Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Lurker

A correction to my first reply. The SCOTUS has refused to hear challenges to the law. But that was in 1996 (?). The main courts that upheld it based that opinion on the commerce clause.

Please note “anti-choice” is not the word I would use.

“Six Wisconsin anti-choice protestors, who had been arrested in September 1994 after participating in a blockade of a Milwaukee women’s health facility, had successfully petitioned the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to dismiss criminal charges based on FACE. While the district court held that Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause or under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution to enact FACE, the appellate panel found that the lower court had not given sufficient consideration to congressional findings that the activities restricted by FACE substantially affect interstate commerce and are subject to the regulatory power of Congress.”

The article can be found at
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12320456/


46 posted on 01/30/2026 12:22:01 PM PST by lastchance (Cognovit Dominus qui sunt eius.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: lastchance

Watch the Left now argue that the FACE Act is unconstitutional.

L


47 posted on 01/30/2026 12:32:52 PM PST by Lurker ( Peaceful coexistence with the Left is not possible. Stop pretending that it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson