Bush administration allies with abortion industry.

Ten years ago, with eager support from the Clinton administration, Congress enacted the so-called Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) act. That measure created a federally enforced "no-protest" zone around abortion "clinics." Under FACE, protesters who obstruct access to abortuaries can be prosecuted for federal offenses. The same is not true of radical environmentalists, union activists, or other political protesters who commit acts of violence, vandalism, or obstruction targeting businesses other than the abortion industry.

FACE is akin to a Bill of Attainder, an unconstitutional measure singling out one specific group of people for special punishment. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt has correctly ruled that the act exceeded congressional authority and violated the reserved powers of the states. Most conservatives would expect that the "pro-life" Bush administration's Justice Department would approve of a judicial ruling against an unconstitutional law passed in service of the abortion industry. They would be wrong.

In late November, assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler flew from Washington to New Orleans to defend FACE before a three-judge panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judicial panel was considering a Bush administration challenge to District Judge Hoyt's ruling. The original case involved an incident in which a Houston man named Frank Bird rammed his van into a local Planned Parenthood abortion facility.

"Congress chose to enact an unconstitutional statute which permits [the federal government] to do exactly what our Framers would have been appalled by, which is to regulate local violent criminal conduct," argued Bird's public defender, Brent Newton. "We still believe there are 50 states that are separate sovereigns in this country. That is what is at issue here. It's not about abortion rights."

Speaking on behalf of the Bush administration, Keisler "shot back by asking the appeals judges to recognize the simple motives behind acts such as the one Bird is accused of," reported an AP account of the hearing. "It doesn't [involve] a commercial transaction, but it does interfere with the workings of an interstate market," contended Keisler. This reflected the view of a third-party brief in the case filed by the abortion advocacy group Legal Momentum. That brief, summarized the AP, maintained that "a local attack [on an abortuary] can dissuade doctors in other states from continuing to perform abortions or prompt them to spend more money on security, which could possibly raise prices for patients."