A newly released report from the Justice Department has raised serious allegations about the Biden administration’s actions toward pro-life individuals. It reveals collusion with pro-abortion groups to track and prosecute these supporters under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, which is intended to shield people seeking abortions from harassment. While this law aimed to offer balanced protections for both pro-choice and pro-life facilities, the Biden DOJ appears to have selectively enforced it, prioritizing abortion clinics over other institutions like houses of worship and pregnancy resource centers.
Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, highlighted this significant disparity, stating that the Biden DOJ downplayed vandalism and violence against pro-life centers while aggressively pursuing cases against their supporters. The report claims that Attorney General Merrick Garland revived the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers, which Severino condemns as a weaponization of the FACE Act. “Their skewed enforcement nullified the clear congressional intent to pass a bill that protected both sides of a heated debate from violence,” Severino observed, pointing out that this selective approach has manifested even more intensely since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Evidence from the report indicates that the Biden administration actively collaborated with pro-abortion groups to identify pro-life advocates as targets. Organizations like the National Abortion Federation and Planned Parenthood were in direct communication with DOJ officials, sharing information about protests and activities deemed problematic. One email cited a DOJ prosecutor praising the National Abortion Federation’s security team as “an MVP” for signaling pro-life demonstrations for investigation.
In a stark example, a pro-choice NGO provided detailed dossiers on pro-life activists ahead of a conference, containing sensitive personal information such as addresses, photographs, and even travel plans. This kind of intimate monitoring raises alarms about the federal government’s engagement in tracking individuals based on their advocacy.
Moreover, when the National Abortion Federation requested data on active FACE charges, DOJ officials promptly complied, showing a stark contrast in responsiveness to pro-abortion organizations versus pro-life individuals facing prosecution. Sanjay Patel, a DOJ attorney, allegedly withheld similar information requested by defense attorneys for pro-life defendants, despite having it readily available for his allies.
One of the most concerning cases discussed in the report is that of Mark Houck, a Catholic father arrested during a heavily armed FBI raid in September 2022. After he had pushed away a clinic volunteer harassing his son outside an abortion clinic, Houck became a target, even after local prosecutors chose not to press charges. This excessive use of force—commandeering 20 to 25 federal agents and seven vehicles for a single arrest—has drawn scrutiny and criticism.
Despite the charges against Houck relating to an incident where local authorities found no fault, the Biden DOJ pursued him under the FACE Act. Although he was acquitted, the trauma inflicted upon his family highlights the harsh and, some argue, politically motivated tactics employed by the government.
This report emerges in the context of ongoing efforts to curtail perceived bias against Christians and pro-life advocates. Following an executive order issued by Donald Trump in February 2025 aimed at addressing anti-Christian bias, the document underscores a troubling narrative about the politicization of federal law enforcement under the Biden administration. Trump’s recent pardons for individuals prosecuted under the FACE Act signal a powerful rebuke of the previous administration’s approach to these issues.
In summary, the findings of this new report reveal a concerning pattern of selective enforcement of laws by the Biden administration when it comes to protecting pro-choice interests while turning a blind eye to the rights and safety of pro-life advocates. The implications of these actions raise important questions about equality, justice, and the power dynamics at play within the current political landscape.
"*" indicates required fields
