Washington, DC — In what could be a momentous national case for pro-life activists, the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to strike down the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (“FACE”), which has been used by police and pro-abortion organizations across the nation to suppress and intimidate pro-life demonstrators.
FACE, which was signed into law in 1994 by then President Bill Clinton, purports to prohibit someone from using “force,” the “threat of force,” or “physical obstruction” to “intimidate” or “interfere with” a person seeking “reproductive health services” [read “abortion”]. This law carries with it severe criminal and civil penalties.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, has asked the Supreme Court to take the case and hold FACE unconstitutional because Congress lacked the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to enact this law. According to the Law Center's petition, FACE does not regulate economic activity; rather, FACE is aimed at conduct that is traditionally regulated by the States through their police powers.
Relatively recent Supreme Court cases have called into question Congress' authority to enact laws pursuant to the Commerce Clause. For example, the Supreme Court invalidated the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act in United States v. Lopez in 1995 and the civil remedies provision of the Violence Against Women Act in United States v. Morrison in 2001. In doing so, the Court refused to adopt an expansive view of Congress' Commerce Clause authority. Rather, the Court sought to reinvigorate the distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. The Court focused on the noneconomic, criminal nature of the activity regulated by these laws and found Congress lacking authority to regulate in these areas. Likewise, FACE, by its very terms, attempts to regulate non-economic, intrastate criminal conduct that has nothing to do with commerce and is traditionally of local concern.
According to Robert Muise, associate counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, “Federal and state law enforcement agents, as well as Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations, have used this federal law to suppress the free speech rights of peaceful, pro-life demonstrators. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will take this very important case. ”
The case began in June of 2000, when federal law enforcement agents, operating at the behest of Planned Parenthood, threatened to use FACE against Ann Norton, a fifty-seven year old grandmother who was doing nothing more than handing out literature on the public sidewalk outside of a Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The federal agents claimed that because passing motorists had to stop their cars at the edge of the entrance to the abortion facility in order to retrieve pro-life literature from Norton, her conduct was obstructing access to the facility in violation of this law.
Norton contacted the Thomas More Law Center and the Law Center immediately filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of this law. The federal trial court judge denied Norton's request for a preliminary injunction, and the Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, affirmed the trial court's ruling. Norton is now seeking review in the Supreme Court.
(This article courtesy of Steven Ertelt and the Pro-Life Infonet email newsletter. For more information or to subscribe go to www.prolifeinfo.org or email infonet@prolifeinfo.org.)
