important to look at all of [1:41:40] the cases that were not prosecuted, right? So for example, when I look at the National Abortion Federation [1:41:47] statistics, and I look at like, for example, the number of pickets and protests outside of clinics, [1:41:54] there were 10s of 1000s, right? And what we're talking about under the Biden administration [1:41:58] is 25 prosecutions, not for that activity. The prosecutions are for blockades, the prosecutions [1:42:05] are for threats, the prosecutions are for violence, not protected speech. Thank you. And I would say that [1:42:12] this administration came into power with a real agenda against women. And they've weaponized the DOJ in [1:42:20] order to carry their agenda out because what they didn't include in this 900 page report were a number [1:42:26] of stories like the woman who tried for years and years and years to get pregnant. And I know what that [1:42:36] feels like and miscarried and went to a clinic to help her medically manage the miscarriage. And she was [1:42:50] blocked from seeing her doctor. She was in her car sobbing and bleeding out. The technical term when [1:43:01] you have a miscarriage, and I know about this personally, is the doctor will call it an abortion. [1:43:09] I think it is violent for anyone, especially a man, to suggest that they know more about my body and how I'm [1:43:18] trying to protect myself in the hopes that I can get pregnant again, based on their assumption of me [1:43:29] and the kind of health care that I deserve. We should also remind folks and include the incident [1:43:38] that happened last year in a clinic in California, where the clinic was set on fire last month, where [1:43:45] a clinic in Ohio was set on fire. And these are about patients and doctors and workers going to get [1:43:55] some health care. And let me tell you something, when you go to a clinic, you're not wearing a sign [1:43:59] that says, hey, I'm getting an abortion. You could be going to a clinic to get a pap smear, to get IVF, [1:44:05] a vasectomy, a vasectomy. So in the few seconds that I have remaining, I would be remiss if I didn't [1:44:15] draw the subcommittee's attention to the murders on the streets of Minneapolis by ICE, and the use of [1:44:22] the FACE Act to charge two journalists, two blank journalists, Ms. Sport and Ms. Lemon. [1:44:26] These folks were documenting protest activities that the church was happening at a church because [1:44:33] its pastor was a key official in the ICE response to Minneapolis. And I know my time is running up, [1:44:39] but I just want to say that this chairman himself has said in other contexts that free Americans should [1:44:45] never live in fear of their government targeting them. And yet that is exactly what happened to these [1:44:51] two journalists and others. And they were inappropriately charged under the FACE Act. [1:44:56] Meanwhile, a MAGA influencer, Ms. Gomez, who also interrupted an LGBTQ friendly worship service was [1:45:06] neither charged nor arrested. I have receipts when I am saying that we are cherry picking and using [1:45:12] selective prosecution to go after folks that we want to silence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do also have some [1:45:20] consent requests. Yes. A testimony of Renee Chelian, founder and CEO of Northland Family Planning. [1:45:28] Her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent. Without objection. [1:45:33] Article in Politico, Trump pardons abortion clinic protesters ahead of March for life. This was January 23rd, [1:45:40] 2025. Without objection. Thank you, Mr. Chair. FBI investigating fertility clinic bomb suspects, [1:45:47] possible anti-nationalist manifesto. Without objection. May 18, 2025. CDC archived more men [1:45:55] using family planning services. This is June 16, 2016. Without objection. And lastly, our letter to the [1:46:05] chair and the ranking member Amnesty International. USA submits this letter to the House Subcommittee on the [1:46:10] Constitution for their upcoming hearing from Tool to Weapon the FACE Act. Without objection. [1:46:16] I'll now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [1:46:22] for having this hearing. Very timely and always very interesting. Kind of an appropriate hearing to [1:46:31] have in Wisconsin today. I know in the last year, for the first time in many years, we opened a third [1:46:38] abortion clinic in the city of Milwaukee. It's something that I hadn't seen before in Wisconsin, [1:46:45] but it's something you hear about in other parts of the country. The clinic was in a neighborhood [1:46:50] clearly designed to deal almost exclusively with customers or patients of color. And I thought that [1:46:59] was kind of illuminating because that kind of gets to the underlying goal of, I think, so many people [1:47:05] in the pro-abortion movement. In any event, we'll start off with Mr. Severino. Thank you for being [1:47:12] here today. In light of your experience as a trial attorney at Justice's civil rights decision, [1:47:18] how did the Biden-Harris administration's approach to prosecuting alleged violators of the FACE Act [1:47:25] comport with the standard practices in this division? It was all one-sided. I saw that directly in the [1:47:34] Obama administration. Always what? One-sided. Okay. The prosecutions