[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVISITING THE IMPLICATIONS OF
THE FACE ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND
LIMITED GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-287 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, California MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
CHIP ROY, Texas Ranking Member
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
KEVIN KILEY, California VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
WESLEY HUNT, Texas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
Georgia
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Louisiana 1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 3
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 5
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 5
WITNESSES
Mark Houck, President, The King's Men
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Tammy Kocher, Executive Director, New Life Family Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Testimony............................................. 13
Talcott Camp, Chief Legal Strategy Officer, National Abortion
Federation
Oral Testimony................................................. 17
Prepared Testimony............................................. 19
Jeremy Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
Oral Testimony................................................. 22
Prepared Testimony............................................. 24
Supplemental Material.......................................... 33
Arielle Del Turco, Director, Center for Religious Liberty, Family
Research Council
Oral Testimony................................................. 34
Prepared Testimony............................................. 36
Supplemental Material.......................................... 39
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government are listed below........... 66
A report entitled, ``2022 Violence & Disruption Statistics,''
National Abortion Federation, submitted by the Honorable Mary
Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of
Pennsylvania, for the record
A report entitled, ``Appendix A--Attacks on Pro-Life Facilities
in the Last Year,'' submitted by the Honorable Jim Jordan,
Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio,
for the record
Two reports entitled, ``Hostility Against Churches: Supplemental
Report--First Quarter 2023, Issue Brief,'' April 2023, and
``Hostility Against Churches Is on the Rise in the United
States, Issue Analysis,'' December 2022, Family Research
Counsil, submitted by the Honorable Mike Johnson, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Louisiana, for the record
A report entitled, ``Designed to Deceive: A Study of the Crisis
Pregnancy Center Industry in Nine States: A Study of the Crisis
Pregnancy Center Industry in Nine States,'' Alliance, submitted
by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
REVISITING THE IMPLICATIONS OF.
THE FACE ACT
----------
Tuesday, May 16, 2023
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Johnson
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Johnson of Louisiana,
Jordan, Roy, Bishop, Kiley, Hageman, Hunt, Fry, Scanlon,
Nadler, Cohen, Escobar, Jackson Lee, and Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The Subcommittee will come to
order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everybody to today's hearing on the FACE Act. It
is a really important issue. I now recognize myself for an
opening statement.
We want to thank our witnesses for being here this morning.
Some of you came a long way, and we really appreciate your
time. Today is our Committee's first hearing regarding the
Biden Administration's use of the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act, or the FACE Act, as we call it.
Since the Dobbs decision was leaked over a year ago now,
there have been more than 100 attacks on pregnancy resource
centers and churches across America, more than 100.
These attacks have included fire bombings and vandalism
that includes phrases written in graffiti like, ``If abortions
aren't safe, neither are you.'' Including smashing of windows,
targeted online harassment, protesters threatening violence
outside pregnancy resource centers and churches, and many other
acts.
Federal law obviously prohibits all this conduct. The FACE
Act states that,
threats of force, obstruction, and property damage
intended to interfere with pregnancy resource centers are
illegal.
It also states that,
force or threat of force to intentionally injure,
intimidate, or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or
seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious
freedom at a place of religious worship is prohibited.
However, here is the problem. The Biden Administration has
rarely enforced the statute to protect these organizations that
are covered. For example, on June 7, 2022, last summer, vandals
associated with a group called Jane's Revenge firebombed the
CompassCare Pregnancy Services in Buffalo, New York.
Half a million dollars in damages were done to that
facility. To this moment, the FBI has done nothing to bring
charges in the CompassCare case.
That is just one example among many. The Justice Department
to date has brought only four indictments against pro-abortion
activists, all of which were related to a single Jane's Revenge
attack in Florida.
Four indictments, just four indictments are not even a drop
in the bucket when you compare the hundreds of attacks that
have occurred against pro-life organizations and churches since
this law's inception.
Here is the worst part, and this is a glaring fact, and it
is impossible to overlook. While these radical left-wing groups
go unpunished, the Justice Department at the same time has
unleashed Federal law enforcement on pro-life advocates.
Here's just a couple of examples. In October 2022, Eva Edl,
an 87-year-old pro-life advocate and survivor of a communist
concentration camp, was charged with a FACE Act violation for
singing and praying near an abortion clinic. In February, Ms.
Edl was again charged under the FACE Act for ``standing in
front of a door'' of a Michigan abortion clinic in August 2020.
Ms. Edl was confined to a wheelchair at that time. The
Justice Department claimed that the 87-year-old woman was
charged because she ``intimidated patients and employees.''
Then, there is Mark Houck, who we will hear from shortly.
He will share his testimony today. His home was raided at dawn
by more than 20 FBI agents with guns drawn in front of his wife
and seven young children for an alleged FACE Act violation.
Thankfully, despite the FBI's brazen and unwarranted and
tactics, a 12-person jury unanimously and very quickly
acquitted him of those Federal charges that were brought
against him.
The targeting of advocates like Ms. Edl and Mr. Houck
compared to the lack of enforcement against those who attack
pregnancy resource centers and churches are striking. Pregnancy
resource centers serve millions of women annually across this
country with a multitude of services virtually free of charge.
Most of them are nonprofits, of course, and they should be able
to operate without fear.
They provide care to pregnant women and distribute
necessary items like clothing and diapers to mothers, and the
women that seek these services should not be able--should be
able to do so obviously without facing any danger. Churchgoers
should be able to exercise their First Amendment right to
religious freedom at places of worship without being
terrorized.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case under Attorney
General Garland's Justice Department. This Committee is
concerned with the apparent unequal application of the FACE Act
by the Biden Administration. It is our job to monitor this.
The application and enforcement of this act is an important
matter of Congressional oversight, and this hearing will
provide Members of our Committee and our Full Committee in the
Judiciary with the opportunity to reexamine the FACE Act and
explore ways that Congress might reform the statute.
We believe in justice for all, and the FACE Act should be
used to prosecute crimes committed against all entities covered
by the law. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today,
and I yield back.
I now recognize our Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Today's hearing on revisiting the implications of the FACE
Act, that is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act,
gives us an opportunity to consider the deeply troubling,
decades-long history of violence, threats, and intimidation of
people providing or accessing reproductive health services.
The FACE Act was passed in 1994 in response to a decades-
long campaign of threats and violence by anti-abortion forces
against facilities and providers of abortion services, and
shortly after a doctor who provided such services was murdered
by these extremists in 1993. The bill had bipartisan support in
both houses, passing by voice vote in the House, and with
bipartisan support in the Senate.
In the past few years, we have seen a disturbing rise in
political violence in this country, particularly, from right-
wing extremists. Just yesterday, we learned of an attempt to
attack one of our House colleagues, which resulted in injuries
and hospitalization for two of his staff members.
This attack occurs amid a tenfold rise in threats of
violence against Members of Congress since 2016. Also, a rise
in threats and attacks against public officials, law
enforcement, school board members, and other elected officials.
Therefore, against the background of rising political
violence, it might make sense to hold a hearing to examine how
Congress can reduce political violence, particularly in the
wake of the Dobbs decision, which overruled 50 years of
precedent in Roe v. Wade.
That is not the purpose of this hearing. This majority has
stacked the hearing with witnesses to testify about only
threats and violence impacting anti-abortion facilities, while
ignoring the far more numerous and ongoing threats against
individuals and facilities that provide abortion care and other
reproductive health services.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, since the
start of this Congress, the extremist Members of the House
majority have sought to highlight only the reprehensible
attacks against pro-life organizations and to suppress evidence
of far greater and more longstanding attacks against abortion
providers.
This false equivalency and disinformation feeds into the
division and chaos afflicting our country and encourages more
violence. This hearing continues the narrative pushed by the
House majority since the start of this Congress, a narrative of
manufactured outrage to stigmatize and distract from the deeply
unpopular efforts of an extremist minority to enact or enforce
a nationwide abortion ban.
One of the first bills passed by this Congress was H. Con.
Res. 3, rammed through in the first week with no regular order,
no process. That resolution condemned the recent attacks on
pro-life facilities while conspicuously failing to condemn any
of the thousands of acts of violence, threats, and intimidation
faced by abortion providers and patients, whether in the
aftermath of the Dobbs decision or over the course of preceding
decades.
Violence, threats, and intimidation tactics should have no
place in our political discourse, including in our Nation's
ongoing debate over abortion access. We must condemn all
political violence and threats of violence, whatever the
beliefs or motivations of those who engage in it, and
regardless of who the target may be.
Experts on political violence and threat it poses to our
democracy say that one of the primary things that must happen
is leaders must condemn such political violence. Just as
pernicious as normalizing or advocating for such violence is
those who twist the facts to excuse or minimize such violence
when it supports their cause.
So, yes, the FACE Act's scope does include anti-abortion
facilities, but let's be clear. The overwhelming majority of
such violence, threats, and intimidation has been and continues
to be directed against abortion providers and patients by anti-
abortion extremists. So, any attempt to revisit the
implications of the FACE Act have to consider that history and
the ongoing facts of such violence.
Now, we have just heard that the Republican majority is
trying to show that there is some kind of selective enforcement
by the Biden Administration in enforcing the FACE Act to target
anti-abortion activists, but I think the facts speak for
themselves.
FBI Director Wray testified to the Senate last summer that
when it was reported the Supreme Court intended to reverse Roe
v. Wade, the FBI put out a directive to its field offices to be
actively looking for potential threats. He said that the Joint
Terrorism Task Forces were specifically focused on attacks and
threats against churches, pro-life organizations, pregnancy
resources centers, and similar organizations.
Wray went on to say there's too many people that seem to
think that passions running high justifies engaging in violence
and destruction of property. Sorry, I had an extended quote, I
don't think we need to go into all of it, but it says,
On abortion or anything else, you don't get to use violence or
threats of violence to act on it. And we are going to go after
that contact aggressively. I feel very strongly about that. I
have communicated that very strongly to all of our field
offices and our workforce.
In fact, earlier this year, the Department of Justice
successfully obtained indictments in the Middle District of
Florida against two people for violating the FACE Act after
they allegedly vandalized an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy
center.
The Department has also reached out to the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, among other groups, to ask for
their assistance to let the anti-abortion facilities know that
the FACE Act protects them. Further, in December of last year,
the FBI offered a $25,000 reward to obtain evidence concerning
attacks against such facilities.
So, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue
to push a false narrative that the Federal government is out to
get them, but the facts are not on their side. The clear
majority of Americans believe we must protect access to
abortion and the freedom to make such healthcare decisions in
consultation with one's doctor, not politicians.
At this point, I would seek unanimous consent to introduce
a report from the National Abortion Foundation entitled, ``2022
Violence and Disruption Statistics.''
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. I now recognize the
Chair of our Full Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jordan, for his
opening statement.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Politics is driving the agenda in our Federal agencies. If
you don't believe me, just read the Durham Report from
yesterday. No probable cause, no predicate, no evidence
whatsoever, and yet they used a fake dossier from the Clinton
campaign to open an investigation into a Presidential campaign.
They spied on American citizens.
Here is what the Durham Report said, ``the FBI failed to
uphold their mission of fidelity to the law. They didn't follow
the law.''
In 2020, we have just learned in the last couple weeks, it
was the Biden campaign working with 51 former intelligence
officials to put together a letter that was not accurate to
interfere with a Presidential election.
Politics is driving the agenda in far too many agencies in
our government, and today it is not limited to Presidential
campaigns. Today they come after American citizens. You could
be a Catholic attending a Mass. You could be a parent showing
up at a school board meeting.
Or you can be like Mr. Houck, a pro-lifer praying at a
clinic. You will be targeted; you could be targeted by our
government. That is how scary the situation has become.
So, I want to thank Mr. Houck and the other witnesses for
being here today. God bless you, Mr. Houck, what you had to go
through. Twenty agents showing up at your house in front of
your wife and your seven children. Arresting you when you were
willing to turn yourself--that is how ridiculous it has become
in our country.
So, Mr. Chair, thank you for this hearing. We are sick of
the double standard. We are sick of politics driving who gets
prosecuted, who gets pursued and who doesn't. It is wrong. It
is not supposed to happen in the greatest Nation ever, where we
have a Bill of Rights, where we have a Constitution and where
we have the rule of law.
It is. This hearing is going to help expose all the
ridiculous things going on, and why frankly this Congress
should look at the appropriations process and what we have to
do there to begin to rein in these Federal agencies that are
trampling on American citizens' rights.
With that, I yield back to the Chair.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. I now
recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Nadler,
for his opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I should be astonished, but I am not, that the
Chair of the Committee would quote from the discredited Durham
Report and the discredited Mr. Durham, who filed I think a 300-
and-something report--
Chair Jordan. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Nadler. No. Who filed a something 300-page report
giving his opinions, but whose two prosecutions both resulted
in acquittals and jurors saying why did we ever even have to
take this.
Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by saying that I condemn
violence in all its forms, including threats, vandalism, and
property destruction against any person or organization,
regardless of their position on abortion rights.
I would also like to reiterate my condemnation of the
attempted murder of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I am
grateful that law enforcement took Justice Kavanaugh's would-be
assassin into custody before he could complete an act of
violence.
In a democracy, violence is never in a political dispute,
and it should be roundly and unreservedly condemned. Yet, for
decades, anti-abortion extremists have used violence, threats,
and disruption to curb access to abortion.
According to the National Abortion Federation, or NAF,
since 1977, anti-abortion extremists have been responsible for
11 murders, 42 bombings, 200 arsons, 531 assaults, and
thousands of incidents of criminal activities directed at
patients, providers, and volunteers.
Nearly 30 years ago, in response to this disruptive
violence, including the murder of Dr. David Gunn, Congress
passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. I have
been unequivocal in my support for the FACE Act, as well as for
the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters, with
whom I deeply disagree, so long as that speech does not cross
the line into violent conduct or disruption.
As a cosponsor of the bill in 1993, which our former
Judiciary Committee colleague and now-Senate majority leader
Chuck Schumer introduced in the House, I remarked on the floor
that,
Anti-abortion protesters have an absolute right to say don't do
it or anything else they want to say. They do not have any
right to say by means of physical force or intimidation, we
won't let you do it.
Today's Subcommittee hearing, however, is a lost
opportunity to focus on the real, longstanding problem of
violence and disruption that doctors, nurses, patients, and
volunteers face in providing or accessing abortion, which
appear have to have spiked follow the Supreme Court's decision
in Dobbs.
Instead, the apparent purpose of today's hearing is to
provide yet another platform for the majority's inflammatory,
anti-Federal law enforcement rhetoric, which I fear will only
further contribute to a political climate where anti-abortion
extremists believe their violent conduct is justified,
particularly in States where abortion remains protected by law.
According to NAF's latest report on the matter, in 2022,
States that are protective of abortion rights saw a
disproportionate increase in violence and disruption targeting
doctors and their patients.
This includes a 538 percent increase in obstructions, which
NAF defines as causing a delay or attempting to cause a delay
in the conduct of business or preventing people from entering
or exiting an area, textbook examples of the conduct prohibited
by the FACE Act.
Despite this surge in incidents and the long history of
violence and disruption perpetrated by anti-abortion
extremists, which necessitated Congress to pass the FACE Act in
the first place, today's hearing is designed to further
majority's misleading political narrative that the Biden
Administration is using Federal law enforcement to target
conservatives.
There is zero evidence that Federal prosecutors are
selectively targeting anti-abortion protesters under the FACE
Act. To the contrary, it appears that DOJ is enforcing the law
without regard to defendants' viewpoints.
At a recent bipartisan briefing provided to Judiciary
Committee staff, FBI representatives stated that approximately
75 percent of FACE Act investigations concern incidents against
anti-abortion facilities.
Yet, Republicans insist on devoting the Subcommittee's time
to this manufactured controversy to placate a minority of anti-
abortion MAGA Republicans who would like this Congress to pass
a total nationwide ban on abortion.
Let me be clear. Democrats stand with the majority of the
American public and will always oppose such a radical position.
Regardless of your position on abortion rights, we must condemn
all acts of violence, regardless of who is the ultimate target,
make clear that any individual who violates the FACE Act should
be subject to prosecution.
Unfortunately, by refusing to acknowledge the problem of
violence against providers and patients and focusing only on
this false narrative of malevolent Federal law enforcement,
today's hearing will inadvertently send the wrong message to
anti-abortion extremists at a critical moment in our Nation
where reproductive freedom and abortion access is in crisis.
This hearing is in a sense a repeat of a resolution we
passed the first week of this session, first week of
Republicans' control of the House, when we passed a resolution
condemning violence at anti-abortion facilities, pregnancy
crisis centers, but rejected a Democratic Amendment to add a
condemnation of violence at abortion providers also.
So, they rejected an Amendment. They said we will condemn
violence against anti-abortion clinics, but we will not
condemn, maybe say OK to, could not condemn violence at
abortion clinics.
Mr. Chair, I believe today's hearing is a wasteful and
ultimately irresponsible use of this Subcommittee's time. With
that, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, sir.
Chair Jordan. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record in response to Mr. Nadler's quote and manufactured
crisis the list of over 100 crisis pregnancy centers and
churches that have been vandalized in the aftermath of the leak
of the Dobbs opinion and the Dobbs decision.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
I will also offer into the record, seeking unanimous
consent to include the Family Research Council Report and its
Supplemental Report. It is entitled, ``Hostility Against
Churches Is on the Rise in the United States,'' Analyzing
Incidents from 2018-2022. It was prepared by Ms. Arielle Del
Turco, who is going to testify here shortly.
Just one headline, key point, at least 420 acts of
hostility against occurred between January 1918-September 2022
across 45 U.S. States and Washington, DC. Without objection,
these will all be entered into the record.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record as well.
We now introduce today's witnesses.
I will begin with Mr. Mark Houck. He is a father, husband,
and pro-life advocate. In October 2021, he was standing on a
street corner praying outside a Planned Parenthood facility.
After Mr. Houck and his 12-year-old son were approached and
harassed by a Planned Parenthood escort, Mr. Houck pushed the
escort away from his young son.
Nearly a year later, he was charged with violations of the
FACE Act. Despite his lawyer offering to have him turn himself
in, Mr. Houck's home was raided in the early morning by
approximately 20 FBI agents and other law enforcement officers.
Mr. Houck was unanimously acquitted of the charges by a jury.
Ms. Tammy Kocher is the Executive Director of New Life
Family Services in the Minneapolis--St. Paul area. In March
2023, one of her facilities had its windows broken and its
building was defaced by this group Jane's Revenge and their
graffiti. One of those messages read, ``If abortions aren't
safe, neither are you.''
Ms. Talcott Camp is with us. She is Chief Legal and
Strategy Officer at the National Abortion Federation. She
oversees NAF's legal work and plays a major role in all NAF's
strategic decisionmaking. Prior to joining the Federation, she
was the Deputy Director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom
Project.
Mr. Jeremy Dys is a Senior Counsel at First Liberty
Institute. First Liberty is the Nation's largest legal
organization dedicated exclusively to defending religious
liberty for all Americans. In his role, Mr. Dys litigates on
behalf of clients in State and Federal courts, including FACE
Act cases.
Ms. Arielle Del Turco, referenced earlier, is the Director
of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research
Council, where she is responsible for religious freedom policy
and advocacy efforts, and her recent research includes tracking
the number of attacks against churches across the country. We
just entered that report in the record.
We welcome our witnesses, and we thank you all again for
appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in, so would you
please rise and raise your right hand for us.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. Thank you, you can be seated.
So, all of you know that your written testimony will be
entered into the record in its entirety, but we ask you
summarize that testimony in your five minutes that is allotted.
You have a microphone in front of you. It has a clock and a
series of lights. When the light turns yellow, you should begin
to conclude your remarks. When the light turns red, that means
your time has expired.
So, Mr. Houck, we will begin with you. You can start now.
Hit that button for us, there you go.
STATEMENT OF MARK HOUCK
Mr. Houck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member,
Madam Ranking Member, and Jim Jordan, thank you for inviting me
to be here today, and all Committee Members, thank you.
Twenty years ago, I began pro-life work in the city of
Philadelphia. I did peaceful protests and prayer vigils in
front of many abortuary facilities in the Philadelphia. I have
always been peaceful.
I want to bring you to October 13, 2021, where I was with
my son, 12-year-old son, praying in front of an abortuary in
Philadelphia. On that day, a couple women walked out of the
facility. I began to offer them literature, as I always do,
with compassion, love, and great respect. In fact, I was 50
feet away from the entrance of the building.
I proceeded to walk with these women across the street,
making me about 100 feet away from the entrance to building, to
a crisis pregnancy center, pregnancy resource center, which was
about six feet away from me. At that time, an escort in the
building decided to run over, impede my progress, and get in
the way of me ministering and talking to the women that had
left Planned Parenthood, 12th and Locust Streets in
Philadelphia.
At that point, we exchanged some words. We went back to
where we were praying, and I continued to pray with my 12-year-
old son. About 20 minutes later, the escort, his name is Bruce
Love, I have known him for years, I have known him for 20
years, came out of the building.
He made a direct line toward my son, stood right next to my
son. Again, we are about 50 feet from the entrance to the
building. He stood right next to my 12-year-old boy, who was a
little intimidated and scared by this.
I asked him if he could please give him some space. He did
not. He has a right to be there. We just continued to pray. He
continued to talk to me and offer insults to me, which of
course he has done before, and it was never a problem for me. I
just, I didn't listen to it.
Then he started to begin to talk to my son. Now, he has
talked to my son before. In fact, I believe he taught my son
the ``F'' word. I am a home school dad, and that is the reality
of it.
Nonetheless, he begins to talk to my son and badger my son.
Starts telling my son how evil his father is and how his father
doesn't want to help women. I instructed him to step away, to
go back to where he normally stands in front of the building,
which he did not.
He continued to badger my son. After repeated requests not
to comply--not to stand next to my son, I escorted him back to
where he normally stands, which he did comply. I turned around
to face my son and go back to pray, and he turned around and
began to badger my son again.
At that point, I became a dad on the street concerned for
my son. I did push the man. He did fall down. We went, we
prayed for the man, we returned to the scene. I presented my
information to the Civil Affairs Department that day, I gave my
information.
I want you to know that the Philadelphia PD and the DA in
Philadelphia as well as the Civil Affairs Department did not
intend to prosecute. They had no interest in that. I was put in
a private criminal complaint, which was dismissed.
I want to take you to April 22nd, when it was dismissed.
Five days later, this is 2022, I was served a target letter on
the same street corner with my 12-year-old boy. A target letter
that I was a target of a Federal indictment.
Fast forward to September 23rd. My attorneys reached
initially at the target letter, stating that we would
peacefully present ourselves to the district. There would be no
need to come out to his house and disrupt his family and cause
any trauma to them. That he is a peaceful man, he will come in.
We said that.
In August 2022, my attorney reached out to me and says have
you heard from the Assistant U.S. Attorney. I said no. She
won't return my phone calls, he says. I said, ``Well, maybe we
will just let sleeping dogs lie.''
On September 23rd, my home was raided by ten unmarked and
marked units, State troopers, Federal law enforcement
personnel. I had five Federal agents on my doorstep at 6:30 in
the morning, with long guns pointed at me and my seven
children.
They banged on the door, and they said, ``open up.'' They
did not even declare who they were that day. They didn't even
asks me could you please open the door; we are the FBI. They
just said, ``open up.'' I went to the door, I was up. I said,
``who is it.'' They said, ``it's the FBI, open up.'' So, I
opened up the door peacefully. I said, ``please stay calm, I
have seven babies in here.'' They pointed M-16 guns at me and
my wife. My wife comes down and says, ``Do you have a warrant
for his arrest.'' They said, ``we're taking him with or without
a warrant.'' My wife said, ``you can't do that, that is
kidnaping.'' We proceeded to go into a 4\1/2\-month trial that,
as you know and have said previously, that we were acquitted
of. That I was facing 11 years in prison, and I had every
prospect in my heart that I would be in Federal prison away
from my seven children.
Thankfully, we were able to be acquitted, and I am blessed
to be able to share the story today. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr, Houck. Ms. Kocher,
you are next, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF TAMMY KOCHER
Ms. Kocher. Thank you, Chair Johnson, Ranking Member
Scanlon, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to join today.
My name is Tammy Kocher, and I have the privilege of
serving as the Executive Director of New Life Family Services
in Minneapolis, Minnesota. For 50 years, New Life has served
Minnesota families as one of the most comprehensive, faith-
based nonprofit organizations of its kind through its five
pregnancy centers in the Minneapolis--St. Paul area, as well as
Rochester.
We provide professional, life-affirming care through no-
cost pregnancy, parenting, and post-abortion services, as well
as licensed adoption services. Every year, we serve more than
6,000 women, men, and children through our five centers.
We are particularly proud of our newest center, a 12,600
square foot building in the heart of urban Minneapolis. This
facility houses our largest pregnancy center and a full-service
nonprofit medical clinic started by African immigrants. It has
been a decade-long vision that came to fruition in 2022.
Our new building is located in the Phillips community of
Minneapolis, which is one of the most beautifully diverse and
resilient communities in our State. It is also a community
filled with numerous challenges, including generational
poverty, illegal drugs, and gang activity.
As you may recall, in 2020, Minneapolis was literally on
fire after the tragic death of George Floyd. Our new center is
about one mile north of George Floyd Square.
This community has endured so much over the past several
years. While Minneapolis has struggled greatly since 2020, New
Life's love and commitment to this city and to hard-hit
communities in particular, has never wavered.
