DC anti-abortion activists’ lawyers praise Chip Roy for introducing a bill to repeal the FACE Act.

Attorneys Applaud Legislation to Repeal FACE Act, Praise Activist’s Courage

The‌ attorneys representing Lauren⁢ Handy, who is awaiting ⁣sentencing on federal charges of blocking access to a Washington, D.C., abortion clinic, have expressed​ their support for Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and his introduction of legislation to repeal the FACE Act. This law makes it a federal crime to block access to abortion clinics.

“But ​for the courageous and sacrificial actions of Lauren Handy⁤ and her ‍colleagues, this bill would probably‍ have never seen the ⁢light of ‍day,” ⁣Steve Crampton of the Thomas More ​Society‍ told the Washington Examiner. “May it ‍be the beginning ‌of a movement to ​restore limited government and ordered liberty⁢ in our land.”

Roy’s Bill Aims to Restore Limited ‌Government and Ordered Liberty

Roy’s bill specifically targets the Freedom of ⁣Access⁢ to Clinic Entrances Act, which prohibits threats of force, obstruction, and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive healthcare services.

Handy, the director of activism for the left-wing group Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, was convicted under the FACE Act as the lead organizer of a protest at the Washington Sugi-Clinic in 2020.

U.S. District Judge Colleen ‍Kollar-Kotelly, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, made an unexpected ruling ​in Handy’s case. She decided​ to keep Handy ‍and the four other defendants in custody until sentencing because the jury determined that their protest was not ‌”entirely nonviolent” due to a clinic worker ​sustaining an ankle injury.

Crampton and his colleague, Martin Cannon, plan to file an appeal arguing that the FACE Act is no longer applicable since the Supreme Court overturned Roe ⁢v. Wade. They believe this decision eliminated the federal government’s interest in protecting access to abortion.

“Our Constitution separates power between the federal government and the states for a reason, and we ignore that safeguard at our own peril,” Roy stated. “The FACE Act is an unconstitutional federal ⁤takeover of state police powers; it must be repealed.”

Roy will be joined by Sen. Mike‍ Lee (R-UT) in⁤ introducing a companion bill in the Senate.

“This bill⁤ is welcome news though it is long overdue,” said Crampton. “The federal takeover of states’ rights has been going on for decades and citizens of all stripes should oppose it… We are grateful to Congressman Roy and Senator Lee‌ and their ‍co-sponsors for introducing this legislation.”

“This is a ‍monumental step towards justice for our preborn siblings and‍ Rescuers alike. The FACE Act has been flying under the radar for decades, and only now when it has been truly challenged,⁢ has the truth about it come to light,”⁤ said PAAU Executive Director Caroline Taylor Smith in a press​ statement. “The FACE Act must be repealed, and I am proud ‍to stand next‌ to anyone who ⁢will support nonviolent‍ means of achieving justice for all.”

What are the arguments for and against ⁤repealing the FACE Act, and⁣ how ‍does Rep. Chip Roy’s bill aim to address these concerns while restoring a balance between protecting access ​to abortion clinics ⁤and ⁢safeguarding constitutional rights

Ve health services. The legislation, titled the “Face ⁢the F.A.C.E. ⁤Act,” ​seeks to repeal this law in order to restore⁢ limited government and uphold the principles​ of ordered liberty.

The attorneys representing Lauren Handy, who took part in actions that led to her charges of‌ blocking access to an abortion ‌clinic, have commended Rep. Chip Roy ‌for his proposed ⁤legislation. They believe that Handy’s courageous and sacrificial actions have played a significant⁤ role in bringing attention ⁢to the need for ‌repealing the FACE⁣ Act.

Steve Crampton, a representative of the Thomas More Society, expressed gratitude‍ towards Handy and her colleagues for their bravery in challenging the FACE ​Act. ⁤Crampton believes ⁢that ⁢this bill is the beginning of a movement aimed at restoring⁢ limited government and ordered liberty in ⁤the‍ United States.

The FACE Act, enacted in 1994, criminalizes actions that obstruct access to abortion clinics. It specifically ‍prohibits threats of ⁤force, obstruction, and⁤ property damage⁢ aimed at interfering with reproductive ⁢health services. While its aim ⁣is to protect access to abortion, critics argue that ⁤it infringes upon the ‌constitutional rights of individuals, such as the right to free speech and assembly.

Rep. Chip‍ Roy’s bill seeks to address‌ these concerns by repealing the FACE Act. Roy ‌firmly believes⁣ that limited government and ordered liberty are foundational ⁢principles of the United States, and he⁣ argues that the FACE Act undermines these​ principles⁢ by ⁤restricting constitutional rights.

By⁤ repealing ⁤this law, Roy’s bill⁣ aims to restore the ‌balance between protecting ⁢access to abortion clinics and safeguarding the rights of individuals. The proposed legislation recognizes ⁣that individuals should have⁣ the freedom to express their views, assemble peacefully, and engage‌ in⁤ activism without fear of ⁣criminal​ charges. Rep. Chip Roy’s bill represents an⁤ important step towards a more ⁣balanced⁢ and constitutionally sound approach⁤ to protecting ⁣reproductive health services.

Critics‍ of the bill argue that⁢ repealing the FACE Act would endanger the safety and well-being of those​ seeking reproductive ⁢health services. They contend that blocking access to abortion clinics⁤ can create a hostile environment for patients and healthcare providers and may even lead to violent ‌incidents. However, ⁢supporters of the bill maintain that existing laws are ‍sufficient to address these concerns, and that repealing the FACE ⁤Act will restore individual liberties and protect constitutional rights.

As the debate surrounding‌ the repeal of the ‍FACE Act continues, it is clear that attorneys representing Lauren Handy​ and other⁢ activists‍ are aligned with Rep. Chip Roy’s mission to restore limited government and ordered liberty. They believe that‌ repealing⁤ this law will promote the rights of individuals and enable them to express their views ⁢without fear of legal repercussions. ‍The proposed legislation hopes to strike​ a balance⁤ between protecting access to reproductive health services and upholding the constitutional freedoms of all ⁢Americans.