ftp.pasteur.org/FAQ/

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ ftp.pasteur.org/FAQ/ / ftp-pasteur-org-FAQ.zip / FAQ / law / clinic-access next >

Wrap

Internet Message Format | 1995-04-24 | 58.3 KB

Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!hookup!panix!not-for-mail From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.clinton,talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.answers,alt.answers,talk.answers,news.answers Subject: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) FAQ Followup-To: poster Date: 18 Apr 1995 17:56:49 -0400 Organization: Superseding Information, Inc. Lines: 1145 Approved: news-answers-request@mit.edu Expires: Wed, 31 May 1995 00:00:01 GMT Message-ID: <aprfacefaq@panix> Reply-To: eck@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com Summary: This article explains the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE) and provides the full text of the Act along with current information on legal challenges. Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu misc.legal:127597 alt.politics.clinton:160796 talk.abortion:228560 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:225487 misc.answers:1806 alt.answers:8756 talk.answers:660 news.answers:42276 Version: 1.3 Archive-name: law/clinic-access 1. What is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE)? 2. When was FACE enacted? 3. What kinds of activity does the statute prohibit? 4. What are the penalties for violating the law? 5. Doesn't FACE violate the First Amendment? 6. Isn't FACE so vague that it violates due process? 7. Isn't it illegal to single out one kind of business for protection? 8. Have the courts ruled on FACE's constitutionality? Appendix A1. Complete text of the original Act Appendix A2. Technical amendments of 9/94 Appendix B. Complete text of the U.S. District Court decision in _Council for Life Coalition v. Reno_, No. 94-0843-IEG (CM) (S.D. Cal. July 6, 1994) The FACE FAQ is posted around the 10th day of each month. Comments or suggestions are welcome, and should be sent to eck@panix.com. A current version of the FAQ may always be obtained from <ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/ usenet/news.answers/law/clinic-access>. If you do not have ftp access, send a mail message to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the line send usenet/news.answers/law/clinic-access in the body of the message. Copyright 1994, 1995 by Mark Eckenwiler, except as to Appendices A1, A2, and B (no claim to original U.S. government works). Permission is granted to redistribute this article in its entirety for noncommercial use provided that this copyright notice is not removed or altered. No portion of this work may be sold, either by itself or as part of a larger work, without the express written permission of the author; this restriction covers all publication media, including (but not limited to) CD-ROM. The author is an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Against his better judgment, he continues to live and work in New York City. This FAQ is provided for informational purposes only. The author has neither formed an attorney-client relationship with nor offered legal advice to the reader. For legal advice, consult individually with an attorney admitted to practice in your state. On the format of this FAQ: Topic entries in the outline are flagged with "**" at the left margin; to page through the topics one by one, search repeatedly for "**". --------- ** 1. What is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE)? The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act -- often abbreviated as FACE or FACEA -- is a United States law protecting reproductive health service facilities and their staff and patients from violent threats, assault, vandalism, and blockade. Despite its name, FACE also provides the same protection to churches and other places of worship, and to their congregants as well. ** 2. When was FACE enacted? After a House-Senate conference committee resolved the differences between the preliminary versions of FACE passed in the two chambers, the House approved FACE on May 5, 1994 (Cong. Rec. H3116-3135). By a vote of 69-30, the Senate passed the measure one week later (5/12/94 Cong. Rec. S5595-5606). President Clinton signed the bill into law on May 26, 1994 (P.L. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694), and it took effect immediately. The 1994 federal crime bill (P.L. 103-322, enacted 9/13/94) made minor technical changes to FACE. See Appendix A2. ** 3. What kinds of activity does the statute prohibit? FACE makes it illegal to use force, the threat of force, or "physical obstruction" intentionally to a) "injure" b) "intimidate" c) "interfere with," or d) attempt to injure/intimidate/interfere with someone because that person is engaged in "obtaining or providing reproductive health services," as those terms are defined in the statute (see below). The same prohibition applies to these same acts committed against someone "lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship." Finally, the law punishes anyone who intentionally damages or destroys a facility because it provides reproductive health services, or who "intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship." To clarify the meaning of the law and protect against a challenge that the law is unconstitutionally vague, Congress included explicit definitions for several of the key terms used above: "The term 'interfere with' means to restrict a person's freedom of movement." "The term 'intimidate' means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another." "The term 'physical obstruction' means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous." "The term 'reproductive health services' means reproductive health services provided in a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy." [The full text of the Act, which created a new statute codified at 18 U.S.C. sec. 248, is reproduced in Appendix A1 below. For information on how to locate and research federal law, see the Legal Research FAQ, posted monthly in news.answers, misc.legal, and other relevant newsgroups.] Note that the definition of "reproductive health services" covers numerous facilities besides abortion clinics. Specifically, the law's coverage of counselling/referral services "relating to pregnancy" makes clear that FACE also protects pro-life counselling centers from attack. Note also that FACE includes a "parental exemption" for activity directed solely at a minor by a parent or guardian. For example, FACE does not bar a parent from interfering with (or