FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2025
Bottom line
This bill eliminates federal protections against interference with access to reproductive health services, shifting enforcement entirely to state and local laws and potentially dismissing ongoing federal cases.
What it actually does
This bill proposes to repeal Section 248 of title 18, United States Code, commonly known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The FACE Act prohibits certain acts of violence, threats, and physical obstruction against persons seeking or providing reproductive health services, or against reproductive health facilities. The repeal would also apply to any pending or future prosecutions under the Act.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the FACE Act infringes on First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech and assembly for protestors, and has been selectively enforced against pro-life activists. They believe that federal involvement in managing protests around clinics is an overreach and that public safety issues should be handled by state and local authorities through existing laws.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the FACE Act is a crucial federal tool for protecting patients and healthcare providers from violence, threats, and intimidation, ensuring safe and unimpeded access to legal reproductive health services. They argue that its repeal would endanger individuals, undermine federal civil rights protections, and embolden those who seek to disrupt healthcare access through unlawful means.
The bill is exceptionally short and clearly written, making it very easy for any reader to understand its core purpose and implications within moments.
Section 2(a)
Repeal of Prohibitions Relating to Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
This section directly repeals 18 U.S.C. 248, known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The FACE Act currently prohibits intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with anyone seeking or providing reproductive health services, or damaging property of a reproductive health services facility. Its repeal would remove these specific federal criminal and civil penalties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the FACE Act has been used to target pro-life protestors and infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. They believe its repeal would restore balance and prevent selective enforcement, allowing states to manage public order.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that the FACE Act is a vital tool for protecting patients and healthcare workers from violence and intimidation, ensuring safe access to legal medical care. They contend its repeal would embolden extremists and lead to increased harassment and potential harm.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the protection of free speech and protest rights against the need to ensure safe and unimpeded access to healthcare services. It also involves a tension between federal and state authority in regulating public order around healthcare facilities.
Section 2(b)
Clerical Amendment
This section makes a technical change to the table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, by removing the entry for section 248. This is a standard procedural step to update the legal code to reflect the repeal of the FACE Act.
Section 2(c)
Applicability of Repeal
This section specifies that the repeal of the FACE Act will apply to any prosecution for an offense that is either currently ongoing (pending) or commenced on or after the date this Act becomes law. This means that individuals currently facing charges under the FACE Act could see their cases dismissed, and no new charges could be brought under it.
The repeal of the FACE Act applies to any prosecution of an offense pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment.
Section 2(c)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice for specifying the temporal effect of a statutory change, though its impact here is particularly notable given the controversial nature of the FACE Act.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that individuals currently facing charges under a law deemed problematic or overreaching are not unfairly prosecuted, aligning the legal system with the new legislative intent immediately.
Case against: Critics would argue this provision could allow individuals who engaged in violence or intimidation, and are currently facing charges, to avoid accountability, potentially undermining justice and the safety of patients and providers.
Estimated impact: Directly affects a limited number of ongoing federal prosecutions under the FACE Act, potentially leading to dismissals.