Full opinion text
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER ROBERT D. POTTER, Senior District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Complaint, filed December 6,1993, praying for a Declaratory Judgment, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction (document # 1). I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Plaintiffs’ Complaint challenged the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4, a statute which criminalizes certain forms of civil protest at health care facilities. On December 29, 1993, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss for Plaintiffs lack of standing, failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and alternatively, to abstain (document # 11). After oral argument was had on January 14,1994, the Court in Hoffman v. Hunt, 845 F.Supp. 340 (W.D.N.C.1994), denied the Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Court determined that declaratory relief was more appropriate than preliminary injunction because it involved- the most minimal intrusion possible into the State’s constitutionally recognized province of enforcing the criminal law, and ordered Defendants to file their answers, which they did on March 4, 1994 (document # 19). The Court, in that Order, also denied the State Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motions, and preliminarily found the statute overbroad and vague. The Court further found that the Plaintiffs had constitutional standing and stated a claim. The Court found that Section 14-277.4 has a deterrent effect on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of their First Amendment rights produced by fear of prosecution for violating the statute. The Court further found that the Plaintiffs have a personal stake in this action because they are persons who wish to freely protest abortions and educate others to their views. The Court further held that the Plaintiffs suffered actual harm because of a credible threat of prosecution. Plaintiffs’ complaint makes clear they would be conducting the First Amendment activity but for the genuine threat of enforcement of the disputed state statute by asserting their own rights to free speech. The Court declined to abstain because there is ambiguity of state law that gives rise to injuries of constitutional proportions and because the Court should rule so as to alleviate any concern about the Plaintiffs’ infringement of state law. On May 26, 1994, the President of the United States signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (“FACE”), Pub.L. No. 103-259,108 Stat. 694, codified as 18 U.S.C. § 248. Section 248(c)(3) of that Act authorized action by the State Attorney General in the name of the State. Consequently, on June 15, 1994, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint to add a new cause of action challenging the constitutionality of FACE because of the additional fear from the threat of enforcement of FACE by Defendant State of North Carolina and the Attorney General of the United States (See Motion to Amend (document #31) and Amended Complaint (document # 35) and Michael Matthews’ Affidavit (document #68)). Leave was granted by this Court on July 13, 1994 (document # 34) and the amended complaint was filed July 19, 1994 (document #35). The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction was filed July 28,1994 (document # 36) and will be ruled on in this Order. On August 10, 1994, the State Defendants filed a “Motion to Hold Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief in Abeyance” (document #47) pending resolution of the issues in American Life League, et al. v. Reno, et al. which at that time was pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. (That case was decided by the Fourth Circuit on February 13, 1995, and is reported at 47 F.3d 642 (4th Cir.1995)). The petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on October 2,1995. On August 25, 1994, the United States of America filed a Motion to Intervene and a Motion to Stay ruling on Preliminary Injunction pending decision in American Life League, et al. v. Reno (document # 49). On October 5,1994 this Court granted the United States’ Motion to Intervene as a defendant (document # 55), and on November 29, 1994 this Court filed an Order granting the United States’ Motion to Stay Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction pending resolution of American Life League, et al. v. Reno (document # 60). The Order granting the Motion to Stay was vacated by Order filed October 17, 1995, and the parties were directed to file briefs by November 17, 1995 as to the effect, if any, of the decision in United States v. Lopez, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) upon Congress’ authority to enact FACE on the grounds that it rationally concluded that the regulated activity affects interstate commerce (document # 70). On March 6, 1995, the State Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint regarding FACE and for summary judgment in their favor regarding N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4 pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (document #61). An evi-dentiary hearing was held as to the State statute on February 2,1996. The matters now before the Court and to be decided in this Order are: 1. Declaratory Judgment as to the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4; 2. Declaratory Judgment as to the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 248; 3. The outstanding Motion (document #61-1) by the State Defendants to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to FACE and the State Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (document #61-2) in their favor as to N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4; 4. Motion by the United States (document #72) to Dismiss the claim in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 248; and 5. Plaintiffs’ prayer for a permanent injunction against enforcement of N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4 and 18 U.S.C. § 248. The Court notes that the Plaintiffs filed affidavits to support their position, but the Defendants did not file any affidavits or produce any evidence at the evidentiary hearing. Because the Court has not excluded Plaintiffs’ affidavits and has held an evidentiary hearing, the Court will consider the Plaintiffs’ affidavits and the evidence produced by the Plaintiffs at the evidentiary hearing and will treat the Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court will dispose of the Motion as provided in Rule 56. In this Court’s opinion in Hoffman v. Hunt, 845 F.Supp. 340 (W.D.N.C.1994) the Court denied the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and found that the complaint stated a claim for a first amendment over-breadth challenge sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss. The Court also preliminarily found the statute sufficiently vague to overcome a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and