0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
On Sept. 23, Pennsylvania pro-life activist Mark Houck was arrested on federal criminal charges. The details of the alleged crime and the arrest itself remain disputed, but we know enough to make a couple of observations about our nation and the current political climate.Houck was arrested in connection with an alleged assault on a volunteer at a Philadelphia abortion facility. Unsurprisingly, the accounts differ as to what occurred. The Department of Justice issued a press release stating that Houck twice assaulted the alleged victim because he was a volunteer at an abortion facility. Notice that the press release describes not only the alleged action but an alleged motive. Of course, the press release had to state that the assault occurred because the alleged victim was a volunteer at an abortion facility. If that was not the motive, there would be no jurisdiction for the feds to be involved at all. We will get back to that rather questionable issue.Houck and his family give quite a different account of the alleged assault. Apparently, the abortion facility volunteer was getting into the personal space of Houck’s 12-year-old son and saying vulgar, inappropriate things to him. This harassment by the volunteer toward a young child allegedly went on for weeks. Houck first intervened by telling the volunteer he did not have permission to speak to Houck’s minor child. When the volunteer persisted, Houck eventually shoved him away from his child. Allegedly the man fell but suffered no injuries. ...A recent article on the incident explains that the Justice Department relies on the section of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that “prohibits violent, threatening, damaging, and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain or provide reproductive health services.”When you look at the statutes, they may be invoked only when a victim was attacked because he was affiliated with the abortion facility or when the attack attempts to interfere with a person’s seeking of an abortion. If Houck’s account is at all true and there was a dispute related to the volunteer speaking to the minor child, then the necessary element for these FACE Act federal charges disappears entirely.If Mr. Houck has any evidence that he first warned the volunteer not to talk to his son, there is no way the federal government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Houck pushed the man because he was a volunteer or that he was attempting to prevent anyone from obtaining an abortion by pushing the man. If Mr. Houck pushed the volunteer because of a dispute about the child, there is simply no material for a federal crime. ...