obstructing) a child's efforts to obtain an abortion, to obtain counselling concerning contraceptives, or to attend a particular place of worship. This exemption does not apply to conduct directed at anyone other than the minor (and therefore does not exempt threats directed at a clinic worker providing counselling to the minor); likewise, it does not immunize a parent/guardian from state laws that may limit such conduct. ** 4. What are the penalties for violating the law? FACE provides for both civil remedies and criminal penalties. The criminal penalties vary according to the severity of the offense and the defendant's prior record of FACE violations. Generally, a first- time offender cannot be sentenced to more than 1 year in prison and a $100,000 fine. For a second or subsequent violation after a prior FACE conviction, a defendant may be imprisoned for no more than 3 years and fined $250,000. _See_ 18 U.S.C. secs. 3559 & 3571 (setting forth applicable fines for different categories of federal offenses). However, more lenient limits apply in cases of exclusively nonviolent physical obstruction. A first-time "blockader" faces no more than 6 months and a $10,000 fine; for subsequent violations, the maximum penalty is 18 months and $25,000. On the other hand, if the offense results in bodily injury, the maximum sentence increases to 10 years, regardless of whether it is a first offense. If death results from the offense, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Note that all of the above figures represent *maximum* sentences. (FACE imposes no mandatory minimum sentences.) Offenders are sentenced according to the separate United States Sentencing Guidelines, which require a sentencing calculation based on the severity of the offense and the defendant's prior convictions (whether for FACE violations or for other crimes). Except for career criminals with lengthy records, the Guidelines seldom impose a sentence near the statutory maximum. A first- time nonviolent FACE offender with little or no criminal past would normally be eligible for home detention, "supervised release" (probation), or other alternatives to full incarceration. Civil remedies: A person injured by a FACE violation may bring a civil suit against the offender. The statute allows a private plaintiff to obtain temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory and punitive damages, and fees for attorneys. In lieu of proving actual compensatory damages, a plaintiff may elect to recover $5,000 for each violation proven. The U.S. Attorney General (or any state attorney general) may also bring suit in federal court on behalf of third parties injured by FACE violations. In such actions, the court may award the injured parties the types of remedy listed above; moreover, the court may impose civil fines on defendants according to the following schedule: - first offense, nonviolent physical obstruction: $10,000 - other first offenses: $15,000 - subsequent offenses for nonviolent physical obstruction: $15,000 - other subsequent offenses: $25,000 Finally, note that FACE does not limit the availability of civil remedies or criminal penalties allowed under state law for the same conduct. ** 5. Doesn't FACE violate the First Amendment? No. FACE does not infringe the free speech rights of anti-abortion protesters. The law covers only unprotected conduct -- assault, trespass, and vandalism -- that is already the subject of criminal penalties in most states. Clinic protesters remain free to pray, sing hymns, carry signs, and distribute pro-life literature outside clinics. Note also that FACE does not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. The law provides the same protection to pro-life counselling centers as to abortion clinics. Likewise, it applies to *anyone* who commits the prohibited acts, regardless of the actor's motives; a disgruntled ex- employee who firebombs a clinic or assaults clinic staff in revenge is chargeable under FACE. For information on relevant court rulings, see section 8 and Appendix B below. ** 6. Isn't FACE so vague that it violates due process? No. Under the Supreme Court's "vagueness" doctrine, a criminal law does not violate the notice requirement of the Constitution's Due Process guarantees if a person of ordinary intelligence can determine whether or not his conduct violates the statute. _Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville_, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972). The text of FACE satisfies this standard; it makes clear the meaning of such terms as "physical obstruction" and "intimidate" by providing specific definitions. For information on relevant court rulings, see section 8 and Appendix B below. ** 7. Isn't it illegal to single out one kind of business for protection? No. Congress (and state legislatures as well) have the power to address specific problems with narrowly tailored legislation. This includes the power to regulate (or offer protection to) an individual class of businesses. Thus, federal law explicitly makes it a felony to rob a bank or S&L (18 U.S.C. sec. 2113), but imposes no corresponding penalty for robbing a convenience store or racetrack. Likewise, a 1992 federal law passed in response to animal-rights vandalism makes it a felony to damage the property of an "animal enterprise" (i.e., research laboratory, livestock operation, zoo, aquarium, circus, or rodeo). _See_ 18 U.S.C. sec. 43. ** 8. Have the courts ruled on FACE's constitutionality? As of mid-April 1995, eight different federal courts have ruled in response to broad-based constitutional challenges to FACE invoking (among other things) the First and Fifth Amendments. Seven courts -- six district courts and one circuit court (the Fourth Circuit) -- have rejected the challenges in their entirety and held that FACE is constitutional; a lone district court in Wisconsin held unconstitutional the Act's prohibition on nonviolent physical obstruction (not on First Amendment grounds, but on Congress's purported lack of authority to enact the legislation). Following is a list of the decisions to date; other cases are pending in various federal courts across the U.S. Upholding the statute: ====================== _American Life League v. Reno_, No. 94-1869, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Feb. 13, 1995. (Judges Michael, Hall, & Chapman.) Reported at 47 F.3d 642 (1995). # _United States v. Brock_, No. 94-CR-86 (JPS), United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, September 23, 1994. (District Judge Stadtmueller, appointed in 1987 by President Reagan.) - _Reily