Urge United States Congress to repeal "The Face Act."
Summary
Senate Resolution 36 is a Mississippi Senate resolution urging the U.S. Congress to pass federal bills H.R. 589 and S. 223 to repeal the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The resolution also asks President Donald Trump to sign repeal legislation if enacted and formally commends him for pardoning or granting clemency to 23 pro-life Americans convicted under the FACE Act. In its findings, the resolution argues that the FACE Act has been used disproportionately against pro-life activists and sidewalk counselors while failing to adequately address attacks on pregnancy resource centers, churches, and other pro-life sites.
The resolution does not change Mississippi state law or create new state-level penalties, rights, or enforcement mechanisms. Its legal effect is limited to expressing the Mississippi Senate’s position and transmitting that position to federal officials and Mississippi’s congressional delegation. The bill’s practical impact is therefore political and symbolic: it seeks to influence federal policy on abortion-related protest enforcement and to align Mississippi lawmakers with the national effort to repeal the FACE Act.
Impact
SR36 has no direct effect on Mississippi statutes, state agencies, or criminal law. Instead, it is a nonbinding legislative resolution that advocates for federal repeal of 18 U.S.C. 248, the FACE Act, and urges Mississippi’s U.S. senators and representatives to support that repeal. The resolution also publicly endorses President Trump’s pardons and clemency actions involving FACE Act defendants, reinforcing a pro-life, anti-FACE Act position at the state legislative level.
Sentiment
The sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of repeal and strongly critical of the FACE Act and the Biden administration’s enforcement of it. The bill text portrays the law as weaponized against pro-life Americans and frames Trump’s pardons as corrective relief. No committee debate or recorded votes are provided, so the available context shows only the sponsor’s and resolution’s clear pro-life, anti-FACE Act stance, with no documented opposing views in the supplied materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is the FACE Act itself and whether it has been enforced fairly. Supporters of the resolution argue that the law has been used to target peaceful pro-life protesters while not adequately addressing vandalism, threats, or violence against pregnancy resource centers and churches. Critics of that position would likely argue that the FACE Act remains an important federal tool to protect access to reproductive health services and to prevent obstruction or intimidation at clinics. The resolution also reflects disagreement over the Biden administration’s prosecutions and Trump’s pardons, which the resolution treats as evidence of abuse and injustice.