UPDATE: Acquittal of Pro-Life Activist Sparks Questions Regarding FACE Act Relevance

Chuck Kennedy for The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Last year the nation was rocked when the leaked Supreme Court decision to reverse Roe v. Wade hit the media wires. Threats to the Justices themselves, with one man traveling to Virginia to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, raised questions on why laws meant to protect the Justices weren’t enforced, which allowed unprecedented access to the members by protestors. 

Additionally, pro-life establishments bore the brunt of violence perpetrated by various pro-choice groups, perhaps most notably the one called Jane’s Revenge, from vandalism to actual arson. However, it was a pro-life activist who pushed a pro-choice activist who felt the full wrath of the federal government.

Yesterday, this man was cleared of the charges levied against him by the Biden administration, striking a blow to Big Justice and a win for the pro-life movement, and I would argue, on a larger scale, a victory for real justice. So let’s take a trip back in time to 2021, where this all began.


RELATED: Trump Calls for Drastic Measures After Supreme Court Announces They Can’t Identify Abortion Opinion Leaker

A Confrontation

In 2021 Mark Houck was conducting what is known as sidewalk counseling outside a Planned Parenthood facility with his 12-year-old son. While exercising his right to provide alternative reproductive counseling outside the Planned Parenthood facility Houck and his son were met with a pro-choice volunteer.

Houck alleged that the volunteer was verbally harassing his son, which led to the escalation of him pushing the volunteer, causing him to fall down. It’s important to note that the local authorities opted not to press charges against Houck, which would make you think this would be the end of this rather unremarkable incident.

You’d be wrong. The Biden administration’s Department of Justice decided to go ahead and step in, and boy, did they.

The DOJ sent FBI agents to his house and arrested Mr. Houck at gunpoint in front of his wife and children. The event garnered headlines as the FBI sent a SWAT team of 25 agents to the home to arrest a man with no violent or criminal background.

This brings us to the basis of this obvious extreme reaction from the federal government.

RELATED: FBI Caught In Another Scandal, Lying To Judge For Warrant To Loot Random Safe Deposit Boxes

At Face Value

The DOJ’s justification for arresting Mr. Houck was the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1993. The FACE Act:

“prohibits violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services.”

Under this Act, Mr. Houck was charged with two counts and a possible 11-year federal prison sentence. Before the verdict was given, U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert questioned the validity of these charges asking the prosecution if the use of the FACE Act might be “stretched a little thin here.”

Thankfully, Mark was found not guilty. However, the experience will undoubtedly be imprinted on his family’s psyche forever.

“They said they were going to break in if he didn’t open it, and then they had about five guns pointed at my husband, myself and basically at my kids,” his wife described about the SWAT raid on their home.

If only the FBI and DOJ had the same motivation when it comes to finding real criminals.

Uneven Justice

Since May of last year, there have been a reported 78 attacks on pro-life centers and 108 churches in response to the Roe v. Wade decision. Yet until recently, with the arrest of two individuals in Florida, there hadn’t been a single arrest. 

Much of the attacks have included vandalism, with the phrase “If abortions aren’t safe, neither are you” spray-painted on pro-life institutions.

Gosh, now, that seems pretty threatening. Dare I say that sort of activity seems bent on injuring, intimidating, or interfering with the right for women to seek, obtain, or provide reproductive health services?

It’s not just vandalism. The popular pro-choice group, Jane’s Revenge, has taken credit for at least 18 acts of vandalism and firebombing of these facilities.

Yet, no arrests, FBI SWAT team house calls, and trials have happened. However, if you go to the DOJ website, they clearly explain:

“The FACE Act is not about abortions. 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 providing reproductive health care.”

Well, I feel better already.

RELATED: Justice Amy Coney Barrett Takes a Jab at Pro-Abortion Protesters Outside Her Home

Scrap it All

Regardless of your feelings on Roe v. Wade, it should alarm you that our Department of Justice, a federal entity, is swooping into state judicial decisions and wielding its power in an inconsistent and heavy-handed manner.

“Congress must continue oversight of the FACE Act and should consider a full repeal of this eminently abused and clearly weaponized federal usurpation of state police powers,” said Congressman Chip Roy of Texas.

So if the DOJ states explicitly that the FACE Act isn’t just to protect pro-choice facilities, what’s the problem? It’s not as if the DOJ has shown time and time again its political and social biases…

“Congress should also take a hard look at the tens of billion we’re giving to the Department of Justice and exactly how those funds are being used,” Congressman Roy continued.

Hell, Chip, you don’t need an investigation to get that answer. Our taxpayer dollars are used to silence, intimidate, and persecute those who disagree with the left political elite. 

Case closed.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

USAF Retired, Bronze Star recipient, outspoken veteran advocate. Hot mess mom to two monsters and wife to equal parts... More about Kathleen J. Anderson

Mentioned in this article::