Congressman Chip Roy’s bill to repeal the FACE Act is moving forward. Trump and the DOJ have largely halted new prosecutions under the law, which Biden used to target peaceful pro-lifers.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) -- A law used to silence and jail Catholic dads and other peaceful pro-life advocates is moving closer to repeal.
A bill to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act will be marked up today in committee. Texas Republican Congressman Chip Roy has been leading the charge for years to repeal the law, which targets pro-lifers.
"This bill repeals provisions of federal criminal law that prohibit conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with persons who are seeking to (1) obtain or provide reproductive health services, or (2) exercise their right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship," according to a Congressional summary of H.R. 589, the FACE Act Repeal of 2025. Utah Senator Mike Lee is pushing for the bill's passage in the Senate.
The latter reference to "religious freedom" is almost never used by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Rather, 97 percent of prosecutions under the FACE Act were against pro-lifers, according to DOJ data from Rep. Roy's office.
The Texas Republican spoke to The Daily Wire on Monday about why this bill must pass.
“Over the past 4 years, we have witnessed the weaponization of the justice system, using the FACE Act to jail Americans fighting for the right to life,” Roy said. "It is not enough to merely end Biden-Harris era discrimination — we must act to reverse course, ensuring selective and unfair political prosecutions are never again possible under this statute.”
“While I am proud that the FACE Act is finally being moved through committee, Congress should move quickly to repeal the FACE Act and put an end to legal harassment of pro-life Americans once and for all,” Roy said.
The pro-abortion "Center for Reproductive Rights" is opposed to repealing the law. The group claims a repeal "would embolden extremists and endanger lives." In fact, many of the prosecutions were for relatively minor trespassing charges brought against grandmothers or Catholic fathers who were simply speaking out against the injustice of killing preborn babies in the womb.
For example, federal law enforcement conducted a predawn raid on the home of Pennsylvania dad Mark Houck, as first reported by LifeSiteNews.
The charges, which Houck eventually defeated, were based on old charges that had already been tossed by a local judge and prosecutor. It stemmed from an incident where Houck defended his son against an erratic pro-abortion "escort" outside of Planned Parenthood.
The charges raised questions not just because they at best amounted to a state misdemeanor but because it was unclear how someone could interfere with a male having an abortion.
The charges violated the original intent of the law in any case, according to evidence presented during the trial. Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, chief sponsor of the legislation, had clearly stated that “Demonstrators, clinic defenders, escorts, and other persons not involved in obtaining or providing services in the facility may not bring such a cause of action.”
Since taking office, President Donald Trump has sought to limit the FACE Act, halting several pending cases inherited from the Biden DOJ. He also instituted new requirements for future invocations of the law to prevent it from being weaponized again in the next four years, as previously reported by LifeSiteNews. Furthermore, he pardoned 23 pro-lifers punished by the Biden DOJ.
A January 2025 DOJ memo directs that “future abortion-related FACE Act prosecutions and civil actions will be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances, or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors, such as death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage.” In the absence of such factors, incidents will be left to state or local law to adjudicate.
“Additionally, until further notice, no new abortion-related FACE Act actions criminal or civil – will be permitted without authorization from the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division,” it says.
Legal scholars have argued against the FACE Act.
The law "is designed to be an ideological weapon and, therefore, remains a danger to the rule of law as well as to basic rights and freedoms," Thomas Jipping and Seth Lucas, legal scholars with the Heritage Foundation, wrote in a March 2025 memo. "It is irredeemable as policy and defies the very concept of defined delegated federal powers. It must be repealed."
Students for Life Action is also pushing for the repeal of the FACE Act.
"The issues with the FACE Act represent a problem we MUST fix during the Trump Administration. It’s time to repeal the FACE Act," the group wrote in February 2025. It praised Sen. Lee and Rep. Roy for pushing for repeal.