were against the pro-life side [1:47:42] and it was mentioned earlier by one of the members on the other side that now it's being enforced for [1:47:48] churches. Well, now it's the first time it's being enforced to protect churches because neither the [1:47:52] Biden administration nor the Obama administration lifted a finger when we had hundreds of violations, [1:47:57] including burnings and vandalizing of churches, especially after the Dobbs decision. Okay. How does this [1:48:04] uneven application of FACE Act on pro-life or pro-abortion groups undermine the constitution, [1:48:12] in your opinion, and the civil rights protections for all Americans? Sure. It's the notion of equal [1:48:17] justice under the law, right? People should not get favor from the government. The political identity [1:48:23] of a party should not matter. And what we saw with especially the DOJ report that just came out [1:48:29] was that you had left-wing activists pro-abortion groups who were surveilling American citizens and [1:48:36] doing things that the federal government could not do themselves. And they were outsourcing. DOJ was [1:48:41] essentially outsourcing their investigatory functions to activist groups. Those activist groups, [1:48:46] they don't care about the constitution, right? They're not federal agents. So they could do whatever they [1:48:51] want to track people, get their licenses, see where they live, track their religious exercise, [1:48:55] and then they packaged that and handed it over to DOJ, right? So they did the dirty work on the front [1:49:00] end, then DOJ on the back end picked it up. And by the way, the abortion clinics themselves weren't [1:49:05] the ones complaining. These were the activist umbrella groups that were compiling dossiers on people [1:49:10] and giving it to DOJ to prosecute. Okay. Can you speak of your experience in the civil rights division [1:49:19] and how the federal government can play a more responsible role in preventing the over-federalization of [1:49:24] criminal law? Yeah, the over-federalization is a horrific problem, right? If we do not know [1:49:32] what crimes we may be committing in our everyday lives, in the examples I said earlier, why could it [1:49:38] be a crime for taking a nest off of your roof? Well, there is a Migratory Bird Treaty Act that covers [1:49:49] 1,100 bird species. And if you mess with their nests, you're committing a federal crime. So the DOJ has to [1:49:56] go through every statute, finally count every one, tell the American people these are our crimes that [1:50:03] you could be liable for, and then Congress needs to repeal everyone that doesn't have a constitutional [1:50:08] basis. FACE Act is one of those that does not have a sufficient constitutional basis, but it is [1:50:13] emblematic of the over-criminalization that you're talking about. Okay. A recent Justice Department report [1:50:20] issued by the Trump administration stated the Biden-Harris prosecutors withheld evidence that Defense [1:50:26] Council requested to prepare an affirmative defense. In U.S. v. Gallagher, prosecutors had [1:50:32] information readily available that they did not share with the defendants while sharing substantially [1:50:37] identical information with the National Abortion Fund. Mr. Ferrer, were there times you requested [1:50:43] information that the Biden-Harris DOJ prosecutors refused to provide? I've operated on the civil side, [1:50:54] not the criminal side, so I can't really respond to that question. But I would note one thing. [1:50:58] There's been a lot of references to acts of violence. Let's talk about what happens in those cases. [1:51:04] The killer of Dr. Gunn got life in prison. The killer of Dr. Britton and his escort, death. [1:51:11] Killer of Dr. Slepian, life plus 10. Killer of Dr. Tiller, 25 years to life. The criminal justice system [1:51:20] under state law addresses acts of violence. There was no need for FACE in any of those cases, which is the [1:51:26] problem with FACE, that it usurps the role that is properly assigned to local law under state and [1:51:34] local judicial systems, including the severest possible penalties for people who commit violence. [1:51:40] We don't need this statute and never have needed it. Thank you. Thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [1:51:47] for his questions. And I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Scanlon, for five minutes. Thank you. [1:51:52] I think, given some of the prior questions that we've heard, that it's important to note the importance [1:51:58] of Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health care providers across our country. Two of my colleagues [1:52:04] have already mentioned that they've sought services from Planned Parenthood at various times, as did I. [1:52:10] When my husband and I were starting our family, we lived three blocks from a Planned Parenthood [1:52:15] clinic and went there frequently to get information, to consult books, to buy books on having a baby. [1:52:24] So the attacks on Planned Parenthood are really, really important to note because as funding is [1:52:31] attacked and everything else, that is often the only source of reproductive health care in so many of [1:52:37] our neighborhoods. So at any rate, we've heard a lot of really gross misstatements of facts, et