Panel adopts substitute modeled on federal FACE Act to protect clinic access; draws mixed public testimony

The subcommittee adopted a substitute to Senate Bill 137 designed to protect access to health‑care facilities — including abortion clinics — by criminalizing and civilly remedying conduct that interferes with a person’s freedom of movement into or out of a facility.

Scope and drafting: Counsel and the sponsor said the substitute is patterned on the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and the post‑McCullen Massachusetts statute, narrowing coverage to conduct that actually obstructs or restricts movement rather than broadly restricting signage or peaceful presence. The substitute defines 'interfere with' as restricting freedom of movement and builds a graduated enforcement framework: law enforcement warning powers, establishment of a clearly marked barrier or buffer when interference is occurring, criminal penalties for violations (including elevated penalties for repeat offenses) and civil remedies such as injunctions and damages enforceable by the Attorney General.

Support and opposition: Civil‑liberties groups and reproductive‑health providers (ACLU, Planned Parenthood) said the sub preserves speech rights by targeting obstruction and harassment rather than peaceful expression. Opponents — religious and sidewalk‑advocacy groups — urged that the bill would criminalize peaceful counseling and outreach; some speakers provided personal stories of offering pamphlets and prayer and said they do not harass patients. Testimony also included mixed claims about the empirical frequency of violent or obstructive incidents at Virginia clinics.

Outcome: The subcommittee reported the substitute 7–3 after adopting clarifying language (including a one‑hour buffer before and after clinic hours for staff access). The sponsor emphasized there is no blanket perimeter ban; marked buffer zones are imposed only when conduct actually interferes with movement.