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 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. 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 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 (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. 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 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 Report 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.