It is against this backdrop that Ms. Roe filed her Complaint against the Appellees. A review of Ms. Roe's Complaint reveals that she has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted under FACE. Federal courts have recognized that there are three elements which a plaintiff must allege in order to successfully state a cause of action under FACE. The first element which a plaintiff must demonstrate is that the defendant engaged in physical obstruction of a reproductive health facility. U.S. v. Wilson, 2 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1171 (E.D. Wis. 1998). Based upon the definitions quoted above, Aware Woman qualifies as a facility under the act. Further, the allegations of Ms. Roe's Complaint, construed in a manner which is most favorable to Ms. Roe, allege that Ms. Roe was physically obstructed from egress from the facility. As such, Ms. Roe's Complaint has arguably alleged the first element of a claim under FACE.
The second element which a plaintiff must demonstrate in order to state a cause of action for a violation of FACE is that a defendant intended to interfere with or attempted to interfere with persons attempting to gain entrance to or egress from a reproductive health facility. Id. Once again, construing the allegations of Ms. Roe's Complaint in a manner which is most favorable to her, she has arguably alleged sufficient facts in order to satisfy this second element of a FACE cause of action. There is at least a reasonable inference to be drawn from the allegations of Ms. Roe's Complaint that employees of Aware Woman intended to interfere with Ms. Roe's efforts to leave the facility.
However, it is the third element of a FACE cause of action which Ms. Roe failed to allege in her Complaint, the-absence of which mandates that this Court affirm the decision of the District Court. The final element is often called the "motive element," and requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that the intentional interference with persons entering or exiting a facility "was done for the express purpose of preventing such persons from obtaining or providing reproductive health services." Id. Simply stated, there is no allegation in Ms. Roe's Complaint which suggests that the Defendants' motive in restricting Ms. Roe's egress from the facility was for the express purpose of preventing her from obtaining reproductive health services. To the contrary, the Complaint itself suggests that the abortion itself was actually performed on Ms. Roe. Therefore, it is apparent from the allegations of the Complaint that Ms. Roe has not alleged, nor could she possibly under any set of circumstances, that the express purpose of the intentional interference with her egress from the facility was to prevent her from obtaining reproductive health services. In the absence of such an allegation, Ms. Roe's Complaint fails as a matter of law, and the District Court was correct in dismissing her claim.
