Mark Houck exonerated again Biden Administration strong arm tactics
Is Mark Houck a dangerous criminal, or a man targeted by Merrick Garland’s Justice Department to score political points?Mr. Houck, 48, has been on trial for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or the Face Act—for shoving a patient escort outside an abortion clinic in 2021. If convicted he faced 11 years in prison. On Friday the jury deadlocked, but on Monday it returned its verdict: not guilty.
This was a case that never should have been brought. U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert suggested as much when he asked the prosecutor whether federal law didn’t “seem to be stretched a little thin here.” The FBI’s decision to arrest Mr. Houck as though he were John Dillinger also suggested a political stunt.
Mr. Houck is a pro-life “sidewalk counselor” who for years has prayed and protested outside the Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center, a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia. His goal is to try to persuade women entering the clinic not to go through with their abortions. That is also his constitutional right.
But in 1994 Congress passed the Face Act, which makes it a crime to intimidate or use force to interfere with an abortion provider or a woman seeking an abortion. Prosecutors allege Mr. Houck violated the act when, in two separate instances on Oct. 13, 2021.
That much everyone agreed on. But in court, Messrs. Love and Houck offered different versions of events. Mr. Love, now 73, claimed he was twice shoved to the ground without any provocation. Mr. Houck said he pushed Mr. Love because he was harassing his 12-year-old son, Mark Jr., saying crude things to him.
The dispute cut to the heart of intent. If Mr. Houck shoved Mr. Love to interfere with the provision of an abortion, he violated the Face Act. But if Mr. Houck shoved Mr. Love because he was harassing his son, it was a streetside altercation that never should have become a federal case.
In this light, it’s worth noting last week’s admission by the CEO for Planned Parenthood Southeast Pennsylvania, Dayle Steinberg. Ms. Steinberg testified that she’d sent an email about a week after the incident recommending that Mr. Love not serve as an escort “while this case is in litigation.” She noted that Mr. Love had a problem following the clinic’s “non-engagement” policy—even though he was spoken to “on numerous occasions.”
The federal intervention was also messy. Local police filed no charges against Mr. Houck. Mr. Love then filed a private criminal complaint, which was ultimately not pursued by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s office.
“The case was disposed of locally so the DOJ could assume and lead the investigation,” Jane Roh, a spokeswoman for Mr. Krasner, told the Bucks County Courier Times in September. “It is incorrect to say that we declined this case.”
Whatever the reason Mr. Krasner’s office didn’t prosecute, the FBI didn’t arrest this public enemy until Sept. 23, 2022—almost a full year after the altercation.
The FBI came to Mr. Houck’s home as though he were a violent gangster. His wife, Ryan-Marie, said a SWAT team of about 25-30 armed agents arrived around 7 a.m. The FBI disputes details of her account. They deny it was an actual SWAT team and insist that Mrs. Houck’s estimate of the number of agents is an “overstatement.” But the bureau also refused to say exactly how many armed agents there were.
And whether these armed agents were a SWAT team is beside the point. The question is: Was this show of force justified for a man who was never a threat or flight risk? On top of it all, one of Mr. Houck’s team of lawyers at the Thomas More Society, Matt Heffron, had emailed the assistant U.S. attorney in June saying Mr. Houck would accept a summons to surrender himself.
On the evidence, the raid appeared calculated to send a political message. It was less than two months before the midterm elections. Many saw it that way. In October 2022, 11 U.S. senators and 29 members of Congress sent a letter to FBI Director Chris Wray asking if the raid on Mr. Houck was an example of “weaponiz[ing] the power of federal law enforcement . . . against pro-life Americans based solely on their beliefs.”
Good question. Ever since Joe Biden’s victory speech in 2020 promising to “heal” and “unify” America, he has called his political opponents “extremists” and accused them of being a “threat to democracy.” Recall the letter he got from the National School Boards Association equating angry parents with “domestic terrorism.” Mr. Biden didn’t dismiss the letter as he should have. Instead he had Mr. Garland ask the FBI to look into the supposed threats.
Mark Houck’s position on abortion makes him unwelcome at the commanding heights of American culture. But it is precisely the unpopular defendant that is most at risk of political prosecution.