consequently denied that motion, as well as the Defendants’ motions to abstain and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the same opinion the Court denied Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction and ordered the Defendants to file their answer as required by Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II. NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTE SECTION 14-277.4 A. The Evidence of Application of N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4. The undisputed evidence of this case shows that Plaintiffs Sharon Hoffman, Trudie Matthews, Diane Hoefling, the Rev. Ronnie Wallace, and the Reverend John Bradley are opposed to abortion for religious, moral, and scientific reasons. By reason of that opposition, the Plaintiffs have frequently exercised their First Amendment right to protest in front of health care facilities that perform abortions. During these protests, police officers for the City of Charlotte have relied upon North Carolina’s law governing the obstruction of health care facilities to regulate the Plaintiffs’ activities as set forth below. The Plaintiffs’ affidavits describe how picketers have been threatened with arrest. Michael Matthews affirms that on February 11, 1995, he was threatened with arrest for distributing literature at an abortion clinic because the police officer on duty interpreted the state statute as prohibiting those activities. He further affirms that on March 18, 1995 he was advised by police officers picketers could not preach or counsel while there was pro-life picketing occurring, and that to avoid arrest the picketers were required to put down their picket signs while others continued to preach and counsel. (See pp. 1 & 2 of Matthews Aff.) (document # 68). The affidavits describe confusion about the meaning of the statute among the police. Karen Graham’s affidavit (document #67) affirms that she has personally been at the location of abortion facilities in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area on approximately 15 different occasions and has encountered the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department who are routinely called to the scene. She further affirms that there are four main abortion facilities in the Charlotte-Mecklen-burg area, and that each one is in a different police district of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (“CMPD”). It has been her experience that the interpretation and application of the North Carolina law prohibiting the obstruction of access to health clinics is different in each of the four police districts, that the officers in each of the four districts have a different interpretation of the meaning of the words “interfere,” “delay,” “impede,” “obstruct,” and “intimidate” depending on the particular sergeant on duty, that there are differences of interpretation within each individual police district, and that it is common for two or three police officers at the scene of a peaceful pro-life picket on public property outside an abortion facility to disagree among themselves on what expressive activities constitute “interference,” “delay,” “obstruction,” “intimidation,” or “impeding” under the statutes. She further affirms the police officers will “huddle” like referees in a football game and debate among themselves on what expressive activities will be permitted that day under those words. Graham’s affidavit further says that sidewalks open for public use are adjacent to each of the four abortion facilities in Charlotte. Graham then elucidates a sampling of how various policemen interpret the statute differently concerning picketing on those sidewalks: a. Some police officers enforce the North Carolina statute by prohibiting picketers from walking on any portion of a public sidewalk crossed by a driveway to the clinic, even if no ears are in sight. She affirms that the police officers interpret the statute as requiring that all picketing occur either on one side or the other of a driveway, and that the mere act of a lone pieketer traversing on a public sidewalk from one side to the other of the driveway constituted “interference,” “delay,” “impeding,” and “obstructing.” No actual impediment of vehicular or pedestrian traffic is required to have occurred. b. Other police officers interpret the North Carolina statute as permitting crossing the driveway on the public walkway so long as the pieketer does not actually block vehicular traffic, but that they change their mind from day to day or even on the same day. c. Some police officers interpret the North Carolina statute as permitting pro-life leafletters to stand on the public sidewalk to the side of the driveway and wave their literature to get the attention of persons in automobiles entering or exiting the driveway area, so long as the leafletter does not step in front of an automobile. d. Other police officers interpret the North Carolina statute as prohibiting standing on the public sidewalk to the side of the driveway and waving pro-life literature because if a car stopped so that the person inside could obtain the literature it would constitute interference under the statute. e. Another officer told the affiant that the only time she could hand out literature was after the automobile was parked in the clinic parking lot, and then advised the affiant that if she walked to the parked automobfie she would be trespassing on abortion facility property. f. On one occasion, a police sergeant pretended to draw an imaginary “line” on the sidewalk and stated that if the piek-eters crossed the “line,” it would violate North Carolina law. g. On another day, police officers at the scene advised pro-life picketers who were also offering counseling that they could either picket or sidewalk counsel, but could not do both simultaneously under the North Carolina statute, as to do both would constitute “interference” under the North Carolina statute. The affidavits describe how interpretation of the statute has been influenced by the opinion of clinic employees. Graham states that on Saturday, June 11, 1994, approximately 30 people arrived at 212 E. Morehead Street to picket and distribute literature at “Family Reproductive Health Clinic” which performs abortions. Graham affirms that while picketing they walked peacefully in a single file and crossed the driveway on the sidewalk, but never stood in front of a car. As a car pulled into the driveway they did not place any objects in front of the windshield but would lean toward a car if it slowed or stopped and allowed the passenger to hold out a hand and accept literature. Graham further affirms that after cars were in the parking lot a person in the pro-life group would use a megaphone to speak to them. The megaphone was not battery operated and did not electronically amplify sound. Graham affirms that Officer Helms told them they could not hand out literature at the driveway, but only in the clinic parking