First, the Court notes that there is Ninth Circuit authority in direct conflict with
Lopez. See United States v. Edwards, 13 F.3d 291, 293 (9th Cir.1993) (upholding constitutionality of
section 922(q) and reiterating Ninth Circuit's position that Congress need not “make express findings that a particular activity or class of activities affects interstate commerce in order to exercise its legislative authority pursuant to the Commerce Clause”). Second, the Court finds
Lopez and
Edwards distinguishable because in this case Congress has stated that it was exercising its power under the Commerce Clause when it enacted FACE and has made findings that the activities proscribed by FACE affect interstate commerce.
See Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994,
Pub.L. No. 103–259, 108 Stat. 694, Sec. 2. The Committee on Labor and Human Resources (“the Committee”) concluded that facilities providing reproductive health services are involved in interstate commerce both directly and indirectly and operate within the stream of commerce by purchasing medical supplies and instruments, often from other states, employing staff and leasing office space. S.Rep. 117, 103d Cong. 1st Sess. 31 (1993). In addition, the Committee found that many of the patients who seek services from these facilities engage in interstate commerce by traveling from one state to another to obtain these services.
Id. Also, clinic employees sometimes travel across state lines to provide reproductive health services.
Id. Furthermore, the Committee concluded that the activities prohibited by FACE have a negative effect on interstate commerce.
Id. The Committee noted that clinics have been closed and rendered unable to provide services as the result of blockades and sabotage.
Id. The Committee found that this resulted in less interstate movement of people and goods.
Id.