My purpose today is to share about the increasing hostility
that pregnancy centers like ours are facing across the country.
There are more than 3,000 pregnancy centers in the U.S. that
provide compassionate, quality, no-cost medical and social
services to hundreds of thousands of women, children, and
families every year.
In New Life's 50-year history, we have never experienced
the type of attacks as we have this past year. Since the Dobbs
decision, there have been numerous false narratives and
outright lies told about the work of pregnancy centers.
Minnesota is sadly one of the many States that have quickly
turned into a hostile environment for pro-women, life-affirming
organizations like ours.
On August 23rd of last year, Minnesota Attorney General
Ellison issued a misleading consumer alert warning Minnesotans
about pregnancy centers like ours, using the same false
narratives perpetuated by abortion activists.
Words are powerful, especially when spoken by people in
position of authority. When those in authority regurgitate
these false narratives, it can have devastating consequences
for organizations like ours, and it has.
The day after Attorney General Ellison released his
consumer alert, we had threatening posters plastered all over
the community surrounding our new clinic. You can see Exhibit B
in my written testimony.
We were warned, ``If abortions aren't safe, neither are
you.'' A few months later, there was a protest outside our
center near the University of Minnesota. Then on March 4th of
this year, a little after 2 a.m., we were notified by law
enforcement that our brand-new building in Minneapolis was
badly vandalized.
We had multiple windows smashed in; the front of our
building was covered with threatening graffiti messages. Again,
we were warned, ``If abortions aren't safe, then neither are
you.'' Other graffiti stated, ``Jane was here.'' ``F-12,'' etc.
The vandals caused more than $30,000 worth of damage in a
matter of two minutes. To add insult to injury, there was a
protest planned for later that day at the park across the
street.
The protesters, however, couldn't resist the backdrop of
our damaged building. So, while we were literally in the midst
of boarding up our broken windows, they moved their protest
right in front of our center.
We are the fifth organization in Minnesota that has been
vandalized in these coordinated attacks. Many more pro-life
centers across the country have endured the same threats and
violence under the banner of Jane's Revenge.
While these attacks are meant to intimidate and hurt us,
the people who are ultimately hurt are our clients, single
moms, families who are struggling to make ends meet, and young
women who are being pressured into an abortion. They are the
real victims here.
The truth is not every woman facing an unplanned pregnancy
wants an abortion. Many of the women we serve want to continue
their pregnancy but lack the support and practical resources
needed to do so. Without pregnancy centers and the important
work that we do every day, the three million women who
experience an unintended pregnancy each year will be left with
fewer options and fewer resources.
Whatever you believe about abortion, we should agree that
nonprofit organizations like ours that contribute millions of
dollars in free services to women, children, families, and
their communities, should not be the targets of vandalism and
terrorism.
The people we serve should not feel threatened simply for
walking through our doors. When pregnancy centers aren't safe,
our patients aren't safe.
Thank you for the opportunity to share about the important
work of pregnancy centers like ours and the increasing
hostility that we are enduring.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kocher follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Kocher. I
apologize for mispronouncing your name earlier.
Ms. Kocher. That is OK.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Sorry for the chaos in the
hallway, too. You performed like a pro there.
Let's see, Ms. Camp, you are next, and you may begin.
STATEMENT OF TALCOTT CAMP
Ms. Camp. Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Scanlon, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Talcott
Camp, and I am the Chief Legal and Strategy Officer of the
National Abortion Federation, or NAF. I have worked to support
providers of abortion care for decades, both in my previous
role at the ACLU, and my current role at NAF.
NAF is the professional association of abortion providers
with a mission to unite, represent, serve, and support abortion
providers in delivering patient-centered, evidence-based care.
Since 1977, NAF has compiled an invaluable data base of
statistics on anti-abortion extremist violence, allowing us to
track patterns and trends.
Last week, we released our 2022 violence and disruption
statistics, a copy of which is attached to my written
testimony, which I believe Ranking Member Scanlon has moved
into the record.
Since 1977, there have been 11 murders, 26 attempted
murders, 42 bombings, 200 arsons, 531 assaults, 492 clinic
invasions, 375 burglaries, and thousands of other criminal
incidents targeting abortion patients, providers, and
volunteers.
Each of these incidents involves a real person with a real
family and often real children. Every one of these incidents
means that every provider of abortion care and every patient
trying to access abortion care lives in terror.
NAF's 2022 statistics show increases in major incidents.
Comparing 2022 with 2021, the number of death threats or
threats of harm rose from 182-218. Stalkings rose 229 percent,
from 28-92. Burglaries rose 231 percent, and four clinic arsons
occurred in 2022 alone.
The statistics also show a sharp increase in violence and
disruption in very specific States. The Supreme Court decision
overturning Roe and the subsequent proliferation of State
abortion bans emboldened anti-abortion extremists to travel
specifically to States where abortion remains legal to target
clinics, clinicians, and patients there.
We must stand against violence at clinics providing
abortion care in States where it remains legal and recognize
that a national ban on abortion would be an even greater public
health catastrophe. No one should fear violence in the
workplace or when seeking healthcare.
Abortion providers, patients, and volunteers face violence
and harassment every day. Here are a couple examples from 2022.
In that year, we saw a 100 percent increase in arsons, compared
to 2021. One of those arsons was at a clinic set to open in
Casper, Wyoming in June 2022.
In May, shortly after reporting on the Supreme Court's
expected decision in Dobbs, an arsonist broke into the clinic
and set it on fire. The arson devastated staff, delayed the
clinic's opening by nearly a year, and caused hundreds of
thousands of dollars in repairs.
A few months earlier, an anti-abortion extremist stood
outside a NAF member clinic on the East Coast with a flaming
torch, holding a photo of one of the clinic's abortion
providers, including his full name, personal information, and
the word ``wanted'' printed on it. Through a megaphone, they
shouted details about his family, his wife's name, how many
children he had.
They then posted a video of these threats on a public
social media page, ensuring that their menacing message reached
a wide audience.
The use of that wanted poster was not singular or new. That
extremist tactic harkens back to the terrifying circumstances
surrounding Congress's enactment of the FACE Act, the Freedom
of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, in 1994 with bipartisan
support.
For many years, anti-abortion extremists had used clinic
blockades to intimidate and prevent access to clinics. The
first clinic arson was in 1976, followed by a series of
bombings in 1978, and the attacks and threats escalated. In the
1990's, extremists began using butyric acid attacks and anthrax
threat letters.
In 1993, Dr. David Gunn was murdered outside his clinic,
the first abortion provider killed by anti-abortion extremists.
He, too, was featured on a wanted-style poster before his
murder, as were other now-slain abortion providers. Since Dr.
Gunn's murder, there have been ten more murders and 26
attempted murders, most recently in Colorado Springs in 2015.
It was in response to this escalating violence that
Congress passed the bipartisan FACE Act, which has been an
important tool in addressing extremist violence over the last
three decades. Every administration has enforced the FACE Act,
Republican and Democratic alike. Nonetheless, abortion
providers and their patients face unrelenting threats of
violence and disruption to care.
I am here today because no one should fear violence at
their workplace or when they are trying to access healthcare.
For decades, abortion providers and their patients have faced
escalating harassment and violence. In the post-Dobbs world,
that atmosphere had only intensified, making FACE and the
protections it offers all the more critical.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Camp follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Camp. Mr. Dys, you
may begin now.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY DYS
Mr. Dys. Thank you, Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Scanlon,
and Members of the Committee. I am Jeremy Dys, and I serve as
Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute, a nationwide legal
organization dedicated to defending religious liberty for all
Americans. Thank you for your very kind invitation to testify
here this morning.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act promises to
ensure access to the Nation's reproductive health facilities
and accountability to those who would unlawfully restrict
access to those facilities.
The law is quite clear. If you attempt to injure,
intimidate, or interfere with access to a reproductive health
facility, then you may face both criminal charges and civil
penalties.
The FACE Act is intentionally broad in its scope, affording
protection to facilities that provide services ``relating to
the human reproductive system.'' Pam Hibbard provides
reproductive counseling every day to women at her facility. She
also lives there.
One morning she woke to find shattered glass strewn about
the ground. Her facility had red paint dripping down the
outside walls as if it were blood. On the sidewalks, clients
seeking access to reproductive services would have to walk over
spray-painted threats. Pam did not know if she was safe, nor if
her clients would be safe.
Not far away, a Jill Jorgenson woke to a similar scene at
her reproductive health facility. Vandals had shattered the
glass front door of her facility. Clients would soon arrive to
find spray-painted threats on the threshold.
These scenes played out across the country more than 100
different times following the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson
Women's Health Organization just last year. Yet, despite these
numerous attacks to life-affirming reproductive health
facilities, the Department of Justice had indicted just four
individuals under the FACE Act in the past year.
More concerning is the response of State Attorneys General.
The FACE Act explicitly authorizes State Attorneys General to
seek civil penalties on behalf of the citizens of each State
against those who engage in such unlawful acts of intimidation.
Yet, in Massachusetts, rather than deploy the FACE Act in
defense of Pam and Jill's facilities, former Attorney General
Maura Healey threatened them with sanctions.
Then the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a consumer
advisory against the very centers who suffered broken windows,
paint bombs, and spray-painted threats from Jane's Revenge.
Florida tells a very different story. Martha Avila showed
up to her reproductive health facility in Hialeah, Florida, on
July 4, 2022, only to discover a threat from Jane's Revenge,
``If abortion is not safe, neither are you.''
Her experience, though, is different from Pam or Jill's.
Once Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody knew the name of the
vandals who had allegedly attacked Martha's facility, she filed
a lawsuit under the FACE Act to impose the maximum civil
penalties against them.
The FACE Act and ought to be indifferent to ideology. It is
meant to hold accountable those who use violence to express
disagreement. Its application should not be withheld because a
government official disagrees with a facility's religious
beliefs.
In Florida, the DOJ investigated and indicted the alleged
vandals under the FACE Act. That allowed the Florida Attorney
General to file her suit on behalf of the State, and it also
allowed First Liberty to defend Martha and Heartbeat of Miami
in a private legal action under the FACE Act.
Had the DOJ and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts similarly
identified potential FACE Act defendants, our clients there and
perhaps elsewhere may have had recourse under the FACE Act as
well.
Violence is never an appropriate response to disagreement.
Those who would so express their disagreement with life-
affirming reproductive health facilities must be held
accountable under the law. Applying the FACE Act equitably
simply ensures that our Nation will not tolerate violence as a
means to political ends.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify here this
morning. I am happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dys follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The complete statement from Mr. Dys, Senior Counsel, First
Liberty Institute, including the exhibits can be found at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20230516/115924/HHRG-
118-JU10-Wstate-DysJ-20230516.pdf.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Dys. Ms. Del
Turco, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF ARIELLE DEL TURCO
Ms. Del Turco. Chair Johnson, Ranking Member Scanlon, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. My name is Arielle Del Turco, and I am the Director of
the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council.
Our organization desires all people to have the freedom to
exercise their faith. This freedom is significantly undermined
whenever houses of worship are the targets of violent or
destructive acts.
It would be appropriate at this time to note that the FACE
Act specifically includes protections for places of religious
worship. It protects the faithful exercising their right of
religious freedom in these places while also protecting such
places from efforts to damage or destroy their property.
In December 2022, FRC releases a report analyzing publicly
documented acts of hostility against churches over the past
five years. We identified 420 incidents that occurred in 45
States and Washington, DC, between January 2018-September 2022.
We noted a recognizable increase in frequency over the
course of that reporting period. These acts include vandalism,
arson, bomb threats, gun-related incidents, and interruption of
worship services. All these are punishable under the FACE Act.
FRC updated our report in April and found additional
incidents in the final months of 2022 and 69 in the first
quarter of 2023. If the trend continues, this year will be on
track to have the highest number of church attacks over the
last six years. All told, FRC has observed 565 attacks against
churches from January 2018-April 2023.
I would now like to highlight a few examples for you. In
February 2023, vandals broke into the Delabrook Presbyterian
Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. They sprayed a fire
extinguished all over the church and into the ventilation
system, causing $40,000 in damage.
One church staff member told a local news station,
I keep wondering why. It shows a great deal of anger. Are they
angry at us? Were they angry at churches? Were they angry at
God?
In these attacks, many churches are defaced with obscene or
hateful messages. In October 2021, vandals spray-painted anti-
Catholic messages on the front of Denver's Cathedral Basilica
of the Immaculate Conception, including the words ``Satan lives
here.''
In March and April 2019, three historically Black Baptist
churches in or near Port Barre, Louisiana, were set on fire by
the same individual within a 10-day span.
Following the leak of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision
last May, at least 57 acts of hostility against churches were
directly related to abortion. On June 25th, the day after the
Dobbs announcement, St. Patrick Catholic Church in Philadelphia
was spray-painted outside with the phrase, ``Abort the
church.''
