DE Seeks to *Criminalize* Any Objection to Abortion
- Sussex County Republican Committee
- Jan 27
- 3 min read
Updated: Feb 7
January 27, 2026
Nandi Gamble, Delaware Family Policy Council
House Bill 272 claims to mirror the federal FACE Act, which was enacted in 1994 under President Bill Clinton to penalize violence against abortion clinics and houses of worship.
However, the FACE Act enacts civil penalties against conduct, not speech. HB 272 would criminalize any “intent to discourage” individuals entering abortion clinics, which could include actions as simple as prayer or conversation about additional resources.
75 year old Rose Docherty found herself in prison twice in 2025. Her crime? Standing silently outside of a hospital, with a simple sign that read,
"Coercion is a crime. Here to talk - only if you want."Rose's simple sign violated Scottish law, which criminalizes any attempt to persuade women to choose life within 656 feet of a hospital or abortion clinic.
Here in Delaware, legislators will hear a similar bill - House Bill 272.
HB 272 would criminalize any attempt to "discourage" an individual from seeking an abortion.
House Bill 272 Analysis
Background: The Federal FACE Act
Enacted: 1994 (signed into law by President Bill Clinton)
Purpose: Address violence, threats, physical obstruction, and property destruction targeting reproductive health facilities and places of worship.
Key Feature: The law regulates conduct, not speech.
Prohibited acts must involve:
Force or threat of force
Physical obstruction
Intentional property damage
Importantly: The FACE Act does not prohibit peaceful protest, counseling, prayer, or verbal persuasion.
This narrow focus has allowed the law to withstand constitutional scrutiny for nearly three decades.
Delaware’s HB 272 is more extreme than the Federal FACE Act.
1. HB 272 has a vague prohibition against “discouragement.”
The proposed Delaware law makes it unlawful to act “in order to discourage” a person from obtaining or providing reproductive health services.
This language does not appear in the federal FACE Act.
“Discourage” is inherently subjective and lacks a clear legal definition.
It potentially encompasses:
Peaceful conversation
Expressing moral or religious views
Offering alternatives or resources
Prayer or counseling
This represents a shift from regulating actions to penalizing based on intentions and viewpoint.
2. HB 272 criminalized intent rather than harm.
The Delaware bill risks criminal liability based on why someone acted, not what they did.
Two identical actions could be treated differently based solely on perceived motive.
This creates unpredictability in how the law could be enforced and increases the risk of selective or viewpoint-based prosecution.
3. HB 272 has a chilling effect on lawful speech.
Vague standards discourage lawful civic engagement.
Individuals and faith-based groups may self-censor to avoid legal risk.
Laws affecting expressive activity should be clear, narrow, and predictable—this bill is not.
4. HB 272 increases litigation risk for Delaware.
The FACE Act survived scrutiny because of its narrow scope – it addresses specific actions.
In contrast, HB 272 expands liability to “discouragement,” which increases exposure to:
First Amendment challenges
challenges based on its vagueness as to what constitutes a true violation
Costly taxpayer-funded litigation
5. HB 272’s lack of location limits poses a speech regulation problem.
Unlike the federal FACE Act—which is expressly limited to facilities and places of worship—the proposed Delaware statute does not clearly limit where the prohibited conduct occurs.
The bill does not state that the conduct must occur:
at or near a clinic,
at a medical facility, or
within a defined buffer or access zone.
Instead, it broadly criminalizes conduct done “in order to discourage” someone from obtaining or providing abortions—without any sort of geographic limitation. This is a serious problem because the language potentially applies anywhere, including:
private homes
churches
counseling offices
Public sidewalks
In effect, the bill functions less like a clinic-access law and more like a conversion-style speech ban—penalizing efforts to persuade someone to change their mind about abortion.
This bill attempts to control what people are allowed to say or encourage, rather than stopping force or obstruction. The result is not protection of access—but government control over persuasion itself.
Bottom Line
Violence, threats, and physical obstruction are already illegal—and should remain so. The federal FACE Act addresses those harms directly.
Delaware’s proposal goes further by criminalizing discouragement, a subjective standard that risks suppressing protected speech, religious expression, and peaceful advocacy. In doing so, it crosses a line the federal law carefully avoids.
Public safety can be protected without criminalizing intent or viewpoints.
