United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on

the Judiciary, House of Representatives

November 1998 ABORTION CLINICS

Information on the

Effectiveness of the

Freedom of Access to

Clinic Entrances Act

GAO/GGD-99-2

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-278842 

November 10, 1998

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Crime

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The 1980s and early 1990s brought escalating levels of violence to abortion

clinics across the country. In response, Congress passed the Freedom of

Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE),1

 which made it a federal

offense to engage in violent or obstructive conduct intended to interfere

with people seeking or providing reproductive health services. Abortion

clinic violence remains an issue of national concern.

In response to your request, this report provides information on (1) the

occurrence of abortion clinic incidents2

 before and after FACE, as reported

to us by representatives of clinics that abortion rights groups identified as

having experienced relatively high levels of incidents before the enactment

of FACE;

3

 (2) views regarding FACE and its effectiveness from

representatives of these clinics, selected police departments and U.S.

Attorney offices, and other representatives from the Department of Justice

(DOJ), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), national

abortion rights organizations, and national anti-abortion organizations;

(3) efforts by local and federal law enforcement agencies following the

enactment of FACE, and satisfaction with these agencies; and (4) any court

cases pertaining to FACE and the courts’ rulings in those cases.

To provide this information, we surveyed representatives of 42 clinics that

had experienced relatively high levels of incidents before FACE according

to data collected by abortion rights groups, a sample of 15 police

departments that serve the areas where those clinics are located, and 36

U.S. Attorney offices whose districts include those clinics. We based our

sampling plan on clinics that reportedly experienced relatively high levels

of violence before FACE; therefore, the views we obtained are illustrative,

rather than representative of all groups in the country. Our survey results

1

P.L. 103-259, codified at 18 U.S.C. 248.

2

These incidents include picketing, hate mail, harassing calls, blockades, invasions, vandalism,

burglary, arson, attempted arson, bombings, attempted bombings, bomb threats, assault, stalking, and

death threats. Not all these incidents are necessarily violations of FACE.

3

Throughout this report, we use the term “abortion clinics” or “clinics” to refer to facilities that

perform abortions. Although FACE also applies to hospitals, physicians’ offices, as well as other family

planning and reproductive health service facilities, our study focused on abortion clinics because they

reportedly accounted for the majority of incidents.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

are not generalizable to all clinics, police departments, and U.S. Attorney

offices. In doing our work we also interviewed other officials from DOJ and

ATF and representatives of national abortion rights and anti-abortion

organizations. We identified lawsuits that pertained to FACE by reviewing

legal databases and DOJ information.

Results in Brief Our analysis of clinic survey responses indicated that most of the clinics

experienced fewer types of incidents during the 2 years preceding our

survey (April 1996 through March 1998) than they had in the 2 years prior

to the passage of FACE (June 1992 through May 1994). The types of

incidents that declined included blockades, vandalism, invasions, bomb

threats, death threats, assaults, and stalking. Most of the clinic

respondents said that picketing continued to occur but involved fewer and

more peaceful protesters.

Most of those we contacted believed that FACE had an effect on clinic

incidents. Respondents from 35 of the 42 clinics we surveyed credited FACE

with deterring or reducing abortion clinic incidents. Respondents from 21

of the 36 U.S. Attorney offices we surveyed thought that FACE had

positively affected incidents, including deterring or reducing their

occurrence. Most of the other officials whom we interviewed from DOJ and

national abortion rights organizations also felt that FACE has been a

deterrent to clinic violence, particularly blockades. Representatives of the

police departments that we contacted were less consistent in their views.

The representative of one anti-abortion organization expressed the view

that FACE caused more extreme violence because it has driven peaceful

protesters away. In addition to FACE, factors such as prosecution and

penalties under other federal laws and local injunctions were cited as

helping to reduce clinic incidents.

Most police department respondents told us their departments had taken

steps to better prepare officers and clinics for potential incidents

following the enactment of FACE. Representatives of 9 of the 15 police

departments we contacted said their officers had received training

pertaining to abortion clinics, and 12 said their departments had

conducted outreach and education with clinics since FACE became law.

About half reported engaging in prevention activities, such as assigning

officers to clinic entrances during all hours of operation and increasing

patrols at high-risk times.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

Representatives of 31 of the 36 U.S. Attorney offices we surveyed reported

that their districts had established abortion violence task forces, and 29

reported accomplishments that included improved coordination and

communication. Nearly all the U.S. Attorney respondents whose districts

had task forces reported that meetings were typically attended by

representatives of federal and local law enforcement agencies.

Most clinic respondents were satisfied with both local and federal law

enforcement. Thirty-three of the 42 clinic respondents were generally

satisfied with the protection provided by local law enforcement, and 32

were generally satisfied with their relationship with local law

enforcement. Clinic respondents who observed negative aspects of local

law enforcement most often cited poor response to incidents and poor

enforcement of laws. Thirty of the 42 clinic respondents were generally

satisfied with federal law enforcement, often citing good communication,

proactive steps, and good response to and investigation of incidents.

We identified 46 criminal and civil cases pertaining to FACE that were

either completed or pending as of September 11, 1998. Many of these cases

raised constitutional challenges to FACE. These challenges, which included

charges that FACE violates the freedom of speech and religious protection

in the First Amendment, were all ultimately unsuccessful. Convictions

were obtained in most of the reported5

 criminal FACE prosecutions, and

civil remedies were obtained in most of the civil lawsuits in which a FACE

violation was alleged.

Background FACE was enacted on May 26, 1994. The act gave the federal government a

new tool for investigating and prosecuting abortion-related violence and

disruptions. It established 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 also prohibited the damage

or destruction of property that belongs to a reproductive health care

facility. Appendix I contains the text of FACE in its entirety.

FACE not only sought to protect the rights of those seeking or providing

abortion services, it also sought to protect the rights of anti-abortion

protestors in expressing their views. The act states that it must not be

construed to prohibit any expressive conduct, including peaceful picketing

5

Reported decisions are those that have been published and a decision has been rendered on at least

part of the case.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

or other peaceful demonstration, protected by the First Amendment. Thus,

circumstances dictate whether such actions as picketing violate the law.

For example, peaceful, nonobstructive picketing on public property would

not violate FACE; obstructive or threatening picketing on clinic property

could be found to violate the act.

Criminal and civil FACE cases can be initiated in different ways and result

in different penalties. Criminal FACE prosecutions may be brought only by

the Attorney General of the United States, and only if an alleged FACE

violation has already occurred. The act sets out criminal penalties of fines,

imprisonment, or both, depending on the nature of the violation and

whether it is a first or subsequent offense. For example, in cases of

nonviolent physical obstructions, first-time offenders can receive a

maximum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. If bodily

injury results from an offense, regardless of whether it is a first or

subsequent offense, the maximum sentence is 10 years; and if death

results, the maximum sentence is any term of years or life imprisonment.

Civil actions may be brought by the Attorney General of the United States;

the Attorney General of any state on behalf of anyone who is injured or

may be injured by a violation of FACE; or any aggrieved person involved in

providing, obtaining, or seeking to provide or obtain reproductive health

services.4

 Courts have the discretion to award appropriate relief, including

injunctions, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.

The Attorney General has vested in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division the federal

government’s civil and criminal enforcement authority to bring cases in

court under FACE and other federal statutes that can be applied to abortion

clinic violence. According to a high level DOJ official, the Civil Rights

Division has often investigated and brought cases in collaboration with

U.S. Attorneys’ offices in the field, and occasionally U.S. Attorneys’ offices

have brought cases on their own. However, all civil and criminal charging

decisions must be approved by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil

Rights.

In August 1994, shortly after two murders took place outside an abortion

clinic in Florida, the Attorney General formed a federal task force to

investigate the possible existence of a national conspiracy against

reproductive health care providers and to coordinate federal enforcement

activities. The task force consisted of representatives from DOJ’s Criminal

Division, Civil Rights Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and

4

A corporation can qualify as an aggrieved person and thus have standing to bring suit. Planned

Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Walton, 1997 WL 734012 at *2, 3 (E.D. PA).

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

United States Marshals Service; and ATF. This task force played an

important role in the early implementation of FACE, according to a

high-level DOJ official. The task force prompted the first criminal

prosecution under FACE and made federal prosecutors across the country

more aware of the applicability of other preexisting federal criminal

statutes to clinic violence. The Attorney General’s task force went out of

existence in early 1997 after its lead prosecutors concluded that it lacked

sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a national conspiracy beyond

a reasonable doubt.

In January 1995, following shootings at clinics in Massachusetts and

Virginia, the President instructed DOJ to take certain steps to address clinic

violence. He instructed DOJ to direct (1) each United States Attorney to

immediately head an abortion violence task force of federal, state, and

local law enforcement officials; and (2) each U.S. Marshal to consult with

clinics regarding communications with law enforcement agencies. The

task force was to formulate plans to address clinic security. The Attorney

General followed the President’s order with a memorandum outlining the

task forces’ responsibilities, including developing plans to address

abortion clinic security, coordinating law enforcement efforts relating to

abortion violence, assisting local law enforcement in responding to

abortion clinic incidents, and ensuring that cases that could be tried under

FACE are filed appropriately.

The Attorney General’s memo also lays out in general terms federal and

local law enforcement responsibilities regarding abortion clinic violence.

It states that “violence against abortion providers is, in the first instance, a

violation of state and local law and the duty to prevent such crime and

investigate and prosecute it when it occurs falls primarily to state and

local officials, where they are able to deal effectively with it. However, the

federal government has an important role in assisting state and local

authorities and bringing to bear federal tools and resources . . . .” The

memo states that clinics in need of assistance should be advised to first

contact their local police departments.

In mid-1997, due to concerns that clinic violence had increased and federal

coordination had declined, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil

Rights established an Abortion Violence Working Group. The group was

formed to promote communication and coordination among federal law

enforcement components and agencies involved in investigating and

prosecuting abortion violence cases. Comprising senior representatives of

DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

(EOUSA), the FBI, the Marshals Service, and senior representatives of ATF,

the group reportedly meets every 5 to 6 weeks to share information,

coordinate law enforcement and litigation strategies, and formulate plans

to respond to perceived threats to providers of reproductive health

services.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Our report objectives were to provide information on (1) the occurrence

of abortion clinic incidents before and after FACE, as reported to us by

representatives of clinics that abortion rights groups identified as having

experienced relatively high levels of incidents before the enactment of

FACE; (2) views regarding FACE and its effectiveness from representatives of

these clinics, selected police departments and U.S. Attorney offices, and

other representatives from DOJ, ATF, three national abortion rights

organizations, and two national anti-abortion organizations; (3) efforts by

local and federal law enforcement agencies following the enactment of

FACE and clinic, U.S. Attorney office, police department, abortions rights

group, and anti-abortion rights group representatives’ satisfaction with

these agencies; and (4) any court cases pertaining to FACE and the courts’

rulings in those cases.

To obtain information from clinics on changes in the occurrence of clinic

incidents, we conducted structured telephone interviews with a

judgmental sample of representatives of 42 abortion clinics identified as

having experienced relatively high levels of violence during the 2-year

period prior to the passage of FACE. Three national abortion rights groups

used data they had collected during the 1993 and 1994 time frame to

identify these clinics for us. During the interviews with clinic

representatives, we listed types of incidents that the clinics might have

experienced, and we asked whether each type of incident had occurred at

the clinic in either of the two time periods we were studying. We asked

only whether each incident had occurred, not how many times it occurred.

Furthermore, we did not ask respondents whether each type of incident

they experienced was a violation of FACE, for this would have required a

legal assessment. (See app. II for the questionnaire we used to interview

clinic representatives and their aggregate responses to these and other

questions.)

To obtain the views of representatives from abortion clinics, police

departments, U.S. Attorney offices, and others regarding the effectiveness

of FACE and the efforts of federal and local law enforcement following the

enactment of FACE, we conducted structured telephone interviews with

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

representatives of 42 abortion clinics and 15 police departments selected

from a stratified sample of the 40 departments that serve the locations of

the clinics we contacted. In addition, we sent questionnaires to the 36 U.S.

Attorneys who serve the federal judicial districts in which the clinics we

contacted were located. We also interviewed other officials at DOJ, ATF, and

representatives of three national abortion rights organizations and two

anti-abortion organizations. We reviewed studies and documents related to

FACE and abortion clinic violence. (See app. II through app. IV for copies of

our survey instruments. See app. V for a listing of the organizations we

contacted during our review.)

Because we did not draw a representative sample of abortion clinics,

police departments, and U.S. Attorney offices, the results of our structured

surveys represent only the clinics, police departments, and U.S. Attorney

offices we contacted. Nevertheless, these survey results are useful for

better understanding the implications of FACE. In responding to

open-ended survey questions, respondents provided narrative answers

that sometimes involved more than one theme or topic. Consequently,

when we categorize and discuss responses in this report, the number may

appear to exceed the total number of respondents. (See app. VI for further

information on our survey methodology.)

We took the following steps to identify cases in which FACE was litigated

and the courts’ rulings in those cases:

• We obtained from DOJ a summary of all the criminal prosecutions and civil

lawsuits it had initiated or completed pertaining to FACE as of

September 11, 1998.

• We conducted a search of WESTLAW and LEXIS databases to identify any

reported decisions under FACE.

• We consulted the National Abortion Federation’s Quarterly Report6 on

legal issues relating to abortion and a listing of FACE cases compiled by the

National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund.

We conducted our work from December 1997 through August 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

received comments on a draft of this report from DOJ and the Department

of the Treasury. These comments are summarized at the end of this letter.

6

First Amendment Issues Affecting Abortion Providers and Their Attorneys: Report for First Quarter

1998, the National Abortion Federation, Washington, D.C. (1988).

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

Clinic Respondents

Reported

Experiencing Fewer

Types of Incidents in

Past 2 Years

Most of the 42 clinic representatives we interviewed reported experiencing

fewer types of incidents during the 2-year period before we began our

interviews (April 1996 through March 1998) than they had during the

2-year period before the May 1994 enactment of FACE (June 1992 through

May 1994). Many respondents also indicated that the frequency of

incidents had decreased, as did severity, particularly the severity of

picketing.

