Founder of Catholic apostolate charged with assaulting abortion clinic escort

Joe Bukuras   By Joe Bukuras for CNA

 

Planned Parenthood gets millions of dollars in federal support each year. / Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Sep 23, 2022 / 17:56 pm (CNA).

A Catholic speaker and author who regularly prays the rosary outside an abortion clinic in Philadelphia was charged Friday with physically assaulting a Planned Parenthood clinic escort last year.

Mark Houck, 48, of Kintnersville, Pennsylvania, is the co-founder and president of the Catholic ministry The King’s Men, which aims to give spiritual formation to Catholic men.

News of Houck’s arrest on Friday morning was widely shared on social media after another well-known Catholic speaker, Chris Stefanick, posted about it online. Houck’s wife, Ryan-Marie Houck, told CNA about the arrest Friday.

“A SWAT team of about 25 came to my house with about 15 vehicles and started pounding on our door,” Ryan-Marie Houck said. “They said they were going to break in if he didn’t open it. And then they had about five guns pointed at my husband, myself, and basically at my kids,” she added.

She said that multiple agencies were present at the arrest and that she was handed a warrant after she requested to see it.

The FBI confirmed to CNA Friday that Houck was arrested outside his residence Friday morning “without incident.” In a press release, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said that Houck is being charged with a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, more commonly referred to as the FACE Act.

The federal indictment says that Houck twice assaulted a 72-year-old man who was a patient escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic at 1144 Locust St. in Philadelphia on Oct. 13, 2021. First, Houck shoved the escort, identified only with the initials B.L., to the ground as B.L was attempting to escort two patients, the indictment says. Houck also “verbally confronted” and “forcefully shoved” B.L. to the ground in front of Planned Parenthood the same day, the indictment says. The indictment says that B.L. was injured and needed medical attention.

If he is convicted, Houck could face up to 11 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $350,000, according to the U.S. attorney’s office.

The FACE Act “prohibits violent, threatening, damaging and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with the right to seek, obtain or provide reproductive health services,” according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Violating the FACE Act is a federal crime and protects “all patients, providers, and facilities that provide reproductive health services, including pro-life pregnancy counseling services and any other pregnancy support facility providing reproductive health care,” according to the DOJ.

Ryan-Marie Houck told CNA that her husband prays the rosary outside one of two different Planned Parenthood’s every Wednesday and hands out literature to anyone who wants it. She said that praying outside the clinic is part of The King’s Men ministry.

“This was a gross over-reach from the ‘justice’ department with excessive use of force and trumped up allegations and our story needs to be told truthfully,” Ryan-Marie Houck said in a text. “These are false allegations.”

She said that he had his first appearance before a judge and was subsequently released on Friday. Her husband declined to comment, she said.

In a statement Jacqueline Romero, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said that there is no tolerance for violating the FACE Act.

“Assault is always a serious offense, and under the FACE Act, if the victim is targeted because of their association with a reproductive healthcare clinic, it is a federal crime,” she said in the press release.

“Our Office and the Department of Justice are committed to prosecuting crimes which threaten the safety and rights of all individuals,” she added.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Catholic News Agency 10009 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

18 Comments

  1. How would this be different from prolife folks being accosted?
    Years ago I was praying with members of our church outide a clinic that performed feticides and a man repeatedly threatened us with a large pair of scissors. He would come right up close to us and make stabbing motions. The police said because he didn’t actually stab us there was nothing they could do.

    • From what you have set forth, the man is guilty of an assault that is against the law, so the police either directly lied to you (likely) or were ignorant of the law (unlikely). In basic legalese, one definition of assault is a seriously threatening action to do unjust physical harm to another, such as in your circumstances. Battery is the actual physical act of unjustly harming another. In common everyday language, the word ‘assault’ is used for physical attacks on people, and so the legal distinction between assault and battery is unknown to many, but not to the police. Perhaps the police deemed that their presence was enough to prevent further incident, but if so, this does not excuse them from wrongly advising you that they could not intervene when anyone is confronted by a legally defined assault against them.

      • Supplement to my response to mrscracker: in some states, battery is simply included in various kinds of assaults such as ‘simple assault’ and ‘aggravated assault’ without a separate offense known as battery.

        Nevertheless, the threat to do bodily harm is indeed an actionable assault in all states if it can be inferred from the manner of the threat that a person or persons so threatened reasonably fear for their bodily safety.

        • Thank you for sharing that Doc. It happened over 3 decades agi and I remember going to court later as a witness but nothing came of it. I believe civil charges had been filed against the man with the scissors.
          It was really disturbing because I had a baby in a stroller when we’d been threatened that way.

    • Such an upside down world we live in. As I see it the praying man was confronting three people, two mothers ready to murder their children as well as the escort who was their accompanying accomplice. The praying man attempts to stop the murder only to be arrested and threatened to jail, parole and fine. To be objective, the article did not mention if there were other witnesses to prove either way. Since he was released by the judge and declines to comment it is further unclear. Sounds like the judge may have not had enough evidence to prove him guilty since he released him which makes me think that the abortion folks may have lied.

