News
Featured Image
Mark HouckYouTube/Screenshot

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (LifeSiteNews) — Lawyers for Mark Houck, a pro-life life father of seven being prosecuted by the Biden administration, dropped bombshell evidence in defense of the pro-life advocate at a January 17, 2023, pretrial hearing in Philadelphia.

Thomas More Society attorneys produced new evidence – never before considered by a federal court – that when the United States Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, it expressly intended to exclude so-called “escorts” operating outside of abortion facilities from being encompassed by the FACE Act. 

READ: FBI raids home of Catholic pro-life speaker, author with guns drawn as his terrified kids watch

The Thomas More Society, filing on behalf of Houck in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, quotes Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), chief sponsor of the FACE Act. Kennedy clearly stated that clinic escorts are excluded, because they do not provide reproductive health services in a facility, as required under the FACE Act. 

“The FACE Act was never intended to cover disputes between advocates on the public sidewalks outside of our nation’s abortion clinics,” declared Thomas More Society Executive Vice President & Head of Litigation Peter Breen, who is representing Houck.

“This new evidence shows clearly that Congress intended to limit the FACE Act to patients and staff working in the clinic, and not to take sides between pro-life and pro-choice counselors and escorts on the sidewalk. The Biden Department of Justice’s prosecution of Mark Houck is pure harassment, meant solely to intimidate our nation’s pro-life sidewalk counselors who provide vital resources to help pregnant women at risk for abortion.”

READ: Report: Pro-abortion activist who accosted Mark Houck’s son has history of drugs, disorderly conduct  

— Article continues below Petition —
PRO-LIFE BOYCOTT: Demand CVS and Walgreens STOP Selling Abortion Pills!
  Show Petition Text
10548 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 12500!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Walgreens and CVS will begin selling mifepristone — a powerful chemical that kills unborn children in the womb — if pro-life America does not ACT NOW. 

Pro-life Americans MUST STOP the widespread sale and distribution of mifepristone by sending a message that only big-box stores will understand: A NATIONAL BOYCOTT OF WALGREENS AND CVS. 

Walgreens and CVS are the newest back-door channels for the pro-abortion movement, now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. 

Will you act now to STOP abortion drugs from reaching your pharmacy? 

Our work in the pro-life movement is FAR from over, especially now that Walgreens and CVS have chosen to push deadly drugs in their stores and in our communities! 

SIGN and SEND a message to Walgreens and CVS! This is completely unacceptable! 

We must stop abortion from reaching our pharmacies and stop the abortion industry from poisoning our communities — before it’s too late. 

These big-box stores respond only to profit. The pro-life movement must enact a national boycott if the abortion industry dares flood our neighborhoods! 

SIGN and SEND a strong message to Walgreens and CVS: unless they immediately reverse course, the entire pro-life movement will BOYCOTT their stores! 

SIGN NOW and send a clear message! 

MORE INFORMATION:

CVS & Walgreens announce plans to dispense abortion pills after Biden FDA loosens restrictions

  Hide Petition Text

The Thomas More Society filing highlights a key exchange between Kennedy and Senator David Durenberger (R-MN), over a bipartisan amendment they negotiated to strip clinic escorts of the right to bring lawsuits under the FACE Act (139 Cong. Rec. S15682):

Mr. DURENBERGER. By defining “aggrieved person” in this way, was it your intention to exclude clinic escorts or so-called clinic defenders?

Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. Demonstrators, clinic defenders, escorts, and other persons not involved in obtaining or providing services in the facility may not bring such a cause of action.

Durenberger then reiterated that escorts are not covered under the FACE Act (139 Cong. Rec. S15686):

The bill, as currently drafted before us, allows legal relief only to clinic patients and personnel. And this is the critical, if you will – not the only, but the critical – change that has been agreed to by the proponents of this legislation and by the Senator from Massachusetts. We have recognized that Federal law should be extended narrowly to protect only those who were actually attempting to obtain or provide medical or counseling services. It does not protect the escorts.

Thomas More Society attorneys filed the Objections to Government’s Jury Instructions in response to the Biden Department of Justice’s proposed jury instructions, which claim that, under the FACE Act, “A provider of reproductive health services includes any staff member or volunteer escort who is an integral part of a business where reproductive health services are provided.” The Biden Department of Justice claims that volunteer abortion escort Bruce Love is a “provider of reproductive health services” under the FACE Act. 

READ: Pro-life father Mark Houck’s federal trial set to begin January 24

Thomas More Society attorneys have provided alternate jury instructions, arguing that the clear language of the FACE Act requires that the reproductive health services must be provided “in a…facility,” which excludes escorts – a view reinforced by the clear statements supplied by the Congressional record.

United States of America v. Mark Houck is currently set for a jury trial, January 24 through 27, 2023, before United States District Judge Gerald J. Pappert in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Read the Objections to Government’s Jury Instructions, filed on January 17, 2023, by Thomas More Society attorneys on behalf of Mark Houck, in United States of America v. Mark Houck, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, here [https://thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/OBJECTIONS-TO-GOVERNMENTS-JURY-INSTRUCTIONS-1-17-23.pdf].

7 Comments

    Loading...