lot. After Graham questioned Officer Helms about coming into the parking lot, the officer asked a Ms. Ross from the clinic if that would be okay and she said “no.” Ms. Ross then told the officer that the statute prohibited protestors from handing out literature to women entering the clinic. As Ms. Ross put it, “All they can do is when the women drive in here [the clinic parking lot], I’ll ask them if they want to talk [to the protestors] and if they do, then I’ll tell them that they can go down there.” After the police officer heard Ms. Ross’ opinion as to the operation of North Carolina’s statute, he turned to Ms. Graham and said, “Well, I guess that’s all you can do is yell out at them.” (Tr. p. 28, lines 19-25; p. 29, lines 1-14). Graham then told the officer they were going to attempt to hand out the literature peacefully and that they understood they would be arrested. Officer Helms then called her supervisor, Sgt. Neal, who stated that picketers crossing the driveway on the sidewalk was a violation of the North Carolina statute because it blocked the driveway. Sgt. Neal also complained about people handing out literature on the sidewalk next to the driveway, and he stated that if a car stopped, the picketers would be in violation of North Carolina law because the car would be blocking the driveway. Later the officers told the picketers that they could not cross the driveway, but had to divide into two groups, one on each side of the driveway (Graham Aff. document # 67). Graham also informed Sgt. Neal that the picketers would continue to hand out literature and as long as they did not stand in the car’s path or force literature on anyone who did not want it and that they would offer literature to any car that slowed or stopped. On November 7, 1995, the Court set an evidentiary hearing for January 8, 1996 to hear testimony and take any other relevant evidence concerning the Defendants’ application of N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4 to protest activities of the Plaintiffs. (Doc. # 71). Because of adverse weather conditions the hearing was rescheduled to February 2,1996. At the hearing the Plaintiffs offered Karen Graham, Diana Hoefling, Reverend Ronnie Wallace, and Michael Alan Matthews, and Trudie Matthews, all of whom testified in substance that they were opposed to abortion and that the picketing of abortion clinics had as its purpose to talk to women who are seeking abortion and to convince them not to participate in that procedure through persuasion by showing them literature, pictures and through discussion. All of the witnesses testified that they had never engaged in violence or threats of violence to achieve the goals of delaying a person from having an abortion or changing the mind of someone seeking an abortion (Tr. p. 9, lines 12-17; p. 42, lines 12-14; p. 58, lines 3-7; p. 79, lines 4-25; p. 80, lines 1-7). All of the witnesses testified that they had experienced difficulty in having the police define exactly what was and what was not a violation of the statute. Likewise, all of the witnesses recounted examples where the personnel of clinics providing abortions had goaded the police into changing their interpretation of the statute. (Tr. p. 24, lines 16-25; p. 25, lines 1-6; p. 28, lines 22-25; p. 29, lines 1-14; p. 45, lines 1-9; p. 61, lines 3-16). For example, Ms. Graham testified: A. Well, there are occasions when police officers say that handing out that literature is in violation of the statute. There was even one occasion when a woman police officer came to the scene, and she talked to the abortion clinic administrator, then came and talked to me and said that there were people who were coming into the clinic for other reasons than abortions, and they were there to have abortions, which is perfectly legal, and that just our presence there was causing them to call in and say that the were going to delay their appointments, and, therefore, that was in violation of the statute and she had every right to arrest me just for that. (Tr. p. 15, line 25; p. 16; lines 1-12). Police officers told Karen Graham that if a car stops to receive literature then they would be delayed and that would be in violation of the statute. (Tr. p. 18, lines 3-9). Police drew imaginary lines on the public sidewalk and told Graham that she would have to stand behind the line and could not cross it to hand literature to. a car which had stopped in the driveway crossing the sidewalk to get the literature to the car. (Tr. p. 19, lines 10-21). On June 11,1994, after the Clinic Administrator complained to the police that the demonstrators should have been arrested because they had violated the statute, the police stopped three of them, took their telephone numbers and where they worked and told them a warrant may be issued for their arrest. (Tr. pp. 24-25). All of the witnesses testified that as a result of this threat they spent the ensuing weeks in constant fear of arrest and repeatedly called the Police Department to try and learn if they were going to be prosecuted. When Ms. Graham called the Police Department to find out if she would be prosecuted, she was told that the police were still trying to decide if the protestors had violated the statute. (Tr. p. 24, lines 16-25; p. 25, lines 1-17). On the following Saturday, a police officer told the protestors that if they violated the statute he would have them arrested. When Graham asked what his interpretation of the statute was so that she would know how not to violate it, the officer responded that she would know when he arrested her. When she told the officer that every officer who came out told her something different and asked him to tell her what she could do not to be arrested, he said “you can stay home.” (Tr. p. 25, lines 18-25; p. 26, lines 3-22). There were occasions when clinic “escorts” physically blocked Ms. Graham on public property from handing out leaflets to persons who indicated they wanted to receive them. (Tr. p. 30, lines 2-6). Ms. Graham testified that every time she went out to an abortion clinic she was threatened with arrest and was told most of the time she couldn’t hand out her literature and couldn’t persuade people not to have an abortion. (Tr. p. 35, lines 17-25). Ms. Diane Hoefling testified that the goal of her expressive activities was to delay women going into an abortion clinic so that she could “get them to realize their child is alive and that abortion is killing.” (Tr. p. 44, lines 2-8). The Reverend Ronnie Wallace testified that he was opposed to abortion and was categorically opposed to violence or threats of violence to carry out those goals which were to persuade people entering a facility to delay or change their minds about destroying a child. (Tr. pp. 57-58). According to Wallace, the enforcement of the statute depends upon the content of the message he preaches outside of the clinics and the degree to which clinic personnel goad the police. He testified that when he preaches against