v. Reno_, No. CIV-94-1058-PHX-RGS, United States District Court, District of Arizona, August 12, 1994. (District Judge Strand, appointed in 1985 by President Reagan.) _Cook v. Reno_, No. Civ. A. 94-0980, United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana, August 5, 1994. (District Judge Little, appointed in 1984 by President Reagan.) + _Cheffer v. Reno_, No. 94-0611-CIV-ORL-18, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, July 26, 1994. (District Judge Sharp, appointed in 1983 by President Reagan.) _Council for Life Coalition v. Reno_, No. 94-0843-IEG (CM), United States District Court, Southern District of California, July 6, 1994 (reported at 856 F. Supp. 1422). (District Judge Gonzalez, appointed in 1992 by President Bush.) [attached as Appendix B below] ! _American Life League v. United States_, No. CIV. A. 94-700-A, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, June 16, 1994 (reported at 855 F. Supp. 137). (District Judge Brinkema, appointed in 1993 by President Clinton; formerly a U.S. Magistrate Judge appointed under President Reagan, 1985-1993.) Invalidating the statute in part: ================================= # _United States v. Wilson_, No. 94-CR-140, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, March 16, 1995. (District Judge Randa.) + Indicates that appeal of this decision has been filed - Indicates that appeal has lapsed ! Indicates decision affirmed on appeal # Indicates conflict with another decision in the same court Despite what you may have heard, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on FACE's constitutionality. In the _Madsen_ case handed down in June 1994 -- a case involving various "buffer zones" imposed at a Florida abortion clinic -- the Supreme Court considered only the constitutionality of a special injunction (i.e., court order) requiring protesters to refrain from certain activities within a 300-foot perimeter (and to remain entirely outside a 36-foot zone around the clinic). That injunction was not issued under FACE. _Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr._, 114 S. Ct. 2516 (June 30, 1994). In _Madsen_, the Supreme Court upheld (by a 6-3 vote) the 36- foot exclusion zone, which had been imposed by a lower court only after a narrower injunction was repeatedly violated by protesters. The Court also upheld an "excessive noise" prohibition. At the same time, however, the Court struck down a 300-foot zone in which protesters were barred from approaching staff or patients without their consent; a ban on signs or images visible from the clinic was also invalidated. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Blackmun, O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg; Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented. While it does not address FACE directly, _Madsen_ reaches several legal conclusions that strongly suggest FACE will ultimately survive review in the Supreme Court. Most importantly, the majority opinion expressly rejected the argument that the Florida injunction violated the First Amendment by discriminating against a particular viewpoint. _See_ 114 S. Ct. at 2523-24. The only negative effect _Madsen_ has on FACE is to define the limits of injunctions that judges may constitutionally impose when they grant relief to civil plaintiffs under FACE (or any other statute authorizing injunctive relief). While FACE itself does not automatically create buffer zones around clinics -- contrary to the false claims made by some Usenetters -- its provisions for granting injunctive relief undoubtedly permit judges to order such exclusion zones under appropriate circumstances. To obtain a copy of the _Madsen_ decision from Cornell's mail server, send email to liideliver@fatty.law.cornell.edu with the following line in the body of the message: request 93-880 ** Appendix A1. Complete text of the original Act PL 103-259, May 26, 1994, 108 Stat 694 FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES ACT OF 1994 An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to assure freedom of access to reproductive services. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994". SEC. 2. PURPOSE. Pursuant to the affirmative power of Congress to enact this legislation under section 8 of article I of the Constitution, as well as under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, it is the purpose of this Act to protect and promote the public safety and health and activities affecting interstate commerce by establishing Federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for certain violent, threatening, obstructive and destructive conduct that is intended to injure, intimidate or interfere with persons seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services. SEC. 3. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES. Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "sec. 248 Freedom of Access to CLINIC ENTRANCES. "(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.--Whoever-- "(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services; "(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or "(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship, shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor. "(b) PENALTIES.--Whoever violates this section shall-- "(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and "(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both; except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first offense; and the fine shall be not more than $25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life. "(c) CIVIL REMEDIES.-- "(1) RIGHT OF ACTION.-- "(A) IN GENERAL.--Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil action for the relief set forth in subparagraph (B), except that such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(1) only by a person involved in providing or seeking to provide, or obtaining or seeking to obtain, services in a facility that provides reproductive health services, and such an action may be brought under subsection (a)(2) only by a person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such place of religious worship. "(B) RELIEF.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses. With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation. "(2) ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.-- "(A) IN GENERAL.--If the Attorney General of the United States has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States District Court. "(B) RELIEF.