Although clinics’ experiences with anti-abortion incidents varied,

representatives of almost all these clinics told us they experienced

picketing and hate mail or harassing phone calls during both time periods.

In addition, their responses indicated declines in the number of clinics

experiencing blockades, vandalism, invasions, bomb threats, death

threats, assaults, and stalking of clinic staff or family members. For

example, 27 of the 42 respondents told us their clinics had experienced

blockades during the 2 years prior to FACE; 6 said they had experienced

blockades during the most recent 2 years. Thirty-six respondents told us of

vandalism at their clinics during the first time period; 19 reported

vandalism in the more recent period. Table 1 identifies the number of

clinic respondents who reported specific types of incidents as occurring in

each of the two time periods we studied.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

Table 1: Number of Clinics

Experiencing Specific Types of

Incidents During 2-Year Period

Preceding FACE (June 1992 Through

May 1994) and 2-Year Period

Preceding GAO Survey (April 1996

Through March 1998) 

Type of incident

Clinics reporting

incident occurred

before FACE 

(6/92 to 5/94)

Clinics reporting

incident occurred

more recently 

(4/96 to 3/98)

Change in number

of clinics reporting

incident

Blockades 27 6 –21

Vandalism 36 19 –17

Invasions 25 10 –15

Bomb threats 29 14 –15

Death threats 31 16 –15

Assault 23 10 –13

Stalking 25 12 –13

Burglary 6 2 –4

Arson 5 1 –4

Hate mail/ harassing

calls 40 37 –3

Bombings 2 0 –2

Attempted arson 5 4 –1

Attempted bombings 2 1 –1

Picketing 41 42 +1

n=42

Source: GAO survey of selected clinics.

We also asked clinic respondents whether any other incidents had

occurred at their clinics during these two time periods. Twenty-four of the

42 respondents described additional incidents, including butyric acid

attacks7

 and cases of suspicious packages.

In addition to asking representatives whether their clinics had experienced

each type of incident during the two time periods, we asked whether, in

general, incidents were more or less frequent in the 2 years preceding our

survey compared to the 2 years preceding the passage of FACE. Thirty-four

respondents indicated that overall, they had seen a pronounced change in

the frequency of incidents at their clinics, noting decreases in the

following types of incidents: hate mail or harassing phone calls (19),

picketing (17), blockades (16), invasions of their clinics (14), vandalism

(13), and stalking (11). At a few clinics, however, respondents thought that

these types of incidents had become more frequent.

7

Some anti-abortion activists have squirted, sprayed, or injected this intensely noxious industrial

chemical in clinics to temporarily shut down clinic operations. Butyric acid can damage property and

cause nausea and respiratory problems.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

We also asked representatives of these clinics whether incidents were

more or less severe in the 2 years preceding our survey compared to the 2

years preceding the passage of FACE. Of 35 respondents who indicated that

overall, they had seen a pronounced change in the severity of incidents at

their clinics, 26 said that picketing was less severe in the more recent

2-year period than it had been during the 2 years prior to FACE; 3 said that it

was more severe. Of those explaining how picketing had become less

severe, one respondent told us that picketers were very aggressive and

verbally abusive prior to FACE, but that events are now quieter and take the

form of “prayer vigils.” Another said that protestors are still picketing, but

they do so in fewer numbers and they follow the rules. Ten respondents

said that hate mail or threatening phone calls had become less severe, but

1 thought that this type of incident had increased in severity.

Many Had Positive

Views of FACE;

Others Had Mixed

Views

For the most part, representatives of the clinics and U.S. Attorney offices

we surveyed thought that FACE had made a difference, often citing its

deterrent effect. Representatives of the three national abortion rights

groups and one of the anti-abortion groups we contacted expressed

similar views. A representative of the other anti-abortion group said that

his group was not affected by FACE because its members do not engage in

activities that would violate the act. Clinic respondents, DOJ officials, and

representatives of national abortion rights groups said that other factors in

addition to FACE, such as local injunctions, other federal laws, and

improved clinic security measures, also may have reduced incidents.

Police department respondents expressed divergent views about FACE’s

effectiveness. A small number of respondents from the U.S. Attorney

offices, police departments, and clinics we contacted during our review

believed that FACE did not have an effect on clinic incidents. Some said

that incidents had already declined before FACE was enacted, and others

mentioned specific weaknesses of the act.

Many View FACE

Positively and See It

Reducing Incidents

Most clinic and U.S. Attorney office respondents believed that FACE had a

positive effect on clinic incidents, often citing its deterrent effect. Others

we contacted, including DOJ and ATF officials and representatives of three

national abortion rights and one anti-abortion group, expressed the same

belief, particularly regarding blockades. In addition, U.S. Attorney office

respondents and DOJ officials described strengths of FACE, such as the

additional tools it provides federal agents for investigating and prosecuting

clinic incidents.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

Thirty-seven of the clinic representatives we interviewed believed that

FACE had an effect on violent or disruptive incidents at their clinics, and 35

described that effect as reducing or deterring incidents. For example, one

respondent said that violent demonstrators were given only a “slap on the

wrist” before FACE, but FACE made them realize that consequences can be

more severe. Another respondent whose clinic had been involved in a FACE

prosecution credited FACE with ending what he described as a cycle in

which some protestors endlessly engaged—blockading, being arrested,

spending a few days in jail, and then blockading again. Five clinic

respondents credited FACE with increasing support or awareness of local

law enforcement. For example, one respondent explained that as a result

of FACE, local authorities more seriously enforced clinic-related violations

of the law.

Of the 36 U.S. Attorney office representatives surveyed, 21 believed that

FACE had an effect on clinic violence or disruptions in their districts. In

describing the effect of the act, 15 respondents said that FACE, or federal

actions taken as a result of FACE, had reduced or deterred incidents. A

representative from 1 U.S. Attorney office stated that his district’s

prosecutions of 12 individuals in 3 separate physical obstruction cases

resulted in removing the violators from the streets and appeared to have

deterred similar illegal conduct by others. In his view, FACE, in conjunction

with state and local enforcement efforts, appeared to have reduced the

number of illegal protestors to a core group of offenders who were

unlikely to be easily deterred.

Twenty-three of the 36 U.S. Attorney office respondents believed that FACE

enhanced local law enforcement’s ability to protect clinics from violence,

and 27 believed it enhanced federal law enforcement’s ability to do the

same.

Representatives of 27 U.S. Attorney offices cited strengths they saw in

FACE. Eight respondents focused on the flexibility FACE provides or the

additional federal tools it offers. These respondents cited federal

restraining orders and injunctions and the law’s flexibility that allows for

bringing either civil or criminal causes of action. Seven respondents saw

the act’s strength in its establishment of federal authority. For example,

one respondent explained that FACE allows for intervention in an area that

was previously outside federal jurisdiction. To a lesser extent, respondents

cited other strengths of FACE, including the additional attention it has

brought to the issue of clinic incidents, its harsher penalties, and the

communication it promotes among law enforcement agencies.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

DOJ officials we contacted said that FACE has been a significant tool that

has allowed the federal government to undertake investigations,

prosecutions, and civil actions in an area in which it previously had limited

criminal authority and no authority to pursue civil remedies. FACE, in

effect, gave the FBI jurisdiction to investigate abortion clinic violence and,

in so doing, allows the use of FBI resources to augment ATF’s continued

role in investigating clinic arsons and bombings. Also, according to DOJ

officials, the existence of FACE, as well as the prosecutions that result from

it, deters such incidents as massive disruptions and blockades. They said

that civil actions brought under FACE can result in civil remedies, including

injunctive relief, damages, and penalties. An official in the Special

Litigation Section of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division stated that civil cases often

lead to an injunction and offered the opinion that federal court injunctions

have been effective in reducing incidents. Civil injunctions can provide

relief, such as establishing a “buffer zone” around a clinic entrance that

demonstrators may not enter, or banning excessive noise during a clinic’s

hours of operation.

ATF officials with whom we spoke indicated that FACE has made a

difference by making a large dent in “more minor” incidents, such as

blockades. They believe FACE has deterred more minor crimes because it

attacks violators in the pocketbook by imposing substantial federal

penalties. For example, prior to FACE, it would not have been a federal

offense to throw a “stink bomb” or acid into a clinic; FACE made this a

federal violation with a potential fine of up to $10,000. ATF officials added,

however, that if a clinic incident involves an arson or bombing with no

injuries or fatalities, FACE penalties are weak compared to those provided

under the federal statute governing arson and explosives.8

 In such cases,

prosecutors may choose not to prosecute under FACE.

Representatives of two of the national abortion rights organizations we

contacted viewed FACE as a major factor in deterring anti-abortion violence

and saving lives, and a representative of a third abortion rights

organization said that FACE had deterred blockades. The head of one group

expressed the view that without FACE, violence would have continued to

skyrocket. The head of another group stated that the penalties of FACE and

the threat that federal law enforcement could show up at any time have

deterred blockades. She noted that even though the number of blockades

was falling before FACE was passed, it declined even further because of

FACE. According to these organizations, blockades that occur now involve

fewer people and fewer clinics.

8

18 U.S.C. 844.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

A representative from one of the two national anti-abortion groups we

contacted said that FACE has had a “chilling effect” on the number of

people willing to be involved in anti-abortion activities. He added that FACE

has “raised the pricetag for participation” because many are not willing to

risk federal charges and prosecution despite their commitment to the

anti-abortion cause. He attributed a decline in his group’s anti-abortion

actions to FACE. A representative from the other anti-abortion organization

we contacted said that FACE had not affected his group’s activities because

the group does not organize protests, nor does it support activities that

would violate FACE. Nevertheless, this organization is opposed to FACE

because it believes FACE targets pro-life activists’ free speech.

Factors Other Than FACE

Also Seen as Reducing

Clinic Incidents

Representatives of clinics we surveyed, DOJ officials, police department

representatives, and a national abortion rights study9

 acknowledged that

factors other than FACE also played a role in reducing anti-abortion

incidents at clinics. They identified a variety of factors, including local

injunctions, other federal statutes, strong local law enforcement, and

clinic security measures, as having an effect on clinic incidents.

When asked whether factors other than FACE had an effect on incidents,

most clinic respondents indicated that there were factors in addition to

FACE that had an effect on incidents at their clinics. Among the 31

respondents who expressed this view, 11 cited other legal actions, such as

local injunctions that were in place prior to the passage of FACE. Ten

respondents thought that negative reactions to violence had caused a

reduction in clinic incidents. As examples, they said that people with

anti-abortion views do not want to be associated with the violent actions

of extremists and that press coverage of the more heinous acts decreased

public support for the anti-abortion position. Seven respondents credited

their local law enforcement agencies with reducing clinic incidents, and

four said that other state or federal laws decreased clinic violence.

Alleged perpetrators of clinic incidents have been prosecuted under

federal statutes other than FACE. Although DOJ officials believed FACE had

reduced clinic incidents, they found it difficult to isolate the effects of FACE

on convictions because FACE has been used in conjunction with other

statutes. One official described FACE as “one of an arsenal of statutory

weapons available.” Depending on the case, federal prosecutors may find

it more effective to use statutes that carry heavier penalties, such as the

9

1997 Clinic Violence Survey Report conducted by the Feminist Majority Foundation (1998).

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

federal statute governing arson and explosives, in addition to or in place of

FACE.

Although we did not ask representatives of police departments to identify

factors other than FACE that affected clinic incidents, several nevertheless

provided information on this subject. Three respondents believed that

their departments’ strong response to clinic incidents before FACE was

enacted prevented future incidents. Three others explained that

injunctions or other court orders prior to FACE curtailed incidents in their

communities.

In a report of its 1997 clinic violence survey, the Feminist Majority

Foundation credited several factors, in addition to FACE, with reducing

clinic violence. The report stated that FACE, increased clinic security,

better law enforcement, and community mobilization all worked toward

mitigating violence at abortion clinics.

Police Expressed Mixed

Views About the Effect of

FACE

Police department respondents’ views regarding the effectiveness of FACE

did not exhibit a clear pattern. Of 15 respondents, 10 said they were

knowledgeable about FACE and, therefore, could answer questions about it.

Three said they believed FACE had the effect of ending blockades, reducing

protest activity, or “calming things down.” Three of the four respondents

who said FACE had not affected incidents explained that serious incidents

at clinics in their jurisdictions had already stopped before FACE was

passed. Three respondents told us they did not know whether FACE

affected incidents in their jurisdictions.

Nine of these 10 police department respondents described a variety of

strengths they saw in the act. Among the strengths they cited were that

FACE provides a level of consistency, recognizes a nationwide problem, and

deters illegal activity by most protestors. One respondent told us that the

greatest effect of FACE is that it deters illegal activity by most protestors

because “reasonable people” are afraid of violating federal laws. Another

respondent explained that being able to prosecute cases at a federal level

under FACE was the tool they needed because the local district attorney

had not been willing to prosecute anti-abortion activists.

Some Believe FACE Has

Not Had Intended Effect,

and Some Cite Weaknesses

Although many of the people we contacted shared positive views of FACE,

some did not think FACE had reduced clinic incidents, in part because

incidents were already down prior to May 1994, when the act was passed.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

In addition, some described weaknesses in the act, despite their belief that

it had reduced clinic incidents.

Representatives of 9 of the 36 U.S. Attorney offices we surveyed believed

that FACE had not affected violent or disruptive incidents in their districts

for a variety of reasons. Three respondents, for example, explained that

FACE had no effect because incidents in their districts were either rare or

nonexistent. Another explained that incidents had already declined prior

to FACE because of civil judgments and a tough state law covering

interference at clinics.