abortion in general moral terms clinic personnel don’t really object and there is no real problem. But when he speaks out about the racist and genoeidal motives behind abortion or the malpractice record of the doctor performing the abortions, clinic personnel “go ballistic” and call the police. On several occasions police told Wallace that he could not preach on the sidewalk, but instead, he had to keep moving. Wallace was forced to keep parading back and forth of the clinic with one police officer in front of him and one police officer behind him. (Tr. p. 61, lines 3-25). The police told Wallace that by preaching he was interfering with people driving into the clinic and that kneeling to pray on the grassy knoll between the street and the sidewalk was “escalating the situation.” (Tr. pp. 63-64). Wallace was forced to keep parading back in forth of the clinic with one police officer in front of him and one police officer behind him. The witnesses testified that they opposed abortion on moral and religious grounds. Michael Alan Matthews testified that he believed “abortion is the taking of a human life and that it is an abomination to God.” (Tr. p. 69). Trudie Matthews testified abortion is murder and the killing of unborn babies. (Tr. p. 88, lines 1-5). The witnesses testified to a real fear of arrest. One Sgt. Whitt Neal of the Charlotte Police Department on one occasion told the police officers that he had enough handcuffs for all of them and to line them up and he would arrest them. (Tr. p. 85). Graham testified as to the effect this had on the group as follows: A: Well, the group that remained there, we thought for sure that we were going to be arrested, and at that time, I started pleading with Sergeant Neal. I said, “Please don’t arrest us, we didn’t come here to get arrested.” He said, “You came here to test the law, and that’s what we’re going to do here, you pick the ones you want arrested, I’ll just get you arrested.” And I said, “No, sir, we don’t want to be arrested, we came out here just to distribute our literature, please let us clear this up, let me call the captain on Monday morning, please don’t arrest us.” And he finally had conversation with some of the other officers and decided not to arrest us but just take the names of the three of us. (Tr. p. 85, lines 16-25; p. 86, lines 1-13). There is no evidence that any of the protestors, including the Plaintiffs, in any way engaged in anything more than speech which did not involve threats, force, obstruction, or physical impediment. Rather, the evidence reveals mere leafletting to impede and interfere with abortion through peaceful persuasion. (Matthews Aff. ¶2, Graham Aff. ¶3, Tr. p. 9, lines 12-14; p. 44, lines 1-12; p. 57, lines 7-25; p. 28, lines 1-7; p. 42, lines 12-14). The Plaintiffs are aware that Congress has enacted a federal statute that regulates their protest activities. They fear that the federal statute makes them liable for criminal and civil prosecution and damages because of their protest activities because they have been threatened with arrest under the statute. (Graham Aff. ¶ 5; Matthews Aff. ¶¶ 2, 4). The Court finds the evidence produced by the Plaintiffs to be true and unrefuted, since the Defendants have not filed any affidavits nor produced any witnesses to contradict the affidavits or testimony. B. Findings of Fact. Based on the affidavits filed by the Plaintiffs and the testimony provided at the evi-dentiary hearing on February 2, 1996, the Court makes the following findings of facts: 1. The Plaintiffs are citizens who believe abortion is the taking of innocent human life, the sacrifice of human life, killing, or the taking of human life (Tr. p. 6, lines 18-20; p. 44, lines 2-8; p. 57, lines 5-6; p. 69, lines 16-17; p. 88, lines 1-5; p. 42, lines 5-11). 2. The Plaintiffs and other protestors have engaged in leafletting, picketing in accordance with city ordinances, sidewalk counseling and other non-violent activities to persuade women going into an abortion clinic so that they could get them to realize their child is alive and that abortion is killing (Tr. p. 6, lines 16-20; p. 17, lines 21-25; p. 18, lines 1-16; p. 42, lines 5-11; p. 88, lines 1-5). 3. The ultimate goal of the Plaintiffs is to end abortion in the United States by peacefully persuading women to seek alternatives to abortion such as adoption and to persuade physicians to discontinue the practice of abortion (Tr. p. 43, line 25; p. 44, lines 2-8). 4. Police have interpreted the statute in different ways and have difficulty deciding the meaning of the words “interfere”, “obstruct”, “impede”, and “delay” (Tr. p. 23, lines 3-25; p. 24, lines 1-4; p. 45, lines 2-24; p. 14, lines 1-25; p. 15, line 1; p. 73, lines 1-25; p. 74, lines 1-2; p. 18, lines 1-25; p. 19, lines 1-25; p. 20, lines 1-25; p. 21, lines 1-25; p. 22, lines 1-14; p. 44, lines 15-25; p. 45, lines 1-25; p. 46, lines 1-25; p. 25, lines 23-25; p. 26, lines 1-22; p. 28, lines 19-25; p. 29, lines 1-25; p. 30, lines 1-6; p. 77, lines 19-22). 5. The Plaintiffs have attempted to have police define for them exactly what they may and may not do in order to comply with the statute, but have received varying interpretations from police officers (Tr. p. 13, lines 15-25; p. 14, lines 1-11; p. 35, lines 16-25; p. 65, lines 10-19). 6. There are different interpretations in different police districts and among police in the same district. For example, some police officers have told picketers they may not walk on the public sidewalk which crosses a driveway into the clinic, and have drawn imaginary lines on the sidewalk on each side of the driveway into the clinic and told the Plaintiffs they may not cross those lines and proceed on the sidewalk across the driveway, even if no cars are in sight. Other officers allow the picketers to cross the driveway so long as they do not block an approaching vehicle from passing. Some officers prohibit the handing out of leaflets to occupants of automobiles entering the clinic because that will impede traffic and constitute interference under the statute. Some officers allow the piek-eters to wave pro-life literature to get the attention of persons entering the driveway. Others do not. Some officers allow the leafletters to yell to people in the parking lot, others don’t. If the leafletters walk into the parking lot with literature some officers hold that to be trespassing. (See Reference to Finding of Fact 5). 7. The Plaintiffs are aware that their conduct is regulated by the state and federal laws they have challenged but fear that those statutes will subject them to criminal and civil prosecution and liability for damr ages. The continued threats of arrest have had a chilling effect on the Plaintiffs’ desire to continue their activities and have intimidated them from continuing the exercise of the First Amendment right to protest (Tr. p. 24, lines 16-20; p. 25, lines 1-17; p. 63, lines 1-25; p. 55, lines 4-13; p. 73, lines 14-19; p. 53, lines 11-19; p. 89, lines 20-25; p. 90, lines 1-16). 