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as described in paragraph (1)(B). The court, to vindicate the public interest, may also assess a civil penalty against each respondent-- "(i) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and "(ii) in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation. "(3) ACTIONS BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.-- "(A) IN GENERAL.--If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section, such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such State, as parens patriae on behalf of natural persons residing in such State, in any appropriate United States District Court. "(B) RELIEF.--In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described in paragraph (2)(B). "(d) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed-- "(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution; "(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; "(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this section, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies; or "(4) to interfere with the enforcement of State or local laws regulating the performance of abortions or other reproductive health services. "(e) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section: "(1) FACILITY.--The term 'facility' includes a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility that provides reproductive health services, and includes the building or structure in which the facility is located. "(2) INTERFERE WITH.--The term 'interfere with' means to restrict a person's freedom of movement. "(3) INTIMIDATE.--The term 'intimidate' means to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to another. "(4) PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION.--The term 'physical obstruction' means rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous. "(5) REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.--The term 'reproductive health services' means reproductive health services provided in a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy. "(6) STATE.--The term 'State' includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.". SEC. 4. CLERICAL AMENDMENT. The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "248. Blocking access to reproductive health services.". SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply only with respect to conduct occurring on or after such date. Approved May 26, 1994. ** Appendix A2. Technical amendments of 9/94 [From P.L. 103-322:] Section 330023. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO SECTION 248 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the chapter analysis so that the item relating to section 248 reads as follows: "248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances."; (2) so that the heading of section 248 reads as follows: "$ 248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances"; and (3) in section 248(b) by inserting ", notwithstanding section 3571," before "be not more than $25,000". (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this subsection (a) shall take effet on the date of enactment of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994. [Comment: Parts (a)(1) and (2) merely revise the headings, and do not change the statute itself. Part (a)(3) reinforces the $25,000 limit on fines for repeat non-violent offenses. The section referred to, section 3571(a) of title 18, allows a maximum fine of $250,000 for certain federal felonies; under section 3571(e), individual laws may prescribe lower maximum penalties only if they expressly state that section 3571(a) does not apply. The revision in (a)(3) above corrects this omission from the original FACE legislation, and makes the change applicable retroactively, assuring that non-violent FACE offenders will not be fined more than $25,000 for any single offense. -M. Eckenwiler] ** Appendix B. Complete text of the U.S. District Court decision in _Council for Life Coalition v. Reno_, No. 94-0843-IEG (CM) (S.D. Cal. July 6, 1994) Council for Life Coalition, Jim Harnsberger, Kathy Harnsberger, Jim Baxter, Sammy Wilson, Eric Camillo, and Barbara Blackledge, Plaintiffs, v. Hon. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States of America, Defendant. No. 94-0843-IEG (CM). United States District Court, S.D. California. July 6, 1994. The following motions came on regularly for hearing on June 29, 1994, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 11 of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez presiding: 1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; 2) Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; 3) Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene; and 4) Proposed Amici Curiae's Motion for Leave to file a Brief Amici Curiae in support of defendant's motion to dismiss. At the hearing on the foregoing motions, there being no opposition and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTED the Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene as defendants in this action pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also GRANTED the Proposed Amici Curiae's motion for leave to file a brief amici curiae in support of defendant's motion to dismiss. The following order thus addresses the defendant's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. I. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the enforcement of The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. sec. 248 ("FACE") that President Clinton signed into law on May 26, 1994. The critical portion of FACE at issue here provides that whoever "by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services" shall be subject to certain criminal penalties and civil remedies. (FACE, sec. 3). FACE specifically defines several of its key terms. (Id.). The term "interfere with" means "to restrict a person's freedom of movement" (Id.). The term "intimidate" means "to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him-or herself or to another" (Id.). The term "physical obstruction" means "rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services ... or rendering passage to or from such a facility ... unreasonably difficult or hazardous" (Id.). The term "reproductive health services" means "reproductive health services provided in a hospital, clinic, physician's office, or other facility, and includes medical, surgical, counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system, including services relating to pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy" (Id.). The stated purpose of FACE is to "protect and promote the public safety and health and activities affecting interstate commerce by establishing Federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for