NTD100%
Biden Administration Disproportionately Used FACE Act Against Pro-Life Community 97%
4/15/2026, 4:13:49 AM
BS Summary: This video contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.2% saturation with 284 hits. Analysis detected 3,337 faulty-reasoning hits from 882 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 96% and a BS Rank of 97% (509 of 16,813 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 97.00% of the video peer group.
And to discuss the report and what comes next, I spoke with Jeff Clark, former senior DOJ and White House official, now vice president of litigation at the Oversight Project.
Jeff Clark, thanks so much for joining.
I'm glad to be here, Steve.
Always good to see you.
Great to have you with us, Jeff.
So, a new report coming out of the Department of Justice laying out evidence that the Biden administration weaponized something called the FACE Acts in favor of abortion groups.
Talk to us about this.
Sure. So, the FACE Act, it's an acronym, stands for the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
And I remember actually it came out in the '90s when I was in law school and the law professors, especially the ones on the left, were really enamored of it because they saw it as a way to help shut down opposition to you know lots of legalized abortion and activism by the pro-life community.
And you know, it has been used before.
I think the whole statute is ill-conceived and a serious problem under the First Amendment because if you're someone who goes to an abortion clinic to pray because you're a Christian or otherwise you have moral beliefs that you know tell you that you should be opposed to abortion, it doesn't seem to me that that's the kind of thing that the federal government should be involved in trying to send you to jail for and I think indeed if they do,
that's a serious problem. But Congress in its wisdom passed this FACE Act.
It also you know criminalizes attempts to interfere with people going into churches at worship services and the like and that was done as part of a political compromise to get it through.
And what this new very long report, you know, going through hundreds of pages of evidence shows is that the Biden administration disproportionately used this statute against the pro-life community and they did not use it to protect churches. They did not use it to protect those who were at crisis pregnancy centers who wanted to give abortion counseling to show what the fetus looks like, what the what the you know the baby would develop into.
And so it clearly was an effort by Democrats to just send people to jail for their political and religious beliefs and all this is laid out in the report, Steve.
It's really shocking the lengths to which they went to to do this.
which they went to to do this. And Jeff, one argument that I'm hearing on the other side is that all of this has been litigated, jury of of their peers and conclusion reached by the rule of law.
Talk to us about that and this wasn't an isolated case or just a few people.
This was across the board at DOJ.
What might it take to root out this type of an issue?
Sure. Well, one of the things the report reveals, Steve, is that they were working closely in the Biden administration with groups like Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion activist groups.
It's almost like a public-private partnership between them to go after people who had the opposite view, especially for religious reasons, which I think that's you know raises serious problems under
the freedom of religion clauses in the Constitution, freedom of expression. As I said, I think the whole statute's a First Amendment problem.
But the the way to root this out is to establish policies that these kinds of interconnections with the groups on the outside you know shouldn't be happening.
And in terms of you saying that this is you know the argument on the other side is well this has been litigated, people might have been convicted under it.
I mean the Justice Department can pick forums. They can pick forums where they know that most people are pro-abortion and only bring the cases there. They did bring one very prominent case against Mr. Houck in Philadelphia where there was an abortion clinic person who threatened his son essentially. He stepped in to protect his son and they prosecuted him under the statute. He could have lost everything.
The jury luckily acquitted him.
So, you know, there are people who realize there are serious problems with this statute and I think there was a lot of egg on the face of the Biden DOJ when they lost that Houck case in the Philadelphia area.
We're seeing that some of the DOJ officials that were involved in this have been dismissed from their duties.
The Trump DOJ also mandating that this FACE Act only now be used in extraordinary circumstances.
How might one prevent, Jeff, the weaponization of the Department of Justice like we saw here from happening again under perhaps a future Democratic administration?
Sure, Steve. So, look, I mean I think the whole statute needs to be reconsidered and narrowed and to make sure that it's consistent with the First Amendment and that it's applied in a way that's consistent with due process and not selectively and then it's applied in a way that doesn't violate the equal
a way that doesn't violate the equal
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.