  2. As I understand it, the PP escort repeatedly verbally accosted Houck’s minor son. Also, Houck was never charged by police and the escort never showed at the civil trial. Looks like a non-issue until someone decided to go federal with it. And what a criminal show of force from the FEDS.

    • You have a lot of incorrect information. Take this as somebody very familiar with the case. Unprovoked attack, nothing to do with his son. Don’t want to say more at the time, except you have bad information.

    • You have false information. No communication at all about son. Volunteer was just trying to escort women in the building. Also wrong about the trial information. Get better sources. Lots more I could say since I know all the details of the case, but the now 73 year old man doesn’t need to be assaulted again, so please stop spreading false information and victim shaming.

      • Okay, Bob. Why can’t you say more? Looks like a cop-out. You wouldn’t actually be the “escort” (BL), would you?

        In any case, since Mr. Houck has been doing his peaceful protests for years without incident, why should we believe your story that he was not provoked, and that it did not involve his son? According to you, Houck simply lost his cool for the first time and decided to attack a 73-year-old man. Also, what does the age of the “escort” have to do with anything, and how do you know how hold he (or perhaps you) are? Did Mr. Houck know the “escort’s” age, and that’s another reason why you claim he shoved him? Or are you trying to drum up bogus sympathy for such an “escort” because of his age?

        Sorry, Bob. If you can’t elaborate on your remarks with supporting evidence or you simply choose not to do so, your assurances of knowing more about the case is just hearsay on your part that nobody should accept based only on your unconvincing “I know more than you, but I won’t say what” about the case.

        By the way, was the case thrown out or dismissed in a civil court? If so, why did this occur if your claims are correct?

      • If you really had information about what happened instead of only denying what has been reported you could inform us. You are essentially claiming it was an unprovoked attack. But what is your source for that?

      • Even if I took your word for it that “Lots more I could say since I know all the details of the case,” and I don’t, it wouldn’t matter. It could not justify an early-morning armed raid by a couple dozen agents, screaming and pounding at the door.

  3. How is it that a man who was in a small shoving match could get ten years in prison when those who are murdering people and doing drug deals that kill people on the streets of N.Y, Chicago and in California are all being let back out on to the streets? This is insanity. You only get out if you are a danger to society and are left in prison if you try to defend the unborn. It won’t be long before the Warning comes.

    • It’s not a shoving match when one person shoves another to the ground while the other doesn’t lay a finger on them. It’s an assault, and given where the assault happened and under the circumstances, it is a more serious offense. Mark should have kept his hands to himself.

      • Again, Bob, your writing suggests that you may indeed be the ghoulish “escort” identified as BL. You write not as a witness, but one directly involved. For instance, the following are a bit peculiar in your comments spread over a couple of posts:

        Bob: “the now 73 year old man doesn’t need….”

        Who would emphasize a person’s age change if not the person himself? If you were merely a witness, you would only refer to his age at the time of the incident, which was apparently 72.

        A witness probably wouldn’t mention the possible future impact of a rhetorical assault on another person, but a person whining about such being possibly visited upon himself would write in this manner…just as you have done.

        And a witness probably wouldn’t write that “Mark should have kept his hands to himself,” but a person shoved by Mr. Houck would write in this manner.

        Also, what’s with the first name basis?

        Since you work/volunteer for your fellow ghouls of Planned Parenthood, I suspect that Mr. Houck has been known and detested by you et al., and so this whole thing smacks of a set-up on your part with the help of the compliant DOJ to try to stop Mr. Houck from saving lives that you enjoy helping others murder.

        Lastly, the cry of “victim shaming” also suggests you are upset with being called out as a ghoul who helps women murder their babies. Anyone who helps a woman murder her unborn child brings shame upon themselves regardless of whether or not they are called out for their shameful behavior.

    • That’s correct. Regardless of the specifics, if you take a 20,000 foot view of the situation you see the clear discrepancy in the way justice is carried out. Even if the defendant is guilty of assault and wasn’t defending his son, he could’ve been picked up without incident by his local Sheriff’s Dept. Instead, he and his family were SWATted. I mean, you’d swear it was Summer 2020 and the Houcks were in the act of assaulting folks, looting, and burning down buildings or something (hypothetically of course) the way the police made contact with them. Regardless of assault vs self defense) then the way he was apprehended wasn’t about him and the level of risk he posed. No, it was a show of force for the rest of us.

  4. … and we should accept your “account of events” at face value? I guess this is another of those anonymous sources named “Bob”. Keep in mind that if you are an eye witness, you will get your day to tell the truth in court. If not, then you are just guessing about the facts third hand like the rest of us.

    There are some facts that are undisputable, however. For instance, Abortionist Powell typically kills 20 people a day at that clinic and no one gets arrested. On the other hand, those protesting those murders get arrested. That my friend, is the definition of insanity.

  5. More Garland gestapo nonsense. First off, the FACE act is strictly designed to chill protest rights at kill mills. Second, the response from “multiple agencies” is grossly unneeded and was clearly designed to embarrass and intimidate others. Sure, charge the guy with assault. This is nuts.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Founder of Catholic apostolate charged with assaulting abortion clinic escort | Passionists Missionaries Kenya, Vice Province of St. Charles Lwanga, Fathers & Brothers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*