Twenty of the 36 U.S. Attorney office respondents cited weaknesses of

FACE, although most of the 20 had also identified strengths of the act. Of

those citing weaknesses, nine noted that penalties available under FACE are

relatively weak. Some commented on weak misdemeanor penalties, and

others compared FACE’s penalties to stiffer treatment available under other

applicable statutes. Four respondents cited weaknesses that had to do

with FACE not clearly delineating the roles of law enforcement agencies. As

one U.S. Attorney office representative stated, “Local law enforcement

agencies get confused over when to call federal law enforcement and who

retains what jurisdiction.” Another expressed the view that it would be

helpful to have a state law to complement federal jurisdiction and give

more alternatives to state and local police.

All 10 of the police department respondents who said they were

knowledgeable about FACE noted weaknesses in the act, with half focusing

on weaknesses with its enforcement. One respondent explained that the

day-to-day workings of FACE are left up to the local police, although, in the

respondent’s view, the police have no authority to enforce it. Four of the

10 respondents expressed the view that FACE had not affected clinic

incidents in their jurisdictions, but 3 explained that serious problems had

already stopped before FACE was passed.

Only 5 of the 42 clinic respondents indicated that FACE did not affect clinic

incidents and 3 expressed the belief that FACE actually led to more

threatening and violent incidents. One respondent explained that the

extreme fringe, frustrated by a decline in overall numbers of protests and

protestors, has taken more threatening and violent actions. This view was

shared by a representative of one of the national anti-abortion

organizations we contacted, who believed that FACE has actually caused

more extreme clinic violence because it has driven peaceful protestors

away.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

Law Enforcement

Efforts Following

Enactment of FACE

At the local level, representatives of most of the police departments we

surveyed said their departments had taken steps to better prepare officers

or clinics in their jurisdictions to respond to incidents since FACE was

enacted. At the federal level, most judicial districts we surveyed had

established abortion violence task forces and achieved positive results,

according to representatives of U.S. Attorney offices.

Police Report Doing

Training, Outreach, and

Prevention to Reduce

Incidents

Representatives of most of the 15 police departments we surveyed

reported their departments had been involved in a variety of efforts to

respond to and reduce clinic incidents since FACE was passed. Most

reported their officers received training about clinic incidents and that

their departments conducted outreach or education efforts with clinics in

their jurisdictions. In addition, close to half also told us of steps their

departments had taken to prevent incidents from occurring at clinics.

According to police department respondents, officers in nine of the

departments we surveyed received training regarding abortion clinic

violence, although the content and participants varied. The type of training

differed by department and included such topics as a review of

constitutional rights and applicable local ordinances, civil disobedience

arrests, managing blockades, and dealing with protestors who go limp.

Departments also differed regarding which officers were trained. For

example, one respondent told us all sworn officers were trained, but

another reported training only supervisors. Others said only officers in

units that respond to clinic incidents received training. Departments also

differed in when their training was provided. For example, one police

department respondent told us that most patrol officers in his department

were trained “five or six years ago.” On the other hand, another

respondent told us uniformed officers and detectives in his department

were trained annually.

Twelve police department respondents said that since FACE was passed,

they had conducted outreach or education with clinic staff about what to

do in the event of violence or disruptions. Nine described efforts designed

to improve communication with clinic staff, including five who said their

departments had assigned specific officers to serve as liaisons with clinics.

Seven respondents told us of their departments’ efforts to improve clinic

security and described a variety of formal and informal measures. For

example, one respondent told us that officers from his department go to

clinics and offer physical and personal security advice. Another said that

officers trained clinic staff on how to spot suspicious packages.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

In addition to the outreach and education efforts reported by police

department respondents, seven told us their departments had taken

special steps to prevent violence or disruption at clinics since the passage

of FACE. Five reported they increased patrols at clinics during high-risk

times, such as the anniversary of Roe v. Wade10 or on Saturdays, when the

most demonstrators are present. One respondent told us that as a

proactive measure, his captain recently began assigning two officers to

every clinic in the jurisdiction during their hours of operation, posting one

officer at each clinic’s front door and one at the back.

Most U.S. Attorneys

Contacted Reported

Positive Results From Task

Forces

Most of the U.S. Attorney offices we contacted said that their districts had

an abortion violence task force, and almost all believed that these groups

had produced positive results, most frequently in the area of increased

communication and coordination with other agencies. Most districts

formed their task forces around the same time, but the number of

meetings held varied by district. According to most U.S. Attorney

respondents, these meetings were typically attended by representatives of

both federal and local law enforcement agencies.

Representatives of 31 of the 36 U.S. Attorney offices we surveyed reported

that their districts had an abortion violence task force. Eighteen of these

respondents indicated their task forces were established in

January 1995—the month in which the President instructed DOJ to direct

U.S. Attorneys to immediately head such a task force. Ten respondents

told us their districts had established task forces prior to 1995. Of the three

respondents reporting that their task forces were established after

January 1995, one said the task force was established in March 1995. The

other two respondents said their task forces were established in early

1998.

Twenty-nine of the 31 U.S. Attorney office respondents who said their

districts had task forces told us they had seen particularly positive results

from these groups. According to 25 of these respondents, their task forces

resulted in increased communication or coordination within the law

enforcement community or with clinics. For example, one respondent told

us that in addition to significantly increasing all levels of communication,

the task force also helped to coordinate federal enforcement efforts with

state and local prosecutors to identify and implement the most effective

response to a given situation. Nine respondents reported that their task

10410 U.S. 113 (1973). This decision of the Supreme Court of the United States held that states could

not ban abortions in cases where the fetus was not yet viable.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

forces established procedures for responding to clinic incidents. Four told

us that a greater awareness of FACE or abortion clinics’ problems resulted

from their task forces, and six said that fewer incidents occurred as a

result of these groups.

Responses from the U.S. Attorney offices we surveyed showed a wide

range in the frequency of task force meetings. One respondent said that

although her district had established a task force, it had not held any

formal meetings. In contrast, 2 respondents said their task forces had met

15 times. The median number of times that task forces had reportedly met

was four.

U.S. Attorney representatives from the 31 districts with task forces said

that task force meetings were typically attended by representatives of the

U.S. Attorney’s office, the FBI, and the U.S. Marshals Service. Twenty-seven

said that ATF representatives typically attend task force meetings, 29 said

that local law enforcement representatives typically attend, and 14 said

that clinic representatives typically attend. Twenty-nine of the U.S.

Attorney respondents indicated their task forces have procedures for

sharing information or coordinating efforts with federal law enforcement

agencies, and 30 indicated they have procedures for doing the same with

local law enforcement agencies.

Law Enforcement

Efforts Generally

Viewed Favorably

Clinic and U.S. Attorney office respondents generally viewed both local

and federal law enforcement agencies favorably. Most clinic respondents

were satisfied with the protection provided by local law enforcement, with

their relationship with local law enforcement, and with the arrests that

were made. Most were also satisfied with federal law enforcement

regarding anti-abortion activities that took place at their clinics. However,

several clinic respondents and representatives of three national abortion

rights groups expressed some dissatisfaction with local and federal

authorities.

Most Clinics and U.S.

Attorneys Contacted

Generally Satisfied With

Local Law Enforcement

Efforts

Most representatives of the clinics and U.S. Attorney offices we surveyed

were satisfied with local law enforcement efforts regarding FACE during

the 1996 to 1998 time period. All 42 clinic respondents told us that local

law enforcement had been contacted regarding at least 1 type of incident.

Most respondents were generally satisfied when we asked about their

overall impressions of local law enforcement in terms of clinic protection,

relationship with the clinic, and arrests, as well as their experiences

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

regarding specific types of incidents. Most U.S. Attorney office

representatives also reported general satisfaction with the local law

enforcement agencies in their districts.

Thirty-three of the 42 clinic respondents said they had been generally

satisfied with the effectiveness of local law enforcement in protecting their

clinics over the past 2 years. Most often, they pointed to their satisfaction

with how local law enforcement responded to calls or incidents. Nineteen

of the respondents’ comments fell into this category, which included

statements about local law enforcement’s quick response, willingness to

define limits for protestors, and strong presence during blockades and

picketing. Sixteen noted law enforcement’s good or serious attitude,

including remarks about understanding the severity of the problem or

understanding clinics’ needs. Twelve respondents highlighted the

proactive aspect of local law enforcement’s protection. For example, one

respondent told us that the police had provided personal and physical

plant security training to clinic staff, and another said that local law

enforcement had participated in the clinic’s security planning. One

respondent explained that a police officer is present at the clinic on the

days that abortions are performed and when picketers are present.

Another told us of a panic button that links the clinic to the police

department. Ten respondents spoke of good communications or

relationships with local law enforcement.

Clinic respondents also reported general satisfaction with their

relationship with local law enforcement and the appropriateness of arrests

made over the past 2 years. Thirty-two of the 42 clinic respondents told us

they were generally satisfied with their clinics’ relationships with local law

enforcement. Of 35 respondents who answered our question about the

appropriateness of arrests made by local law enforcement, 19 indicated

that they were satisfied. Seven of the 42 respondents indicated that the

question about arrests was not applicable to their clinics.

Thirty-four clinic respondents said they had observed particularly positive

aspects of local law enforcement actions, with half describing positive

responses to calls or incidents. For example, one respondent told us that

the police had intervened between clinic staff and demonstrators and

helped bring about peaceful resolutions to incidents. Another explained

that the police department had created a strong presence during

blockades and picketing and sent a strong message that breaking the law

would not be tolerated. Nine respondents described proactive steps local

authorities had taken. For example, one respondent said that the police

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

randomly drop by and check in with clinic staff. Another reported that the

police had scheduled a meeting with representatives of both sides of the

issue. When the anti-abortion faction did not attend, the police scheduled

separate meetings with each side. Nine respondents described a good

attitude on the part of local law enforcement, and eight talked about good

communication or relationships between clinics and their local law

enforcement agencies.

For the most part, clinic respondents told us they were also satisfied when

local law enforcement was contacted about specific types of incidents that

occurred at their clinics during the past 2 years, although satisfaction

varied by incident. For example, 8 of the 10 respondents who said local

law enforcement had been contacted about invasions at their clinics in the

past 2 years said they were generally satisfied with local law

enforcement’s response; only 5 of the 10 who reported local law

enforcement was contacted about stalking were generally satisfied. See

table 2 for information on clinic respondents’ satisfaction when local law

enforcement was contacted about different types of incidents.

Table 2: Clinic Respondents’

Satisfaction With Local Law

Enforcement, by Type of Incident

(April 1996 Through March 1998) 

Level of satisfaction

Type of incident

Number

reporting

contact with

local law

enforcement

Generally

satisfied

Neither

satisfied nor

dissatisfied

Generally

dissatisfied

Picketing 41 30 4 7

Hate mail/

harassing calls 22 13 4 5

Blockades 6 4 1 1

Invasions 10 8 0 2

Vandalism 17 12 3 2

Burglary 2 0 0 2

Arson 1 1 0 0

Attempted arson 4 2 1 1

Bomb threats 12 9 2 1

Assaults 10 7 2 1

Stalking 10 5 3 2

Death threats 12 7 4 1

n=42

Source: GAO survey of selected clinics.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

All of the police department representatives we surveyed indicated that

their departments would respond to all of the types of incidents we asked

about in our survey. One respondent noted that his department generally

would not respond to picketing if it simply involved someone holding a

sign on public property.

All the representatives of the U.S. Attorney offices we surveyed expressed

general satisfaction with the way in which at least some of the local law

enforcement agencies protected clinics over the past 2 years. Thirty-two

respondents said they were generally satisfied with the effectiveness of all

or most local law enforcement agencies in protecting clinics in their

districts. Four reported general satisfaction with some of their districts’

local law enforcement agencies.

Some Cite Dissatisfaction

With Local Law

Enforcement

Although most representatives of clinics we surveyed told us they were

generally satisfied with several dimensions of local law enforcement, some

indicated they were dissatisfied with local law enforcement responses,

including arrests. Representatives of two of the national abortion rights

groups we contacted expressed concern over the uneven enforcement of

FACE at the local level, as did a representative of one national anti-abortion

group.

Most of the 42 clinic respondents said they were generally satisfied with

the effectiveness of local law enforcement in protecting their clinics over

the past 2 years, yet 7 respondents told us that they were generally

dissatisfied with this aspect of local law enforcement. Five of these

respondents explained they were dissatisfied because of poor response on

the part of local law enforcement, including slow response or even a lack

of response. Other reasons respondents cited for their dissatisfaction

included that response or enforcement varied by individual officer. Five

clinic respondents said they were generally dissatisfied with their clinics’

relationships with local law enforcement. Again, these respondents mostly

(4) pointed to local law enforcement’s poor response as the cause of their

dissatisfaction.

Of 35 respondents who answered our question about the appropriateness

of arrests made by local law enforcement, 9 reported being dissatisfied.

Some reasons included local law enforcement failing to strictly enforce

local ordinances or failing to make arrests when respondents believed

arrests were warranted.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

Fourteen clinic respondents said they had observed particularly negative

aspects of local law enforcement’s actions over the past 2 years, although

8 of these respondents also told us of particularly positive actions they had

observed. Eight of the respondents providing negative comments

described poor response or enforcement on the part of local law

enforcement. For example, one respondent described an incident in which

fuel was spread on the clinic’s floor, but no fire was set. Although the

clinic had experienced arson twice before, the respondent said it took 2

calls and 25 minutes before the police, located 4 blocks away, responded

to the calls. Another respondent told us that upon responding to incidents,

officers had suggested the clinic would not have these problems if it

closed.

A representative of one of the national abortion rights organizations we

contacted expressed the view that local authorities’ enforcement of FACE

was relatively poor until the past year. In her opinion, as local authorities

have witnessed the same anti-abortion activists repeatedly breaking the

law, they have taken a more serious and professional approach to clinic

violence.

Representatives of the other two national abortion rights organizations

with whom we spoke expressed concerns that local law enforcement has

been uneven in its enforcement of FACE. The head of one of these groups

stated that in some cities local law enforcement has done an excellent job,

but in other locations local enforcement of FACE has been a problem. She

believed that there are communities where local law enforcement lacks

the commitment to enforce FACE.

