Government Weaponized Law Against Pro-Life Advocates

Government Weaponized Law Against Pro-Life Advocates

A new report suggests the Biden administration may have used federal law to target people with pro-life views. Shawn Carney, president and CEO of 40 Days for Life, says this isn’t news to his organization; they have lived it. He describes the situation as harassment, calling the case of Mark Houck the most extreme example.

Carney stated that 40 Days for Life received one to two inquiries a week from the Department of Justice (DOJ) at certain times. He believes this was a form of harassment and something they had never seen before under previous administrations. The Trump administration, he notes, is working to correct these perceived wrongs by the Biden DOJ, calling the weaponization of law dangerous and real.

The Mark Houck Case: A Dawn Raid and Federal Charges

Mark Houck, a volunteer for 40 Days for Life, was arrested in 2022. The incident leading to his arrest began when a Planned Parenthood volunteer allegedly cursed at and screamed at Houck’s son. Houck defended his son and shoved the volunteer.

Local police and the district attorney in Philadelphia did not press charges, deeming it a minor issue. However, Houck later received a letter from the DOJ stating he was the target of the FACE Act, a law that carries a penalty of up to 11 years in federal prison. His legal team offered for him to turn himself in if the charges were serious, but they heard nothing back from the DOJ.

Months later, 25 federal agents conducted a dawn raid on Houck’s home. The agents, armed with long-barrel rifles, pointed their weapons at the house and at Houck in front of his seven children.

When Houck’s wife asked for a warrant, an FBI agent reportedly said he was coming with them with or without one. A warrant was only shown after Houck was taken away and chained to a table for six hours.

Understanding the FACE Act

The FACE Act, or Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, was enacted during the Clinton administration. Its original purpose was to stop people from blocking access to reproductive health facilities. This was often done by chaining themselves to entrances, preventing women from entering.

Carney mentioned that the law has not been enforced for about three decades because people no longer engage in such actions. He emphasized that his organization certainly does not do this. The law makes it a felony to prevent someone from entering an abortion facility.

Legal Battle and Settlement

Mark Houck, working with 40 Days for Life’s legal team, the Institute for Law and Justice, filed a lawsuit against the DOJ seeking $4.3 million. The process of seeking justice was not straightforward.

Initially, the DOJ offered to settle the case and issued a stay, a pause in legal proceedings. Both sides were looking to reach a settlement. However, an activist judge unexpectedly dismissed the case, which confused their legal team as judges typically encourage settlements.

They appealed this decision and were able to settle with the DOJ. Carney described this as showing the deep state’s influence, where even when the DOJ wanted to correct a wrong, an activist judge tried to block it. The case was eventually reinstated, leading to a settlement and what they consider justice for Mark and his family.

Acquittal and Civil Lawsuit

Before the federal charges, Houck faced original charges related to the FACE Act in municipal court. A jury in Philadelphia acquitted him within one hour. This was seen as an embarrassing loss for the DOJ, which has a 98% conviction rate.

Because Houck was acquitted and rejected a last-minute plea deal, he was free to sue the DOJ. He won this subsequent civil case as well.

Freedom of Speech and Political Climate

The question arises whether freedom of speech in America is becoming dependent on political trends and the preferences of government officials. Carney believes this is certainly true regarding abortion issues.

He explained that one might be allowed to have an opinion in one area of public space but not another. This applies to issues like the FACE Act and the creation of buffer zones or bubble zones around facilities. The Supreme Court has often rejected such restrictions when they reach the courts.

Carney urged all Americans, regardless of their stance on abortion, to speak up for their right to free speech. He highlighted that Mark Houck’s case is a prime example, and his organization is involved in many free speech cases nationwide. He stressed that if free speech is not used, it will be lost.

Persecution of Christians in the US

As president and CEO of a pro-life organization, Carney shared examples of what he considers political persecution of Christians in recent years.

He pointed to Mark Houck as one example. Carney also mentioned instances where his organization is not allowed in certain public areas. He cited Westchester, New York, where the city council attempted to ban 40 Days for Life by name, leading to a lawsuit.

Another example comes from California, where the Attorney General is reportedly trying to ban abortion pill reversal. This is described as a natural and successful process developed by a doctor in San Diego. Carney stated that the California AG is also attempting to prohibit advertisements for this service, which helps women who regret taking abortion pills and wish to save their pregnancy.

Advice for Facing Discrimination

For Christians who feel they are facing political discrimination or persecution, Carney advises them to stand up for themselves and know their rights. He directed people to the 40daysforlife.com website, where legal resources are available to help citizens understand their rights and when legal assistance might be needed.

The website offers guides on free speech and a map detailing abortion laws in each state, which is updated weekly. Carney emphasized that these resources are free and important for people to be aware of. He cautioned against creating persecution but stressed the need to recognize it when it is real, especially when it comes from the government.

Carney concluded by congratulating Shawn Carney and Mark Houck on their recent settlement, marking a victory in their fight for justice.

Why This Matters

This discussion highlights a significant concern: the potential for government agencies to use laws like the FACE Act to target specific groups based on their beliefs. The Mark Houck case, with its dramatic dawn raid and eventual acquittal followed by a successful civil suit, is a stark illustration of these concerns. It raises questions about the balance of power between individuals and the government, and how laws intended for one purpose can be applied in ways that critics argue are politically motivated.

Implications and Future Outlook

The weaponization of law, as described by Carney, could have far-reaching implications for civil liberties and free speech in the United States. If federal laws can be used to prosecute individuals for actions that local authorities deem minor or insignificant, it creates an environment of uncertainty and fear. This could chill dissent and discourage activism, even for peaceful protests or advocacy.

The trend suggests a continued need for vigilance in protecting free speech rights. As legal battles like Houck’s unfold, they set precedents that could influence future cases. The outcome of such cases can shape how laws are interpreted and applied, impacting various groups beyond just those involved in the abortion debate.

Historical Context

The FACE Act itself was enacted in 1994, following a period of increased clinic blockades and protests. Its aim was to ensure access to reproductive health services. However, like many laws, its enforcement and interpretation can evolve over time, especially in response to changing political climates and societal views.

The history of activism, both for and against abortion access, has often involved legal challenges and debates over free speech and public assembly. This case fits into a broader pattern of such conflicts, where the boundaries of legal protest and governmental response are constantly being tested and redefined.

The next steps in similar cases will be closely watched, as they could further clarify the application of the FACE Act and the protections afforded to free speech in public forums. The ongoing legal challenges mentioned by Carney, such as the lawsuit in Westchester, New York, indicate that these struggles are continuing.

Source: ‘We Lived This’ Says 40 Days for Life President & CEO Following Report on Weaponization of FACE Act (YouTube)