Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), a federal statute, provides for penalties against anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction… intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes… with any person . . . in order to intimidate such person . . . from obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” Two persons, Lynch and Moscinski, blocked access to a clinic that offered such services. The federal government sought an injunction barring Lynch and Moscinski from impeding access to, or coming within 15 feet of, the clinic. In defense, the defendants argued that FACE protects the taking of innocent human life, that FACE is therefore contrary to natural law, and that, accordingly, FACE should be declared null and void. A federal district court issued the injunction after finding that Lynch and Moscinski had violated FACE by making entrance to the clinic unreasonably difficult. On appeal, the defendants maintained that the district court erred in not recognizing their natural law argument as a defense. Were the defendants correct?

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), a federal statute, provides for penalties against anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction… intentionally injures, intimidates, or interferes… with any person . . . in order to intimidate such person . . . from obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” Two persons, Lynch and Moscinski, blocked access to a clinic that offered such services. The federal government sought an injunction barring Lynch and Moscinski from impeding access to, or coming within 15 feet of, the clinic. In defense, the defendants argued that FACE protects the taking of innocent human life, that FACE is therefore contrary to natural law, and that, accordingly, FACE should be declared null and void. A federal district court issued the injunction after finding that Lynch and Moscinski had violated FACE by making entrance to the clinic unreasonably difficult. On appeal, the defendants maintained that the district court erred in not recognizing their natural law argument as a defense. Were the defendants correct?

Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now