Family of anti-abortion activist arrested by FBI seeks $3.25 million in damages
The Houck Family Sues Justice Department for $3.25 Million in Damages
The family of passionate anti-abortion activist Mark Houck is taking legal action against the Justice Department, seeking $3.25 million in damages. They claim to have suffered significant emotional distress when Houck was arrested by the FBI at gunpoint.
Houck, a devoted Catholic and father of seven, gained national attention in September 2022 when he faced federal charges for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. This act prohibits anti-abortion advocates from intimidating women seeking abortions.
Hope for Abortion Rights Shines Through Tuesday’s Elections
In a 26-page complaint filed against the Justice Department, Houck’s spouse, Ryan-Marie Houck, vividly describes the trauma their seven children experienced during the arrest. A team of heavily armed FBI agents arrived at their rural property in 15 vehicles, setting up firing positions and banging on their door.
“At the time of the raid, when she was only nine years old, she witnessed SWAT personnel staring her down at the back door,” the complaint states, referring to their daughter Therese, who already struggled with anxiety. “This memory continues to haunt her to this day.”
The Houcks believe they were targeted by President Joe Biden’s DOJ as a means of intimidating their family due to their anti-abortion activism, which includes praying outside abortion clinics.
Houck’s charges stemmed from an incident in 2021 outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Philadelphia. He pushed an abortion clinic volunteer who had been harassing his son, Mark Jr. Local law enforcement did not press charges, but Biden’s DOJ took action shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, almost a year after the altercation occurred.
Although Houck was acquitted by a jury in January 2023, his wife claims that the FBI’s investigation, the invasion of their home, and his subsequent arrest have caused ongoing suffering for the entire family.
“Based upon the foregoing allegations, Mrs. Houck now seeks to recover $1,500,000 in monetary damages due to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault committed by the DOJ and FBI,” the complaint states. Each child is seeking $250,000 in damages.
The president of 40 Days to Life, an international anti-abortion association, is supporting the Houck family’s lawsuit against the federal government. Shawn Carney, the group’s president, sees this as a significant moment in the fight for pro-life individuals.
“This is more than just a lawsuit; it’s a resounding declaration that the era of targeting individuals for their pro-life stance is over,” Carney stated. “Mark Houck’s home was besieged at gunpoint — an appalling show of force that was completely unwarranted. The local authorities saw no crime, yet the DOJ sought to make an example of him.”
In addition to the lawsuit, Houck announced in August that he is running in the Republican primary for Congress in Pennsylvania. He aims to challenge centrist incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) in a swing district in the Philadelphia area. Houck believes that his arrest has inspired him to use his voice and experience to protect people from government overreach.
The Washington Examiner reached out to the DOJ and the FBI for their response.
How does the incident involving the anti-abortion activists blocking the entrance to the abortion clinic relate to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act?
Stem from an incident in which he and several other anti-abortion activists allegedly blocked the entrance to a local abortion clinic, preventing women from accessing services. The activists claim that they were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.
The Houcks argue that their arrest was not only unnecessary but also traumatizing for their entire family. They assert that the excessive use of force and tactics employed by the FBI during the arrest were not justified, as Houck posed no immediate threat or danger. The family contends that the raid was carried out solely to instill fear and silence their anti-abortion activism.
While the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act aims to protect women seeking abortions from harassment or intimidation, the Houcks argue that it infringes on their rights to exercise their deeply held religious beliefs. They believe that they should be allowed to peacefully protest and pray outside abortion clinics without being labeled as intimidators or aggressors.
The Houcks’ lawsuit against the Justice Department seeks $3.25 million in damages for the emotional distress inflicted upon their family during the arrest. They hope that their legal action will shed light on what they perceive as an attack on their First Amendment rights and serve as a deterrent against similar actions targeting other anti-abortion activists.
This case raises important questions about the balance between protecting women’s right to access abortion clinics and safeguarding individuals’ rights to engage in peaceful protests and religious expression. While the justice system will ultimately determine the outcome of the Houcks’ lawsuit, it serves as a reminder of the complex and contentious nature of the abortion debate in the United States.
As this legal battle unfolds, it will undoubtedly draw attention from individuals and organizations on both sides of the abortion issue. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for future cases involving anti-abortion activists and the enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Regardless of personal beliefs surrounding abortion, it is important to recognize the importance of safeguarding individuals’ constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech and the right to practice one’s religion. While the Houcks’ lawsuit seeks substantial financial compensation, its true significance lies in its potential to shape the legal landscape surrounding abortion activism and the protection of individual liberties.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...