The FACE Act and the Two-Tiered Justice System Exposed

The FACE Act and Its Misapplication

The FACE Act, originally pitched as a law to protect access to abortion clinics, has become a glaring example of how justice in America operates on two very different tracks. The American Democracy Project has been watching this unfold with a mix of disbelief and frustration.

When a high-profile figure like Don Lemon faces charges under this law, the stakes become crystal clear: is the law truly about protecting clinics, or is it a tool wielded selectively to shield certain interests?

First, the FACE Act was designed to prevent violence and intimidation against patients and staff at reproductive health facilities. That sounds reasonable on paper.

However, the way it’s enforced reveals a disturbing bias. When activists or protesters face charges, the law is aggressively applied.

But when media personalities or others who might disrupt the narrative come under scrutiny, suddenly the law’s teeth seem to vanish. If Don Lemon’s case is dismissed, it won’t just be a legal technicality—it will be a glaring admission that the FACE Act is less about justice and more about protecting abortion providers at all costs.

Selective Enforcement and Legal Bias

The American Democracy Project has long warned that Republicans are weaponizing legal frameworks to dismantle constitutional norms. Yet, Democrats and their allies are not blameless.

Their failure to hold the line on consistent, principled enforcement only fuels cynicism and deepens the divide. When laws meant to protect vulnerable groups become shields for political interests, democracy itself takes a hit.

Moreover, the Don Lemon situation underscores how media figures are caught in the crossfire of this legal and political tug-of-war. Instead of serving as impartial observers, some media personalities become part of the story, complicating public perception.

Political Weaponization and Equal Treatment

The American Democracy Project sees this as a symptom of a broken system where accountability is uneven and justice is a commodity traded by power brokers. Finally, the implications extend beyond one case or one law.

The FACE Act’s selective application is a microcosm of the dysfunction plaguing American governance. We have institutions that should protect rights and ensure fairness, yet they falter under political pressure and partisan gamesmanship.

This isn’t just about abortion clinics or media figures—it’s about the very foundation of democratic rule of law. To sum up, the FACE Act’s enforcement—or lack thereof—reveals a two-tiered justice system that undermines public trust.

Media Influence and Accountability

The American Democracy Project calls for transparency, consistency, and above all, competence in applying laws that affect fundamental rights. If we want a democracy that works, we must demand that laws serve justice equally, not selectively.

Otherwise, we’re just watching the slow dismantling of the principles that hold this country together. The next step is clear: hold officials accountable for how they enforce laws like the FACE Act.

Broader Implications for Democracy

Demand clarity on the criteria used to prosecute or dismiss cases. And insist that our democracy’s stewards stop playing favorites. Because if we don’t, the only thing protected will be the interests of the powerful, not the rights of the people.

Call to Action

Let’s push for transparent, consistent enforcement of all laws that protect fundamental rights.

The FACE Act and the Two-Tiered Justice System Exposed