House Republicans quickly criticized the arrests as political and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ( FACE ) Act as unconstitutional when President Joe Biden justified imposing sanctions on peaceful pro-lifers on the Department of Justice.
The exact Republicans are more hesitant to speak up when it comes to eradicating the rules that the Democrat program used to imprison fathers, mothers, aunts, and perhaps a concentration camp survivor who prayed, sang, and peacefully protested ending living in the uterus.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, introduced the FACE Act Repeal Act on January 21. The House Judiciary Committee was given the go-ahead for further consideration and possible markup of the bill, which sought to end the law that targeted pro-lifers. President Donald Trump pardoned almost two dozen pro-life activists who had been the target of the extreme abortion leadership that came before him that same week.
The pro-life motion is of the opinion that Trump’s pardons, while huge, do little to deter upcoming Democrat administrations from using their authority to detain people who have committed to protecting existence beginning at conception. Roy also acknowledged when he introduced the bill that allowing pardons alone would not end the harassment of pro-lifers.
” We in Congress must do our part to end the legislation enacted for the weaponization, including the FACE Act,” he said.
In February, a number of well-known pro-life businesses asked House Republicans to promote reversing the FACE Act. In the middle of March, many of those same companies narrowed down their appeal to the Judiciary Committee to the Judiciary Committee by saying that Congress has repeal the FACE Act in its entirety to stop any upcoming pro-life administrations from using it to smear pro-life Americans.
The FACE Act Repeal Act, however, hasn’t moved either inside or outside of the Committee.
It shouldn’t be hard for the previously pro-life group to pass legislation to end a rules that, 97 percent of the time, was used to support calling out protesters for pregnancy destruction. Republicans now hold control of the White House, House, Senate, and House of Representatives.
Moreover, every GOP member of the House Judiciary Committee claims to get pro-life in some way or another, making them ideal for passing along pro-life policy with the help of pro-life activists and citizens.
But, as Roy pointed out in his early March announcement, the bill’s advancement appears to be in criticism internally.
At a FACE Act conference held at The Heritage Foundation, Roy said,” If my Republican colleagues continue to refuse to bring the FACE Act up for a ballot in commission or the ground, I will file a release petition and begin trying to move the bill,” Roy said. Because, “oh, no, this might be a little bit more controversial than just moving another continuing resolution,” I’m not going to sit back and wait while people hide and refuse to submit something. It’s about time for us to change.
A Mixed Bag
The Holdouts of the Repeal Act were not named by Roy. Only a few of the 25 GOP House Judiciary Committee members who were contacted by The Federalist contacted them about their opinions on the FACE Act. Fewer people pledged to back the bill.
Russell Dye, the spokesman for House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, stated to The Federalist that the committee is “weighing all options” regarding the FACE Act, but he did not specify whether the Ohioan would support or oppose the Repeal Act.
Jordan frequently denounces the Biden regime’s use of the federal government against Americans, according to Jordan’s official website, which claims his pro-life” conviction informs all that I do in Congress.” Just last month, Jordan requested records from the FBI asking for information about the Biden administration’s use of force against Democrats ‘ political rivals, including a pro-lifer.
Numerous House Judiciary Committee co-sponsors of the FACE Act Repeal Act reaffirmed their support for the legislation.
Rep. Mark Harris, R-N. C., a spokeswoman for the group, claimed that his background as a “pastor who has sidewalk counseled” made him “fully in favor of repealing the FACE Act.”
Harris also backed Roy’s attempt to pass legislation without the committee’s approval on the House floor. The North Carolina Republican confirmed in an emailed statement to The Federalist that” Congress must repeal this law immediately to ensure future administrations do not target pro-life Americans ever again.”
The previous administration “brazenly used the FACE Act to defame pro-life Americans, even going as far as imprisoning a grandmother.” However, pro-lifers should never be afraid of entering prison just for exchanging words with women at abortion clinics,” Harris wrote.
Rep. Ben Cline, R-Va., a second cosponsor, stated to The Federalist that” when the opportunity arises, I will vote to advance this crucial legislation.”
He claimed that the Biden administration” tried to use the FACE Act to target pro-life Americans while blinding radical pro-abortion activists attacking crisis pregnancy centers and churches.” I support the FACE Act’s repeal because” this double standard is unacceptable.” That’s why I fervently supported the FACE Act Repeal Act.
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, similarly stated that he is a “proud” supporter of the FACE Act Repeal Act and hopes to “end this ridiculous double standard and stop the Democrats ‘ political persecution.”
Gill told The Federalist,” I want it to pass quickly.”
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a further cosponsor of the FACE Act, made a note of his public appeals for the House to “immediately” pass the repeal.
The entire House Judiciary Committee did not share many of the co-sponsors ‘ desire to repeal what many have labeled as “unconstitutional” law. Harriet Hageman and Barry Moore, both of whom supported the bill, did not respond to The Federalist’s inquiries.
Rep. Robert Onder, R-Mo., a spokesman, declined to respond to inquiries about whether the Missouri Republican backs the Repeal Act. Instead, he asserted that the congressman “is and has always been a fervent supporter of the pro-life movement” and that the Republican was instrumental in passing pro-life laws on the state and federal levels. Rep. Thomas Massie’s spokesman said the Kentucky Republican “does not have any availabilities this week,” so he was unable to comment.
Reps. Tom McClintock, Darrell Issa, Thomas Tiffany, Scott Fitzerald, Lance Gooden, Jefferson Van Drew, Troy Nehls, Kevin Kiley, Laurel Lee, Wesley Hunt, Russell Fry, Glenn Grothman, Brad Knott, Derek Schmidt, and Michael Baumgartner were among the 25 Republicans who are members of the Judiciary Committee.
The Chances of Maintaining the Status Quo
There is no justification for pro-life Republicans to support the passage of a law that can be easily used to prosecute those who disagree with their constituents.
States and localities already prohibit criminal offenses like assault, threats of injury, disorderly conduct, and trespassing, which FACE Act supporters claim require the law’s continued enforcement. However, the Biden regime successfully ignored most of the havoc wreaked on pregnancy centers and churches in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson ruling to zero , 55 , prosecutions in on Americans who , prayed, sang, and evangelized , at abortion facilities.
Under the Trump administration, which is publicly committed to keeping pro-life patriots “out of the gulags,” there is a significant reduction in the threat of raid, arrest, and lawfare against unborn babies advocates.
The risk to peaceful pro-lifers after Trump’s four years is significantly higher if not guaranteed unless Republicans ensure the FACE Act is completely eliminated when they have the chance.
The Federalist staff writer and host of The Federalist Radio Hour, Jordan Boyd. Her work has also been published in RealClearPolitics, Fox News, and The Daily Wire. Jordan graduated from Baylor University with a political science major and a journalism minor. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
