Texas Congressman Chip Roy has made a significant call to the FBI and the Department of Justice, emphasizing the need to retain records of prosecutions of pro-life activists under the FACE Act, a demand that has surfaced amid allegations that the Biden administration has weaponized the law, often at the expense of pro-life protesters, since 2021.
Roy's request aims to address alleged discrepancies in the enforcement of the FACE Act, which primarily seeks to ensure access to abortion facilities and protect places of worship and pregnancy centers, as the Daily Wire reports.
On Thursday, Roy reached out through a formal letter addressed to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland. His correspondence instructed the agencies to maintain comprehensive records relating to the prosecution of pro-life activists under the FACE Act. Roy's insistence follows a prior appeal in October that saw no response from the FBI.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a law passed in the Clinton era, criminalizes the obstruction of entrances to abortion facilities. Furthermore, it extends to safeguard churches and crisis pregnancy centers from similar disruptions. In his letter, Roy criticized the current administration, claiming it has misused the law to disproportionately target pro-life individuals while ignoring the uptick in attacks on pregnancy crisis centers since the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The statistics seem to suggest an imbalance: since 2021, out of the 24 FACE Act cases pursued, merely two involved attacks on pregnancy center facilities.
Roy's letter was bolstered by support from Rep. Andy Biggs. Together, they head crucial subcommittees focused on understanding the FACE Act's application. Roy chairs the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, whereas Biggs leads the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Surveillance.
The congressmen underscored the imperative to keep records unaltered as part of a broader congressional review. "You should construe this preservation notice as an instruction to take all reasonable steps to prevent the destruction or alteration," Roy asserted in his communication, highlighting the critical role such documentation plays in their investigations.
As these subcommittees embark on their inquiry, they are determined to uncover exactly how the FACE Act is being enforced by both the DOJ and the FBI.
Roy has been at the forefront of efforts to scrutinize and possibly dismantle the FACE Act, advocating for its repeal. His stance stems from the belief that, since its establishment, the law has too often been applied against those supporting pro-life causes.
According to the accumulated data, an overwhelming 97% of FACE Act prosecutions have historically been directed at pro-life demonstrators. This aspect of law enforcement has raised numerous questions among conservative lawmakers who believe the act might infringe on First Amendment freedoms.
Roy and Biggs's letter encapsulates a broader political and ethical debate: "Congress has a sacred duty to preserve the rights of the American people, including the First Amendment," they insisted, hinting at their legislative priorities. The congressmen seek to ensure Americans’ fundamental freedoms are not unduly compromised by executive overreach.
Various pro-life supporters nationwide have faced legal repercussions, with some imprisoned for their activism in places like Washington, D.C., and Illinois. This has been a source of deep concern for many who view these prosecutions as potentially intimidating and stifling to free expression.
Discussions surrounding the FACE Act highlight a pressing need within Congress to clearly define how civil rights laws are implemented. By sending a clear message for existing record preservation, Roy and Biggs signal their commitment to oversight and accountability.
It remains to be seen how the DOJ and FBI will respond to these calls for transparency and whether further legislative amendments to the FACE Act will gain traction. As the political landscape evolves, these discussions are likely to shape the future directions of both pro-life advocacy and regulatory enforcement.
