Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill repeals 18 U.S.C. § 248, the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) statute. Repeal would remove the federal criminal prohibitions specific to obstructing or intimidating access to reproductive-health facilities.
Progressives emphasize patient safety and prevented intimidation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward and precisely drafted statutory repeal: it clearly identifies the section to be removed, adjusts the table of sections, and specifies applicability to pending and future prosecutions.
This bill repeals 18 U.S.C. § 248, the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) statute.
Repeal would remove the federal criminal prohibitions specific to obstructing or intimidating access to reproductive-health facilities.
The bill also amends the title table and makes the repeal applicable to prosecutions pending or commenced on or after enactment.
Highly contentious subject, narrow but politically charged proposal, minimal compromise elements, low historical success for similar measures.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward and precisely drafted statutory repeal: it clearly identifies the section to be removed, adjusts the table of sections, and specifies applicability to pending and future prosecutions. The bill does not include explanatory findings, fiscal or resource acknowledgements, safeguards, or measures addressing broader legal interactions or unintended consequences.
Progressives emphasize patient safety and prevented intimidation.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize patient safety and prevented intimidation.
Strongly opposed.
Repealing §248 removes a federal tool that has been used to protect patients, staff, and clinics from obstruction, intimidation, and violence.
Supporters would likely argue free speech, but this persona sees public-safety and access harms.
Cautiously skeptical.
Values both First Amendment rights and public safety; wants evidence that repeal won't increase violence or block access.
Would seek narrow, evidence-based fixes or compromises rather than wholesale repeal.
Generally supportive.
Views repeal as restoring stronger First Amendment protections for peaceful protest and reducing perceived federal overreach.
Emphasizes nonviolent civil disobedience rights while disavowing violence.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Highly contentious subject, narrow but politically charged proposal, minimal compromise elements, low historical success for similar measures.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize patient safety and prevented intimidation.
Highly contentious subject, narrow but politically charged proposal, minimal compromise elements, low historical success for similar measur…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward and precisely drafted statutory repeal: it clearly identifies the section to be removed, adjusts the table of sections, and specifies applicabili…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.