This worries me: FACE is one of our biggest protections...

[moominmuppet]

FACE -- Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act -- is something that makes clinic escorting (and clinic access for patients) substantially safer and less threatening. I really, really don't want to see this go down.

I'm hoping the DOJ will be aggressive in defending it, but I'm sure not counting on it.


> 2. Justice Department To Appeal Texas Ruling on
> Freedom of Access to Clinic
> Entrances Act
>
> Access this story and related links online:
> http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=19622
>
> The Justice Department last week filed a notice in
> a Houston court
> declaring its plans to appeal a federal judge's
> decision last month that
> found part of the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic
> Entrances Act
> unconstitutional, the New York Times reports
> (Lichtblau, New York Times,
> 8/30). In that case, U.S. District Judge Kenneth
> Hoyt dismissed charges
> against antiabortion advocate Frank Bird, who in
> March drove his van
> through the front entrance of a Houston abortion
> clinic, and ruled that
> part of the 1994 FACE Act is unconstitutional
> because it exceeds Congress'
> power to regulate commerce. Although six circuit
> courts have ruled that
> the FACE Act is constitutional under the clause that
> gives Congress the
> authority to regulate interstate commerce, Hoyt said
> that the prior
> affirmations of the law came before a 2000 U.S.
> Supreme Court decision that
> questioned Congress' authority to apply the Commerce
> Clause in certain
> situations. The Supreme Court in a constitutional
> review of the Violence
> Against Women Act said that Congress had no
> authority to "regulate
> non-economic, violent criminal conduct based solely
> on that conduct's
> aggregate affect on interstate commerce," Hoyt noted
> in his opinion (Kaiser
> Daily Reproductive Health Report, 8/20).
> Abortion-rights opponents called
> Hoyt's ruling an affirmation of their First
> Amendment right of freedom to
> protest. Abortion-rights supporters said that the
> decision, if upheld,
> could jeopardize federal efforts to impose criminal
> and civil penalties on
> people using intimidation to impede women's access
> to abortion clinics,
> according to the Times.
>
> Justice Department Involvement
>
>
> The Justice Department's decision to appeal the case
> "threatens to alienate
> social conservatives," a strong support base for
> President Bush and
> Attorney General John Ashcroft (R), according to the
> Times. "Pro-life
> people expect John Ashcroft to be just and fair and
> act in the interests of
> the right to life whenever possible," Colleen Parro,
> director of the
> Republican National Coalition for Life, said,
> adding, "If the Justice
> Department is standing up for this law, that is not
> going to give people
> confidence that John Ashcroft is looking out for the
> babies." Blake
> Cornish, deputy legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice
> America, said that while
> "this attorney general is not friendly to abortion
> rights ... when the law
> is clear, he has to follow the law."
> Abortion-rights supporters said they
> would pay close attention to the Justice
> Department's defense of the FACE
> Act to "determine just how aggressive a defense of
> the law the Justice
> Department intended to mount," according to the
> Times (New York Times,
> 8/30).

Comments

[jenx.livejournal.com]

Dammit!

[chandara.livejournal.com]

>The Supreme Court in a constitutional
> review of the Violence
> Against Women Act said that Congress had no
> authority to "regulate
> non-economic, violent criminal conduct based solely
> on that conduct's
> aggregate affect on interstate commerce...

WHAT? How about the aggregate affect on PUBLIC SAFETY? And people who are going to the clinic in question are still members of "the public"! I believe that those who want to protest DO have that right, but I also believe that one person's rights end where the next person's begins!

[calebbullen.livejournal.com]

I'm probably missing something here but isn't the act of threatening another person still illegal at the state level?

It sounds like they're saying that this isn't a federal case because it doesn't affect interstate commerce.

I'm sure I will be corrected but it would seem like blocking the entrance to an abortion clinic, especially by intimidation would still violate local laws of loitering and assault not to mention possible fire codes and worse.

Clearly, I'm not an expert and I would like to see people who meddle so intrusively in others affairs get what they deserve but I'd like to see it happen constitutionally and within the boundaries of sensible laws.

[forestfire.livejournal.com]

Having read and studied the case, I agree with the Supreme Court. Congress has limited, enumerated powers. Anything outside of the list is left to the states. Congress may never regulate for public safety. The commerce clause gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. It is intended to keep states from competing with eachother economically. If congress can regulate anything that might have an effect on interstate commerce then congress can regulate everything, which betrays the entire federal system. Every thing in the violence against women act (and the gun-free school act, which was also overruled) is illegal in every single state. But congress does not have the jurisdiction to add to those laws. Or to repeal them. That procedural rule is a safeguard for liberties. It keeps the national government from extending its authority in matters where state governments are sovereign because state governments are more accessible to the people.
The first thing I learned in law school is that there is a tremendous difference between agreeing with the effect that a law has and agreeing with how it was implemented. Historically, when Congress oversteps its jurisdictional bounderies the results have been mixed. at this point the rule is that inorder for Congress to regulate something under the commerce clause it must have a direct impact on interstate commerce. The best congress could come up with for v.a.w.a. is that women might travel less if the federal government was not empowered to overrule state laws in the area.