The case is US v. Freestone; Here’s the Justice Department’s press release, from late January:
The indictment returned by a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida alleges that Caleb Freestone, 27, and Amber Smith-Stewart, 23, were involved in a conspiracy to prevent reproductive health services workers from providing those services. As part of the conspiracy, the defendants targeted pregnancy resource facilities and vandalized those facilities with spray-painted threats, the indictment said. According to the indictment, Freestone and Smith-Stewart and other co-conspirators are accused of spray-painting threats, including “if the abortion is not safe [sic] at a reproductive health services facility in Winter Haven, Florida,” “Your time is up!!,” “We’re coming for you,” and “We’re everywhere.” The complaint also alleges that facilities in Hollywood, Florida and Hialeah, Florida were also targeted. .
The complaint also alleges that Freestone and Smith-Stewart violated the FACE Act by using force to intimidate and interfere with employees of a reproductive health services facility in Winter Haven as those employees were providing or seeking reproductive health services. The complaint also alleges that Freestone and Smith-Stewart violated the FACE Act by willfully damaging and destroying property at the facility because the facility provides reproductive health services.
The Freedom of Clinic Access Act of 1994 is commonly used to refer to threats against abortion clinics, but it more broadly includes “any facility that provides reproductive health services.”[ing] Medical, surgical, consultation or referral services related to the human reproductive system, including pregnancy or pregnancy termination services The accused targeted the clinics that the accused “offered ․[d] Abortion alternatives, including counseling, pregnancy tests, ultrasound examinations, and referral services.” Here is the Justice Department’s comprehensive statement about the law:
The FACE Act is not about abortion. The statute protects all patients, providers, and facilities that provide reproductive health services, including pro-life pregnancy counseling services and any other pregnancy support facility that provides reproductive health services.
Sounds pretty accurate to me. (For opposition to the prosecution, see this item by Natasha Lennard [The Intercept]; I disagree, given that the law was actually intentionally written to protect not just abortion clinics, but all organizations that provide “pregnancy-related services”.)