On October 13, 2021, Pro-Life activist Mark Houck was outside the Planned Parenthood Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center abortion clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, praying with his 12 year old son (Houck and his wife have 7 children). An unidentified man approached the clinic in his capacity as a “volunteer escort” for several women heading into the clinic. According to Houck’s wife, “on multiple occasions that ‘pro-abortion protester’ would say ‘crude … inappropriate and disgusting things” to their 12-year-old son, such as ‘your dad’s a fag’ and other vulgar slurs.” On this particular day, “the man ‘kind of came into [the son’s] personal space,’ Mrs. Houck said. ‘Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back… He didn’t have any injuries or anything.”
The unidentified man tried to have Houck prosecuted by the Philadelphia DA’s office, and also brought a civil suit in Pennsylvania, but both matters were dismissed. That should have been the end of this minor matter – but it’s not.
In September of 2022, almost one year later, the Houck family “woke up…to a team of FBI agents raiding (their) home in Kintnersville, Pennsylvania…25-30 FBI agents entered their home around 7 a.m. ‘The kids were all just screaming. It was all just very scary and traumatic,” (Mrs) Houck told Life Site News about her husband’s arrest, which she and her children witnessed…'(t)hey had big, huge rifles pointed at Mark and pointed at me and kind of pointed throughout the house,’ (Mrs) Houck told the pro-life news outlet.”
Mark Houck was arrested, and taken to federal court, where he was already under indictment for the violation of 18 USC Sec. 248 – the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Also known as the FACE Act, this statute provides for criminal penalties including up to one year in prison for a first offense, if that person “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.”
Passed into law in 1994, “in response to an increase in violence toward providers and patients of reproductive health services,” according to the Justice Department, “Courts have held that the Act’s protections extend not only to physicians but also to clerical workers and escorts at reproductive health facilities.”
Perhaps the Justice Department is within its rights to prosecute Mark Houck, even after local authorities declined to prosecute this matter, and a civil lawsuit was dismissed. But his arrest raises a serious question; Isn’t it heavy handed of the Federal government to send 20-30 FBI agents to arrest a man who committed, at best, a misdemeanor assault, particularly when there is a view of the evidence that Houck was acting in defense of his child?
Further, is it any coincidence that the arrest and prosecution of Houck occurred shortly after the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which held that “(t)he Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe (v. Wade) and (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v.) Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
One hint regarding the true motive behind the ham-fisted arrest and prosecution of Mark Houck can be found in the statement made by Attorney General Merrick Garland after the Dobbs decision was made public. “The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society…(t)he Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States…(a)dvocates with different views on this issue have the right to, and will, voice their opinions. Peacefully expressing a view is protected by the First Amendment. But we must be clear that violence and threats of violence are not. The Justice Department will not tolerate such acts…(t)he Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom. Under the (FACE) Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage.”
Judge Wilson’s (ret.) article concludes tomorrow