Call on Congress to repeal FACE Act, and call on President Trump to pardon pro-life Americans convicted thereunder.
Summary
Senate Resolution 19 is a nonbinding Mississippi Senate resolution that urges the U.S. Congress to repeal the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and asks President Donald Trump to pardon or grant clemency to people the resolution describes as pro-life Americans unjustly convicted under that law. The resolution argues that the FACE Act has been used to target anti-abortion protesters and sidewalk counselors, while failing to adequately address violence and vandalism against pregnancy resource centers and churches.
The resolution’s findings cite a series of examples and outside reports to support the claim that federal enforcement has been politically biased and overly aggressive. It references prosecutions of individuals such as Mark Houck, Paul Vaughn, Coleman Boyd, Eva Edl, and Bevelyn Beatty Williams, and contends that these cases show the law has been “weaponized” against pro-life activity and free exercise of religion. The measure also frames the issue in the context of post-Dobbs abortion politics and broader concerns about free speech, religious liberty, and federal prosecutorial discretion.
Impact
SR19 does not change Mississippi state law or create any state-level regulatory requirements. Its legal effect is limited to expressing the Mississippi Senate’s position and transmitting that position to federal officials, including Congress, the President, Mississippi’s congressional delegation, and the U.S. Attorney General. The resolution seeks federal repeal of 18 U.S.C. 248, the FACE Act, and federal clemency for people convicted under that statute, which would affect federal enforcement of access-to-clinic protections and related prosecutions if Congress or the President acted on the request.
Sentiment
The resolution is strongly supportive of the pro-life movement and strongly critical of the FACE Act and the Biden administration’s enforcement of it. Its tone is urgent and condemnatory, portraying federal prosecutions as unjust, politicized, and hostile to constitutional rights. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded chamber sentiment beyond the text of the resolution itself.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether the FACE Act is a necessary federal protection for access to reproductive health services or an unconstitutional and selectively enforced tool used against pro-life demonstrators. Supporters of the resolution’s position argue that the law has been used to punish peaceful protest while ignoring attacks on pregnancy centers and churches; opponents would likely view repeal as weakening protections against obstruction, intimidation, and violence at clinics. Another disputed issue is the resolution’s reliance on highly charged examples and outside advocacy-group reports, which may be seen as evidence of selective enforcement by supporters but as one-sided or incomplete by critics.