A representative of one of the national anti-abortion organizations with

whom we spoke also believed that FACE has not been evenly enforced. In

his view, some police do not charge protestors or call in federal authorities

if the police officer’s ideology is pro-life. In other cases, he believed that

pro-life advocates are sometimes unfairly arrested for actions such as

kneeling on a public sidewalk and praying.

According to representatives of the police departments we surveyed, their

departments enforce the law regardless of the personal views of their

officers. Eleven of the 15 respondents indicated that police officers’

personal ideologies or religious beliefs about abortion did not interfere

with their carrying out their duties when violent or disruptive incidents

occurred at abortion clinics. Of the four who indicated that they had

encountered problems, all said they had found ways to avoid these

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

officers’ involvement with clinics. For example, one respondent told us of

an officer who had refused to intervene at a clinic because of religious

beliefs. The officer was subsequently disciplined and not allowed to

respond to future clinic incidents. A respondent from another police

department said that officers who have alerted the department that their

religious beliefs would make it difficult to respond to a clinic have been

assigned other duties.

Federal Law Enforcement

Agencies Generally Viewed

Positively

Most of the representatives of the clinics and U.S. Attorney offices we

surveyed said that, overall, they were satisfied with federal law

enforcement efforts. To a lesser extent, so were the representatives of

police departments we surveyed. Most clinic respondents had observed

particularly positive federal efforts that often involved good

communication. Also, for the most part, clinic respondents said they were

satisfied with their experiences with federal law enforcement regarding

specific incidents at their clinics. Representatives of the three national

abortion rights groups we contacted expressed positive views of federal

authorities, but they also voiced some concerns.

Thirty of the 42 clinic respondents said that they were generally satisfied

with federal law enforcement regarding anti-abortion activities, and 30

said they had observed particularly positive aspects of federal law

enforcement. Most often, respondents described good communication

efforts, with 16 providing responses that fell into this category. For

example, one respondent told us that federal law enforcement kept the

lines of communication open by just calling to see how things were going

at the clinic. Thirteen respondents made positive observations having to

do with proactive steps such as federal agents helping the clinic establish

its security system. Ten respondents cited responses to and investigations

of incidents as positive aspects of federal law enforcement.

For most types of incidents about which clinics contacted federal law

enforcement during the past 2 years, clinic respondents said they were

generally satisfied with federal law enforcement. Thirty of the 42

respondents told us that federal law enforcement had been contacted

about at least 1 type of incident during the past 2 years. The relative

number of clinics that were satisfied varied depending on the type of

incident. For example, 9 out of the 12 who reported that federal law

enforcement had been contacted about picketing said they were generally

satisfied. However, two of the five respondents who said federal

authorities had been contacted about assaults said they were generally

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

satisfied. Table 3 shows clinic respondents’ satisfaction with federal law

enforcement when contacted about different types of incidents.

Table 3: Clinic Respondents’

Satisfaction With Federal Law

Enforcement, by Type of Incident

(April 1996 Through March 1998) Level of satisfaction

Type of incident

Number

reporting

contact with

federal law

enforcement

Generally

satisfied

Neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied

Generally

dissatisfied

Picketing 12 9 2 1

Hate mail/

harassing calls 18 12 4 2

Blockades 5 3 1 1

Invasions 4 3 0 1

Vandalism 4 2 1 1

Burglary 1 1 0 0

Arson 1 1 0 0

Attempted arson 4 4 0 0

Bomb threats 8 6 2 0

Assaults 5 2 1 2

Stalking 7 4 2 1

Death threats 10 8 1 1

n=42

Source: GAO survey of selected clinics.

Representatives of the police departments and U.S. Attorney offices we

surveyed were generally satisfied with federal law enforcement. Eight of

the 15 police department respondents said their departments had called

federal authorities regarding incidents at clinics in their jurisdictions, and

5 of these 8 told us they were generally satisfied with the support they

received from federal law enforcement. The remaining three respondents

said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Thirty of the 36 U.S.

Attorney office respondents reported being generally satisfied with all or

most federal law enforcement agencies regarding anti-abortion activities

directed at clinics in their district. Of the remainder, five said they were

generally satisfied with some federal law enforcement agencies, and one

did not know.

Representatives of the three national abortion rights organizations we

contacted voiced praise for, as well as some concerns about, federal

authorities. According to the head of one group, federal efforts to identify

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

and protect clinics and doctors most at risk have saved lives. She further

pointed to improved federal law enforcement reaction to clinic violence

since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. However, she expressed concern

about some federal agents and her belief that some are on the

anti-abortion side. Since reporting specific concerns to DOJ, she believes

this situation has improved. The head of another group stated that FACE

has saved lives and reduced violence where aggressively enforced, but it

has not been uniformly and appropriately enforced. She believes this

problem exists at all levels of enforcement, including federal law

enforcement agencies and U.S. Attorney offices. She further criticized DOJ

for not pursuing more FACE cases. A representative of the third group we

contacted said that federal law enforcement did not aggressively enforce

FACE in the first years following the enactment of FACE. However, as federal

law enforcement’s experience with clinic violence grew, so did its

effectiveness. She observed that some federal agents have a strong

commitment to enforce FACE regardless of their beliefs about abortion.

Court Rulings in

FACE Cases

Constitutional arguments have been raised in most of the reported FACE

cases we identified, but they have ultimately proven unsuccessful.

Constitutional challenges have included charges that FACE violates the

freedom of speech and religion protections in the First Amendment.

FACE creates both criminal penalties and civil remedies against those who

use force, threats of force, or physical obstruction to interfere with

persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services. We identified

a total of 46 criminal and civil cases that were either completed or pending

as of September 11, 1998.11 In 15 of the 17 criminal cases we identified,

defendants pled guilty or were found guilty of FACE violations. Many of the

29 civil cases we identified resulted in civil remedies, including injunctive

relief. Appendix VII contains summaries of these cases.

Constitutionality of FACE

Upheld

The constitutionality of FACE has been challenged in various courts and on

many grounds beginning on the day of its enactment. Constitutional

arguments were raised in 24 of the 28 reported cases we identified but,

ultimately, the courts all have found FACE to be constitutional. Although

two district court decisions did hold FACE unconstitutional, they were

11We identified a total of 46 cases—28 reported and 18 unreported or pending cases. Of the 28 reported

cases, 8 are criminal cases and 20 are civil lawsuits. Of the 18 unreported or pending cases, 9 are

criminal and 9 are civil. Unreported cases are court decisions that have not been published.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

reversed on appeal.12 To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to

review any of the U.S. courts of appeals’ decisions upholding FACE.

Constitutional challenges were raised in all 8 of the reported criminal

cases we identified and in 16 of the 20 reported civil lawsuits we

identified. We could not identify whether constitutional challenges were

raised in the unreported or pending cases because we had limited

information on these cases.

Opponents have challenged the constitutionality of FACE on a number of

grounds. For example, they have argued that Congress lacked the

authority under the Commerce Clause to pass such a statute. This

provision of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate

interstate commerce. The courts have consistently held that the enactment

of FACE was a valid exercise of the commerce power. The courts reasoned

that because Congress rationally determined that violence at reproductive

health facilities affects interstate commerce, Congress had the authority to

regulate that activity.13

Some First Amendment challenges to FACE have been based on freedom of

speech. Courts have held that FACE was “content neutral” because it did

not outlaw conduct for expressing an idea but rather sought to protect

safety and interstate commerce.14 Furthermore, the act explicitly stated

that nothing shall be construed to interfere with the exercise of protected

First Amendment rights.15 Courts have also held that FACE was “viewpoint

neutral,” as it sought to protect access to all reproductive health services,

including both abortions and services connected to carrying a fetus to

term.16 Also, arguments that FACE was unconstitutionally overbroad and

vague and, thus, had a “chilling effect” on peaceful activities have been

unsuccessful.17

Other First Amendment challenges have been based on the “Free Exercise

of Religion” clause. Courts have determined that FACE has been applied

12United States v. Wilson, 880 F. Supp. 621 (E.D. Wis. 1995), rev’d 73 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 1995), reh’g en

banc denied, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 2870 (7th Cir. Feb. 21, 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 47 (1996);

Hoffman v. Hunt, 923 F. Supp. 791 (W.D. N.C. 1996), rev’d, 126 F.3d 575 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

118 S. Ct. 1838 (1998).

13United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 920-921 (8th Cir. 1996).

14American Life League, Inc. v. Reno, 47 F.3d 642, 649 (4th Cir. 1995).

1518 U.S.C. 248 (d).

16American Life League, 47 F.3d at 649.

17Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412, 1421 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

neutrally towards all religions, as it sought only to punish violent, forceful

or threatening conduct without regard to expressive content or viewpoint.

FACE has been challenged on grounds that it violated other constitutional

amendments, too. Opponents have argued that the penalties imposed by

FACE were excessive and, thus, violated the Eighth Amendment

proscription against excessive fines. These challenges have consistently

been dismissed due to the charges not being “ripe,” that is, not ready for

the courts to address. Courts have also struck down arguments that by

enacting FACE, Congress exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth

Amendment and, thus, usurped powers reserved to the states by the Tenth

Amendment.18

Criminal Prosecutions

Have Resulted in Fines and

Prison Sentences

In 15 of 17 criminal cases, defendants pled guilty or were found guilty of

FACE violations. Of the remaining two cases, one resulted in the defendant

receiving pretrial diversion, and one case is ongoing.

Criminal FACE cases have involved prosecution for activities ranging from

nonviolent physical obstruction of clinic entrances to the use of force or

threatening conduct. The criminal prosecutions we identified generally

resulted in fines, incarceration, or both. The nature of the activity

prosecuted and the sentence received varied considerably. For example, in

one case a defendant was found guilty of throwing a bottle at a doctor’s

car when the doctor attempted to enter the clinic property. The defendant

was sentenced to 1 year in prison followed by 1 year of supervised release

with the special condition that he stay at least 1,000 feet from any abortion

clinic. The defendant was also ordered to pay restitution to the doctor for

damage to the car.19 In another case, a defendant found guilty of fatally

shooting a doctor and shooting two escorts—one fatally—was sentenced

to life in prison without parole.20

Criminal FACE charges may be brought in conjunction with charges of a

violation of another federal statute. For example, other federal statutes DOJ

has used in conjunction with FACE include the arson and explosives

statute, which, among other things, prohibits threatening to use fire and

18Planned Parenthood Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Walton, 949 F. Supp. 290, 294-295

(E.D. Pa. 1996).

19U.S. v. Bird, 124 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 1997).

20U.S. v. Hill, 893 F. Supp. 1034 (N.D. 1994), 893 F. Supp. 1039 (N.D. Fla. 1994), 893 F. Supp. 1044 (N.D.

Fla. 1944), 893 F. Supp. 1048 (N.D. Fla. 1994). This case was also prosecuted locally and resulted in the

imposition of the death penalty.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

explosives to damage a building (18 U.S.C. 844); the statute prohibiting

solicitation to commit a crime (18 U.S.C. 373); and the statute prohibiting

the use of interstate commerce to communicate a threat (18 U.S.C. 875).21

In addition to charging FACE violations, one of the eight reported cases also

included a federal charge for knowingly using and carrying a firearm

during a crime of violence (in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)). According to

summary case information provided by DOJ, four of the nine unreported or

pending cases included additional federal charges, such as a violation of

the arson and explosives statute.

Civil Lawsuits Have Led to

a Variety of Remedies

We identified 29 civil lawsuits involving FACE—17 brought by DOJ against

alleged FACE violators and 12 brought by private parties. In 14 of the 17

lawsuits DOJ brought against alleged violators, the courts awarded

injunctive relief, damages, and/or civil penalties; in the remaining 3

lawsuits, no decision had been rendered as of September 11, 1998. The

other 12 lawsuits were brought by private parties, including anti-abortion

activists challenging the constitutionality of FACE and abortion clinics filing

civil actions against alleged FACE violators. In one case, Greenhut v. Hand,

the court noted that FACE was being invoked to penalize threats against an

anti-abortion volunteer.22

Civil lawsuits initiated by DOJ have involved a range of offenses, including

clinic obstruction, the use of physical force outside abortion clinics, and

verbal threats to clinic staff and to physicians. Relief has included

preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, and civil penalties.

Various remedies have been imposed depending on the nature of the

activity litigated. For example, in 1 lawsuit where 35 defendants were

charged with blocking the entrances to an abortion clinic for several

hours, the court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the

defendants from entering clinic property and later granted a motion for

summary judgment and a permanent injunction.23 In another lawsuit,

defendants stalked an abortion clinic doctor and his wife and gathered on

a weekly basis near their home and chanted, shouted, and displayed signs

protesting abortion. In this case, the court granted a preliminary

21In some prosecutions of abortion-related violence, DOJ has elected to bring charges solely under

federal statutes that carry heavier penalties than FACE, according to DOJ officials. We did not include

information on these cases in our report because the scope of our case review was limited to FACE

violations.

22996 F. Supp. 372 (D. N.J. 1998).

23U.S. v. Roach, et al., 947 F. Supp. 872 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

injunction, which became permanent, prohibiting the defendants from

demonstrating, congregating, or picketing within 45 feet of the intersection

near the doctor’s home, coming closer than 15 feet of the doctor or his

wife, or driving within 3 car lengths of their cars.24

Agency Comments We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney

General and the Secretary of the Treasury or their designees. DOJ provided

us suggested clarifications and technical comments, which we

incorporated into the report where appropriate. The Department of the

Treasury provided written comments stating that it was unaware of any

evidence that FACE has supplemented ATF’s role in investigating arson and

bombing cases by giving the FBI jurisdiction to investigate abortion clinic

violence, and that ATF’s response to arson and bombing incidents has not

changed since the enactment of FACE. We did not intend to suggest that

FACE changed ATF’s jurisdiction in bombing and arson incidents at abortion

clinics. Nevertheless, FACE did give the FBI a role in these types of

incidents, and we revised the report to clarify this point. Treasury’s

comments also stated that ATF sees no advantage to the FACE statute when

it applies to arson and explosives cases because a violation of FACE is

usually a misdemeanor charge. This reiterates a point we addressed in the

report that ATF views FACE penalties as weak for arson and explosives

incidents that do not involve injury or death.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of your

Subcommittee, the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the

Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary, the Chairmen and

Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental

Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,

the Attorney General of the United States, and the Secretary of the

Treasury. Copies also will be made available to others upon request.