On June 26th, pro-abortion protesters interrupted Mass at
St. Joseph Catholic Church in Chicago and began chanting
slogans and distributing leaflets. At least one protester held
up a sign that read, ``The Catholic Church has blood on its
hands.''
Not only Christian churches are subjected to such attacks.
The Anti-Defamation League reported hundreds of antisemitic
incidents against Jewish institutions in 2022, including
synagogues and Jewish schools. The American Civil Liberties
Union has tracked nearly 400 anti-mosque incidents since 2005.
Violent attacks against places of worship are completely
unacceptable, and it should concern those of all faiths and
political persuasions. As long as the FACE Act is on the books,
it should be used to go after perpetrators of attacks on places
of worship. Antireligious hostility has no place in our society
or any country that wants to call itself a land of freedom.
This issue deserves the full attention of the American
public and the full weight of law enforcement. We appreciate
the Subcommittee's interest in learning about attacks on places
of religious worship as it considers the effectiveness and
application of the FACE Act.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Del Turco follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The complete statement from Ms. Del Turco, Director, Center
for Religious Liberty, Family Research Council, including the
appendices is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/
JU10/20230516/115924/HHRG-118-JU10-Wstate-DelTurcoA-20230516
.pdf.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Ms. Del Turco.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions, and I recognize myself first for five minutes.
Look, I said in the opening, and I will reiterate here
again as we begin the questioning period that we believe that
the facts show that the Biden Administration has shown a clear
double standard of enforcing the FACE Act in a way that
protects pro-abortion activists and facilities while
substantially ignoring attacks on pro-life advocates,
facilities, and churches.
It is a disgrace. The Justice Department would rather cater
to the pro-abortion political movement than protect places that
assist pregnant women in need.
I am going to start just with a brief question of Mr. Dys.
From your observation and first-hand experience in litigating
these matters, do you agree with our assessment that the
current Department of Justice is engaged in selective
enforcement of Federal law based purely on political
motivation?
Mr. Dys. Thank you, Chair Johnson. Congress passed the
Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act to uphold the rule of
law in this country.
After a year in which we have seen over 100 different
instances of attacks on life-affirming reproductive health
facilities, and as Ms. Del Turco just testified about, even
more against houses of worship, it is incumbent upon our
leadership to ensure that the full weight of the Federal
government and the law is being applied.
I think the American people would have no less expectation
of this Committee than to insist that its laws be applied
equitably and across the board. What we have--the problem that
we have, if I may just wrap up, I am sorry, is that to
prosecute these claims, the most difficult part of the entire
process for us as lawyers is to have a name of someone to
prosecute.
That starts with General Garland. If his DOJ is able to
provide to us a name after an investigation, we are happy to
utilize the laws that you have passed to defend these
reproductive health facilities from the noxious attacks that
they have had to withstand over the past year.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Very good. Ms. Del Turco, thank
you for researching and reporting on the rise of attacks
against churches that we have seen in recent years. It is
especially concerning that in the first three months of this
year, there were approximately three times as many attacks on
churches as in the same timeframe in 2022.
Sadly, although many of these acts of violence could be
charged under the FACE Act, they have gone unprosecuted. So,
what do you think is spurring this increased violence against
churches in America?
Ms. Del Turco. Well, I think there are a lot of factors. We
certainly see increasing secularism in the United States, an
increasing lack of respect for religion, understanding for
religion or religious traditions.
In addition, I think it is motivated as well by these
political battles that tend to fall along religious lines. When
you see Catholic churches being blamed for the Dobbs decision
and attacked, that is clearly a problem, right.
It is very much a problem when, in our political system for
democracy, when one side loses a political battle, and they go
and attack churches. This is a horrendous problem.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, I am going to ask for
unanimous consent to enter into the record this letter that
First Liberty, a correspondence with Senator Warren.
In it is some photographs of some of these abuses. This is
Jane's Revenge and other groups. They graffiti on the side of
churches ``Abort the church,'' and ``If abortions aren't safe,
neither are you.'' ``Jane's Revenge'' all over the place.
Then they go to the pregnancy care centers and they
vandalize them. Again, nothing is being done about this. I
think every person watching this hearing should recognize that
you could be next.
Right now, it is churches and pro-life groups and people
being targeted that are pro-life, but that doesn't mean that
other Americans wouldn't be targeted tomorrow.
It is a disturbing reality that the Federal government has
gotten too big, too powerful, and it is improperly wielding
that power against the American people to appease a political
base.
The Durham Report, as Mr. Jordan noted earlier, makes clear
the FBI, for example, the FBI in the Durham Report, ``failed to
uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law.''
My friends, that is a serious problem in a constitutional
republic, and it is one that we aim to fix and will be about
that.
I have got less than a minute, but I wanted to turn to Mr.
Houck really quick about speaking of disparate treatment, your
story is so compelling and what the FBI did there to arrest you
is astounding.
Isn't it true that once you learned, get this clear for the
record, once you learned that law enforcement was interested in
questioning you, you offered to appear voluntarily, right?
Mr. Houck. That is correct, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, they did this big raid with
20 agents with long guns pointed at you and your seven young
children and your wife, even though you offered to go in
without issue, that is correct.
Mr. Houck. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It was about a year after the
event actually took place, right?
Mr. Houck. That is right.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It seemed to correspond, in our
view, with the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, and
it was released there. It sent the pro-abortion allies into a
frenzy. Do you have an opinion on the timing of why they came
to your house and raided you that way?
Mr. Houck. Sure. Well, really quick, my indictment target
letter was--preceded the Dobbs leak. Then of course the Dobbs
leak was early May. Then of course the Dobbs in June. Then we
saw a series of arrests.
Then of course I was not expecting that myself because my
attorney said that we would--and I will read right from the
letter,
. . . rather than put Mr. Houck and his family through
needless disruption, we will accept a summons on my client's
behalf and bring him to you.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. I am out of time. I
yield.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Nadler for five minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have heard examples of violence against anti-abortion
clinics. Ms. Camp, what are some examples of violence and
disruption that doctors and patients have faced in recent
years?
Ms. Camp. Thank you for the question, Congressman. If I
may, I would like to just review some examples, quite recent
examples from 2022 in fact. The first are essentially news
reports. Again, every person here, real person, real family,
and real kids.
In Michigan 2022, this is from ABC News:
Officials said the suspect breached the fence outside the
clinic then used a fuel to ignite bushes surrounding the
building before lighting a fireplace starter log that he threw
onto the building's roof.
In California 2022, this is from the FBI:
Two unknown suspects were captured on surveillance video
throwing a Molotov cocktail at the front door of a medical
building used by Planned Parenthood in Costa Mesa, California.
Anthrax, letter leaking white powder reported to be anthrax
in Ohio 2022. Inert ricin, according to the FBI, in New Mexico
2022. A Texas clinic had all the wires cut, all the electrical
wires going into the clinic, cut in 2022.
In Michigan again, in March 2022, a large group of
extremists entered the clinic, harassed patients and staff.
Additional people outside were shouting through megaphones,
making it very hard to provide medical care inside.
In North Carolina, this is quite typical, extremists opened
the car doors of patients driving into a clinic parking lot and
got into their cars.
If helpful, I could read just a couple of the personal,
short personal testimonies of folks who have experienced
violence in 2022.
This is from California, in March,
We experienced a clinic invasion where a group of anti-abortion
protesters posed as a patient. Once our door was open, three
other extremists rushed in past staff. It was terrifying. You
are trying to figure out are their weapons. What is going to
take place here, is it going to be a speech or is it going to
be physical violence?
Just read one more, from Texas.
This is Texas. People have guns. There are school shootings.
You have that fear because you don't know that this person is
just standing there waiting to pull a weapon, or if they are
standing there just praying for you.
Folks providing and accessing abortion care never know. The
violence has been so relentless. They just don't know when a
gun is going to get pulled.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you for those examples. Let me ask you
this: Should Americans, even those who live in States that
continued to protect reproductive freedom, should they be
concerned that violence, threats, and intimidation against
abortion providers could effectively ban abortion access in
their States, regardless of what their State law provides?
Ms. Camp. Absolutely, Congressman. Just as Dobbs left open
the door for a nationwide ban on abortion, Dobbs also
emboldened anti-abortion extremists to go specifically to
clinics in States that protect abortion rights.
So, NAF's 2022 violence and disruption statistics show a
particular increase in those States. So, for example, stalkings
went up overall, 230 percent in 2022. They went up 900 percent,
a 900 percent increase in stalkings, at clinics providing
abortion care in haven States. States that protect access to
abortion care saw a 130 percent increase in bomb threats.
Directly to your point, Congressman, clinics offering
abortion care in States that protect access saw a 540 percent
increase in obstructions. So, yes, we all need to fear the
effect of violence on people's ability to access this
fundamental care.
Mr. Nadler. Finally, my last question now, just to be clear
as to stakes, what impact would a total nationwide ban on
abortion have on women's reproductive health and well-being?
Ms. Camp. Congressman, a nationwide ban would be a
catastrophe, a public health catastrophe, yes, for people's
reproductive health, and for public health generally. It would
add to the ongoing crisis of lack of access to healthcare in
this country, which absolutely includes lack of access to
appropriate high-quality pregnancy-related and labor and
delivery care.
We have an exceedingly high maternal mortality rate,
pregnancy-related death rate, that is, for a wealthy,
industrialized country. Let's drive that down, especially for
the Black community, which suffers so disproportionately.
Mr. Nadler. In States which have banned abortion, have we
found a higher mortality rate for pregnant women?
Ms. Camp. I am not a clinician and I think it is too soon
to tell. We know internationally, yes, that banning abortion is
associated with higher maternal mortality, of course.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman from California,
Mr. Kiley, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Kiley. I yield back to the Chair.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you for yielding. Ms.
Kocher, you just heard testimony from Ms. Camp and her
organization, the National Abortion Federation, recently issued
a report that labels crisis pregnancy centers as, quote, ``fake
clinics use deceptive practices to dissuade people from seeking
abortions,'' unquote. The organization claims that pregnancy
resource centers such as yours lie and trick patients and force
them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. How do you respond
to the provocative claim by Ms. Camp's organization.
Ms. Kocher. I would say that's ridiculous. We do not lie to
women. We are very clear about the services we provide and what
we don't provide.
We have four registered nurses on staff. We have
professional licensed staff. We are also a licensed adoption
agency.
We have eight social workers on staff, and we provide
excellent quality healthcare for women, children, and their
families. As a matter of fact, I think it's quite ironic that
we are called fake clinics when the abortion clinics themselves
in our area do not believe that. We receive referrals from
abortion clinics in our area for medical--for health services.
They refer their patients to us for health services. So,
why would they do that if we are truly a fake clinic? So, I
just think it's ridiculous. It's a false narrative that's been
created. Any provider--any pregnancy center that provides
medical services has licensed registered nurses on staff who
are providing those services. They are absolutely bound by
their medical license.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I agree with you 100 percent. In
my law practice many years ago, I represented a number of
pregnancy resource centers in my State and others. I never knew
one of them to force any woman to carry a pregnancy to term and
give birth. Have you ever forced anyone to carry a pregnancy to
term?
Ms. Kocher. We have not ever.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Despite the valiant efforts of
pregnancy resource centers under the Biden Administration as we
noted, the Justice Department has selectively enforced the FACE
Act in a manner that caters to the radical pro-abortion
movement and fails to adequately protect facilities like yours.
After the leak of the Dobbs opinion and overturning of Roe,
what kind of threats and violence were directed at you in your
pregnancy resource centers? I know you've addressed a little
bit of this. How did the violence and the damage impact the
ability of organizations like your to offer their services?
Ms. Kocher. Sure. So, again, we are the fifth center in
Minnesota. I am very well connected with the other pregnancy
center directors in our area as well as across the country. All
the centers that I know are having to increase security to
purchase security cameras, to just take extra cautious measures
with everything that we do.
For us, our facility that was damaged, the windows are
still boarded up because one of the things that we found
important is to purchase intrusion-resistant film. Thank God
that we have that because otherwise they would've gotten into
our building and they would've done a lot more damage than what
was done. So, that's very costly.
For our building, in particular, it was 60,000 dollars to
add the film. So, to fix our windows, not only did we have to
order the windows, but we have to have the timing correct to
apply the film as well. So, every center that I know and I have
been connecting with needs to get this film on your windows or
do bullet-resistant windows. It's a real threat.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I know that organizations like
yours operate on a very thin margin. You're a nonprofit. You
have to raise the funds that use to serve women. Sixty-thousand
dollars could go a long way in helping women in crisis
pregnancies.
Ms. Kocher. Exactly.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. To your knowledge, have the
perpetrators that damage your pregnancy resource centers been
prosecuted under the FACE Act or otherwise held accountable?
