Mississippi House Bill HC54

Mississippi 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/25
• Refer: 2/21/25
• Failed: 4/3/25

Caption

Congress; call upon to pass legislation repealing the FACE Act and commending President Trump for pardoning certain Americans convicted thereunder.

Impact

The resolution emphasizes the implications of the FACE Act on state laws related to protest activities, particularly in the context of abortion-related protests. It argues that many individuals have faced disproportionate legal repercussions for their actions, thus creating a chilling effect on free speech, particularly among pro-life advocates. By calling for the repeal of the FACE Act, the bill aims to restore what it views as a necessary balance of rights between pro-life advocates and their opposition, ultimately aiming to influence legislative action at the federal level.

Summary

House Concurrent Resolution 54 urges the United States Congress to repeal the FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act). The bill contends that the FACE Act has been misused, particularly post the Supreme Court leak regarding Roe v. Wade, alleging that it has been weaponized against pro-life activists and has not effectively protected pro-life centers from vandalism and threats. It also commends former President Trump for pardoning individuals convicted under the FACE Act, suggesting that these convictions represented an unjust infringement upon the constitutional rights of protestors exercising their freedoms of speech and assembly. The resolution seeks to galvanize support among Mississippi legislators to advocate for this repeal in Congress.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HC54 include accusations that the FACE Act disproportionately targets pro-life individuals, while failing to address vandalism and violence against pro-life facilities. Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to protect constitutional rights, while critics might contend that repealing the FACE Act could potentially undermine protections for individuals seeking access to reproductive health services. This resolution reflects a broader national debate regarding reproductive rights, free speech, and the intersection of activism and legislative action.