Our nation’s federal government appears to be trying to save face with an updated take on the FACE Act.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) website states that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act includes pregnancy centers, but this hasn't aways been the understanding of the federal law.
This statute “prohibits threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services.”
It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton back in 1994 and has historically been used to protect abortion facilities.
The text on the website now states:
“The FACE Act is not about abortions. The statute protects all patients, providers, and facilities that provide reproductive health services, including pro-life pregnancy counseling services and any other pregnancy support facility providing reproductive health care.”
The recent interpretation to include pregnancy centers materialized after it became obvious that the government was chasing down pro-life demonstrators—while seeming unfazed by violent attacks on pregnancy centers. Those vicious strikes started to heat up after the Dobbs leak last May.
Those on the side of life who have protested and prayed at abortion facilities, though, have been relentlessly targeted under the guise of the FACE Act.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
One of the most famous cases is that of Mark Houck. He was charged with violating the statute but ultimately prevailed through a jury’s verdict of not guilty.
The incident in question happened when he was on the premises of an abortion facility. Houck has consistently denied leveling any kind of attack; he instead claims he pushed a pro-abortion activist who had been harassing his son.
In another example, police charged pro-life activist Lauren Handy, and eight others like her, with violating the FACE Act for participating in a sit-in protest at Washington Surgi-Clinic, a late-term abortion facility.
Handy also made headlines for picking up the remains of aborted babies from a medical waste truck outside that same facility. She acted in concert with Terrisa Bukovina, a fellow pro-life activist.
The point of the gruesome mission was to prove these children died during partial-birth abortion procedures, which violate federal law.
Their efforts ultimately fell on deaf ears, as authorities did not pursue charges against Washington Surgi-Clinic. The DOJ instead charged Handy and Bukovina with conspiracy. They could spend 11 years behind bars and pay up to $350,000 in fines.
The DOJ also recently charged eight pro-life activists with violating the FACE Act.
Calvin Zastrow, Chester Gallagher, Heather Idoni, Caroline Davis, Joel Curry, Justin Phillips, Eva Edl, and Eva Zastrow allegedly blocked the entrance of a Sterling Heights, Michigan, abortion facility.
But what about the attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers?
Since the Dobbs leak, there have been at least 81 of them. That number does not include the 130 attacks on Catholic churches.
Of all those attacks, how many people have been charged?
While the attacks have continued since May 2022, it took until January of this year for any and then it was just two. Three more have also faced charges only this last week. This handful still pale in numbers in comparison to the some two-dozen pro-life advocates whom the government has charged under the FACE Act for praying and demonstrating at abortion centers.
While recently grilled on this issue in Congress by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, Attorney General Merrick Garland actually said the following:
"There are many more prosecutions with respect to the blocking of the abortion centers, but that is generally because those actions are taken with photography at the time, during the daylight, and seeing the person who did it is quite easy."
While our nation’s federal law enforcement seems to be deprived of their crime-fighting abilities by darkness, at least there is a hint of movement in the right direction. Pro-life pregnancy centers are now officially protected under the FACE Act.
It's refreshing to see it in print.
But will this outward presentation of pregnancy help as having protection under the FACE Act result in an equal application of justice? Or is this just about saving face?
Time will tell.