Ms. Kocher. No, they have not. We have been in touch with
the FBI. There have been no arrests. There have been--nobody
has been identified to my knowledge.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, and I want to point out
because it's been mentioned here this morning. The FBI did
absolutely nothing with regards to these more than 100
documented attacks on pregnancy resource centers all the way
through until the Republican majority took the House again. We
passed a resolution authored on the floor.
I guess it was in early February. Six days after that is
when the FBI magically came to this conclusion that they might
need to pay attention to some of this. They offered this
supposed reward for information leading to the arrest or
prosecution of people involved.
It took them a long, long time to pay attention to that. It
took a resolution of the House of Representatives to force the
action. What would you like to see from the Justice Department
to make pregnancy resource centers feel safe?
Ms. Kocher. Well, I think the same thing we all want,
right? We all want to feel like we can go to work and be safe
and that our patients are protected. The same is true for all
of us, no matter what side of the aisle you are on. I think if
people are breaking the law and damaging buildings and
threatening your safety, they should be prosecuted.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you very much. I am out of
time, yield back. The Chair recognizes Ms. Scanlon for her
five--no, I'm sorry, Ms. Jackson Lee. I apologize. The
gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, I'm delighted to welcome you
back to the Committee you love and we all love, the
Constitutional Committee and you as Chair. I know that we have
an abiding faith and love in the Constitution. Let me
acknowledge Mark Houck, I hope I'm getting it almost right,
Jeremy Dys, Tammy Kocher, and Arielle Del Turco. I just want to
acknowledge them because there's nothing that I want to have
associated with myself and I know my colleagues in opposition
to the freedom of their positions or the work that their
agencies are doing.
I represent the Gulf Coast Catholic Diocese in my
Congressional district. I have had bishops and cardinals in my
Congressional district. We have a wonderful working
relationship in actuality.
I have had no encounters of the type that we seem to be
presenting here. At the same time, I want to thank Ms. Camp for
the work of the National Abortion Federation that all I can see
is certainly attempting to do its work. So, my time is brief.
I'm going to ask you to be meteoric in your answers. I must
take a moment for my good friend, the Chair, to indicate that
special prosecutor, Mr. Durham, was appointed by Attorney
General Barr. He didn't have any critique on the actual results
of that particular investigation of the FBI and the succeeding
special counsel but commented on the basis on which the FBI
proceeded, two different things.
We wouldn't expect anything from Mr. Durham, but to walk in
the tracks of who appointed him. That would be the likes of his
work. So, we thank him for the service that he gave. Let me
just--if you would take just a brief moment to respond to the
comment about crisis clinics and anything that your
organization would do inappropriately. Did you hear me?
Ms. Camp. I'm sorry, Congresswoman.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You have a moment to respond very quickly
about the crisis clinics. Someone said you do something to
crisis clinics? Can you just respond? Is that what--your
organization attacks crisis clinics?
Ms. Camp. Absolutely not, Congresswoman.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. So, I want you to respond that
you would be against them and that is not the case of your
work. Is that correct?
Ms. Camp. Congressman, thank you for the question. We are
not against any particular facility. We are in support of
providers of abortion care and patients trying to access it.
Our 2022 report does not practice by some of the centers that
have delayed and even obstructed care for patients.
Ms. Jackson Lee. You do it in that context? You do not do
it in an attempt to incite anyone to go against these clinics?
Ms. Camp. Unequivocally not. We just know that patients
need unbiased counseling and transparency when they're trying
to access services.
Ms. Jackson Lee. As a FACE Act in a lifesaving provision
for many of the clinics--freestanding clinics that are familiar
with dealing with the right to choose and reproductive rights?
Ms. Camp. Absolutely, Congressman. The FACE Act has been a
really important tool. There are so many acts of violence at
clinics offering abortion care that so many of the acts of
vandalism just don't even get reported even if they violate
FACE because it's just so frequent. It requires herculean
efforts on the part of clinic administrators and clinicians--
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have a short period of time. So, let me
just continue to ask you questions. I might put into the record
that the FACE Act deals with any activity that blocks access to
the interest or obstructs the exit from a facility, trespassing
at a clinic, vandalizing reproductive healthcare facilities, or
stalking a clinic employee.
We know that the bill from Texas called the Dobbs Act arose
from S.B. 8, the Texas six-week ban on abortion. It had a
provision that allowed a civilian to stalk a provider and some
woman, some young person that may be a college student and
stalk them and get 10,000 dollars. Is that something that is
outrageous in terms of denying and threatening someone who is
attempting to make a decision with their God, their family, and
their provider?
So, the FACE Act would keep that kind of activity from
occurring. Let me back up so you can answer it. Chair will give
me just additional seconds, is that historically, do you
remember the case in Alabama where the doctor was killed, the
nurse was killed, and the bombing of an abortion clinic? That's
how far back these abortion bombings go. You can go ahead,
please, quickly.
Ms. Camp. Texas S.B. 8 was an abomination, a threat to
providers of care and those accessing it and absolute
antithetical to the structure of our republic.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The FACE Act that helps in other places to
stop that stalking and threatening?
Ms. Camp. FACE does make it illegal to stalk and threaten
folks providing access to abortion care, yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I thank the gentlelady. Chair
recognizes gentleman from Ohio for five minutes, the Chair of
the Full Committee.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Houck, why do you
think they did it? Local police saw this incident. They weren't
going to prosecute you.
My guess is they probably exercised some common sense and
said, this guy has been praying in front of this clinic for 20
years. This guy harassed his son. He did what a dad would do.
They chose not to come after you. You volunteer to turn
yourself in, and yet they show up at your house, 20 agents,
guns drawn in front of your family. Why do you think they did
it?
Mr. Houck. Thank you, Congressman Jordan, for the question.
I've been thinking about that for many months. I can only come
up with that the intention was to humiliate me, to scare my
children, and to instill fear in pro-life America.
Chair Jordan. Yes, I think they want to make an example of
you, right?
Mr. Houck. I believe so.
Chair Jordan. They told us why they did it. They actually
put it in writing. All you go to do is look at the memorandum
from the Richmond Field Office. I mean, you were, like, front
and center. Look at this memorandum.
Now, thank goodness they rescinded it. FBI has rescinded
this memorandum. They call it a domain perspective. I don't
know why they can't use normal terms. It's a memorandum.
They rescinded it because a brave whistleblower came and
gave us this information. If you look at page--I think at page
4, has this sentence: ``Events in which extremists and radical
traditional Catholics will remain''--excuse me,
Events in which extremist and radical traditional Catholics
might have common cause include legislation or judicial
decisions in areas such as abortion rights, immigration,
affirmative action, and LGBTQ protections.
So, if you're pro-family, pro-life and you want a border,
you're a target. Your family fit all of that. You're a pro-
life, pro-family Catholic for goodness sake. They're going to
come--you got seven kids.
You're not allowed to have seven kids today. We're trying
to save the planet. You can't do that in America today
according to--you were the example.
That is how pervasive this political attitude is at the
highest levels of our agencies. In this case, it was the FBI so
much so, they put together a memo and said, we want to put
informants and snitches inside the Catholic Church, inside the
parish to go rat out people like Mark Houck and his family.
Think that's what was going on here?
Mr. Houck. I would agree with you 100 percent that my
family was targeted, that I've been on a watch list. I am a
Novus Ordo Catholic. I'm not a traditional mass, Latin mass
goer. None the less, I embrace our faith and I live it.
Chair Jordan. Still thought you were radical. They still
thought you were radical, right? You may not go to Latin mass,
but they thought you were radical.
Local police wouldn't investigate, but we're going after
this guy because he's pro-life and he's Catholic and he prays.
Man, he's got seven. We're coming after him.
Mr. Houck. Right. Yes, my children were down range of many
guns, and they screamed through the whole process. The
Committee should know that they were traumatized. I proceeded
to be shackled in front of them and chained to a table for six
hours in the Federal building.
Chair Jordan. They were wrong because you went in front of
a jury and the jury said no, he didn't do anything wrong. Isn't
that right?
Mr. Houck. That's correct.
Chair Jordan. They prosecuted this case after the local
people said, no, we're not going to do it. Federal government
says, we're going to. We're going to make this guy an example.
He's an RTC, a radical traditional Catholic, and we're going to
come after him.
You did and you went through the process. God bless you for
going through it. This should send a--this is what's so scary.
Again, we've had a number of whistleblowers come forward and
talk about this kind of attitude displayed in this memorandum
existing in the Justice Department. This is as wrong as it
gets.
Mr. Houck. Yes, I would agree with you. Yes, my children, I
see it on their face every day. I see it in my wife, the fear
in their eyes. Certainly, they have fear of law enforcement
now, because the law enforcement guys become the bad guys, not
the good guys.
Chair Jordan. Yes, some--
Mr. Houck. So, my children are confounded by that.
Chair Jordan. Some guy gets in your kid's face, you do what
a dad does. That's scary enough. Then they find out, oh, your
dad is going to get prosecuted for standing up and defending
his son.
It's wrong. Everyone knows it's wrong, and it needs to
stop. Frankly, as I said in our opening statement, the only way
we can actually begin to stop this, is we got to do what
legislatures do. You got to look at the money.
You got to look at the money. You got to say, look, if the
FBI is going to do this kind of stuff to good people like you
and your family, they may not be getting the funds that they've
gotten before. They certainly won't be using funds in certain
ways.
That's something we have to--we have an obligation, a
constitutional duty to do that. I know Chair Johnson is going
to be working on that with us to try to make that happen. With
that, I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back, and the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Escobar, for five minutes.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Many thanks to our
witnesses for being here today. I think it's really important
for women in America to understand what's happening here.
This is yet another example of how one of our parties in
the two-party system, the Republican party, is hell-bent on
making sure that women do not have access to reproductive
healthcare and cannot make decisions about their own future.
This is just yet another example of the messaging and the
efforts to try to control women. Let me remind everyone again
the different between the two sides.
Our side believes that we've got to take care of families
and that we've got to make sure that children have a good
future. We did that by voting for paid family and medical
leave. We voted for the expanded child tax credit.
We voted for universal pre-K. We voted for affordable
childcare. All of this was just last Congress.
To a person, my Republican colleagues voted against all of
that. So, this is--let's lift the--end the charade. In fact,
right now part of the negotiations that are ongoing, both on
the farm bill and in appropriations as well as in the efforts
for my Republican colleagues to default on our debt involves
taking SNAP away from families. In other words, taking food
away from the mouths of children.
As part--if they can't limit women legislatively, they will
bully and threaten those providers who help women and the women
who use services. In fact, last year because of the--and let me
be clear. I don't believe anyone should be engaging in any
violence or intimidation.
All of us should reject all that. We're here really because
we're chasing another conspiracy theory that is being put out
there by my Republican colleagues. Last Congress and again this
January, I introduced the Healthcare Providers' Safety Act
which would amend the Public Health Service Act to authorized
grants to healthcare providers to enhance the physical and
cybersecurity of their facilities, personnel, and patients.
This bill would give providers the needed resources to
ensure patients and providers are safe and able to continue
providing and receiving this essential reproductive healthcare.
I'd like to ask Ms. Camp a question. Ms. Camp, in your view,
has the FACE Act been effective in helping to mitigate some of
the violence, threats, and intimidation faced by abortion
providers and patients? Do you think that the FACE Act--do you
think that FACE Act enforcement to protect abortion providers
and patients could be stronger?
Ms. Camp. Thank you for the question, Congresswomen. Yes
and yes. FACE has been an important tool in addressing the
relentless violence including murders and death threats against
those who provide access to abortion care. Absolutely as I said
before this violence is just relentless. It's so run of the
mill. Plenty of things that violate FACE our members just
simply don't report because it's so run of the mill for them.
Ms. Escobar. It really has become run of the mill. I met
with a provider in Texas, one of the last few before Texas
passed its historic and awful ban in our State who talk to me
about how routine the threats and the intimidation had gotten.
I spoke with a mother who had to undergo an abortion because
the fetus was not going to survive, and it threatened her life
and would render her existing children motherless.
She had to face intimidation as she walked into the clinic
to receive care. I'm running out of time. I would just say that
we need more programs to combat the kind of harassment and
intimidation and violence that far too many clinicians and
patients are seeing across America. Thank you for your
testimony today. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back, and
the chair now recognizes a gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Bishop, for five minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Houck, I just want to
see if we can sum up. It sounds like the facts out of which
your prosecution by DOJ arose involved a squabble between
activists. That part is correct, right?
Mr. Houck. I would agree with that, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. OK. There was one shove that led to somebody
falling down, correct?
Mr. Houck. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. That was proceeded by provocation and profanity
focused on your child, correct?
Mr. Houck. At other times. Not particularly on that day of
the incident, but yes.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Didn't you say that activist was engaging
with your child right before you escorted them back and then
you had the shove?
Mr. Houck. Yes, I did say that.
Mr. Bishop. Then authorities decided to indict you under
the FACE Act, right?
Mr. Houck. Correct.
Mr. Bishop. Do I understand from the other testimony that
there's a civil provision of the FACE Act? Somebody could've
sued if they wanted to? Do you know that?
Mr. Houck. I don't know about that. I can't answer that.
Mr. Bishop. I believe that's what I heard. Nobody sued.
They decided to indict you. They didn't indict you for a
misdemeanor charge which is like one year. They indicted you
for a felony, right?
Mr. Houck. That's correct, two counts.
Mr. Bishop. Two counts, one felony, maybe one misdemeanor.
I think it was a total of 11 years imprisonment they sought?
Mr. Houck. That's correct, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. Out of the squabble. Then they ignored your
offer to surrender. Instead, they used a SWAT team to take you
down, right?
Mr. Houck. That's right.
Mr. Bishop. Then they proceed to a jury trial. The only
thing that stopped you from going to prison for 11 years is
that a jury of Americans acquitted you in the face of that,
correct?
Mr. Houck. Unanimously, yes, correct.
Mr. Bishop. So, that strikes me as--that's a data point.
Now, I understand my colleagues on the other side who say,
well, this sort of pass this away or say people who are shadow-
boxing here. That seems to me a data point that is confounding.
Ms. Camp, I want to go to you. Does that seem like a
disproportionate exercise of prosecutorial judgment to you?
Ms. Camp. So, thank you for the question, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. Real quick because I don't have much time.
Ms. Camp. I am not a prosecutor. I'm not--
Mr. Bishop. You don't know? Let me ask you this. You spoke
to an arson attack on an abortion facility or something in
Texas. Did you talk about that during your testimony in your
answers?
Ms. Camp. I think it wasn't in Texas. Yes, arson, yes.
Mr. Bishop. Did somebody get prosecuted for that because
they damn well should have been.
Ms. Camp. I agree, Congressman.
Mr. Bishop. Were they?
Ms. Camp. I believe not yet, but there's definitely a
shortage of resources to prosecute.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have any insight why they would
prosecute Mr. Houck for a squabble with an activist and send
the SWAT team and take him to a jury that acquits him if they
haven't gotten the person who committed an arson attack on a
clinic--on an abortion clinic? Any insight at all?
Ms. Camp. Congressman, I'm not with the DOJ. I don't have
that information.
Mr. Bishop. Does anybody on the panel have any insight
about why they would do that? I think that's the thing that's
concerning. Then you hear about--
Ms. Scanlon. Would the gentleman yield? I do have some
insight on that.
Mr. Bishop. If you have an answer, a quick answer, yield
for an answer to that real quick.
Ms. Scanlon. Sure. Mr. Houck was a well-known aggressive
participant in demonstrations outside facilities in
Philadelphia.
Mr. Bishop. Oh, so they picked him--so they picked him
because--
Ms. Scanlon. He did not just push the guy once, 72-year-old
man. He admitted he pushed him down twice.
Mr. Bishop. It's my time, and--
Ms. Scanlon. Oh, sorry. You asked for input on the panel.
Mr. Bishop. I was giving you the answer--you gave me the
answer. You gave me the answer a minute ago. Mr. Houck was an
activist.
He was opposed to the killing of children through abortion.
He said that, so they made him a target. Let me tell you what
that is.
That is called selective prosecution in violation of the
Constitution. You cannot make prosecutorial decisions because
you want to make an example out of somebody who's a well-known
anti-abortion or pro-life activist. You can't do that.
That's unconstitutional. If that is the answer to the
question that I posed to Ms. Camp, then it deepens the concern
about the Justice Department and the FBI. If that is the
answer, then it indicates that we have as the--Mr. Nadler
denigrates the Durham Report. Ms. Jackson Lee says, well,
``Durham, the special counsel, came to his conclusion just
because of who appointed him.''
No. We see institutional corruption. Despite for the First
Amendment rights of Americans which is expressed through
politicized prosecutorial activity is the most grievous crisis
that I've ever seen in this country. I cannot believe that I
have to be concerned about the FBI and the DOJ and then,
frankly, Members of Congress sitting up here and saying, I have
the explanation. We picked Mr. Houck because he's a zealous
advocate for life.
Ms. Scanlon. Would the gentleman yield? That's not what I
said.
Mr. Bishop. That's exactly what you said.
Ms. Scanlon. No, it is not.
Mr. Bishop. I think that's the answer that most Americans
has regrettably come to the conclusion that's what happened. My
time is expired.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. The gentleman yields
back, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Johnson, for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Chair Johnson. The bull
Durham Report was released yesterday. Trump has promised us
that to look forward to that bull Durham Report. When it came
out, it would prove that the Russia investigation was a witch
hunt.
Unfortunately, the bull Durham Report yesterday amounts to
a crock of BS. Two prosecutions, two acquittals. We know how
rare acquittals are in the Federal system. He's batting zero.
No conclusion that Trump was the victim of a witch hunt, a
four-year investigation that petered out as a waste of time and
taxpayers money. That is the legacy of the bull Durham Report.
Now, Ms. Turco, your testimony is that between January 2018-
September 2022 there had been over 420 acts of hostility
against pro-life pregnancy centers. Is that correct?
Ms. Del Turco. No, that was against churches.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Against churches? Not against pro-
life pregnancy centers? Is that right?
Ms. Del Turco. Yes, because my report was focused on
churches. I did, however--
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Are we here conflating hostility,
acts of hostility against churches to acts of violence against
these pregnancy centers that you all talk about? Is that what
we're conflating today?
Ms. Del Turco. No, these are both covered in the FACE Act.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. What relevance does acts of
hostility against churches have when it comes to the assertions
on this Committee that there have been acts of violence against
these so-called pro-life pregnancy centers?
Ms. Del Turco. Churches and houses of worship are also
covered in the FACE Act as well as abortion clinics.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK. We're here today talking about
pro-life pregnancy centers, not churches. You were not brought
here to talk about churches. Maybe you were brought here to
confuse the public.
The confusion, we're not going to go for that. We're not
going to have that. By the way, as far as the acts of hostility
against churches, did you note any acts of murder?
Ms. Del Turco. No, these were--
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Any acts of bombings?
Ms. Del Turco. Yes, yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Bombings?
Ms. Del Turco. Bomb threats.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Bomb threat.
Ms. Del Turco. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No actual bombings.
Ms. Del Turco. This year in the supplemental report that
covers--
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No actions of bombings, right?
Ms. Del Turco. --January through--there was a pipe bomb.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. No bombing, correct?
Ms. Del Turco. I guess no.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK. No acts of physical assault
against anybody. All these things that you're talking about,
these 420 acts occurred at churches. Of those, looks like of
the 420, it looks like only 62 of them were abortion-related.
Is that correct?
Ms. Del Turco. Fifty-seven from January 2018-September 2022
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Fifty-seven of the 420 was
abortion-related. So, ma'am, I abhor violence against anyone
and anything. My point is that perhaps your testimony would've
been good for another hearing, not this hearing.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Would the gentleman yield for
just a moment?
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, the title of our hearing just
for clarification revisiting the implications of the FACE Act
which specifically covers--
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I recognize that.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. --exercising the First Amendment
right of religious freedom and place of religious worship.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Reclaiming my time.
Reclaiming my time. The tone and thrust of this hearing
have been toward what is alleged to have been violence directed
at these so-called pregnancy--pro-life pregnancy centers. The
fact is there has not. The case has not been made that there
have been acts of violence against these centers.
On the other hand, there has been a need for the FACE Act
because in the last 50 years, anti-abortion extremists have
committed 11 murders, 42 bombings, over 500 incidents of
assault and battery. Post-Dobbs, the threats and the violence
are escalating.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman is out of time. I
believe you had a schedule conflict and walked in a little bit
late today. I just point out that Ms. Del Turco's report also
includes reports of at least 57 pro-abortion acts of hostility
against churches between January 2022-September 2022 and that
this extends to pregnancy centers as well. It's all related.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy,
five minutes.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Houck, after your family was raided in the early
morning in front of your family, has the Biden Administration
in any way, shape, or form apologized for what they did to you
or your family?
Mr. Houck. No, Congressman.
Mr. Roy. No apology?
Mr. Houck. No.
Mr. Roy. None? As we have heard today, you were
specifically targeted because you're an activist; you are a
pro-life activist?
Mr. Houck. Correct.
Mr. Roy. Question for Ms. Camp. Earlier, you mentioned in
your report--you were quoting articles in which the FBI made
statements about attacks on abortion clinics. How many
statements by the FBI have there been on attacks on crisis
pregnancy centers?
Ms. Camp. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I don't
have that information.
Mr. Roy. Right. Because I'm not aware of there being any.
What percentage of abortion-related violence cases or
threats cases, or cases of violence or threats against pro-life
organizations?
Ms. Camp. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
Mr. Roy. What percentage of abortion-related violence cases
or threats cases are cases of violence or threats against pro-
life organizations? The answer is 70 percent, according to FBI
Director Wray, that well-known pro-life activist--70 percent,
according to FBI Director Wray.
Another question. You serve as the Chief Legal and Strategy
Officer at the National Abortion Federation, correct?
Ms. Camp. Yes.
Mr. Roy. In this role, have you ever spoken with anyone in
the Biden Department of Justice or Biden Administration
specifically about FACE Act enforcement or abortion?
Ms. Camp. I have not.
Mr. Roy. OK. So, you, as the Chief Legal and Strategy
Officer for the National Abortion Federation, you have had no
contact with President Biden's Abortion Task Force?
Ms. Camp. Let me be accurate. I believe I may have had
contact. I don't think so, but I may have. On the issue of FACE
enforcement, no, I have not.
Mr. Roy. OK. In 2015, the Center for Medical Progress
released a video on which you stated, quote,
I'm like, oh, my God, I get it. When the skull is broken,
that's really sharp. I get it. I understand why people are
talking about getting that skull out, that calvarium.
``Calvarium'' being an incomplete skull.
When abortion has crushed the skulls of babies to kill
them, what physical risks are there for the baby?
Ms. Camp. So, Congressman, thank you for the question. It
allows me to clarify that the media products you're referring
to stoked a massive uptick in violence. Those heavily edited,
misleadingly edited media products caused three murders and
nine woundings in Colorado Springs in 20--
Mr. Roy. No, the question was about the baby and the skull
crushing that is a direct quote attributed to you.
Ms. Camp. Well, the folks who distributed those media
products may have attributed something to me. I can't speak to
what it--
Mr. Roy. So, true or false, did you say that? ``I'm like,
oh, my God, I get it. When the skull is broken, that's really
sharp.'' Did you say that?
Ms. Camp. It's impossible to know, Congressman.
Mr. Roy. Would you have said that? Is that something you
would have said?
Ms. Camp. I don't know, Congressman.
Mr. Roy. You don't know? You don't know if you talked about
the crushing of the skull of a baby? You don't remember having
said something like that?
Ms. Camp. What I do--
Mr. Roy. I'm pretty confident I've never said something
like that. I'm quite confident my colleagues here have never
said something like that. Have you ever said something about
crushing the skull of the baby, particularly, in that kind of a
setup?
Ms. Camp. I believe, Congressman, that we all came here
today to agree that violence is never an appropriate response
to policy differences.
Mr. Roy. That seems pretty violent, the crushing of the
skull of a baby. I think that, actually, is the definition of
``violence.'' I think the question here is whether or not we
are going to acknowledge and recognize that reality, and the
extent to which now the Federal government has been weaponized
against the people who want to acknowledge that reality. That's
the question.
Mr. Houck has stood up and said, ``I'd like to recognize
the reality of the violence against a baby.'' By the way, the
violence against the mother who has been sold a myth by radical
leftists in the name of baby-killing. They have been sold a
myth that it is somehow healthy and good for them or better for
them.
If someone dares stand up like Mr. Houck, then, he's been
targeted, as my colleague acknowledged from this very dais,
targeted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which we saw
was weaponized, specifically, against the President of the
United States, as we just saw in the Durham Report; is
weaponized against average citizens.
Mr. Houck, do you think $38.5 billion is sufficient funds
for the Department of Justice? Do you think maybe it's too many
funds, if they are carrying out actions against people like
you?
Mr. Houck. I would think it was too many funds.
Mr. Roy. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
The Chair now yields to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Cohen, for five minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A lot of discussion has been on the Durham Report this
morning. People have commented on it, the weaponization of the
Justice Department and the FBI--the same FBI that issued the
incorrect and inappropriate and extraordinary statement about
Hillary Clinton in the last 10 days of the 2016 election, that
the Trump and the Clinton people agreed was the cause of Donald
Trump winning what was otherwise an election that she would
have won.
So, if you want to talk about the FBI being weaponized,
what Christopher Wray did in releasing--what Comey did in the
last few days, the last 10 days or so, about Hillary Clinton
and the questions about her, caused an election to be switched.
I mean, there's no weaponization.