certain violent, threatening, obstructive and destructive conduct that is intended to injure, intimidate or interfere with persons seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services." (FACE, sec. 2). In enacting FACE, which is enforceable criminally and civilly by the Attorney General, and civilly by State attorneys general and individuals who are victimized by the prohibited conduct, Congress compiled and responded to a substantial legislative record of the use of violence, threats of violence, mass blockades, invasions of abortion clinics, and destruction of' medical facilities by bombings, arson, and acid and gas attacks. See, e.g., S.Rep. No. 117, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1993) ("Senate Report"). Congress determined that existing laws were inadequate to stop this violence, and that federal legislation was necessary and appropriate. Plaintiff Council for Life Coalition is an unincorporated California association whose members are opposed to abortion on theological, moral and other grounds. Individual plaintiffs Jim Harnsberger, Kathy Harnsberger, Jim Baxter, Sammy Wilson, Eric Camillo and Barbara Blackledge (collectively the "individual plaintiffs") are all citizens of the United States residing in San Diego County who are opposed to abortion on theological, moral and other grounds. The individual plaintiffs allege that they have peaceably demonstrated, prayed, distributed materials and "sidewalk counseled" in the proximity of abortion clinics. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of FACE on a variety of constitutional and statutory grounds. Defendant Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States of America opposes plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction and moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the motion to dismiss, defendant argues that this action is non-justiciable and that, in any case, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. At the hearing on these motions, defendant conceded that, in light of the first amended complaint and accompanying supplemental declarations of the individual plaintiffs filed after the motion to dismiss, [1] there no longer is an issue regarding the justiciability of this action. Accordingly, the Court addresses defendant's alternative argument that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [1] In their supplemental declarations, the individual plaintiffs state that they: wish and intend to engage in the activities prohibited by Section 248(a)(1) of FACE, which include, but are not limited to, shouting and/or gesturing, and communicating (either orally and/or with signs and/or by my demeanor and/or expression) threats of force in order to intimidate or interfere with individuals who have or are about to obtain or provide reproductive health services; standing and/or marching in single file on public sidewalks that are in front of entrances to facilities that provide reproductive health services; and demonstrating, praying, distributing materials, carrying signs, sidewalk counseling, and exercising my rights to freedom of speech and exercise of religion. See, e.g., Supplemental Declaration of Jim Harnsberger Dated June 22, 1994 at P 2 (emphasis added). In addition, according to the supplemental declaration of Sammy Wilson, the San Diego County Sheriff's department has indicated that if he continues with his "abortion protest activities" and if he "stood or marched on the public sidewalk" in front of a local abortion clinic with a "sign protesting" he would be arrested under FACE after first being warned to cease and desist. See Supplemental Declaration of Jim Harnsberger Dated June 22, 1994 at P 4. II. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the enforcement of FACE on the ground that it abridges freedom of expression and association protected by the first amendment, violates the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the first amendment, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and that Congress had no authority to pass FACE either pursuant to Section 5 of the fourteenth amendment or the Commerce Clause. The Court first addresses plaintiffs' core claim that FACE abridges freedom of expression. A. Freedom of Expression The fundamental flaw underlying plaintiffs, arguments that FACE violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment is their assertion that FACE applies to protected expression. In fact, by its terms, FACE proscribes only conduct--"force," -the "threat of force," and "physical obstruction," which is used intentionally to injure, intimidate, or interfere with persons because they seek to obtain or provide reproductive health services. The Court rejects as insupportable any suggestion that shootings, arson, death threats, vandalism, or other violent and destructive acts addressed by FACE are protected by the first amendment merely because those engaged in such conduct " 'intend[ ] thereby 'to express an idea.' " Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 113 S.Ct. 2194, 21913 (1993) (quoting United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968.)). "[V]iolence or other types of potentially expressive activities that produce special harms distinct from their communicative impact ... are entitled to no constitutional protection." Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 628 (1984); see also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 916 (1982). Thus, like the statute that was upheld on first amendment grounds in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, FACE is aimed at conduct, not expression. Plaintiffs attempt to argue that FACE penalizes "anyone who 'injures' anyone involved in the abortion process," and that because their demonstrations, prayers, distribution of materials, and sidewalk-counselling may inflict emotional. and psychological "injuries," these activities are proscribed by FACE. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Application for Preliminary Injunction at pp. 8-11) ("P. Brief"). However, plaintiffs misread the statute. FACE does not apply to "anyone who 'injures' anyone involved in the abortion process." Instead, FACE criminalizes the use of "force" the "threat of force" and "physical obstruction" which are acts that are outside the scope of the first amendment's protections. Thus, those peaceable activities engaged in by plaintiffs that are not accompanied by the use of force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction, are not proscribed by FACE. Plaintiffs further contend that FACE imposes content-based and viewpoint-based restrictions on protected expression because it applies only to conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with a person who seeks to obtain or provide reproductive health services, and not to conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with a person for any other reason. They argue that FACE is unconstitutional because it singles out for special punishment acts committed in the course of anti-abortion protests. However, nothing in the plain words of the statute supports plaintiffs' arguments here. FACE applies to "[w]hoever" engages in the prohibited conduct, with the requisite intent to injure, intimidate or interfere with "any person" who is entering a facility to obtain reproductive health services or providing such services. Moreover, the broad statutory definition of "reproductive health services" to include "counselling or referral services relating to the human reproductive system" encompasses more than just abortion clinics. Thus, although the statute is subject-specific, it is viewpoint neutral. The fact that FACE singles out for punishment violence at reproductive health facilities or against those who provide and obtain abortion services does not render the statute discriminatory on the basis of content. The key inquiry in determining whether a statute is content-neutral is "whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech 'without reference to the content of the regulated speech.' " Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9272, 9276 (U.S. Sup.Ct. June 30, 1994) (quoting Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989)). In making this determination, the threshold consideration is the government's purpose in enacting the legislation. Id. Here, it is evident from the legislative record that the decision of Congress to prohibit violent conduct at abortion facilities or against those who provide and seek abortion services reflects Congress' concern over the severe impact of that violence, rather than a desire to curb any anti-abortion message some people wish to convey. Thus, as the Supreme Court held in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the State's desire to redress particular harms "provides an adequate explanation for the particular statute over and above mere disagreement with the offenders' beliefs or biases." 1l3 S.Ct. at 2201. In addition, FACE's intent element does not restrictany type of message and, like the motive element under the Wisconsin statute upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, it "plays the same role under (FACE) as it does under federal and state antidiscrimination laws, which [the Supreme Court has] previously upheld against constitutional challenge." 113 S.Ct. at 2200. E.g., Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 628. Much of plaintiffs' first amendment challenge to FACE is directed toward FACE's prohibition against the "threat of force" to intimidate or interfere with access to reproductive health services. How,ever, in this regard, the Court notes that FACE is similar to numerous criminal statutes that prohibit intimidating or interfering with a person engaged in an activity of some federal interest. E.g., 18 U.S.C. 5 112(b) (making it unlawful to "intimidate[ ], coerce[ ], threaten[ ], or harass[ ] a foreign official ... in the performance of his duties"); 18 U.S.C. sec. 245(b) (providing that one who "by force or threat of force willfully injuries, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with--any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from [exercising certain designated rights]" violates the law); 18 U.S.C. sec. 372 (making it unlawful to "conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office"); 18 U.S.C. 871(a) (criminalizing threats of violence made against the President or Vice President); 26 U.S.C. sec. 7212(a) (prohibiting attempts to interfere with internal revenue laws by one who "corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication)" endeavors to, intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States, acting in an official capacity). Despite the ancillary impact that these statutes may have on a defendant's speech or expressive conduct, courts have consistently upheld such statutes against first amendment challenge. E.g., Watts v, United States, 394 U.S. 705, 707-08 (1969) (finding 18 U.S.C. 871(a) constitutional on its face and distinguishing "a threat ... from what is constitutionally protected speech"). As the Supreme Court held in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 112 S.Ct. 2538 (1992), such laws do not violate the first amendment, even though a defendant may be expressing a message while engaged in the proscribed conduct, because the "government [has] not target[ed] conduct on the basis of its expressive content." at 2546-47. Persons who interfere with access to reproductive health services "are not shielded from regulation merely because they express a[n] ... idea or philosophy." at 2547. Similarly, as the Ninth Circuit observed in United States v. Gilbert, 813 P.2d 1523 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 860 (1987): If conduct contains both speech and non-speech elements, and if Congress has the authority to regulate the non-speech conduct, incidental restrictions on freedom of speech are not constitutionally invalid. 813 F.2d at 1529. Plaintiffs rely heavily on R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 112 S.Ct. 2538 (1992) which invalidated a city ordinance that explicitly barred any "symbol," "appellation," or "graffiti," that expressed hostility based on race, color, creed, or gender. However, as the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Wisconsin, there is a distinction between invalid laws explicitly directed at protected expression, such as the city ordinance reviewed in R.A.V., and valid laws aimed at unprotected conduct as is the case here. Thus, the Court held, "whereas the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. was explicitly directed at expression (i.e., 'speech' or 'messages') [the Wisconsin statute] is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment." 113 S.Ct. at 2201 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs further argue that FACE is overbroad because it reaches peaceable and constitutionally-protected activities in which they engage to dissuade women from having abortions. Plaintiffs contend that such activities conceivably might cause psychological injury to these women, and therefore be proscribed under FACE. Plaintiffs further allege that FACE is unconstitutionally "vague" and fails to give them fair notice of whether it prohibits the conduct they contemplate. In a facial challenge such as here, a law is deemed "overbroad" only where it reaches, a " 'substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.' " Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 458 (1987) (quoting Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 (1982)). This requires the court to find either that " 'every, application of the statute create[s] an impermissible risk of suppression of ideas' " or " 'a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the court.' " New York State Club Association v. New York, 487 U.S. 1, 11 (1988) (quoting City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 798, 801 (1984)). Plaintiffs thus must demonstrate from the text of FACE and from actual fact that a substantial number of instances exist in which FACE cannot be applied constitutionally. Id., 487 U.S. at 14. Absent such a showing, whatever overbreadth may exist can be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which FACE's prohibitions may not be applied. Id. Plaintiffs contend that a "plausible reading" of several FACE provisions "is that they may be violated by the very things pro-life protesters and counsellors try to do every day on the streets and sidewalks outside clinics," and that these provisions have an "impermissible, chilling effect" upon the exercise of first amendment rights. (P. Brief at pp. 19-20). Here, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that FACE reaches a substantial amount of protected conduct. FACE does not apply to a substantial amount of protected conduct in that by its terms, it is directed at unprotected conduct, and not speech, and plaintiffs have failed to cite sufficient factual scenarios which convince the Court that FACE could potentially reach protected conduct. Where, as here, "conduct and not merely speech is involved ... the overbreadth ... must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 (1973). E.g., Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 617 (1968) (rejecting similar overbreadth challenge to statute that like FACE, prohibits obstruction of access to specified facilities). The Court also finds that FACE is not unconstitutionally vague. In order to be unconstitutionally vague, the statute must be "impermissibly vague in all of its applications." Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at. 499. A statute is unconstitutionally vague only if people " 'of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.' " Hynes v. Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (quoting Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)). Here, not only does FACE include specific definitions for such key terms as "intimidate," "interfere," and "physical obstruction," most of the operative words come from other statutes which the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have construed and found not unconstitutionally vague. Thus, for example, in Cameron v. Johnson, the Court held that a state statute prohibiting "picketing or mass demonstrations in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress" was not unconstitutionally vague. 390 U.S. at 612 n. 1, 616; see also Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Similarly, in United States v. Gilbert, the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Fair Housing Act's prohibition against the use of "force or threat of force" to injure, intimidate or interfere with anyone who is lawfully aiding or encouraging others in "occupying ... any dwelling" was not unconstitutionally vague. 813 F,.2d at 1530. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit observed even more broadly that "legislation which proscribes the use of force or the threat of force should not be found to be void for vagueness." Id. Finally, plaintiffs contend that FACE's provision allowing the recovery in a civil action against violators of $5,000 in statutory damages is unconstitutional under NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), because the damages may be assessed against protected conduct. However, not only has the Court determined that FACE does not apply to protected conduct, plaintiffs' argument here also fails because it is wholly speculative and is more properly raised in the context of an actual dispute in which a plaintiff attempts to invoke this provision in connection with particular conduct. [2] [2]. The Court also rejects plaintiffs' claim that FACE impermissibly infringes their freedom of association guaranteed by the first amendment. FACE does not prohibit plaintiffs from associating with others or from joining with them to express a particular viewpoint. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently observed, "the First Amendment does not extend to joining with others for the purpose of depriving third parties of their lawful rights." Madsen, 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. at 9280. B. Free Exercise Clause and Religious Freedom Restoration Act Plaintiffs argue that FACE violates their rights under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb, et seq. A law that is neutral toward religion and is generally applicable does not offend the free exercise clause, even if it has an incidental effect on religious practice. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 2226 (1993). The Court finds that plaintiffs' strained attempts to cast FACE as a law that is not neutral towards religion are unavailing. Not only does the text of FACE itself refute any such suggestion, there is nothing in FACE's legislative history that supports the conclusion that Congress enacted the statute for an impermissible religious purpose. The statute prohibits certain conduct regardless of whether religious conviction motivated the actor, and it neither favors certain religions over others nor favors no religion over religion. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides in pertinent part: Government may substanially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person 1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and 2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. As a threshold matter as discussed above, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that FACE substantially burdens any person's exercise of religion. plaintiffs do not seriously argue that their exercise of religion entails the use of force or threats of force. Instead, they are primarily concerned that they will be prevented from engaging in peaceful religious activities, such as prayer and attempts to dissuade individuals, on religious grounds, from seeking abortions. It appears that plaintiffs believe that these activities will be substantially burdened by the prohibition of physical obstruction. However, plaintiffs do not contend that it is part of their exercise of religion to make ingress to or egress from a facility impossible, unreasonably difficult, or hazardous, which is what is prohibited by the statute. Even assuming that FACE substantially burdened plaintiffs' exercise of religion, application of that burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. Congress unquestionably has a compelling interest in prohibiting the use of force and threats of force and physical obstruction of facilities providing reproductive health services. As plaintiffs admit, such conduct is already unlawful under state and local laws. in addition, the evidence before Congress established that such obstruction has seriously impeded the access of women to important health services, including the constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. Congress found that physical obstruction hag imposed serious medical risks on women and has an effect on interstate commerce. Moreover, FACE is a carefully drawn statute that addresses the precise interest that Congress identified and nothing more. it addresses a narrow and carefully proscribed set of actions that contribute directly to the compelling problems for which it sought to provide a remedy. Its prohibitions are limited to the use of force, threats of force, and physical obstruction. It requires that violators act with an intent to injure, intimidate, or interfere with a person. And the statute is limited to those persons who engage in such conduct because someone sought or provided reproductive health services. Finally, Congress provided definitions for certain key terms that focus the statute on the specific problems that it was addressing. Accordingly, the Court concludes that FACT does not violate the free exercise clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. [3] [3] Similarly, plaintiffs' challenge based on the establishment clause also fails as a matter of law because, as discussed above, FACE clearly has a secular purpose, and it neither fosters excessive government entanglement with religion nor has a primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. See, e.g., Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 319-20 (1980). C. Congressional Power to Pass FACE Plaintiffs argue that Congress lacked power under the commerce clause to pass FACE, and that Congress therefore enacted FACE in violation of the tenth amendment. Plaintiffs further argue that Congress also lacked the authority to pass FACE under sec. 5 of the fourteenth amendment. When considering whether a particular exercise of congressional power is valid under the commerce clause, the Court must merely determine: 1) whether Congress had a basis for finding that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce, and 2) whether the means it selected to eliminate the problem are reasonable and appropriate. See Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 264, 276 (1981). In considering these questions, the "court must defer to a congressional finding that a regulated activity affects interstate commerce, if there is any rational basis for such a finding" and end its inquiry "once [it] determines that Congress acted rationally in adopting a particular regulatory scheme." id. In passing FACE, Congress collected ample evidence that the conduct prohibited under FACE affects interstate commerce. Thus, for example, Congress concluded that "[c]linics and other abortion service providers clearly are involved in interstate commerce, both directly and indirectly. They purchase medicine, medical supplies, surgical instruments and other necessary medical products, often from other States; they employ staff; they own and lease office space; they generate income." Senate Report, at p. 31. Also, "many of the patients who seek services from these facilities engage in interstate commerce by traveling from one state to obtain services in another." Id. Clinic employees and physicians also travel across state lines to work. Furthermore, Congress found that the types of activities proscribed by FACE have a negative impact on interstate commerce, reducing the availability of abortion services and the interstate movement of people and goods. Id. Finally, Congress found that the problem addressed by FACE is nationwide and beyond the ability of individual states to control. Id. The Court further finds that the prohibitions in FACE are a reasonable and appropriate means to address the problem of violence at reproductive health service facilities. The Court concludes that Congress had the power under the commerce clause to enact FACE. [4] Having so concluded, the Court need not address plaintiffs' remaining argument that sec. 5 of the fourteenth amendment does not give Congress the independent authority to enact FACE. [4] Plaintiffs cite United States v. Cortner, 834 F.Supp. 242 (M.D. Tenn.1993) in support of their argument that Congress had no power to enact FACE pursuant to the commerce clause. In that case, the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Tennessee held that Congress lacked the authority under the commerce clause to enact the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2119, because there is an insufficient nexus between "carjacking" and interstate commerce. Id. at 243-44. In contrast to the facts of Cortner, as discussed above, there is a sufficient nexus between the activities that are the subject of FACE and interstate commerce to support Congressional authority to enact FACE pursuant to the commerce clause. Moreover, even if that case were on point, it is not binding authority here and, in any case, its reasoning has since been rejected by at least one other court addressing precisely the same argument concerning precisely the same federal statute. See, e.g., United States v. Payne, 841 F.Supp. 810 (S.D. Ohio 1994) (upholding Congress' power under the commerce clause to enact the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992). D. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that FACE does not infringe plaintiffs' rights under the first and fifth amendments, or their putative statutory rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Congress had full authority to enact FACE under the Commerce Clause. Because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED. Because this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. [end of FAQ]