cetera, [1:52:45] and I would refer people back to Ms. Waters' testimony and the articles I've submitted [1:52:49] with respect to the complete misrepresentations in the recent DOJ report. But I wanted to focus [1:52:58] on a couple things here, Ms. Waters. One is we've heard a lot about disparities in prosecution and [1:53:03] sentencing. And I'll give you two questions, and you can address as you will, which are not supported [1:53:11] by the evidence. And then also, I don't think there's been enough discussion of the fact that [1:53:17] this is a national campaign of violence by anti-abortion activists. I mean, I mentioned earlier that six [1:53:25] people were arrested in my district in July of 2025 for trespassing at a clinic and harassing patients [1:53:32] and staff. These six people were not local protesters. They had come from New Jersey, Wisconsin, Texas, [1:53:38] Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. Two had been pardoned by Trump for prior offenses in other states, [1:53:46] FACE Act violations. At least one was arrested in DC just days after submitting a plea bargain with [1:53:54] respect to the incident in my district. And she was in DC to join other anti-abortion activists to plan [1:54:01] their next national activities. So if you can, you know, comment on the fact, comment on both the alleged [1:54:10] disparity in prosecution and sentencing and why, again, a national FACE Act is important. [1:54:18] I'll start with the second. So, you know, the need for the National FACE Act was well documented in the [1:54:25] legislative record at the time, right? And what we saw was local and state law enforcement saying, [1:54:30] we can't handle this, right? Hundreds of people show up. And if my force goes to that clinic, [1:54:36] we're not doing anything else in the state, right? So we saw the state law enforcement saying, [1:54:41] this is very needed. We also saw ample evidence that a lot of this camp, the violence was cross-state, [1:54:48] right? And state's jurisdiction ends where its borders end, right? And they were having a hard time [1:54:53] being able to prosecute this multi-state violence going across state lines. That hasn't changed today. [1:54:59] As I said in my testimony, we are in a time that, thanks to Dobbs, the state laws differ [1:55:05] dramatically. And people are traveling at increased rates across state lines to both provide [1:55:11] and obtain reproductive health care. So the interstate commerce and the multi-state aspect [1:55:16] here is even more severe than it was at the time that FACE was enacted. On the question of the [1:55:23] disparities, you know, I've read the DOJ report with interest and, you know, I'm an academic, right? [1:55:29] So I looked at it and I have a lot of questions. You know, my first reaction was, was this would not [1:55:34] pass peer review, right? And I have a lot of questions about, for example, if we look at sentencing [1:55:39] disparities, like, yeah, they're different because people committed crimes more than once. And FACE [1:55:45] specifically provides that each time you commit a crime, the penalties go up, right? People committed [1:55:50] different crimes. And, you know, we would be remiss not to look at the fact that there are at least [1:55:55] four district courts that have, in the past two years, looked at this question of, was DOJ engaging [1:56:03] in selective prosecution? And they've squarely been asked that question, including in the Gallagher case, [1:56:09] which we've discussed quite a bit. And each time the court has said no, right? And some of the courts have [1:56:14] said, look, like, if there's not a disparity, if where we're seeing the violence is against clinics that [1:56:20] provide reproductive health care, that's not a disparity. And the courts have also said, there is no [1:56:26] malfeasance if law enforcement offices have priorities. People do that. And the courts have said, post-ops, [1:56:33] it makes some sense, given that we saw the increase in violence in clinics, that we would see [1:56:38] prosecutions against people engaging in that violence. So four district courts have looked at [1:56:43] this, and a circuit court, actually, and have said, there is not biased prosecution here. [1:56:48] So it's fair to say that if you look apples to apples instead of apples to oranges, [1:56:52] any disparities can be explained? Yeah, I think they, you know, I have questions, like I said. [1:56:57] Sure. Like, you know, when I look at the report, you know, I'm not in the particulars of every [1:57:01] individual case. But those are the types of questions I would ask. Thank you for your thoughtful [1:57:05] testimony. I yield back. Ms. Uddle, you are a survivor – and I'll remind you to turn your [1:57:14] microphone on – you are a survivor of a communist concentration camp in former Yugoslavia post-World [1:57:20] War II. Is that correct? Correct. You testified that you have, in significant [1:57:26] part, dedicated your life to the cause of defending the innocent unborn since the Roe decision and the, [1:57:34] you know, subsequent 50 years? Correct. When you were arrested and then convicted [1:57:42] for your actions in Michigan, you – did you assault anyone? No. So you were present in a [1:57:56] protest at this clinic, and you were obstructing people's access? Well, I