24U.S. v. White, 893 F. Supp. 1430 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
B-278842 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix XIII. If you or

your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me or

Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Stana

Associate Director

Administration of Justice Issues

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Freedom of Access to

Clinic Entrances Act

of 1994

34

Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to

Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

38

Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to

Interview Police

Department

Representatives

67

Appendix IV 

Questionnaire Used to

Interview U.S.

Attorney Office

Representatives

77

Appendix V 

Organizations

Contacted During Our

Review

79

Federal Departments 79

Abortion Rights Organizations 80

Anti-Abortion Organizations 80

Others 80

Appendix VI 

Survey Methodology

81

Data Collection 81

Analysis 84

Nonsampling Errors 85

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Contents

Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases

Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to

Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

86

Criminal Cases Prosecuted by the Department of Justice 86

Civil Lawsuits Initiated by the Department of Justice and Private

Parties

93

Appendix VIII 

Major Contributors to

This Report

108

Tables Table 1: Number of Clinics Experiencing Specific Types of

Incidents During 2-Year Period Preceding FACE and 2-Year

Period Preceding GAO Survey

9

Table 2: Clinic Respondents’ Satisfaction With Local Law

Enforcement, by Type of Incident

20

Table 3: Clinic Respondents’ Satisfaction With Federal Law

Enforcement, by Type of Incident

24

Table VI.1: Survey Sample Selection and Response Rates 84

Abbreviations

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

DOJ Department of Justice

EOUSA Executive Office for United States Attorneys

FACE Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

ORICO Oregon Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix I 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

of 1994

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix I 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

of 1994

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix I 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

of 1994

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix I 

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act

of 1994

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 41 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 42 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 43 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 44 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 45 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 46 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 47 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 48 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 49 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 50 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 51 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 52 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 53 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 54 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 55 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 56 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 57 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 58 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 59 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 60 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 61 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 62 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 63 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 64 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 65 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix II 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Abortion

Clinic Representatives

Page 66 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 67 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 68 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 69 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 70 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 71 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 72 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 73 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 74 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 75 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix III 

Questionnaire Used to Interview Police

Department Representatives

Page 76 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix IV 

Questionnaire Used to Interview U.S.

Attorney Office Representatives

Page 77 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix IV 

Questionnaire Used to Interview U.S.

Attorney Office Representatives

Page 78 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix V 

Organizations Contacted During Our Review

We conducted structured interviews with representatives of 42 abortion

clinics and 15 police departments. Because of concerns about possible

future incidents at abortion clinics, we assured representatives of these

clinics and police departments that we would not report their names or

locations. We contacted the following additional organizations during our

review:

Federal Departments Department of Justice

Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Civil Rights Division

Federal Bureau of Investigation

U.S. Marshals Service

U.S. Attorney Offices:

 Northern District of Alabama

 Southern District of Alabama

 District of Arizona

 Eastern District of Arkansas

 Central District of California

 Eastern District of California

 District of Colorado

 District of Columbia

 Middle District of Florida

 Northern District of Florida

 Central District of Illinois

 Southern District of Illinois

 Northern District of Indiana

 Southern District of Iowa

 District of Kansas

 Eastern District of Michigan

 Western District of Michigan

 District of Minnesota

 Western District of Missouri

 District of Montana

 District of Nebraska

 District of New Hampshire

 District of New Jersey

 Western District of New York

 Western District of North Carolina

 District of North Dakota

 District of Oregon

Page 79 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix V 

Organizations Contacted During Our Review

 Eastern District of Pennsylvania

 District of Rhode Island

 District of South Carolina

 Eastern District of Tennessee

 Northern District of Texas

 Southern District of Texas

 Eastern District of Virginia

 Eastern District of Wisconsin

 Western District of Wisconsin

Department of the Treasury

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Abortion Rights

Organizations

Feminist Majority Foundation

National Abortion Federation

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Anti-Abortion

Organizations

National Right to Life Committee

Operation Rescue

Others Police Executive Research Forum

Alan Guttmacher Institute1

1

A nonprofit corporation for reproductive health research, policy analysis, and public education.

Page 80 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VI 

Survey Methodology

In order to obtain information on the first three research objectives, we

surveyed representatives from three groups: abortion clinics, local police

departments, and U.S. Attorney offices. We conducted structured

telephone interviews with the first two groups and arranged for the

Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) to send a survey to

the third group.

To obtain views of clinic representatives, we contacted clinics that

reportedly had experienced relatively high levels of violence or disruption

prior to the passage of FACE. We believed that such clinics were in a

position to be particularly affected by the act. To get a better perspective

on how key parties viewed the effects and enforcement of FACE, we also

surveyed representatives from local police departments and U.S. Attorney

offices whose jurisdictions covered the locations of the clinics included in

our study.

Data Collection Our staff, who had been trained in telephone interviewing skills,

conducted the structured telephone interviews. The training covered

general telephone interviewing techniques, as well as information specific

to the surveys.

To determine whether clinic and police department respondents believed

that abortion clinic incidents had increased, decreased, or stayed the same

since the passage of FACE in May 1994, we chose two specific time periods

of equal length for respondents to compare. The first time period was the 2

years preceding FACE (June 1992 through May 1994), and the second was

the most recent 2-year period at the time we began our interviews (April

1996 through March 1998).

All survey questions that asked the respondent to characterize his or her

response along a continuum utilized a three-point scale. For example, in

question 3 on the clinic survey, the respondent was asked whether he or

she was “very knowledgeable,” “moderately knowledgeable,” or “not

knowledgeable” about what activities are legal or illegal under FACE. In

question 6A1 on the same survey, the respondent was asked whether he or

she was “generally satisfied,” “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,” or

“generally dissatisfied” with law enforcement’s response to picketing.

Abortion Clinics We asked three national abortion rights groups to use data they had

collected prior to FACE in order to help us identify clinics that had

Page 81 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VI 

Survey Methodology

experienced relatively high levels of violence and/or disruption during the

2 years prior to the act’s passage. (See app. V for the names of these

national groups.)

In identifying clinics, representatives of these groups considered their 1993

and 1994 incident data on clinics that had provided such data to them, as

well as their knowledge of incidents at other clinics. They agreed on 45

clinics as having “high violence” before FACE. Most of these clinics had

experienced at least three different types of incidents in the 1- to 2- year

period prior to FACE. At our request, they included reproductive health

service facilities that perform abortions, but not doctors’ offices or

hospitals.

According to a national reproductive health organization and one of the

national abortion rights groups we contacted, there are roughly 900 clinics

in the country, but these estimates include some doctors’ offices. Because

the clinics in our sample were selected judgmentally—and therefore

subject to potential selection bias—and not selected using probability

sampling from a known universe, our clinic survey results cannot be

generalized either to all abortion clinics nationwide, or to all abortion

clinics that experienced high violence during the June 1992 through

May 1994 period.

The three national abortion rights groups faxed a joint letter to all abortion

clinics in our sample. The letter alerted the clinics to the upcoming study

and encouraged them to participate. We followed up with our own letter

and then called clinic representatives to schedule a telephone interview.

To ensure the anonymity of the clinic respondents, we discarded the cover

page of each survey form upon completion of our study. Because the cover

page was the only page that contained identifying information on

respondents, its removal ensured that a link could not be made between

respondents’ identities and their survey responses.

We sought to interview the person who had the most knowledge of

incidents that occurred at the clinic during the time periods of interest. We

interviewed 15 clinic directors; 10 administrators; and 17 other

representatives, including owners, presidents, managers, and security

directors. On average, representatives with whom we spoke had been with

the clinic for 12 years.

Page 82 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VI 

Survey Methodology

We used a structured interview format to interview abortion clinic

representatives. The interview included both close-ended and open-ended

questions, and each interview lasted about 1 hour.

Two of the 45 clinics selected had closed; our resulting sampling frame

consisted of 43 clinics. We completed interviews with representatives from

42 of these 43 clinics, for a response rate of 98 percent. (The one

nonrespondent clinic could not provide a staff member who had been

there long enough to answer our questions.)

Police Departments We identified 40 local police departments that served the 42 clinics we

surveyed. We developed 3 strata from which we selected our sample of 15:

(1) departments with which clinic respondents were satisfied;

(2) departments with which clinic respondents were dissatisfied; and

(3) departments whose jurisdiction covered multiple clinics in our sample,

and those clinics differed in their level of satisfaction with the department.

We determined satisfaction on the basis of the clinic respondent’s answers

to clinic survey questions regarding effectiveness in protecting the clinic,

making appropriate arrests, and the clinic’s relationship with the

department (questions 48, 49, and 50 from the clinic interview instrument).

We selected all five of the police departments where clinic respondents

reported dissatisfaction with local law enforcement, the two departments

with jurisdiction over multiple clinics in our sample where local law

enforcement received mixed ratings, and eight randomly selected

departments where clinic respondents said they were satisfied with local

law enforcement on all of the applicable questions.1

We completed interviews with all 15 of the local law enforcement agencies

we selected, for a 100 percent response rate. As with the clinic interviews,

we ensured local law enforcement respondents’ anonymity by discarding

information that could be used to identify them, thereby severing the link

between respondents’ identities and their survey responses. On average,

the respondents we spoke with had been involved with handling abortion

clinic violence and disruption for 9 years.

1

In some cases, the respondent answered “not applicable” to the question asking whether appropriate

arrests were made. In such cases, our decision on whether to include the police department in our

sample was based on clinics’ responses to the other two questions regarding effectiveness in

protecting the clinic and the clinic’s relationship with the department.

Page 83 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VI 

Survey Methodology

U.S. Attorney Offices We identified 36 U.S. Attorney offices with judicial districts that included

the clinics we surveyed. EOUSA reviewed our instrument for appropriate

language and clarity and e-mailed the survey to all 36 U.S. Attorney offices

in our sample. It included a cover memorandum explaining the study and

requesting that the appropriate person complete and return the survey to

us. We telephoned nonrespondents to encourage participation and

obtained a 100 percent response rate.

Sample Selection and

Response Rate

Table VI.1 summarizes the selection of potential respondents and response

rates obtained for all three surveys.

Table VI.1: Survey Sample Selection

and Response Rates

Group

surveyed

Number

selected for

sample

Response

rate

(percent) Selection process

Clinics

43 98

Identified jointly by three national abortion

rights groups

Police

departments 15 100

Sample selected from the departments

that serve the 42 participating clinics

U.S. Attorney

offices 36 100

Included all U.S. Attorney offices with

jurisdiction over the 42 participating clinics

Source: GAO survey of selected clinic, police department, and U.S. Attorney office

representatives.

Analysis In analyzing the three surveys, we computed descriptive statistics on the

close-ended survey responses, and we conducted a systematic content

analysis of the open-ended survey responses.

For the content analysis of the open-ended responses, two staff members

reviewed all the narrative responses to a particular question and mutually

agreed on response categories. Then, two staff members, at least one of

whom had not worked on developing the categories, independently placed

responses into the appropriate response categories. Any discrepancies

were discussed and resolved.

The number of narrative response categories varied by question, as did the

number of responses in each of the categories. In general, we have

reported the response categories that were the most frequent or common.

Page 84 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VI 

Survey Methodology

Because of the way we selected our samples, the results of our structured

surveys are not generalizable to the universes of clinics, police

departments, or U.S. Attorneys in the country. Reported responses to the

surveys are illustrative rather than representative; statements represent

only the views of the individual respondents.

Nonsampling Errors We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors.2

 Draft questionnaires were

designed by social science survey specialists and reviewed by

representatives of organizations who were knowledgeable about both the

subject matter and the terms used by the respondents. The three national

abortion rights groups reviewed the clinic questionnaire, and EOUSA

reviewed the instrument for the U.S. Attorneys. The clinic interview was

pretested with two abortion clinic representatives, and the local law

enforcement interview was pretested with two police departments.

We kept in mind that the national abortion rights groups hold a position on

the issue of abortion, and their input did not cause us to make any

substantive changes to our instrument. However, the groups were in a

position to offer useful advice on words and phrases that would be best

understood by the abortion clinics. The groups also encouraged the

participation of the abortion clinic representatives in the study, which

reduced nonresponse bias.

We took steps to minimize nonresponse bias by following up with

potential respondents to encourage them to participate. We obtained a

100 percent response rate from the police department interviews and U.S.

Attorney surveys and a 98 percent response rate from the clinic interviews.

All data were double-keyed and verified after data entry, and computer

analyses were double-checked against hand-tallies of key information. All

computer programs were also checked by a second independent

programmer.

2

Because we do not generalize our survey findings to a larger population, it is not appropriate to

calculate sampling errors for this study. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey

may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,

differences in how a particular question is interpreted or in the sources of information that are

available to respondents can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results.

Page 85 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

This appendix contains summaries of reported and unreported or pending

cases brought under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of

1994 (FACE). The summaries of reported cases are based on the text of

written decisions and additional information from the Department of

Justice (DOJ) that updated the status of these cases. We based our

summaries of unreported or pending cases on information provided by

DOJ. We were not able to identify cases relating to actions brought by

private parties in unreported or pending status because no central

databases exist for identifying this information.

Criminal Cases

Prosecuted by the

Department of Justice

Reported Criminal Cases:

United States Courts of

Appeals Decisions

1. United States v. Bird, 124 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.

1189 (March 9, 1998).

The defendant, an abortion protestor, was charged under FACE with use of

force and threat of force for throwing a bottle through a window of a car

being driven by an abortion provider and making death threats. The jury

returned a guilty verdict, and the district court sentenced the defendant to

imprisonment for 1 year, followed by 1 year of supervised release with the

special condition that he stay at least 1,000 feet from any abortion clinic.

