One morning in late August 2021, Phebe Brandt was attending to patients at a Planned Parenthood facility in Philadelphia, where she works as a nurse practitioner, when someone at the front desk told her a man had barricaded himself in one of the bathrooms.
Just a few minutes later, everyone was ordered to evacuate the building.
"At that very moment, we really didn't know what was going on," Brandt said. "We didn't know if he was armed. We didn't know if he had a bomb on him. It was very scary just because we didn't know what was happening."
The man holed up in the bathroom was Matthew Connolly, an anti-abortion rights activist from Minnesota. He wasn't armed, but court papers say he refused to leave even after the police arrived. Eventually, a SWAT team broke down the door and removed him from the premises.
Connolly's actions forced the clinic to shut down for the day. Patients who were mid-visit were sent home; those with appointments later in the day were told not to come in.
Federal prosecutors filed a lawsuit against Connolly under the FACE Act, or the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The law prohibits threat of force, obstruction and property damage meant to interfere with reproductive health care services, including abortion. The federal government's civil case sought to impose financial penalties on Connolly and deter future disruptive actions by him at abortion clinics.
The lawsuit was one of several the Justice Department brought during the Biden administration as it sought to protect access to reproductive health care.
In the past six weeks, the Trump administration has moved to undo all of that.
The Justice Department's new leaders say past enforcement of the FACE Act is "the prototypical example" of what they say is the weaponization of law enforcement against conservatives.
Instead, the Justice Department now says it will no longer enforce violations of the statute, except in extraordinary circumstances — such as cases involving death or serious property damage.
The department also has dropped three pending FACE Act cases, including the one against Connolly. President Trump, meanwhile, pardoned 23 people convicted under the FACE Act.
Fear of more disruptions
Abortion-rights advocates and providers, including Brandt, think these moves give a green light to anyone who wants to disrupt abortion centers in the future.
"It basically tells them that there will be no consequences for them to come into our centers, disrupt things, and potentially even be violent," she said. "I absolutely think we're going to see more of that going forward. I think this is going to put our safety at risk."
The FACE Act dates back to the early 1990s. Its supporters said the statute was necessary to prevent rising violence at the time targeting abortion clinics and providers, including the 1993 murder of Dr. David Gunn outside a clinic in Florida.
The law's opponents, however, viewed it as an infringement on the free speech rights of abortion opponents.
Ultimately, the bill passed with bipartisan support and President Bill Clinton signed it into law in 1994.
By most accounts, the law has worked as designed.
"The FACE Act has been incredibly effective at curbing some of the major types of violence and obstruction that we saw really escalating in the early nineties," said Melissa Fowler, the chief program officer at the National Abortion Federation.
Enforcement of the law has varied over the years, with Democratic administrations often being more active enforcing it than Republican ones, she said, "but what we've seen this time is really unprecedented."
"It really shouldn't take an abortion provider being murdered for the federal government to enforce a law that has been effective at keeping providers safe and helping people access care," Fowler added.
Opponents say law was unfair
For opponents of abortion rights, however, the department's change in charging policy is a source of optimism.
"That decision is very much welcomed," said Monica Miller, the director of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, an activist organization. "I've always felt very deeply that this was a flawed law. It was unfair. It went after a particular social justice group for higher penalties."
Miller, who has been involved in anti-abortion activism since the 1970s, was a defendant in one of the FACE Act lawsuits recently dropped by the Justice Department. She helped start what's known as "Red Rose Rescues," in which activists enter clinics to try to talk women out of getting an abortion and then remain in the facility until physically removed by police.
In court papers, prosecutors have said those actions are designed to temporarily shut down clinic services. Providers say the group's activities are traumatic for staff and patients, and disruptive.
Miller said the group's actions are peaceful.
"Let's put this in context. What is it that is being, quote unquote, disrupted?" she said. "What has been disrupted is the killing of innocent human persons in an act that is barbaric and violent and often hurtful to the women. And that's why there's a contingent within the pro-life movement that feels very strongly that that these nonviolent acts of dissent need to be conducted."
Some abortion opponents have called for a renewed push to disrupt abortion clinics in light of the department's new policy toward the FACE Act.
For her part, Miller said the change will make it easier to conduct disruptive actions at abortion clinics, but she said it's "not a get out of jail free card" because activists could still face legal consequences under state law.
Another anti-abortion activist, Jonathan Darnel, agreed.
"Some supporters of abortion are convinced that there will now be frequent rescues at abortion mills. I wish!" Darnel, who was recently pardoned by Trump, wrote in an email. Darnel was convicted in connection with the blockade of a reproductive health clinic in Washington, D.C. in 2020.
"Unfortunately, most pro-lifers are still afraid. After all, states can and will punish civil disobedience. But maybe Trump's decision is important for the message it sends: laws that protect murder should not be enforced, and in fact should be defied."
Copyright 2025 NPR