What we've got is a weaponization of the political system
to destroy a woman's choice, women's right to choose. I was in
law school when Roe was passed. Roe was the law for almost 50
years. It was established law.
We have three Justices that were put on the Supreme Court
because of The Federalist Society, and went to Donald Trump, a
man who had been pro-choice, and proclaimed his idea of being
pro-choice on some radio show, some shock jock guy in New York,
but was susceptible to influence. When The Federalist Society
came to him and said, ``We'll help you get the evangelical vote
if you will appoint folks that we recommend to you for the
Supreme Court,'' Trump did it--one of the most controversial
decisions people have differences of opinion in this country.
I'm pro-choice. I respect the people who are pro-choice,
and I respect people who are pro-life. Each group has a
position that they're wedded to because of their philosophy,
their morality, or whatever. Trump had none of that. It was all
about being President, and he gave up his position which he
earlier had to become President.
They gave him Gorsuch, and they gave him Kavanaugh, and
they gave him Barrett. All of them in their hearings said they
believed in precedent, established precedent, in the dealings
with Roe v. Wade. Then, they got on the Court and they all
changed their positions, decided to be activist judges and
eradicate Roe v. Wade.
They got on the Court through some very unusual and, I
would say, should be illegal, but was permissive, actions of
the Senate.
First, you had a vacancy in Barack Obama's last term, 11
months before he finished it. Senator McConnell said you
shouldn't appoint anybody in the last year of a term, ``So,
we're not going to even give a hearing to Merrick Garland,''
who was President Obama's nominee. I think that's the first
time, or one of the very few times at least, but I thought the
first time that a President had not been allowed to have a
hearing, at least on a nominee for the Supreme Court, 11 months
into his last year of his first term, or at any time. They did;
they stopped him because,``Oh, no, you can't put anybody on in
your last year. You let the voters decide at the election.''
When a vacancy came up within a month or two of the
election of Donald Trump, it was all OK to get Amy Coney
Barrett put through, I think about three weeks before the
election. So, hypocrisy? Maybe. Maybe just lying to the public
and saying nobody should be appointed in the last year. Because
they did it with Barrett, and that's how we got a couple of our
appointees, Mr. Gorsuch and Ms. Barrett.
Then, Mr. Kavanaugh, of course, the FBI did not follow
through on all the questions about his alleged assaults, and
they didn't do a complete investigation on his alleged assaults
and a particular lady that testified against him. So, they
weren't weaponized against the Republicans or weaponized
against anything. In fact, their lack of action resulted in Mr.
Kavanaugh being nominated and approved.
Those three judges--Mr. Kavanaugh, who had a weak to
nonexistent investigation of the sexual assault allegations;
Gorsuch, who got on because they said you shouldn't put anybody
on in the last year, and Barrett who got on, despite that
fact--resulted in the repealing of Roe v. Wade.
What we've had is a failure of the legislative process, a
failure of the Constitution, and while within the parameters of
legality, an abrupt act against the Constitution and what it
suggests for President nominees to the Supreme Court.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms.
Hageman, for five minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Camp, are you familiar with the FBI's use of DVE, or
domestic violent extremism, threat tags?
Ms. Camp. Thank you, Congresswoman. Can you say that again?
Ms. Hageman. Yes. Are you familiar with the FBI's use of
DVE, or domestic violent extremism, threat tags?
Ms. Camp. I am not.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Ms. Camp, can you point to even one
situation where the Department of Justice or FBI treated a pro-
abortion protestor, arsonist, vandalizer, rioter, or attacker
similar to how they treated Mr. Houck?
Ms. Camp. Thank you, Congressman.
I want to say that I oppose violence in all--
Ms. Hageman. I didn't ask that question. Can you point to
even one circumstance where a pro-abortion attacker, protestor,
arsonist, vandalizer, or rioter were treated by the DOJ or FBI
similar to how they treated Mr. Houck?
Ms. Camp. Well, I want to be responsive, but I want to
reiterate that the National Abortion--
Ms. Hageman. Do you know of even one person?
Ms. Camp. Ma'am, the National Abortion Federation is a
professional organization of abortion providers. We track
violence against those who provide and access abortion care. We
don't track other kinds of violence.
Ms. Hageman. So, you can't point to even one incidence
where a pro-abortion protestor, arsonist, vandalizer, or rioter
was treated similar to how the DOJ and the FBI treated Mr.
Houck, can you? Is that your testimony?
Ms. Camp. Well, what I can tell you is that, when the DOJ
put out a reward for information on 10 different incidents,
nine of them were at anti-abortion--
Ms. Hageman. Did they raid? Did they raid anyone's home and
arrest someone in front of their seven children with guns
drawn?
Ms. Camp. Well, no, they're just looking for information.
Ms. Hageman. OK. That's what I thought.
Mr. Dys, I want to thank you for being here today, and your
testimony is important, as someone who has firsthand experience
working with the victims of these heinous crimes that have been
described.
Mr. Dys, are you familiar with the Committee's
investigative work and findings about the DOJ and the FBI's
weaponizing domestic extremism threat tags and statutes against
Americans' constitutionally protected rights?
Mr. Dys. Not beyond what you revealed this morning.
Ms. Hageman. OK. You have represented clients whose
clinics, employees, or patients have been subjected to
vandalism and violence from pro-abortion groups, haven't you?
Mr. Dys. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hageman. How do you respond to the reality of a DOJ
which is labeling parents using constitutionally protected
speech as domestic violence extremists or padding crime stats
to falsify the record about a rise in domestic extremism, but
does little to nothing about politically motivated attacks on
your clients, which could actually qualify as domestic
extremism?
Mr. Dys. It's certainly disconcerting, and I think that
exemplifies precisely why the FACE Act is important. Because
when we have a situation where speech reaches a tipping point
into violence, that's where we find ourselves at with these
situations, where we characterize speech as violence, instead
of violence as violence.
Violence has no place in our political dialog, and
certainly, we should not express our political disagreements
with a brick or a crowbar through a window. That's what our
clients have had to endure, along with many other instances
like that. Yet, there's only been the single indictment with
four people indicted under that, in response to the 100-plus
attacks in the past year.
Ms. Hageman. Well, then, I was just going to get to that.
As you mentioned in your testimony, the Department of Justice
has returned just one indictment in response to the over 100
acts of intimidation, injury, and interference toward those
seeking service from pro-life organizations in the past year.
Yet, even before the Dobbs decision, the DOJ announced the
standing up of an abortion rights task force. So, not only is
the DOJ, on the one hand, infringing on protected rights
connected to peaceful actions, it is not enforcing the law when
violations are targeted at the same political groups that the
DOJ itself has been targeting. It is, instead, prioritizing the
protection of law based on its preferred political narrative,
which in this case is the pro-abortion movement.
Are you aware of any task forces, memos, or priorities
being set by the DOJ which would also focus attention to
protecting pro-life and religious facilities under the FACT Act
or any of its other authorities?
Mr. Dys. I am not. My clients would welcome that.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms.
Scanlon, for five minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
As I stated at the outset, violence and threats have no
place in American political discourse, no matter what the cause
or who the target. When leaders advocate for such violence or
selectively condemn for political gain, they normalize such
violence and undermine our democracy.
Congress has an important role to play in protecting and
defending our democracy from the corrosive impact of political
violence. Those who have studied this issue recommend that we
can make sure that anyone who promotes, condones, or turns a
blind eye to political violence is held accountable, whether
the former President of the United States, to Members of
Congress, to those who actually commit such threats or acts of
violence, no matter what their political objective.
More importantly, Members of Congress can make sure that
they take steps to prevent the normalization of political
violence by refraining from using violent images and rhetoric
and condemning it, no matter the source. By convening a hearing
that inflames grievances and amplifies misinformation
concerning the prevalence of violence against anti-abortion
forces, this hearing does not advance our Congressional duty to
protect and preserve our democracy from the corrosive forces of
political disinformation and violence.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to
push a false narrative that the Federal government is out to
get them, but the facts are not on their side. In fact, they
don't have the evidence or the public support for their
policies or narrative. The clear majority of Americans believe
we must protect access to abortion care and the freedom to make
reproductive healthcare decisions in consultation with one's
doctor, not politicians.
Ms. Camp, obviously, political vandalism and threats aren't
acceptable, no matter to whom they are directed. At today's
hearing, the majority has cited anecdotal evidence concerning
vandalism at anti-abortion facilities, while refusing to
acknowledge the far more pervasive and longstanding threats and
violence directed at providers and facilities that offer
reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.
You've produced a report detailing the level of violence
against facilities that provide such care over a period of
years. Can you explain how instances of violence, threats, and
intimidation that you've documented impact abortion access,
even in States like Pennsylvania, where abortion access remains
legally protected?
Ms. Camp. Sure. Well, as we discussed previously, it is in
States that have protected access to abortion care that we've
seen a really pronounced uptick in violence in the last year--
sort of over 500 percent increase in obstructions; 130 percent
increase in bomb threats; a 900 percent increase in stalkings.
So, the terror that people suffer under in providing this
fundamental healthcare holds true across the country.
I'd also say that the stalking of patients and taking
pictures of them and their license plates using sort of
location data to try to determine their activities, is really
terrifying for patients. We see that illustrated just this past
weekend in the tragic murder of Gabriella Gonzalez by her
boyfriend after she had to travel out of Texas for abortion
care.
Folks legitimately fear that, if they can't keep their
abortion decision confidential, they'll be killed, leaving
their existing children orphaned. So, the need for people now
to travel hundreds of miles, or even more, to access abortion
care makes it that much harder to maintain their
confidentiality. So, folks are really scared.
Ms. Scanlon. Can you speak to the danger of using
misleading or inflammatory language where political violence is
already a threat to healthcare providers providing abortion
care?
Ms. Camp. Sure. Thank you, Congressman--Congresswoman.
Yes, we know that inflammatory rhetoric creates upticks in
violence, threats of violence, all of these major incidents.
The selective sort of outrage just normalizes violence against
folks providing, and therefore, accessing abortion care.
Inflammatory rhetoric I think is really antithetical to the
goal, I would think, of all of us here at this hearing today,
which is to rachet down violence.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
We heard testimony about mounting public criticism of
pregnancy crisis centers. Therefore, I'd seek unanimous consent
to introduce a report by the Alliance entitled, ``Designed to
Deceive: A Study of the Crisis Pregnancy Center Industry in
Nine States.''
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Fry, for five minutes.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having this
hearing today.
Radical Democrats have attempted all day to downplay
coverup and ignore the reality that crisis pregnancy centers
and churches are under attack. I guess their approach is not
surprising. In my brief time in Congress every single hearing
that we have heard we hear the same narrative that Republicans
hearing today about blank is a fantasy, that it is a conspiracy
theory. Well, 100 instances in the last couple years are not a
fantasy. It is not a conspiracy theory.
They have told us that the border is secure, of course.
They have failed to acknowledge and indeed sneer at the
weaponization of our Federal government against its own
citizens despite most recently the Durham Report that was
dropped yesterday. They failed to condemn labeling parents as
domestic terrorists for just speaking out at their school board
meeting.
The Democrats' own witness today, Ms. Camp, said that every
administration has enforced the FACE Act, Republican and
Democrat alike. The only caveat that I will say to that, the
only asterisk that I would provide is except this one. With
over 100 attacks, threats, arsons, spray painting it is very
clear that this administration has no intention of enforcing
the laws unless it has a political benefit to them.
The Chair talked about this earlier. Look at the dichotomy
that we have here. On one hand we have Mr. Houck, right? We
have Eva Edl from Aiken, South Carolina, an 87-year-old lady
who survived a communist concentration camp in Yugoslavia. She
comes to America and her egregious crime is singing hymns in a
hallway. Over two years later, about two years later she is
charged with a Federal crime with the full weight of the
Federal government.
We fast forward here to these instances that we outlined
that are now in the record. Mother's Day last year. Suspects
reportedly threw two Molotov cocktails into an Oregon Right to
Life office. On June 27, 2022, two Molotov cocktails thrown
into Two Hearts Pregnancy Center in Everett, Washington. On
June 30, 2022, a Molotov cocktail was thrown into the Hope
Clinic for Women in Nashville. Federal law enforcement did
investigate the crime as attempted arson and vandalism, but not
the FACE Act.
Molotov cocktails are thrown repeatedly. Arsons happen
repeatedly. The defacing of property, the vandalism of
property, the threats against people and property happen
repeatedly.
Mr. Dys, can you describe what the FACE Act is supposed to
protect?
Mr. Dys. Well, the FACE Act clearly defines what it's
supposed to protect by saying that any Service relating to the
human reproductive system is protected by the FACE Act.
Mr. Fry. Right. So, the intention of Congress at the time
was that not only that they would do this for abortion
providers, but also crisis pregnancy centers, churches, things
like that on both sides of this equation, right? This is kind
of what the intent of the law was supposed to be?