8. Officers are often persuaded by abortion clinic personnel to change their minds on some pronouncement they have made (Tr. p. 65, lines 10-19; p. 18, lines 20-25; p. 19, line 1; p. 15, lines 18-25; p. 16, lines 1-23; p. 21, lines 2-11; p. 24, lines 16-25; p. 25, lines 1-5; p. 28, lines 19-25; p. 29, lines 1-16). 9. None of the Plaintiffs have been a party to any form of violence or participated in any “sit in” since the enactment of the Statute (Tr. p. 42, lines 12-14; p. 58, lines 3-7; p. 68, lines 5-13; p. 79, lines 10-25; p. 80, lines 1-7; p. 89, lines 10-15). 10. The Plaintiffs and other protestors have stopped picketing often because of threats of arrest while lawfully picketing and leañetting. (Tr. p. 35, lines 11-25; p. 36, lines 1-2; p. 48, lines 1-18; p. 51, lines 3-20; p. 53, lines 11-19; p. 55, lines 1-13; p. 63, lines 3-25; p. 76, lines 21-25; p. 77, lines 1-2; p. 78, lines 21-25; p. 79, lines 1-25; p. 80, lines 1-7; p. 89, lines 16-25; p. 90, lines 1-16). 11. None of the protestors, including the Plaintiffs, have in any way engaged in anything more than speech which did not involve threats, force or obstruction or physical impediment, but did interfere with abortion patients through peaceful persuasion (Tr. p. 9, lines 12-22; p. 37, lines 21-25; p. 38, lines 1-23; p. 42, lines 12-25; p. 43, lines 1 — 4; p. 50, lines 18-24; p. 58, lines 3-7; p. 79, lines 10-25; p. 80, lines 1-7). 12. Because of the activities described above, the Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that the North Carolina’s statute prohibiting obstruction of access to health care facilities, N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4, violated their First Amendment right to peacefully protest abortion both on its face and as applied to their protest activities. While the suit was pending, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248, so the Plaintiffs requested leave to amend their complaint and leave was given. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Congress had no authority to regulate their protest activity under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, and further that FACE violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief barring the application of both statutes. C. Conclusions of Law. 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, responses to discovery, and the record reveal that no genuine issue of any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Buie 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing that no genuine issue of any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). After the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party must come forward with specific facts showing that evidence exists to support its claims and that a genuine issue for trial exists. Id.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); see F.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (in response to motion for summary judgment, “adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”). When considering motions for summary judgment, courts must view facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587-88, 106 S.Ct. at 1356; United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962). When, however, the evidence from the entire record could not lead a rational fact-finder to find for the non-moving party, no genuine issue for trial exists and summary judgment is appropriate. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. In this case, the Plaintiffs have offered evidence by way of affidavit and testimony, but the Defendants have offered no evidence in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that precludes the final disposition of the Defendants’ Motion, and that Motion will be denied. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Declaratory Relief from N.C.G.S. § H,-277.Jp. The Plaintiffs argue that N.C.G.S. § 14-277.4 is vague and overbroad such that it chills and unconstitutionally limits their First Amendment right to peacefully protest abortion. In this Court’s opinion in Hoffman v. Hunt, 845 F.Supp. 340 (W.D.N.C.1994), the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and found that the complaint stated a claim for a First Amendment overbreadth challenge sufficient to overcome a motion to dismiss. The Court also preliminarily found the statute sufficiently vague to overcome a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and consequently denied that motion, as well as the Defendants’ motions to abstain, and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the same opinion, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction and ordered the Defendants to file their answer as required by Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants have not produced any evidence or argument that addresses the concerns initially raised by the Court. In fact, the very fears of vagueness and overbreadth which the Defendants once characterized as speculative have been confirmed in disturbing detail by the unrebutted evidence in this case. Therefore, this Court confirms its prior ruling as to the vagueness and overbreadth of the statute with the additions set forth below. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. These First Amendment freedoms are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the State. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235, 83 S.Ct. 680, 683, 9 L.Ed.2d 697 (1963). North Carolina General Statute Sections 14r-277.4(a) and (e) provide as follows: § 14-277.4. Obstruction of health care facilities. (a) No person shall obstruct or block another person’s access to or egress from a health care facility or from the common areas of the real property upon which the facility is located in a manner that deprives or delays the person from obtaining or providing health care services in the facility. (e) This section shall not prohibit any person from engaging in lawful speech or picketing which does not impede or deny another person’s access to health care services or to a health care facility or interfere with the delivery of health care services within a health care facility. Id. Several of the terms in this statute are vague, particularly as applied. Moreover, the language does not restrict its application to only those instances where the obstruction or blocking of another person’s access to' or egress from a health care facility, or deprivation or delay of a person from obtaining or providing health care is by force or violence or by physical obstruction. Nor does the statute provide for criminal penalties only against those who intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or deprive or delay the person from obtaining or providing health care services in the facility. Instead, the statute as written and as applied reaches and goes beyond physical violence or intentional conduct and applies to speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The protection against vague and overbroad statutes is an essential attribute of the constitutional protection afforded speech and expressive conduct by the Constitution for, as the Supreme Court explained in Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972): It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague statute “abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms, it operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms.” Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to “ ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone’ ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.’” (footnotes omitted). Id. at 108-09, 92 S.Ct. at 2298-99. The Tenth Circuit in U.S. v. Protex Industries, Inc., 874 F.2d 740 (10th Cir.1989) elaborated on this point: Although a statute’s meaning may be plain on its face, it can be rendered unconstitutionally vague as applied. The void for vagueness doctrine finds its basis in the guarantee of due process. In Connally v. General Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926), the United States Supreme Court elaborated on the void for vagueness doctrine. “That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them hable to its penalties, is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law. And a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.” Id. at 391, 46 S.Ct. at 127. A statute can be void for vagueness not only on its face, but as applied, as a result of “an unforeseeable and retroactive judicial expansion of narrow and precise statutory language.” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 352, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 1702, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964). Whether a court is analyzing a statute as void for vagueness on its face or as applied, the essence of the doctrine is that a potential defendant must have some notice or “fair warning” that the conduct contemplated is forbidden by the criminal law. Id. at 743. These principles inform the Court’s reading of North Carolina’s statute. (a) N.C.G.S. §§ H-277(a) and (e) are Vague. The Court finds that North Carolina’s statute is unconstitutionally vague. As has been demonstrated by the Plaintiffs’ affidavits, documents #67 and #68, filed April 27,1995, and evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on February 2,1996, the police do not understand what the terms of the statute mean and how it should be enforced. For instance: (1) the police have interpreted traversing a driveway across a public sidewalk as constituting “interference” “delay” “impeding” and “obstructing”; (2) police told a minister that “preaching” was interfering with people driving into the clinic; (3) kneeling on a grassy knoll between the sidewalk and street was “escalating the situation”; and (4) officers disagree among themselves as to the meaning of the statute. Even the State’s attorney in oral argument on January 14,1994 on Plaintiffs’ Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, when asked why subsection (e) was necessary if subsection (a) was so clear, replied that it was possible for a person to engage in speech “so obstreperous” that it would impede access to a health care facility. She then added that she could not imagine this provision would apply to speech unless “someone really crosses the line.” When is speech so “obstreperous” that it really crosses the line? Who is going to define the line and say where it is? Apparently the police can’t locate it. When one of the picketers tried to have the police define what the statute means so she would know how not to violate it, the only answer from the police was that she would know when they arrested her. (Tr. p. 26, lines 3-22). The Court finds no reason to believe that the officers charged with enforcing this statute were of less than ordinary intelligence. As a result, the Court concludes that the evidence in this case clearly establishes that first a person of ordinary intelligence is not given a reasonable notice concerning what protest activity is prohibited so that he or she can act accordingly; second the statute does not provide explicit standards for those who apply them so as to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement and application; and third the statute operates to inhibit the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. (b) The Statute is Overbroad. The Court also finds that the statute is overbroad. The language of the statute does not restrict its application to those instances where the obstruction or blocking of another person’s access to or egress from a health care facility, or deprivation or delay of a person from obtaining or providing health care is by force or violence or by physical obstruction. Nor does the statute provide for criminal penalties against anyone who intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person or deprive or delay the person from obtaining or providing health care services in the facility. Nonviolent and totally voluntary picketing may cause a disruption of the economic activity of an abortion clinic, (euphemistically termed “reproductive health service,”) but such activity and the consequences thereof must be weighed against the never changing constant of strong national commitment to the principal that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open.” See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720, 11 L.Ed.2d 686. The statute as written and as applied reaches and goes beyond physical violence and applies to speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Defendants claim that the statute is necessary because “citizens of this State have been confronted by protestors in various blockades and ‘rescues’ at health care facilities, and have been required to force their way through hostile crowds of people to gain entrance to these facilities.” (See pp. 21-23 Memorandum of Law on behalf of State Defendants in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment filed March 6,1995). The Court assumes that the Defendants have a legitimate interest in prohibiting the activities they describe, but notes that legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs such as those before the Court cannot be curtailed as a result of efforts to address illegal conduct. As the Supreme Court said of First Amendment rights long ago: These rights may be abused by using speech or press or assembly in order to incite to violence and crime. The people through their legislatures may protect themselves against that abuse. But the legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed.... If the persons assembling have committed crimes elsewhere, if they have formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public peace and order, they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violation of valid laws. But it is a different matter when the State, instead of prosecuting them for such offenses, seizes upon mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion as the basis for a criminal charge. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364-365, 57 S.Ct. 255, 259-260, 81 L.Ed. 278 (1936). In this case, North Carolina’s statute is not limited to the regulation of activities unprotected by the First Amendment, and therefore, that statute is unconstitutionally over-broad. By reason of the evidence concerning the statute’s application set forth above, the Court also finds that the North Carolina’s statute is unconstitutional as applied for the end result of that statute’s vagueness has been the very sort of arbitrary and over-broad application the vagueness and over-breadth doctrines are designed to prevent. There is no doubt that the statute has been enforced — at least in Charlotte, North Carolina — in an arbitrary way that has violated the First Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and chilled those rights. III. UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 18, SECTION 248 A. Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Declaratory Relief and Permanent Injunction. 1. The Statute. While this case was pending, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248 (“FACE”). The Act provides, in relevant part: (a) Prohibited Activities. — Whoever— (1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services; ... shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively at the minor. 18 U.S.C. § 248. The stated purpose of the act was “to protect and promote the public safety and health and activities affecting interstate commerce_” See 18 U.S.C. § 248, statutory note, setting forth Section 2 of Pub.L. 103-259 (the statement of purpose). The Plaintiffs believed that FACE threatened their First Amendment Right to protest abortion, and therefore, sought leave of this Court to amend their complaint so they might challenge the statute. This Court granted their request. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs have advanced several challenges to the federal statute that now governs their protest activities. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in U.S. v. Lopez, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), the Plaintiffs contend that Congress has no authority to regulate their protest under the Commerce Clause. They also assert that the Fourteenth Amendment provides no basis for the regulation of their purely private actions. In addition, the Plaintiffs argue that even if Congress has the authority to regulate their protest activity, the statute Congress enacted violates their First Amendment rights. The Defendants disagree. According to the Defendants, this case is governed by the Fourth’s Circuit’s opinion in American Life League v. Reno, 47 F.3d 642 (4th Cir.1995), which indicates that Congress has authority to enact FACE under the commerce power, and further, that the statute does not violate the First Amendment. The Defendants also assert that Congress had authority to enact FACE pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The Constitutional Authority Relied Upon by Congress. Congress based its constitutional authority to enact FACE on two independent sources of constitutional authority, the Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution, and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. So the starting point for this Court’s analysis is the language of those constitutional provisions. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he Congress shall have power ... [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes....” Id. Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provide: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. * * * ‡ # * Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Id. The Court will address Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause first and return to the Fourteenth Amendment argument later in this opinion. (a) Commerce Clause Challenge. The single straight-forward clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution that “The Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and the Indian Tribes” has generated an inordinate number of judicial decisions because some courts fail to appreciate that our national government is one of limited and enumerated powers rather than an all powerful national government with jurisdiction to manage and regulate the general affairs of its citizens. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Lopez, Congress’ authority pursuant to Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, while plenary within its sphere, is limited to the regulation of three broad categories of activity: 1. The use of channels of interstate commerce 2. Protection of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce or persons or things in interstate commerce even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. 3. The regulation of those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Lopez, — U.S. at - - -, 115 S.Ct. at 1629-1630. The Supreme Court also indicated that within the third category the Supreme Court’s case law had not been clear whether the activity must “affect” or “substantially affect” interstate commerce in order to be within Congress’ power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause. The Court concluded that consistent with the great weight of the Court’s case law that the proper test requires an analysis of whether the regulated activity “substantially affects” interstate commerce. Id. While Congress did make findings to support its determination that it had constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to enact FACE, the Court believes these findings do not support Congress’ conclusion that the abortion protest activity regulated by FACE “substantially affects” interstate commerce. One of Congress’ findings is that FACE regulates a problem that is national in scope. The Senate Committee on Labor and Human Relations Report (S.Rep. No. 117, 103rd Cong. 1st Sess. 3 (1993)) states: the problem Congress is addressing is national in scope and exceeds the ability of a single state or local jurisdiction to solve. Under these principles, S. 636 falls easily within the commerce power. Id. at 31. The Court believes it can be said without fear of contradiction, however, that breaking and entering of homes and businesses, rape, burglary, assault and even murder, among other crimes, are problems which are national in scope, and apparently exceed the ability of a single state or local jurisdiction to solve. Moreover, every crime against property or persons obviously affects interstate commerce to some minimal degree. The Congress’ reasoning calls to mind the idiom that little fleas have littler fleas on their backs to bite them and littler fleas have littler fleas on their backs to bite them and so on ad infinitum. The Supreme Court rejected similar congressional reasoning in Lopez, where the Court held that Congress did not have authority to enact 18 U.S.C. § 922(q): To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. See supra, at 1629. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, [9 Wheat. 1,] at 195, [6 L.Ed. 23,] and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, [301 U.S. 1,] at 30, 57 S.Ct. [615], at 621[, 81 L.Ed. 893], This we are unwilling to do. Lopez, — U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 1634. The Court finds this case to be virtually identical to Lopez. The mere fact that Congress believes a problem is national in scope does not warrant ignoring the constitutional requirement that an activity must have a substantial effect on interstate commerce to justify the transformation of state law crimes into federal offenses in the absence of an independent constitutional basis for congressional authority. Another of the legislative findings made in support of Congress’ authority to enact FACE is that abortion clinics affect interstate commerce. The Senate Committee Report continues: Climes and other abortion service providers clearly are involved in interstate commerce, both directly and indirectly. They purchase medicine, medical supplies, surgical instruments and other necessary medical products, often from other States; they employ staff; they own and lease office space; they generate income. In short, the Committee finds that they operate within the stream of interstate commerce. S.Rep. No. 103-117,103rd Cong., 1st Sess. 31 (1993). But it must be kept in mind that the regulatory target of FACE is the protest activity by the Plaintiffs, not the abortion clinic. In fact, the Senate Committee Report itself makes this clear when it describes the impact of the statute: Thus, for example, if an environmental group blocked passage to a hospital where abortions happen to be performed, but did so as part of a demonstration over harmful emissions produced by the facility, the demonstrators would not violate this Act (though their conduct might violate some other law, such as a local trespass law). In that example, the demonstrators’ motive is related to the facility’s emissions policy and practices and not to its policy and practices on abortion-related services. The Committee has concluded that inclusion of the motive elements is important to ensure that the Act is precisely targeted at the conduct that, as the Committee’s record demonstrates, requires new Federal legislation: deliberate efforts to interfere with the delivery of abortion-related services. Id. at 24. Here again the issue is whether the actions of those persons who engage in protests at an abortion clinic may be subject to criminal prosecution by the Federal Government under a statute enacted by Congress under the purported authority of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, not whether Congress can regulate commerce. Another category which the Report includes to justify the enactment of this law under the Commerce Clause is that patients travel in interstate commerce to seek abortion services. The Senate Committee Report continues: [Mjany of the patients who seek services from these facilities engage in interstate commerce by traveling from one state to obtain services in another. In Bray, the Supreme Court accepted the district court’s finding that substantial numbers of women travel interstate to seek abortion services. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, supra, [506 U.S. 263 at 274,] 113 S.Ct. 753 at 762[, 122 L.Ed.2d 34]. Id. at 31. The Senate Committee Report also states: Clinic employees sometimes travel across State lines to work as well. Like Dr. Gunn, the physician who was killed in Pensacola, FI., some doctors who perform abortions work in facilities in more than one State. Id. The Court is nonplussed to understand why the Committee cites Bray, however, for there is no contention that the protestors hinder in any way the interstate travel of women seeking abortions or that their protests are designed to interfere with their right to travel. In fact, Bray held that: [petitioners oppose abortion, and it is irrelevant to their opposition whether the abortion is performed after interstate travel. Respondents have failed to show a conspiracy to violate the right of interstate travel for yet another reason: Petitioners’ proposed demonstrations would not implicate that right. The federal guarantee of interstate travel does not transform state-law torts into federal offenses when they are intentionally committed against interstate travelers. Rather, it protects interstate travelers against two sets of burdens: “the erection of actual barriers to interstate movement” and “being treated differently” from intrastate travelers. (Citations omitted). (Art. IV, § 2 “inhibits discriminating legislation” against [citizens of other states and] gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them) (citations omitted). (Art. IV, § 2 “insure[s] to a citizen of State A who ventures into State B the same privileges which the citizens of State B enjoy”). As far as appears from this record, the only “actual barriers to movement” that would have resulted from Petitioner’s proposed demonstrations would have been in the immediate vicinity of the abortion clinics, restricting movement from one portion of the Commonwealth of Virginia to another. Such a purely intrastate restriction does not implicate the right of interstate travel, even if it is applied intentionally against travelers from other States, unless it is applied discriminatorily against them. That would not be the case here, as respondents conceded at oral argument. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 276, 113 S.Ct. 753, 763, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993). Bray shows that Congress cannot use the interstate movement of patients and staff to justify FACE. The Senate Committee Report also asserts that the protest activity regulated by FACE affects interstate commerce. The Report continues: [A]s Attorney General Reno noted, the types of activities that would be prohibited by S. 636 have a negative effect on interstate commerce. As the record before the Committee demonstrates, climes have been closed because of blockades and sabotage, and have been rendered unable to provide services. Abortion providers have been intimidated and frightened into ceasing to perform abortions. Clearly, the conduct prohibited by S. 636 results in the provision of fewer abortions and less interstate movement of people and goods. This situation is analogous to Congress’s exercise of the commerce power in passing Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was premised on the conclusion that restaurants that discriminated served fewer customers, and therefore suppressed interstate commerce. See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241[, 85 S.Ct. 348, 13 L.Ed.2d 258] (1964). Here, of course, the very purpose of those engaging in the conduct addressed by S. 636 is to suppress the provision of abortion services. Accordingl