The defendant was also required to pay restitution to the doctor for

damage to the car. On appeal, the defendant challenged the

constitutionality of FACE; however, he did not contest his guilt under FACE.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s opinion. It held that FACE

was a legitimate regulation of interstate activity having substantial effect

on interstate commerce; that the defendant lacked standing to advance a

claim that FACE was unconstitutional because it protected certain

relationships, but failed to protect others; and that FACE was neither

overbroad nor vague. The court also held that the special condition that

the defendant stay at least 1,000 feet away from abortion clinics did not

violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court denied a petition to

review the court of appeals’ decision.

2. United States v. Brock, et al., 863 F. Supp. 851 (E.D. Wis. 1994),

mandamus denied sub nom., Hatch v. Stadtmuller, 41 F.3d 1510 (7th Cir.

1994) (table) (unpublished order), aff’d sub nom., United States v.

Page 86 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

Soderna, 82 F.3d 1370 (7th Cir. 1996) cert. denied sub nom., Hatch v.

United States, 117 S. Ct. 507 (1996).

Six defendants were charged with violating FACE for physical obstruction

of a Milwaukee, WI, clinic. The complaint was based on an affidavit that

stated that the defendants blockaded both doors to the clinic with

automobiles, to which they secured themselves using cement and steel

devices. The defendants argued that FACE was constitutionally infirm

because it was a content-based regulation of expressive activity and

because it was vague and overbroad. They requested a jury trial. The

district court held that FACE was not unconstitutional and that it was

neither a content-based restriction of speech nor vague or overbroad.

Although FACE itself was silent on the issue of whether a jury trial was

required, the court determined that the defendants were not entitled to a

jury trial because the maximum possible sentence constituted a “petty

offense.” The defendants were convicted of violating FACE. Fines and

incarceration terms of various lengths were imposed, the maximum being

6 months. The defendants appealed their convictions, raising a variety of

constitutional questions. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that FACE

did not exceed Congress’ constitutional authority to regulate interstate

commerce; that FACE did not violate the defendants’ First Amendment

rights; that FACE’s proscription against obstruction of facilities was not

unconstitutionally vague, so as to violate the First Amendment; and that

the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial. The Supreme Court denied

a petition to review the court of appeals’ decision.

3. United States v. Unterburger, Olson 97 F.3d 1413 (11th Cir. 1996), cert.

denied, 117 S. Ct. 2517 (1997).

The defendants were charged under FACE with physical obstruction of an

abortion clinic in Lake Clark Shores, FL, for chaining themselves to the

main entrance of the clinic. Because the defendants had no prior

convictions under FACE and the alleged offense involved “exclusively a

nonviolent physical obstruction,” the defendants faced a maximum prison

term of 6 months and a maximum fine of $10,000. The defendants

requested a jury trial, but the district court agreed with the magistrate

judge that the charged offense was not sufficiently serious to trigger the

constitutional right to a jury trial. Both defendants were convicted and

sentenced to time served during pretrial detention and supervised release.

The defendants appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that FACE

did not violate the First or Tenth Amendments, as FACE was both content

and viewpoint neutral and was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

Page 87 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

The court also held that a sentence of 6 months and a fine of $10,000

constituted a “petty offense,” and thus the defendants were not entitled to

a jury trial. The Supreme Court denied a petition to review the court of

appeals’ decision.

4. United States v. Weslin, et al., 964 F. Supp. 93 (W.D. N.Y. 1997), __ F.3d

__, 1998 WL 537941 (2nd Cir. N.Y. Aug. 25, 1998).

The 11 defendants, anti-abortion activists, were charged with violating

FACE for blocking the entrances to a reproductive health facility in

Rochester, NY. One of the defendants moved to dismiss the charges on the

grounds that FACE violated the First Amendment. The defendant argued

that FACE was an impermissible content-based regulation because it was

aimed at speech and expressive conduct intended to prevent persons from

providing or obtaining reproductive health services. The Court held that

FACE did not violate the free speech or free exercise clause of the First

Amendment and that FACE did not exceed Congress’ authority to regulate

interstate commerce.

Two of the 11 defendants were sentenced to 4 months in prison, and 2

other defendants were sentenced to 2 months in prison. The remaining

seven defendants were sentenced to time served, supervised release, and

community service. All of the defendants were ordered to pay $105

restitution for the damage to the clinic doors.

The defendants filed an appeal. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that

FACE was constitutional under the Free Speech clause of the First

Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

5. United States v. Wilson, 880 F. Supp. 621 (E.D. Wis. 1995), rev’d 73 F.3d

675 (7th Cir. 1995), reh’g en banc denied, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 2870 (7th

Cir. Feb. 21, 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 47 (1996).

Six defendants were charged under FACE with blockading the doors of a

Milwaukee, WI, clinic using a method similar to the one used in Brock. The

district court held that FACE exceeded Congress’ power to legislate under

the Commerce Clause. The court also held that because FACE was invalid

under the Commerce Clause, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment

because it was an impermissible regulation of private conduct. The court

of appeals reversed, holding that FACE was constitutional under the

Commerce Clause as a regulation that substantially affected interstate

Page 88 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

commerce. The Supreme Court denied a petition to review the court of

appeals’ decision.

The bench trial concluded on May 27, 1997. On April 30, 1998, the court

found the defendants guilty of violating FACE as charged. One of the six

defendants was sentenced to 167 days’ confinement. No jail time was

imposed at sentencing for the other five defendants. All the defendants

were ordered to pay restitution to the clinic in the total amount of

$1,759.04. Two of the defendants filed appeals.

6. United States v. Wilson and Hudson, __ F.3d __, 1998 WL 452342 (7th

Cir. Wis. Aug. 6, 1998).

The defendants were convicted on April 24, 1997, under FACE and

conspiracy to commit a violation of FACE, for positioning themselves inside

vehicles and blocking the front and rear entrances to the Wisconsin

Women’s Health Care Center. This was the second obstruction at the same

clinic, see United States v. Wilson, 73 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 1995). One

defendant was sentenced to 120 days in prison and ordered to pay a fine of

$1,500 and restitution of $454.97. The other defendant was sentenced to 24

months in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $3,000 and restitution of

$454.97. Additionally, he was ordered to serve 3 years’ supervised release

following incarceration. As a special condition of his supervised release,

he was also required to participate in a mental health treatment program.

The defendants appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s

opinion. It held that FACE did not violate the First Amendment rights to

freedom of speech and freedom of association. The court also held that

the defendants’ conspiracy convictions did not violate the First

Amendment and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by

requiring one defendant to participate in a mental health program as a

condition of supervised release.

Reported Criminal Cases:

United States District

Court Decisions

1. United States v. Hill, 893 F. Supp. 1034 (N.D. Fla. 1994), 893 F. Supp.

1039 (N.D. Fla. 1994), 893 F. Supp. 1044 (N.D. Fla. 1994), 893 F. Supp. 1048

(N.D. Fla. 1994).

On July 29, 1994, a doctor and two escorts were shot while outside of the

Ladies Center clinic in Pensacola, FL. The doctor and one escort were

killed, and the other escort was wounded. The defendant was charged

with intentionally injuring and interfering with individuals who had been

providing reproductive health services. He was also charged with

Page 89 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

knowingly using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence for

which he may be prosecuted in federal court, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

942(c). The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, alleging that FACE

was unconstitutional and that its vagueness precluded escorts from being

considered “providers of reproductive services.” The district court held

that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to enact FACE.

The court also held that FACE, in light of its purpose and legislative history,

included a doctor’s escort in the definition of “provider,” at least where, as

here, the escort was performing his or her duties at the time of the alleged

violation of the act. In a subsequent decision, the district court entered an

order granting the government’s motion to exclude evidence offered by

the defendant on the “necessity” or “justification” defense (which excuses

criminal conduct committed in order to prevent an imminent greater

harm). The court held that the defense could not be applied to justify

averting acts that have expressly been declared by the Supreme Court to

be constitutional and legally protected.

The defendant was convicted of violating FACE with death resulting and

was sentenced to life without parole. A local murder prosecution resulted

in imposition of the death penalty. The defendant withdrew his federal

appeal.

2. United States v. Lucero and Lacroix, 895 F. Supp. 1419 (D. Kan. 1995),

895 F. Supp. 1421 (D. Kan. 1995).

The defendants were charged with interfering by physical obstruction with

persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services in violation of

FACE after blocking the entrances to a clinic in Wichita, KS, where

abortions were performed. The defendants’ conduct amounted to

“exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction,” subjecting the defendants

to a maximum term of imprisonment of 6 months and a maximum fine of

$10,000 for the first offense. The United States moved for a nonjury trial of

the defendants. The district court held that the maximum penalty that

could be imposed on the defendants exceeded the statutory definition of

“petty offense”—one that carries a maximum penalty of no more than 6

months’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine—and thus, the defendants were

entitled to a jury trial. The defendants moved for dismissal of the charges

on the ground that FACE was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause

and the First Amendment. The district court held that FACE was not

unconstitutional, as it was content and viewpoint neutral and Congress

acted within its power to regulate interstate commerce.

Page 90 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

Both defendants were found guilty after a jury trial, and each was

sentenced to 6 months’ incarceration and 1 year supervised release.

Unreported or Pending

Criminal Cases

The nine summaries in this section were prepared by DOJ.

1. United States v. Blackburn (D. Mont.).

The defendant was indicted on May 19, 1995, for making threatening

telephone calls to numerous clinics that provided abortion services. The

defendant was charged with six counts of violating FACE and six counts of

violating 18 U.S.C. 844(e), threatening to use fire and explosives to damage

a building. On October 26, 1995, the defendant pled guilty to one count of

FACE and one count of 844(e). The defendant was sentenced on

February 21, 1996, to 5 years’ probation with mandatory psychological

treatment.

2. United States v. Cabanies (W.D. Okla.).

The defendant pled guilty to entering a clinic in Warr Acres, OK, on

January 24, 1998, and physically assaulting the clinic’s only doctor. Prior to

entering the clinic, the defendant had been protesting outside the building.

The defendant pled guilty to one FACE violation. The defendant was

sentenced to 3 months in prison to be followed by 3 years’ supervised

release with a special condition of 90 days’ home detention. The defendant

was also ordered to pay $700 restitution to the doctor for medical

expenses.

3. United States v. Embry (W.D. Ky.).

The defendant pled guilty to telephoning a bomb threat to a Women’s

Choice Clinic in Indianapolis, IN, on January 4, 1994, in violation of FACE.

The defendant was sentenced to 2 years’ probation and ordered to perform

100 hours of community service.

4. United States v. Hart (E.D. Ark.).

The defendant was charged with two FACE violations for abandoning two

Ryder trucks in front of the Little Rock Family Planning Services and

Women’s Community Health Center clinics on September 25, 1997, in a

manner as to communicate a credible bomb threat to the clinics’ staff.

Each truck obstructed vehicular access to the respective clinic’s parking

Page 91 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

areas. Several businesses and residences near the clinics’ locations were

evacuated for several hours while bomb and arson experts investigated

the trucks.

5. United States v. Lang (N.D. Ala.).

The defendant was charged with a FACE violation after threatening to kill a

doctor during a telephone call to a TV reporter on January 8, 1995, in

Huntsville, AL. The defendant received pretrial diversion on February 24,

1995.

6. United States v. Mathison (E.D. Wash.).

The defendant was indicted in Yakima, WA, for making a series of

threatening calls, some interstate, to an anti-abortion counseling and

referral service on December 31, 1994. The defendant was charged with a

violation of FACE and a violation of 18 U.S.C. 875, use of interstate

commerce to communicate a threat. In these calls, the defendant stated he

had a gun and threatened to kill as many office workers as he could find.

The defendant pled guilty to the FACE count on June 6, 1995. Sentencing on

August 31, 1995, resulted in 5 years probation with 30 days’ home

detention and 10 weekends’ confinement, as well as mandatory substance

abuse treatment. The defendant did not appeal his conviction.

7. United States v. McDonald (D. N.M.).

The defendant pled guilty on June 24, 1996, to chaining clinic doors shut

on January 2, 1995, and setting fire to the same clinic on February 24, 1995,

in violation of FACE and arson statutes. The defendant was sentenced to 30

months in prison on October 22, 1996.

8. United Stated v. Priestley (D. Or.)

The defendant pled guilty on September 27, 1995, to an unrelated arson

charge in Eugene, OR, as well as a threat to commit arson at a clinic in

Grants Pass, OR, on January 19, 1995, in violation of FACE. The defendant

was sentenced to 58 months in prison on April 9, 1996.

Page 92 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

9. United States v. McManus (D. Mass).

The defendant pled guilty to two counts of FACE and two counts of 18

U.S.C. 844(e), threatening to use fire and explosives to damage a building,

for making threatening telephone calls on May 21, 1996, to the Planned

Parenthood in Worcester, MA, and to the Repro Associates in Brookline,

MA. On March 24, 1997, the defendant was sentenced to 27 months in

prison and 2 years’ supervised release.

Civil Lawsuits

Initiated by the

Department of Justice

and Private Parties

Reported Civil Cases:

United States Courts of

Appeals Decisions

1. American Life League v. Reno, 855 F. Supp. 137 (E.D. Va. 1994), aff’d, 47

F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 55 (1995).

The plaintiffs brought an action challenging the constitutionality of FACE.

They argued that Congress lacked the authority to enact FACE. They also

argued that FACE violated the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the First

Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague, and was overbroad because it

prohibited protected First Amendment expression. The district court

dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeals affirmed

the dismissal. It concluded that FACE was within Congress’ authority to

regulate commerce because Congress rationally concluded that

reproductive health services affect interstate commerce and that FACE was

reasonably adapted to permissible ends. The court also concluded that

FACE did not violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause because

FACE was content and viewpoint neutral and targeted unprotected

expression. The court ruled that the liquidated damages provision did not

subject anyone to damages caused by protected expression and was

therefore constitutionally valid. It also concluded that FACE was neither

overbroad nor vague and did not violate the Free Exercise clause of the

First Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States denied a

petition to review the court of appeals’ decision.

