/
Will the FACE Act meet its final act when enough grandmas are thrown in prison cell?

Will the FACE Act meet its final act when enough grandmas are thrown in prison cell?


Pro-life activist Jean Marshall, 73

Will the FACE Act meet its final act when enough grandmas are thrown in prison cell?

A controversial abortion clinic law appears to be the latest weapon of choice for the U.S. Justice Department and not even middle-aged grandmothers can escape its reach.

Last week, three pro-life defendants were convicted of charges under the FACE Act, or Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, two of them past 70 years of age. They face a maximum 11 years in prison and fines up to $350,000, according to the Justice Department. 

Signed into law by Bill Clinton, the FACE ACT was passed by Democrats to ensure women's access to abortion clinics. It makes it a federal crime to physically obstruct the entrance to a clinic or to use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction that interferes with medical staff, volunteers, and clinic patients. 

Joan Andrews Bell, 74, Jean Marshall, 72, and Jonathan Darnel, 40, were charged for their roles in the blockade of a Washington abortion clinic in 2020, according to media reports.

Bell has been a pro-life activist since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision. Over the years she has gained a reputation for her willingness to be jailed for long periods of time after similar blockade and trespassing convictions, the Catholic Review reported.

Three similar FACT Act cases are pending in Florida, Michigan and Tennessee. The Washington case is the first to go to trial.

“We just introduced a bill to get rid of the FACE Act which has been abused in targeting pro-life activists,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said on American Family Radio Wednesday. “FACE Act funding is something I’d like to target if we can ever get to the dang appropriations bill.”

Houck, Mark (Pro-life activist) Houck

Obscure for much of its existence, the FACE Act began to get noticed by everyday Americans last year when Mark Houck, a Catholic pro-life activist, was indicted by a federal grand jury for shoving a Planned Parenthood escort he said had verbally threatened his son. A surveillance video recorded the incident. 

Attorneys for Houck said they told federal prosecutors their case was weak but it appeared the Feds were looking for a pro-life scalps after the Dobbs decision. Sure enough, it took less than an hour for a jury to find Houck innocent but the damage had already been done.

After his indictment, Houck was also nabbed at his home by a SWAT team of FBI agents. His attorneys had also told federal prosecutors their client would peacefully surrender if indicted but instead the Feds sent a small army instead, then let Houck's attorneys know he had been arrested. 

After escaping his government's effort to put him in prison, Houck is now running for a Pennsylvania congressional seat.

DOJ AWOL on fire bombings

The FACE act is supposed to protect pro-life clinics and women seeking their services, too, but critics say the DOJ is purposely overlooking that half of the equation.

Last September, about three months after the Supreme Court ruling, there had been zero arrests in 17 documented attacks on pro-life organizations, according to Fox News.

In Buffalo, a pregnancy center (pictured at left) was firebombed, and CEO James Harden thought he would help investigators expedite the process by providing the clinic’s own surveillance video and what he called a “mountain of other evidence,” The Catholic News Agency reported.

Three months later, no arrests had been made, and FBI and local police would not return Harden’s video. The police showed him still images taken from the video but would not return the video.

He filed a lawsuit asking a judge to compel police to provide a copy of the video he had originally provided them.

The FACE Act has not been used yet the the Justice Department to protect a house of worship.

Since the leaked Supreme Court memo in advance of the Dobbs ruling, which returned abortion law to the states, at least 357 Catholic churches have been attacked, according to research from Roy’s staff. There have been zero FACE Act cases in response.

Congress originally claimed that the Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment Due Process Clause granted it power to enact the FACE Act.

However, the Constitution does not grant the federal government general police powers. Since Dobbs found that abortion is not a constitutional right, federal law enforcement officials are overstepping their bounds when they arrest pro-life demonstrators or pro-life sidewalk counseling, Roy’s staff contends.

“Our Constitution separates power between the federal government and the states for a reason, and we ignore that safeguard at our own peril,” Roy said.

Meanwhile, more than two dozen pro-life activists have been now arrested on FACE Act charges since the Dobbs decision.

GOP president could grant pardons

Former president Donald Trump told the crowd at last week’s Pray, Vote, Stand Summit that pardoning pro-life activists and other political prisoners would be a priority his first day in office if he is elected.

“Listening to former President Trump, I realized how fantastically brilliant the Founders were, because you can have parts of the government and prosecutors who are completely out of control, but the presidential pardon gives the power of a real check and balance on it that I don't think we've ever used much in the United States before,” Chris Gacek, the Family Research Council’s fellow for regulatory affairs, said on Washington Watch Tuesday.

It may be time to change the pardon approach, he said, if Republicans can regain the White House.

“It may be that we're going to have to start using this in widespread manner, not just, you know, with regard to all these sorts of really aggressive out-of-bounds prosecutions that we're seeing with pro-life issues, the FACE Act, or some of the Jan. 6 people, or other kinds of political crimes the Biden Administration is finding in various areas,” Gracek said.

Gracek, a political expert and attorney, said the FACE Act is too broad and unnecessary.

“You can go back and look at what was going on in 1994, and was it too broad? It was far too broad," he said. "If you’re talking about firebombing (at abortion clinics) or shooting people, all of those things are felonies under state law anyway.”

Gracek said Roy is on the right track in attacking the FACE Act, but it’s not a quick fix against an administration that seems to be abusing the measure with lightning speed.

“A process like this is a long one, but thank goodness for Chip Roy. This is the first time we’ve had a conversation like this," Gracek said.