Selective Prosecution – USA Gov Policy

In November of last year, we discussed the case brought by the Justice Department against Pro Life activist Mark Houck for a violation of the “FACE” Act – the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances – which “provides for criminal penalties including up to one year in prison for a first offense, if that person ‘by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.’”

Mr. Houck was arrested at his home by approximately 25-30 FBI Agents after his indictment for a FACE Act violation. His crime? In October of 2021, “Houck was outside the Planned Parenthood Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center abortion clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, praying with his 12 year old son (Houck and his wife have 7 children). An unidentified man (who has since been identified as 72 year old Bruce Love, a ‘volunteer patient escort’ for the clinic) approached” Houck and his 12 year old son. “According to Houck’s wife…the man ‘kind of came into [the son’s] personal space’…Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back… He didn’t have any injuries or anything.”

Love made a complaint with the local Philadelphia authorities, who declined to pursue a case. This is no unimportant fact – the District Attorney of Philadelphia is Larry Krasner, an unabashed progressive, who is “focused on restoring balance to our criminal justice system, ending the era of mass incarceration, and moving beyond the false promises of overly –punitive policies,” as well as “committed to ending overly punitive practices that disproportionately affect Black people, people of color, and poor people.”

Apparently Krasner’s progressive goals did not extend to the aggressive prosecution of a Pro Life Activist who pushed an Abortion Clinic Volunteer away from the activist’s young son.

Why then were federal authorities interested in bringing criminal charges? As we noted in November, quoting Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson of the Heritage Foundation, “(i)t is not a coincidence…that this takedown of someone who, at best, committed a misdemeanor assault came almost exactly three months after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade…(t)he FBI’s raid of Houck’s home was designed to send a warning to pro-life activists engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment…(t)he timing of this indictment of Houck…is suspect and calls into question the motive behind the Justice Department’s move.”

The idea that the Justice Department engages in the selective prosecution of citizen’s engaged in activity of which the government does not approve is chilling indeed – especially when that government sends more than two dozen armed agents to storm the home of a peaceful, prayerful man and his family. But we are fortunate that our government is composed of more than one branch, and if the Executive (here, the Justice Department) commits an overreach in its authority, there is another branch of government that can correct that excess.

Sometimes, it is the Legislative Branch that must restrain the Executive. But in this instance, the correction has been made by the Judicial Branch, through the exercise of one of our most basic Constitutional rights – trial by jury.

In January of this year, after a trial lasting five days, Mark Houck was found not guilty by a jury that deliberated for only about one hour. “The prosecution argued that Houck pushed Love because he was trying to interfere with his provision of reproductive health services. Houck said he pushed Love because he was just trying to protect his 12-year-old son who was being harassed by Love. A 12-person jury unanimously found Houck not guilty of both counts of violating the FACE Act.”

The article concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.