Page 93 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

2. Cheffer v. Reno, No. 94-611-CIV-ORL-18 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 1994), aff’d,

55 F.3d 1517 (11th Cir. 1995).

Anti-abortion activists brought suit challenging the constitutionality of

FACE. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The court of

appeals affirmed, finding that FACE withstood the plaintiffs’ constitutional

challenges. Specifically, the court found that FACE constituted a valid

exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause and did not

infringe on state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The court also

found that FACE was not content or viewpoint based, was not

unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, did not violate the appellants’ First

Amendment rights, and did not threaten any of their lawful expressive

activities. The court declined to review the plaintiffs’ claim that the act

violated the Eighth Amendment by imposing excessive fines on the basis

that the claim was not ripe, that is, not ready for the court to address.

3. Cook v. Reno, 859 F. Supp. 1008 (W.D. La. 1994), vacated, 74 F.3d 97

(5th Cir. 1996).

The plaintiffs were anti-abortion demonstrators who sought to enjoin the

use and implementation of FACE. The district court denied the plaintiffs’

request for a preliminary injunction, finding that they did not have a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits. In its ruling, the district

court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenges and found FACE

narrowly tailored to its purpose of curbing violence without burdening

freedom of speech. The government moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit

for lack of standing, a jurisdictional requirement that the plaintiffs are

entitled to have the court decide the merits of the case. According to the

government, the plaintiffs’ complaint was carefully worded to refer only to

peaceful, nonconfrontational activities. Thus, the government asserted

that the plaintiffs failed to allege that they intend to participate in any

activity that will violate FACE. The district court, concurring with the

government’s reading of the plaintiffs’ complaint and finding that FACE was

constitutional, dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for lack of standing. The

plaintiffs appealed this ruling. The court of appeals held that the district

court improperly considered the merits of the demonstrators’ claim when

deciding the issue of standing and rejected the plaintiffs’ request that the

matter be remanded to a different trial judge. The court of appeals vacated

the district court’s judgment and remanded this suit for further

proceedings after the plaintiffs have been provided with an opportunity to

amend their complaint.

Page 94 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

4. Hoffman v. Hunt, 923 F. Supp. 791 (W.D. N.C. 1996), rev’d 126 F.3d 575

(4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1838 (May 26, 1998).

Anti-abortion activists brought action seeking a judgment that a North

Carolina statute prohibiting obstruction of health care facilities violated

their First Amendment rights. The district court determined that North

Carolina law enforcement officers threatened the plaintiffs with arrest for

attempting to distribute literature to persons entering clinics and for

merely being present at clinics. The plaintiffs later amended their

complaint to add a claim challenging the constitutionality of FACE. The

district court held that the North Carolina law violated the First

Amendment because it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, both

on its face and as applied. Similarly, it held that FACE was impermissibly

vague and overbroad and that Congress lacked the authority to enact FACE

under the Commerce Clause, as not all forms of reproductive health

services affect interstate commerce. The court of appeals reversed the

district court’s decision. It held that although the North Carolina statute,

on its face, was neither vague nor overbroad, law enforcement officers

exceeded their authority in threatening the plaintiffs with arrest for

attempting to distribute literature to persons entering clinics and merely

being present at clinics. The court of appeals also held that Congress acted

within its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting FACE and that

the statute did not violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of the

United States denied a petition to review the court of appeals’ decision.

5. Terry v. Reno, No. 94-1154 ( D. D.C. Nov. 21, 1995), aff’d, 101 F.3d 1412

(D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2431 (1997).

The plaintiffs were anti-abortion activists who filed suit challenging the

constitutionality of FACE both on its face and “as applied or threatened to

be applied” to them. The district court granted the government’s motion

for judgment on the pleading. The court ruled that Congress had the power

to enact the statute under the Commerce Clause and that it did not violate

the First Amendment. The district court also ruled that FACE did not violate

principles of due process or equal protection and that the plaintiffs’ Eighth

Amendment claims were not ripe. The court of appeals affirmed the

judgment of the district court. It held that in enacting FACE, Congress did

not exceed its Commerce Clause power, that the statute was compatible

with freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and that FACE was not

overbroad or unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court of the United

States denied a petition to review the court of appeals’ decision.

Page 95 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

6. United States v. Dinwiddie, 885 F. Supp. 1286 (W.D. Mo. 1995), 885 F.

Supp. 1299 (W.D. Mo. 1995), aff’d in part, remanded in part, 76 F.3d 913

(8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 613 (1996).

The Attorney General brought a civil action seeking a temporary

restraining order and permanent injunction alleging that an abortion

protestor’s conduct directed at a Kansas City, MO, abortion clinic violated

FACE. The district court found that the defendant violated FACE by

obstructing, using physical force against, and threatening to use physical

force against a number of Planned Parenthood’s patients and members of

its staff. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the protestor

from being within 500 feet of an entrance of any facility in the United

States that provides reproductive health services except for the purposes

of engaging in legitimate personal activity that could not be remotely

construed to violate the statute.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the “motive requirement,” which

limits application to those who obstruct, threaten, or use force “because

[the victim] is or has been, or in order to intimidate [the victim] from,

obtaining or providing a reproductive health service,” transformed FACE

into a content-based statute, as it punished only abortion-related

expressive conduct. The court ruled that this type of restriction was quite

common and prevented random crimes committed in the vicinity of

abortion clinics from being federalized. The court of appeals held that FACE

was within the commerce power of Congress, was not inconsistent with

the First Amendment, and not overbroad or vague. In ruling that FACE was

not vague, the court articulated definitions for several terms in the statute.

It said the following nonexhaustive and nonconclusive factors can be used

to determine whether a statement constitutes a threat: the reaction of the

recipient and other listeners to the statement; whether the statement was

communicated directly to the victim; if similar statements had previously

been made to the victim; and whether the victim had a reason to believe

the speaker had a propensity to engage in violence. It also upheld the

permanent injunction, with some modifications, ruling that portions of the

injunction were inconsistent with the First Amendment, such as the

prohibition of certain types of nonthreatening speech and other forms of

expression. However, it said a permanent injunction that is more limited in

scope would be constitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States

denied a petition to review the court of appeals’ decision.

Page 96 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

7. Woodall v. Reno, 47 F.3d 656 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2577

(1995).

The plaintiffs, a demonstrator and an anti-abortion women’s organization,

alleged that they pray peacefully in front of abortion clinic entrances and

nonviolently discourage access to the entrances. The plaintiffs raised a

challenge on constitutional grounds to FACE. The district court dismissed

their complaint and the plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeals rejected

the plaintiffs’ claim that FACE violated the First Amendment or was vague

and overbroad and affirmed on the reasoning of the opinion in American

Life League, a decision the court handed down on the same day as

Woodall. The plaintiffs also argued that FACE was unconstitutional because

it allowed the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief if he/she had

reasonable cause to believe that a person might be injured by conduct

violating FACE, and thus it constituted prior restraint. Because they were

not subject to an injunction under FACE at the time, however, the court

ruled that their claim was being raised prematurely. The Supreme Court of

the United States denied a petition to review the court of appeals’

decision.

Reported Civil Cases:

United States District

Court Decisions

1. Council for Life Coalition v. Reno, 856 F. Supp. 422 (S.D. Cal. 1994).

The plaintiffs brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief

seeking to enjoin the enforcement of FACE on a variety of constitutional

and statutory grounds. The court held that FACE did not infringe the

plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, and Congress had

full authority to enact FACE under the Commerce Clause. The defendant’s

motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. The plaintiffs’ motion for a

preliminary injunction was denied because the plaintiffs failed to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted.

2. Greenhut v. Hand, 996 F. Supp. 372 (D. N.J. 1998).

The plaintiff was a volunteer for an anti-abortion organization. The

defendant left a telephone message at the plaintiff’s residence that stated

“Hello, Janet. Get your murderers away from abortion clinics now or you

will be killed.” About 1 hour and 15 minutes later, the defendant left a

second message that stated, “Janet, get your pro-lifers away from our

clinics or we will kill you.” Criminal charges were brought against the

defendant and on December 11, 1995, she pled guilty to one count of

making terroristic threats in violation of a New Jersey statute.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed this civil action seeking relief against the

Page 97 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

defendant under FACE. The district court noted that FACE was being

invoked to penalize threats directed against an anti-abortion volunteer.

The defendant contended that the plaintiff had not satisfied two elements

under FACE; namely, the plaintiff was not providing “reproductive health

services” and the defendant did not act with the requisite intent. The

district court held that FACE covered the plaintiff’s activities, since her

organization provided emotional support and guidance to pregnant

women, and other courts ruled that FACE was not limited to medical

services. The court also held that the defendant had the requisite intent to

impede, interfere with, or intimidate the plaintiff from furnishing

reproductive health services. The court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in

statutory damages under FACE.

3. Lucero v. Trosch, 904 F. Supp. 1336 (S.D. Ala. 1995), 928 F. Supp. 1124

(S.D. Ala. 1996), aff’d in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 121 F.3d 591

(11th Cir. 1997).

A physician and a health care clinic sued an anti-abortion activist for

violation of FACE and for private nuisance based on statements the

defendant made to the physician on a television show at which they

appeared together as guests. The defendant moved to dismiss the

complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted. The court held that a reasonable jury could have found

that the anti-abortion activist’s statements to the physician that he “should

be dead” and that the activist would kill the abortion doctor if he had a gun

in his hand were threats of force for purposes of FACE even though the

speaker did not expressly tell the physician that he was going to kill him at

some future time. The court also held that FACE was not unconstitutional

and that statements made during the television show did not constitute

actionable private nuisance to the physician’s clinic under Alabama law. In

a subsequent decision, the district court held that the activist’s statements

did not constitute “threats of force” that were violative of FACE.

The physician and health care clinic also sued abortion protestors for their

protest activities held outside the clinic. The court of appeals held that

(1) the provisions of a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants

from congregating, picketing, praying, loitering, patrolling, demonstrating,

or communicating with others orally, by signs, or otherwise, within 25 feet

of the clinic did not seem unreasonable and does not burden speech more

than necessary to preserve the patients’, doctors’, and staff’s right to enter

the clinic; (2) a provision of a preliminary injunction enjoining the

defendants from approaching, congregating, picketing, patrolling,

Page 98 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

demonstrating, or using bullhorns or other sound amplification equipment

within 200 feet of the residences of the clinic’s staff operated as a

generalized restriction on protesting and thus was unconstitutional under

the First Amendment; (3) a provision enjoining the defendants from

blocking or attempting to block, barricade, or obstruct the entrances,

exits, or driveways of the residences of the clinic staff; and inhibiting or

impeding or attempting to impede the free ingress and egress of persons to

any street providing the sole access to the residences of clinic staff did not

burden speech more than was necessary to serve the state’s significant

interest in promoting the free flow of traffic on public streets; and (4) a

provision enjoining the defendants from knowingly being within 20 feet of

any person seeking to obtain or provide clinic services was

unconstitutional because it burdened speech more than was necessary to

serve the significant government interests. On the basis of these rulings,

the case was remanded so that the district court would revise the

preliminary injunction.

4. Milwaukee Women’s Medical Center, Inc., and United States v. Brock et

al., 1998 WL 228158 (E.D. Wis. April 30, 1998).

This civil lawsuit arose out of the Milwaukee Clinic blockade for which the

defendants were criminally prosecuted in United States v. Brock, 863 F.

Supp. 851 (E.D. Wis. 1994), mandamus denied sub nom., Hatch v.

Stadtmuller, 41 F.3d 1510 (7th Cir. 1994) (unpublished order), aff’d sub

nom., United States v. Soderna, 82 F.3d 1370 (7th Cir. 1996) cert. denied

sub nom., Hatch v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 507 (1996). This was DOJ’s only

FACE lawsuit prosecuted both criminally and civilly.

The clinic filed a civil action against the defendants seeking (1) a

declaration that the defendants violated FACE, (2) injunctive relief, and

(3) statutory damages. The parties agreed to stay the matter pending

resolution of the criminal proceedings. On December 20, 1994,

approximately 1 month after the criminal convictions were obtained, DOJ

intervened in the civil FACE lawsuit. The suit sought a declaratory

judgment, a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from blocking

access to the clinic, and $5,000 in statutory damages against each

defendant as well as separate awards for punitive damages. The presiding

district court judge stayed this case for almost a year pending the outcome

of appellate and Supreme Court review of his decision in United States v.

Wilson, 880 F. Supp. 621 (E.D. Wis. 1995), a criminal FACE prosecution in

which he had declared the statute unconstitutional. The Seventh Circuit

ultimately reversed the district court’s decision, and the Supreme Court

Page 99 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

denied a petition to review the court of appeals’ decision. United States v.

Wilson, 73 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 1995); cert. denied Wilson v. United States, 47

S. Ct. 117 (1996).

The court (1) granted summary judgment and issued a declaratory

judgment in the clinic’s and the government’s favor against six of eight

defendants stating that the defendants violated FACE; (2) awarded

compensatory damages in the total amount of $5,000, for which the

defendants were each jointly and severally liable; and (3) issued a

permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from rendering impassable

the entry to and exit from the clinic or rendering passage to or from the

clinic unreasonably difficult or hazardous. The court rejected the claim for

punitive damages, holding that the peaceful obstruction of entrances did

not warrant the imposition of punitive damages. At the time of our review,

the case remained pending against the other two defendants.

5. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Wilmette, Inc. et al. v. American

Coalition of Life Activists, et al., 945 F. Supp. 1355 (D. Oregon 1996).

The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants alleging violations of FACE

and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and a

similar provision of Oregon law, the Oregon Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act (ORICO). The individual plaintiffs were doctors

who performed abortions; the two corporate plaintiffs operated clinics

and provided health services, including abortions. The defendants

included associations that oppose abortions and individuals from the

associations. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to violate

FACE by intending to injure, threaten, and intimidate the plaintiffs through

the dissemination of posters that accused individual abortion providers of

murder and provided their descriptions, addresses, and phone numbers.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated FACE by threatening,

injuring, and intimidating them because they provided reproductive health

services. The district court held that (1) the defendants were subject to

personal jurisdiction in Oregon, (2) FACE was within Congress’ power

under the Commerce Clause, (3) FACE did not violate the First Amendment,

and (4) the plaintiffs adequately stated RICO and ORICO claims against all

but one of the defendants.