Mr. Dys. Yes, the FACE Act knows no ideology. It simply
seeks to protect reproductive health centers/facilities as well
as, it should be pointed out, houses of worship.
Mr. Fry. Right. We are not seeing that right now? We are
not seeing that right now with the prosecution of these 100
instances of violence against crisis pregnancy centers and
churches?
Mr. Dys. Yes, in the past year we have seen over 100 of
those instances and yet only a single indictment in the Middle
District of Florida.
Mr. Fry. Ms. Camp, you stated in your written and oral
testimony that, quote, ``no one should fear violence at the
workplace or when seeking healthcare.'' Given these attacks on
crisis pregnancy centers and churches would you agree that they
should be entitled to the full protection of the law?
Ms. Camp. Thank you for the question, Congressman. So, I
want to make clear I condemn all acts of violence and--
Mr. Fry. Well, that is great. I appreciate that, but are
they entitled to the full protection of the law?
Ms. Camp. Any entity facing actual real serious threats of
harm should have protection.
Mr. Fry. Right. So, Molotov cocktails, right, those would
be entitled to protection under the law?
Ms. Camp. Well, throwing a Molotov cocktail at a
reproductive health facility would be a FACE violation, yes,
but I'm not in a position as a representative of a professional
organization of abortion providers to speak to what's happening
at other kinds of entities. I just don't have that knowledge.
Mr. Fry. Well, you don't have knowledge, but you would
agree with me that they are entitled to protection and they are
entitled to the zealous protection under the law by the DOJ, by
the FBI in routing out and identifying the people who commit
these acts of violence. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Camp. Well, yes, DOJ should protect all of us from
violence whether we're abortion providers or patients or
others.
Mr. Fry. So, in that case do you find it troubling--like in
the case of Ms. Kocher here do you find it troubling that she
has not received a fair adjudication of that violence against
her facility?
Ms. Camp. Congressman, as I think I've said before, I am
just not with the DOJ. I believe there are complex--
Mr. Fry. I am not asking that. What I am asking though is
do you think--I mean in her case, in her testimony today there
has been extremism lobbed at her and extremism lobbed at her
employees, and the property in which she has. Do you think that
this is troubling that years later that she has not received
really any help from the DOJ?
Ms. Camp. So, Congressman, I can give you two answers: One
is I condemn acts of violence regardless of who may target. The
other is I can tell you that acts of violence, intimidation,
stalking, threats, murders at providers of abortion--targeting
providers of abortion care are terribly under addressed. So, I
am not in a position--I mean that I can tell you, but I cannot
speak to the various decisions DOJ makes. I would think DOJ
could.
Mr. Fry. Before I yield back, just briefly, I just find it
really troubling that you talk about these acts of violence
against your facilities, but when--she is sitting right next to
you. She just testified to this. This isn't an obscure theory
in law that we are talking about or a fact pattern. This
happened. So, I am a little bit surprised that you would not
encourage the Biden Department of Justice and FBI to prosecute
these cases.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman is out of time.
Ms. Camp, did you want to respond to that?
Ms. Camp. No, thank you, sir.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt, for five minutes.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing here today. I
really appreciate it.
For the record I am pro-life, and I thank God that my mom
was also pro-life because if not for her I wouldn't be sitting
before you as a Congressman today. Since this past Sunday was
Mother's Day, I want to thank my mother for choosing life. Good
looking out, mom.
If you are a member of the Pro-Life Movement, you will be
targeted. If you are a pro-choice protestor, you will be
protected. This is how the Biden Administration puts their
thumbs on the scales of justice.
What we are really talking about here today is a selective
application in enforcement of Federal law. I have brought some
receipts.
Under this administration conservatives are being targeted.
My first example is the ATF. The ATF has targeted lawful gun
owners by crafting a rule that would make 40 million Americans
felons overnight.
Of course, there is the FBI. The FBI conducted an
unprecedented raid at President Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago.
They used FISA research warrants against conservatives. They
have attempted to put moles in churches to spy on radical
Christians. Of course, we have the recent results of this
Durham Report.
Of course, we cannot forget about the CIA. Just this last
week this Committee published this report that former
intelligence officials colluded with the Biden campaign to
discredit the Hunter Biden laptop. This happened just days
before the 2020 election, and I say to that, well, hot damn,
that sounds like election interference to me. They call this
Russian disinformation. That doesn't look like disinformation
to me. This looks like Hunter Biden committing a felony.
Now, we have heard a lot of talk on this Committee about
crime guns, and I would call this a Biden crime gun. The day
after this report was released there was no mention of this in
mainstream publications. What did they talk about? George
Santos. George Santos. Conveniently George Santos was indicted
the day this report was released. Coincidence? Well, you
decide. Unfortunately for Democrats there is only one George
Santos to keep the Biden family off the front page of The
Washington Post. So, buckle up.
This is Hunter Biden's gun application. I would like to
direct your attention to question 11 echo. It says,
Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any
depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?
Now, in the words of the late, great Notorious B.I.G. when
referring to the only way to get out of the hood, he famously
said, ``Either you're slingin' crack rock or you got a wicked
jump shot.''
Now, Hunter Biden does not have a wicked jump shot, but he
definitely slings crack rock. Out of respect for the President
I am not going to show any photos of Hunter with prostitutes
and grams of crack, but we all know he has a checkered past.
Hunter Biden lied on this application about his history of
illegal drug use. He obtained a gun anyway and was never
prosecuted.
If we saw this behavior from Donald Trump, Jr., he would
have been in handcuffs a long time ago. The bottom line is
this: The ATF is focused on making 40 million law-abiding
citizens felons when they should be worried about Hunter Biden
lying on a gun application, which is a felony, by the way.
There is no wonder why the American people have lost faith
and trust in the Federal government. If you want to restore
trust, stop spying on Americans. Stop targeting conservatives
and pro-life people and apply the law equally.
To the FBI, the CIA, the ATF, please put Hunter Biden in
jail. I yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Scanlon and I, the Ranking Member and I are going to do
one more quick round of questions just to put a bow on this. I
will recognize myself for five minutes.
I just had a question for Ms. Camp, or a couple of
questions: You are the Chief Legal and Strategy Officer for the
National Abortion Federation. Before that you spent 20 years at
the ACLU and I think you were in charge of their Reproductive
Freedom Project, right?
Ms. Camp. No, I was not the director. I was the deputy
director.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Deputy director. OK. Just for the
record, because we have talked a lot about violence here today
and violence--I think in your words you said you tracked
violence against people providing abortion services, but I have
not heard you acknowledge at all the brutal violence committed
against children in the womb, as Mr. Roy was asking, when their
skulls are crushed and when their limbs are ripped apart to
kill and abort them.
I want to know for the record, are there any restrictions
at all on abortion that you would support?
Ms. Camp. So, thank you for the question, Congressman. The
question you ask is one of profound moral dimension, one that
only the person who's pregnant can answer in consultation with
their own soul, their pastor, their God, their doctor, their
spouse, and their nurse. That's where the moral authority
rests, to answer the question you've asked.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. So, you have no position on--for
example, would you support restrictions on sex-selection
abortions, when someone chooses to abort a child just because
of its sex?
Ms. Camp. So, Congressman, I can only reiterate, the person
with the moral authority to make a decision about a pregnancy
is the pregnant person.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I understood that, but on this
specific issue would you or your organization support a legal
restriction on sex-selection abortion?
Ms. Camp. My organization supports abortion providers in
providing patient-centered, evidence-based care, the care that
the pregnant person decides is necessary.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. Then if that person decides
to have an abortion after 20 weeks' gestation, do you support
that?
Ms. Camp. So, Congressman--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. It is a yes or no question. I
understand the morality and the complexity, but do you support
an abortion after 20 weeks' gestation, yes or no?
Ms. Camp. Respectfully, Congressman, it's not a yes or no
question. What I support is providers being able to offer the
care that patients know they need.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You support that in case of an
unborn child that is after 20 weeks' gestation, correct?
Ms. Camp. I support it in situations where the patient has
decided in--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. All right. Do you oppose parental
consent laws before a teenager can obtain an abortion?
Ms. Camp. So, I have to say, Congressman, these questions
sound really far afield from the reason--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No, ma'am, wait a minute. Hold
on. You are the Chief Legal and Strategy Officer for the
National Abortion Federation. You are the perfect person to
answer these questions. It is not afield. Everything is on the
table, ma'am, for a hearing. You came here purporting to be an
expert in the field and I am asking you a very simple question,
and an important one.
Ms. Camp. Sure. I just want to point out that I think we're
here, all of us together to oppose violence at reproductive
healthcare facilities.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We are talking about violence to
the unborn child now, directly related to the issue at hand. I
want to know do you oppose parental consent laws before a
teenager can obtain an abortion?
Ms. Camp. So, the issue of minors' access is complicated. I
do not think that--well, we all know that the vast majority of
minors do involve at least one parent in their decision.
Lawmakers coercing certain family dynamics is not helpful, is
not--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is a parental consent law an
example of a lawmaker coercing a decision?
Ms. Camp. Sure. Well, we know from multiple cases that when
minors don't involve a parent it's with very good reason.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. Earlier Mr. Roy was asking
you about the crushing of the skull of an unborn child. You
acknowledged that this is part of an abortion procedure if it
is a later term pregnancy, correct?
Ms. Camp. I don't think I did do that. I'm not a clinician.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Ma'am, you are in charge of the
National Abortion Federation. You know that they crush the
skulls of unborn children. Come on. You are under oath. You are
under oath. Is that true or not?
Ms. Camp. I completely understand I'm under oath,
Congressman, and I am trying to be accurate--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Is that the part of the abortion
procedure for a late-term abortion, yes or no, crushing the
skull?
Ms. Camp. Well, I--
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. No, ma'am. It is a yes or no
question. Is that part of it, yes or no? Under oath. You are
under oath. Is that a part of the procedure?
Ms. Camp. I understand I'm under oath and what I can tell
you is that my background is in law and strategy, not medicine.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. How convenient. Ma'am, if it were
true that they crush the skull of an unborn child to take the
baby out and complete the abortion, would that be an act of
violence to you?
Ms. Camp. Congressman, the violence I see is the violence
of forced abortion and forced birth.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. OK. All right. I think your
nonresponses here speak volumes for the record. I yield back.
I recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania for five
minutes.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you and thank all your witnesses for
coming today. I appreciate your insights on what we need to do
across the country to combat violence, whether it is pro-
abortion or anti-abortion, or just pro-healthcare.
There is certainly work to be done and Congress should do
that work.
Ms. Camp, the National Abortion Federation's report on
``2022 Violence and Disruption'' notes that post-Dobbs anti-
abortion activists shifted their focus to States like
Pennsylvania where abortion remains legal and protected and
that as a result protective States saw a disproportionate
increase in violence and disruption against abortion providers
and patients. Can you elaborate on those findings?
Ms. Camp. Sure. So, thank you for the question,
Congresswoman. What we know is that the Dobbs decision and the
proliferation of abortion bans throughout the State mandate
pregnancy and childbirth against the will of pregnant folks.
Those events emboldened anti-abortion extremists so that we saw
a concentration of those extremist tactics at clinics
continuing to offer abortion care in States that protect access
to abortion care so that--whereas for stalking we saw an
overall increase in stalking from--2022 of 230 percent. In
States that protect access to abortion care the increase was
900 percent--a 900 percent increase in stalking of providers
and patients. In States protecting access to this fundamental
healthcare, a 130 percent increase in bomb threats. In those
States that are protecting access to this fundamental care a
540 percent increase in obstructions, the core FACE violations.
Ms. Scanlon. Am I correct that in the areas where you saw
reduction in threats and obstructions and other harassment of
patients and facilities that can be attributed, in part, to the
fact that in many States with these post-Dobbs ruling--many of
the clinics which regularly report issues to you have, in fact,
closed and are no longer reporting?
Ms. Camp. That's absolutely right, Congresswoman. So many
of our member clinics have had to close because of bans on
abortion care, bans that force people to remain pregnant and
give birth against their will. Many of our member clinics have
closed. Of those that closed many had reported numerous,
voluminous instances of extremist violence, but they weren't
open to report it to us at the time we collected the 2020-2022
statistics.
Ms. Scanlon. OK. We have seen some anecdotal reports
referenced here. There doesn't appear to have been an actual
study by a credible source concerning the incidence of violence
and threats regarding anti-abortion facilities. Would you agree
though that the bulk of violence, threats, and intimidation
related to the provision or obtaining of reproductive health
services including post-Dobbs have been directed against
abortion providers and patients?
Ms. Camp. Unequivocally. Unquestionably, Congresswoman. The
vast majority of bombings, arsons, stalkings, threats,
harassment, and death threats have been against providers of
abortion care and folks seeking to access that care as
patients.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have no further questions. I
yield back.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. This concludes today's hearing.
We thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee
today.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m, the Committee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can be
found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=115924.
[all]