The defendants cannot, however, avoid conviction by characterizing their intent in this manner. Congress has expressly defined 'reproductive health services' to include 'services relating to . . . It follows that the defendants, whatever else they may have intended, did intend to obstruct and interfere with the obtaining and provision of reproductive health services as defined by Congress. That is all the intent that the statute requires. The defendants also argue that FACE is a civil rights statute and that they cannot be guilty under its provisions because their actions were non-discriminatory.
Defendants err in their premise.
FACE is a criminal statute and discrimination is not one of its elements. Whether the defendants acted in a discriminatory fashion or not is irrelevant to their guilt. We have carefully considered all of the defendants' arguments on appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. In addition to the claims discussed above, the defendants appeal the district court's refusal to sanction the court reporter for not making certain requested changes in the trial transcript.