Congress; call upon to repeal FACE Act and urge President Trump to pardon Americans convicted thereunder.
Summary
House Concurrent Resolution 33 is a nonbinding Mississippi legislative resolution that urges the U.S. Congress to repeal the federal FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994) and urges President Donald J. Trump to pardon or grant clemency to people the resolution describes as pro-life Americans unjustly convicted under that law. The resolution frames the FACE Act as a federal statute used to protect access to abortion clinics and pregnancy resource centers, but argues that it has been weaponized against pro-life protesters and sidewalk counselors.
The resolution relies heavily on examples and reports cited in its findings to argue that federal enforcement has been politically biased, especially after the Dobbs decision. It references prosecutions, arrests, and sentences involving individuals such as Mark Houck, Paul Vaughn, Coleman Boyd, Eva Edl, and Bevelyn Beatty Williams, and contrasts those cases with alleged failures to prosecute attacks on churches and pregnancy resource centers. The measure does not change Mississippi law or federal law directly; instead, it expresses the Mississippi House and Senate’s position and transmits that position to federal officials and members of Congress.
Impact
HC33 has no direct legal effect on Mississippi statutes, criminal penalties, or state agency duties. It is a concurrent resolution, so it functions as a formal statement of the Legislature’s views and a request for federal action rather than as binding law. Its practical impact is political: it seeks to influence Congress to repeal 18 U.S.C. § 248 and to encourage presidential clemency for people convicted under the FACE Act, while also signaling Mississippi’s alignment with anti-abortion and religious-liberty arguments in the national debate.
Sentiment
The sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of pro-life activists and strongly critical of the FACE Act, the Biden administration, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. The bill text presents the law as unjust and selectively enforced, and the overall tone is urgent and condemnatory toward federal prosecutions. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call evidence in the supplied materials to indicate any internal opposition or amendment activity.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether the FACE Act is a legitimate federal protection for access to reproductive health facilities or an overbroad and politicized tool used against peaceful anti-abortion protesters. Supporters of the resolution argue that pro-life individuals have been unfairly targeted while attacks on pregnancy centers and churches have gone insufficiently punished; opponents would likely dispute those characterizations and emphasize the need to protect access to clinics and prevent obstruction, intimidation, or violence. Another likely point of disagreement is the resolution’s call for presidential pardons or clemency, which is framed as relief for unjust convictions but could be viewed as undermining federal enforcement of clinic-access protections.