Three years after the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the post-Roe v. Wade landscape has triggered sweeping efforts to unwind what conservatives see as years of federal overreach. This Washington Examiner series, Aftershocks of Dobbs, examines how activists, lawmakers, and courts are shaping the next phase of the abortion fight. Part 2 looks at how Republicans and the Trump administration are working to reverse what they call the Biden-era weaponization of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act against anti-abortion advocates.
Three years after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision returned abortion regulation to the states, Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration are moving to dismantle what they say was a coordinated weaponization of federal law against anti-abortion activists under former President Joe Biden.
The centerpiece of that effort is a bill to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act — a 1994 law originally intended to curb violence near abortion facilities but increasingly criticized by conservatives as a tool of political prosecution. The House Judiciary Committee advanced the repeal measure, H.R. 589, on a party-line 13–10 vote earlier this month.
GOP calls to repeal a ‘weaponized’ FACE Act
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), the bill’s sponsor, told the Washington Examiner the FACE Act “has been unquestionably weaponized since its enactment in 1994, with 97% of prosecutions used to intimidate and silence pro-life Americans.”
“This gross abuse of federal power is the foreseeable consequence of giving federal authorities never-ending prosecutorial options and power,” Roy said.
Roy’s bill, passed out of committee on June 10, comes after years of growing conservative scrutiny over how the Biden administration handled FACE Act prosecutions. Roy noted that while there were nearly 100 attacks on anti-abortion pregnancy centers after Dobbs, just 8% of federal FACE Act charges brought from 2021 to 2024 were against pro-abortion-rights agitators. The Biden administration was responsible for nearly a quarter of all FACE prosecutions in the law’s 30-year history, he said.
“While I appreciate that the Trump Justice Department has ended this abusive practice and is focusing the law on those who interfere with access to pro-life pregnancy centers, the fact is the law should be repealed to remove the pathway to abuse,” Roy added. “There are plenty of existing crimes — local, state, and federal — to prosecute trespassers and those who engage in harassment, intimidation, or the use of physical violence.”
Trump DOJ course correction
The Trump DOJ has signaled that reversing Biden-era prosecutions under the FACE Act is a top priority.
Among its first acts in January, the department issued pardons to 23 anti-abortion activists, including Lauren Handy and Eva Edl, the latter an 89-year-old concentration camp survivor convicted under the law for blocking access to a Michigan abortion clinic.
During a House Budget Committee hearing on June 23, Attorney General Pam Bondi reaffirmed that the Biden administration’s tactics, which included targeting anti-abortion demonstrators, Catholic parishioners, and school board parents, had ended at the Justice Department.
“They were arresting peaceful protesters, the Biden administration, at abortion facilities — no longer,” Bondi said. “They targeted Catholics at church services — no longer. No longer will parents be arrested at school board meetings because they care about their children. That has ended under this department.”
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) praised Bondi’s leadership, calling her “a breath of fresh air to our Department of Justice.”
“From politically persecuting President Trump, then-President Biden’s chief political rival, to going after pro-life advocates like Mark Houck, the actions of the [former] Attorney General [Merrick] Garland, [former FBI] Director [Christopher] Wray, and the DOJ leadership were unacceptable and unconstitutional,” Clyde said.
FACE Act target Mark Houck’s lawsuit against the government looms large
Bondi’s remarks were seen as a signal that litigation from high-profile FACE Act targets such as Mark Houck may soon be resolved.
Houck, a Catholic father of seven, was arrested in a 2021 predawn FBI raid after an altercation near a Philadelphia abortion clinic. He was later acquitted at trial and sued the Biden DOJ for $4.3 million, alleging excessive force and politically motivated prosecution.
Houck told the Washington Examiner he is in active settlement talks with the Trump DOJ and expects a resolution “within the month.”
“They want to help us heal,” Houck said. “This has to be punitive, and the damages need to be significant. Otherwise, it doesn’t mean anything.”
Houck warned that the FACE Act continues to chill the free speech of activists against abortion. “People are less inclined to engage in the public square,” he said. “Even though I was acquitted, in public opinion, perception is reality. People think I’m a felon.”
He added that unless the law is repealed, future administrations could again use it to punish peaceful activism. “If this FACE Act is still on the books, it could be the same thing all over again,” Houck said.
Broader movement support and legal pushback
Shawn Carney, president of 40 Days for Life, echoed Houck’s concerns and said his group, which helped defend Houck, is hopeful for a settlement. “The DOJ wants to right their wrong of raiding his house in front of his family,” Carney said.
Carney also warned that while the repeal effort is gaining steam, the Senate remains an uphill battle. “Everything boils down to how angry you still are about the overturning of Roe v. Wade,” he said. “They can still tell themselves, in the horrible world that Kavanaugh created, we can protect abortion providers with the FACE Act.”
Still, he said the effort itself has educational value. “If this is highlighted through the Houck case and just explained reasonably, they will get rid of it,” Carney noted. “Most people don’t even know what the FACE Act is. But when you give them the 10-second definition, most people are against it.”
Free speech for pregnancy centers faces new test in court
The broader fight for anti-abortion rights is also playing out in courtrooms beyond Washington. On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James, a case challenging New York Attorney General Letitia James’s efforts to restrict how faith-based pregnancy centers speak about abortion pill reversal alternatives such as progesterone.
James sued 11 pregnancy centers last year, alleging they violated state business laws by promoting supplemental progesterone as a way to counteract mifepristone, the first of two pills used in a chemical abortion. The centers said they were censored for offering accurate and potentially life-saving information.
“Many women regret their abortions, and some change their minds after taking the first abortion drug,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Caroline Lindsay, who is arguing the case. “They should be allowed to hear about this option and make that choice.”
The plaintiffs, including NIFLA and affiliated clinics such as Gianna’s House and Options Care Center, secured an initial win when a federal district court blocked James, an elected Democrat, from enforcing her complaint during litigation. James then appealed.
Carney said lawsuits such as this one demonstrate a pattern of viewpoint censorship that Americans opposed to abortion are fighting nationwide.
“It’s absolutely insane,” he told the Washington Examiner. “We’ve met children alive today because their mothers used this treatment. Yet the state is trying to pretend they don’t exist.”
ADF argues that with over 7,000 lives reportedly saved by abortion pill reversal and a documented success rate over 60%, James’s effort to block discussion of the procedure is “a direct assault on First Amendment rights.”
What comes next
While the bill to repeal the FACE Act is expected to pass the Republican-controlled House, it faces long odds in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster.
Carney said he doubts it will clear that hurdle but emphasized that even a House vote would “bring a lot of attention to the FACE Act” and expose how it has been used to punish the speech of anti-abortion activists. To Roy, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) should not delay taking the bill up for a floor vote.
“Congress should take up the matter on the House floor immediately and send it to the President’s desk to prevent future abuse and weaponization,” Roy said.
LEGAL WARS BREW AS POST-DOBBS ABORTION BATTLE ENTERS A NEWS PHASE
For Houck, who remains in litigation while awaiting a possible settlement, the effect of repeal would be broader than politics.
“It’s accountability,” he said. “So that what happened to me doesn’t happen to anyone else again.”