stood in front of the door, [1:58:03] yes. Now, you were convicted and you faced a sentence of up to 13 years. Is that correct? [1:58:10] That's correct. And you are, at the current time, 91? I'll be 91 on Sunday. Well, happy birthday in [1:58:18] advance. Thank you. And at the time you were arrested, you were 89? Yes. Do you think that the use of the [1:58:26] FACE Act and then conspiracy charge under the KKK statute, that – do you think that is an appropriate [1:58:33] sentence for someone – or the potential sentence, because you were not sentenced yet – but up to 13 [1:58:38] years for being present and expressing your views that abortion is, in fact, murder, along the lines [1:58:45] of my friend from Texas' description of the horrific and barbaric practices of abortion? Do you think that [1:58:51] an individual should be charged federally with up to 13 years in prison at the age of 89 or at all [1:58:59] for carrying out that activity? At any age, because murder is taking place in those – nobody seems to [1:59:05] mention that. Murder is taking place in – inside those clinics. I'm sorry. I – No, go ahead. And – and [1:59:17] it's no different than in Nazi Germany or Yugoslavia, where I was. People would have probably under – at [1:59:25] that time protected the law to kill us. But now those that would have tried to save us would be called [1:59:34] heroes. Why? Because we finally recognized that even I, as a child, was a human being then. And these [1:59:42] babies are human beings from a moment of conception on, either in the process of growth or in the process [1:59:50] of decline. And like I said, we're headed towards killing the – the elderly. First, they will be [1:59:58] identified. They'll be vilified. They will be dehumanized and then destroyed. And I'm trying to do [2:00:08] what God calls us to do – protect human life and not with violence. Just placing my body in between the [2:00:16] victim and the perpetrator. Ms. Eddle, you witnessed in – with respect to World War II [2:00:22] and post-World War II in Yugoslavia and generally, individuals who were being carried off to be [2:00:28] murdered and executed, correct? Yes. I heard about it through my father [2:00:34] when they took the Jewish families from our town. He was livid. And you experienced concentration camp [2:00:40] yourself? Yes, I did. And you equate – appropriately, in my view – you equate [2:00:46] the murder of the innocent unborn with the murder of those people murdered at the hands of government [2:00:54] authority. Every bit the same. Exactly. Yes. And because of that belief, without assaulting anyone, [2:01:03] the federal government was using the full power of its force to prosecute you and to put you in jail [2:01:12] for up to 13 years, using the full power of the federal government to do so. Is that correct? [2:01:19] That's correct. Well, I want to thank you for your life, your life story, your dedication to life, [2:01:30] and for fearlessly standing against the power of government being used against your God-given [2:01:38] ability to try to stand up in defense of the innocent. In the false name of health care, [2:01:47] in the false name of health care, the murder of the unborn, God bless you for standing up for that. [2:01:57] God bless you for your courage. And God will bless you when he welcomes you home someday long in the [2:02:05] future. And I appreciate it very much. Thank you. I appreciate all the witnesses. I appreciate your [2:02:10] testimony. I will recognize the gentlelady for consent requests. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent [2:02:16] to enter into the record of press release from the DOJ dated August 20, 2024, entitled seven defendants, [2:02:23] including Ms. Eidel, convicted of federal civil rights conspiracy and freedom of access to [2:02:28] clinic entrances. Without objection. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following [2:02:34] statements, all dated April 28, 2026, from Reproductive Freedom for All, the American College of [2:02:39] Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive [2:02:45] Rights. Without objection. Also have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record a [2:02:49] statement from David Gunn Jr. and Wendy Gunn, whose father, Dr. David Gunn, was murdered by an anti-abortion [2:02:55] extremist and whose murder helped propel passage of the FACE Act. Without objection. And I would also enter [2:03:01] into the record pages 557 and 58 of Project 2025 detailing the push to repeal the FACE Act. Without [2:03:10] objection. I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record. I will only ask the executive summary [2:03:16] portion of the Department of Justice report, given the length of the full report being 800 pages, [2:03:21] but the executive summary of the Department of Justice report outlining the extent to which there was [2:03:26] deep coordination between the Department of Justice and abortion activists and the collusion between [2:03:33] the two, as well as lack of reporting to Congress. And appreciate that. And anything else from the [2:03:39] gentleman? That concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee [2:03:44] today. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written [2:03:47] questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.