Saving FACE Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to eliminate federal criminal penalties for actions that obstruct access to abortion services by modifying the existing FACE Act.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act (18 U.S.C. 248) by removing criminal penalties for obstructing access to abortion services. It redefines "abortion" and explicitly excludes abortion from the definition of "reproductive health services" within the Act, effectively narrowing the scope of the FACE Act to protect access to churches and other places of religious worship, while removing protections for abortion clinics.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current FACE Act is an overreach of federal power, particularly in its application to abortion clinics, and that it infringes upon the rights of individuals to protest and express their views on abortion. They may contend that states should regulate such activities, and that the federal government should not criminalize peaceful protest outside abortion facilities.
Opponents contend
Opponents would argue that the bill undermines the safety and access to legal healthcare services, including abortion, by removing federal protections against obstruction, threats, and violence. They would contend that the FACE Act is necessary to ensure that patients can access care and providers can offer services without fear of harassment or intimidation, and that removing these protections could lead to increased violence and disruption.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick review.
Section 2(a)(3) of the bill, amending 18 U.S.C. 248(e)
Redefinition of 'Abortion' and Exclusion from 'Reproductive Health Services'
This provision inserts a new definition for 'abortion' into the FACE Act, specifying it as the intentional killing of an unborn child or intentional termination of pregnancy, with specific exceptions for live birth after viability or removal of a dead unborn child. Crucially, it then amends the definition of 'reproductive health services' to explicitly exclude 'abortions,' thereby removing abortion services from the scope of federal protection under the FACE Act.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this redefinition clarifies the intent of the FACE Act, ensuring it does not apply to abortion services, which they believe should not be federally protected in this manner. They may assert that this restores a proper balance, allowing for free speech and protest without federal overreach.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this redefinition is a deliberate attempt to strip away protections for abortion access, making it easier to obstruct clinics and intimidate patients and providers. They argue it would expose individuals seeking legal healthcare to harassment and potential violence, undermining the ability to exercise reproductive rights.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the right to protest and free speech against the right to access legal medical services without obstruction. It also highlights the tension between federal and state authority over abortion-related activities.
Section 2(a)(1) and (b) of the bill, amending 18 U.S.C. 248 heading and table of sections
Renaming and Reorienting the Freedom of Access Act
The bill changes the section heading of 18 U.S.C. 248 from 'Freedom of access to clinic entrances' to 'Freedom of access to church entrances.' Concurrently, it updates the table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18 to reflect this new title. This change signifies a fundamental shift in the Act's focus, explicitly removing 'clinic' (which historically included abortion clinics) from its primary title and replacing it with 'church,' emphasizing protection for religious institutions.
This provision strikes the phrase 'abortions or other' from subsection (d)(4) of the FACE Act. Subsection (d) outlines the 'Rules of construction' for the Act. While seemingly minor, this removal, in conjunction with the redefinition of 'reproductive health services' to exclude abortion, reinforces the intent to remove abortion-related activities from the Act's purview.
Section 2(a)(2) of the bill, amending 18 U.S.C. 248(d)(4)
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice for making conforming amendments to ensure consistency across the statute after a major definitional change. It reinforces the primary intent without being the primary mechanism.
Case for: Supporters would argue this is a necessary conforming amendment to ensure the language of the Act is consistent with the new definitions and scope, preventing any ambiguity regarding the removal of abortion services from federal protection.
Case against: Opponents would see this as another subtle but deliberate step to systematically dismantle federal protections for abortion access, reinforcing the bill's overall hostile stance towards reproductive rights.
Estimated impact: This change, while small, contributes to the complete removal of federal criminal penalties for obstructing access to abortion services, impacting millions of individuals seeking care and thousands of providers.