Page 100 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

6. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Walton, 949 F.

Supp. 290 (E.D. Pa. 1996), 1997 WL 734012 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 1997), 1998

WL 88373 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 1998).

The plaintiff, a reproductive counseling association, brought action under

FACE against a number of anti-abortion activists for obstructing access to

the plaintiff’s Philadelphia, PA, clinic. The district court held FACE to be

constitutional. It concluded that (1) FACE did not violate the First

Amendment, (2) Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment

claims were not ripe, and (3) enactment of FACE was within Congress’

authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. In

a subsequent action, the defendants challenged the plaintiff’s ability to

bring suit under FACE, claiming that they lacked standing. The district court

held that under the plain language of FACE, the plaintiff corporation

qualified as a “person involved in providing or seeking to provide . . .

services” within the meaning of the statute and thus had standing to bring

an action under FACE. On February 12, 1998, the court granted the

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted a permanent injunction,

and awarded statutory damages.

7. Riely v. Reno, 860 F. Supp. 693 (D. Ariz. 1994).

The plaintiffs filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of FACE. The

defendants moved for dismissal on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ claims

were not ripe for review and on the alternative grounds that their

complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The

district court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted. The court found (1) that Congress acted within its

authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted FACE, (2) that FACE

did not impermissibly regulate protected expression or burden religion,

(3) the plaintiffs failed to show that FACE was vague or overbroad, (4) the

punishments imposed and statutory damages allowed by FACE did not

violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual

punishment and excessive fines, and (5) finally, having found that FACE did

not violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, or Tenth Amendments, that the

enforcement of FACE by state officials did not violate the Fourteenth

Amendment.

Page 101 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

8. United States v. Lindgren, et al., 883 F. Supp. 1321 (D. N.D. 1995).

The Attorney General brought a civil action against abortion protestors

alleging that the defendants violated FACE during their anti-abortion efforts

relating to a clinic in Fargo, ND. The district court found that the

protestors blockaded the clinic using an immobilized car with people

attached to it and made verbal threats to clinic staff members on several

occasions. The court issued a preliminary injunction in light of the

substantial probability of success on claims of FACE violations. The

injunction prohibited, among other things, one defendant from coming

within 100 feet of the clinic, its staff, and their homes, and the other

defendants from blocking the clinic or entering onto the clinic’s property.

The preliminary injunction was made permanent by agreement of the

parties.

9. United States v. Lynch and Moscinski, No. 95 Civ. 9223 (S.D. N.Y.

Feb. 26, 1996) (issuing permanent injunction), aff’d 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS

32729 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1436 (1997), 952 F.

Supp. 167 (S.D. N.Y. 1996) (dismissing criminal contempt charges).

The Attorney General filed a lawsuit alleging that the defendants violated

FACE by blocking access to an abortion clinic in Dobbs Ferry, NY. The

court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants and

anyone acting in concert with them from impeding or obstructing access

to the clinic. The defendants contended on appeal that the district court

should have accepted a defense to the injunction based upon “natural

law.” Specifically, the defendants argued that the FACE statute protected

the taking of innocent human life and was therefore contrary to natural

law. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court,

declining to invalidate FACE on the basis of natural law principles. The

Supreme Court denied a petition to review the court of appeals’ decision.

DOJ subsequently secured a civil contempt finding and sought a criminal

contempt finding, which was rejected by the district court. DOJ appealed

the district court’s decision on the criminal contempt motion. That appeal

was pending before the Second Circuit.

10. United States v. McMillan, 946 F. Supp. 1254 (S.D. Miss. 1995).

The Attorney General filed a civil action against the defendant, the founder

and executive director of Christian Action Group, an anti-abortion

organization, alleging three instances of threats and obstruction. The court

denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that

Page 102 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

FACE was constitutionally infirm. It found that Congress validly enacted

FACE pursuant to its powers under the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of

the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the defendant endorsed

the use of force and violence as a means to protest against abortion. The

court further found that the plaintiff had a substantial likelihood of

showing that the defendant has committed three violations of FACE. The

court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from,

among other things, being within 25 feet of the Jackson Women’s Health

Organization. The parties agreed to a permanent injunction incorporating

the terms of the preliminary injunction and adding a 15-foot buffer zone at

a second clinic. The Attorney General moved for civil contempt for a

violation of the injunction at a second clinic. No decision had yet been

issued on this matter.

11. United States v. Roach, et al., 947 F. Supp. 872 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

The Attorney General filed a civil action against 35 defendants, alleging

that they blocked clinic entrances at the Reproductive Health and

Counseling Center in Upland, PA, in violation of FACE. The district court

held that Congress enacted FACE pursuant to its authority under the

Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment and that the statute did

not chill First Amendment freedom of speech or religion as it was enacted

by Congress or as applied in this case. The court granted a preliminary

injunction prohibiting the defendants and anyone acting in concert with

them from, among other things, entering or remaining on the private

property of the clinic. On May 5, 1998, the court granted the motion for

summary judgment and granted a permanent injunction.

12. United States v. Scott, 919 F. Supp. 76 (D. Conn. 1996), 958 F. Supp. 761

(D. Conn. 1997), 975 F. Supp. 428 (D. Conn. 1997).

The Attorney General and the State of Connecticut filed a civil action

alleging that the defendants repeatedly used force, threats of force, and

physical obstruction against the staff, escorts, clients, and companions of

clients at a reproductive health facility located in Bridgeport, CT. The

defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that FACE was unconstitutional.

The district court held that FACE was a constitutional exercise of Congress’

authority under the Commerce Clause. The court subsequently ruled that

FACE was constitutional under the First Amendment; that the United States

and Connecticut did not violate the dual sovereignty doctrine by jointly

filing action; that FACE was not overbroad or vague; that injunctive relief

was constitutional; and that one of the defendants, Stanley G. Scott, had

Page 103 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

violated FACE. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Scott

from, among other things, approaching within 15 feet of the clinic’s front

entrance, coming within 5 feet of any person providing or receiving

reproductive health services who indicated that he/she wished to be left

alone, or coming within 5 feet of any vehicle containing such a person. The

United States obtained one finding of civil contempt against Scott for

which he was assessed $200. In subsequent rulings, the court ordered a

modification of the injunction to expand the buffer zone around the clinic

entrance in light of Scott’s repeated violations of the injunction and issued

a finding of contempt against Scott, assessing him a fine of $300.

13. United States v. White, et al., 893 F. Supp. 1423 (C.D. Cal. 1995).

The Attorney General filed a motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant

to FACE. The complaint requested that the court enjoin the defendants and

all individuals acting in concert with them from, among other things, using

force or threats of force in violation of the statute to interfere with or

intimidate the physician who was the target of the defendants’ activities or

the physician’s wife. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on

constitutional grounds. The court held that Congress had the authority

under the Commerce Clause to enact FACE, that the Fourteenth

Amendment did not preclude Congress from legislating in the area of

clinic violence, and that FACE did not violate the defendants’ First

Amendment rights. The court granted the motion for a preliminary

injunction. The preliminary injunction, which became permanent by

agreement of the parties, prohibited the defendants from, among other

things, demonstrating, congregating, or picketing within 45 feet of the

intersection near the doctor’s home; coming closer than 15 feet of the

doctor or his wife; or driving within 3 car lengths of their cars.

Unreported or Pending

Civil Lawsuits Initiated by

the Department of Justice

We prepared the following summaries for United States v. Alaw, United

States v. Burke, and United States v. Operation Rescue National, et al.

based on information contained in complaints or court orders that DOJ

provided to us. DOJ prepared the other six summaries in this section.

1. United States v. Alaw, No. 1:98 CV01446 (D.D.C.).

Groups of individuals blocked and physically obstructed access to all the

entrances of a clinic that provides comprehensive reproductive health

services in Washington, D.C., on January 24, 1998. The Attorney General

filed a civil FACE lawsuit against 17 defendants on June 9, 1998, seeking

Page 104 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

both preliminary and permanent injunctions, statutory damages, and civil

penalties. On August 19, 1998, a motion was filed to have the court

approve consent decrees with two of the defendants.

2. United States v. Brown, No. 3-97CV1423-R (N.D. Tex.).

A Texas man communicated a threat to a staff person of a Dallas, TX,

abortion clinic: “I’ve been in Oklahoma, Atlanta and Washington, D.C.

taking care of business, and now I’m here to take care of business.” The

Attorney General filed a civil FACE lawsuit against the defendant on

June 13, 1997. The Department of Justice obtained a permanent injunction,

by agreement with the defendant, prohibiting the defendant from coming

within 50 feet of the clinic.

3. United States v. Burke, No. 98-2319-JWL (D. Kan.).

The Attorney General filed a civil action against the defendant on July 14,

1998, alleging that the defendant, an abortion protestor, violated FACE

during his anti-abortion efforts at a reproductive health care center

located in Overland Park, KS. The district court first issued a preliminary

injunction on July 17, 1998, and then on July 31, 1998, a permanent

injunction, prohibiting the defendant from committing criminal trespass

and engaging in conduct that violates FACE. Specifically, the defendant was

enjoined from, among other things, obstructing access to the clinic and

physically abusing persons working at or using services at the clinic. The

Attorney General moved for civil contempt for the defendant’s alleged

violation of the preliminary injunction.

4. United States v. Gregg, et al., 97 Civ. 2020 (JCL) (D. N.J.).

On three different dates, groups of individuals blockaded an Englewood,

NJ, abortion clinic by, among other things, sitting and lying in front of

clinic’s front entrance. The Attorney General filed a civil FACE lawsuit

against 30 defendants on April 18, 1997, alleging obstruction. On

December 22, 1997, DOJ obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting the

defendants from obstructing access. Discovery was concluded and the

parties are preparing pre-trial motions.

5. United States v. McDaniel, et al., 96 Civ. 9202 (JES) (S.D. N.Y.).

A group of individuals blockaded a New York City abortion clinic by

pushing their way into the clinic and locking themselves together in front

Page 105 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

of the clinic’s doors and elevators. On December 6, 1996, the Attorney

General filed a civil FACE lawsuit against the 10 blockaders, alleging

obstruction. A jury found all defendants liable for violating the statute.

(This was DOJ’s first civil FACE lawsuit to go before a jury.) The court

issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants and those acting

in concert with them from impeding or obstructing access to the clinic.

The judge assessed civil penalties ranging from $1,000 to $22,000 against

seven defendants and found that three defendants did not have sufficient

assets to permit the imposition of civil penalties.

6. United States v. Menchacha, et al., No. 96 Civ. 5305 (SS) (S.D. N.Y.).

A group of individuals conducted a blockade of a Dobbs Ferry, NY,

abortion clinic by sitting in the driveway and entrance to the clinic’s

parking lot. DOJ filed a civil FACE lawsuit against four blockaders on

July 17, 1996, alleging obstruction. The court issued a permanent

injunction prohibiting the defendants and anyone acting in concert with

them from, among other things, coming within 15 feet of the clinic’s

property.

7. United States v. Operation Rescue National, et al., No. C3-98-113 (S.D.

Ohio).

Between July 13 and July 19, 1997, Operation Rescue organized and

directed a week-long campaign protesting abortion in the

Cincinnati/Dayton areas. During this campaign, groups of individuals

blocked entrances and physically obstructed access to three clinics in the

Cincinnati/Dayton area. The Attorney General filed a civil FACE lawsuit

against Operation Rescue National and individual defendants on March 23,

1998, seeking both permanent and preliminary injunctions, statutory

damages, and civil penalties.

8. United States v. Smith, No. 4:95-CV-0025 (N.D. Ohio) (6th Cir. 1997).

Beginning in the summer of 1994, an Ohio man engaged in a series of

unlawful activities directed at a reproductive health doctor and his family.

These included attempting to run the doctor off the road with his truck,

pantomiming the act of shooting the doctor outside his home, telling the

doctor’s teenage stepdaughter that the doctor “was dead,” and, along with

other anti-abortion demonstrators, surrounding the car of the doctor’s

wife, who worked as his receptionist, outside one of the doctor’s offices.

Page 106 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VII 

Summaries of Cases Brought Under the

Freedom of Access to Clinic the Entrances

Act of 1994

The Attorney General filed a civil FACE lawsuit on January 4, 1995, alleging

use of force, threats, and obstruction by the defendant. DOJ obtained, by

agreement with the defendant, a temporary restraining order and a

preliminary injunction, respectively, in January and February 1995. In

August 1996, DOJ obtained a finding of criminal contempt against the

defendant for violating the preliminary injunction by verbally threatening

the doctor outside a clinic in Youngstown, Ohio. The court imposed a fine

of $1,500. The defendant appealed the conviction; the Court of Appeals for

the Sixth Circuit denied that appeal in December 1997. This case went to

trial between January 21 and February 3, 1997. DOJ was awaiting a

decision.

9. United States v. Tomanek, No. 3:95-CV-0881-T (N.D. TX).

A Dallas, TX, man engaged in a pattern of conduct in which he made

intimidating phone calls and statements to the staff of an abortion clinic at

their homes and outside the clinic, and, on one occasion, chased the clinic

doctor in his car. The Attorney General filed a FACE lawsuit against the

defendant on May 11, 1995, alleging threats and obstruction. The trial took

place between February 24 and February 28, 1997. DOJ was awaiting a

decision.

Page 107 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Appendix VIII 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Evi L. Rezmovic, Assistant Director

David Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Anne Rhodes-Kline, Senior Social Science Analyst

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney

Kevin Pimentel, Intern

Los Angeles Field

Office

Lori A. Weiss, Evaluator-in-Charge

Marco Gomez, Evaluator

Leslie Clayton, Intern

(182048) Page 108 GAO/GGD-99-2 Abortion Clinics
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100