Gleaning positive insights from the Mark Houck case

Mark Houck, a steady, peaceful activist on behalf of the unborn, has been prayerfully present for years at Philadelphia’s Planned Parenthood, the largest killer of babies in Pennsylvania, to witness and counsel mothers, dissuading them from the tragedy of handing over their child to abortionists.
 
He and his 12-year-old son were present on October 31, 2021, when a Planned Parenthood "escort" verbally abused both. After warning him, Mark pushed the escort, Bruce Love, and he fell, unharmed. All of this was captured on video.

Love filed a civil suit but then failed to appear in court several times. The city dismissed the case, but it was taken up — nearly a year later — by pro-abortion U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who used it explicitly as a test for the Freedom to Access Clinical Entrances (FACE) Act, long on the books under federal aegis.
 
A cadre of heavily armed FBI agents showed up at Houck’s rural Pennsylvania home last September, arresting Mark in front of his wife and their seven terrified children. The case was heard in late January, with the jury finding him not guilty on January 30.
On its face, there was no case. It was a power attempt by the pro-abortion Biden administration to strike fear into legitimate pro-life witnesses to keep them from assembling at abortion mills. Yet there was something else: in Mark’s acquittal we can glean several points.
 
First, the importance of video coverage. Clearly the video showed Houck a good 50 feet from the entrance to the killing center. Love was pursuing Houck, who was counseling a mother and urging her to go to the nearby pregnancy care center to get help for her pregnancy rather than end it. That picture is quite different with Love as a pursuer rather than a harmed plaintiff.

Second, the vindication of the pro-life witness and validation of fundamental First Amendment rights. The decision takes away, even with a pro-abortion-leaning Justice Department, the automatic stretching of the power of the FACE Act. It gives pro-life more cover, if not abused, to continue and enhance the witness before Planned Parenthood and other centers. Cases like this, though fraught with consequences, can succeed when courageous and truly loving dispositions are carried forth, as witnessed by the defense’s statements and Houck’s lack of hatred for the accuser or federal collusion.

Third, the revelation of a fairer side of FACE, which is sometimes not appreciated by pro-life defenders as the act is often drawn against them. But when FACE talks about "reproductive health services," that includes the pregnancy centers, such as the one to which Houck was trying to lead a mother and which Love was impeding — a pregnancy center that helps a mother in her pregnancy.
 
That aspect of FACE was demonstrated in charges being brought against two people who allegedly vandalized a pregnancy resource center in Winter Haven, FL. Both have been charged with violating the FACE Act by using threats to intimidate and interfere with the employees of a pregnancy care center and by intentionally damaging the facility’s property because the facility provides reproductive health service. This is an unusual, but hopeful, application of FACE.

We give thanks to God for showing where charity and justice meet and for drawing consequences of favor, love, and positive insights out of fear, threat, and power.