In a desperate attempt to distract the American people from the disaster in Afghanistan, the Biden administration has launched an all-out assault on Texas’ new abortion law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland released a statement yesterday denouncing the law and vowing to “protect the constitutional rights of women and other persons” and “provide support” to abortion clinics.

As justification for this clear violation of state sovereignty, Garland cited the FACE Act. The FACE Act was passed by a Democratic Congress in 1994 to stop pro-life activists from using or threatening physical force to keep women from obtaining abortions.

How does the FACE Act apply to Texas’ abortion law? It’s totally unclear. Texas’ law does not allow pro-life activists to threaten or intimidate abortion clinics with physical violence or give cover to pro-life activists who deface or damage those clinics.

Instead, it uses a novel legal structure to ban abortions after a child has shown signs of cardiac activity within the womb. Rather than using state agents and resources to enforce the law, Texas’ new policy would allow private citizens to sue abortion providers (not pregnant women) if they believe those providers are killing babies with beating hearts.

SEE ALSO: We Must Demand to be Free to Take the Vaccine — Or Not

The law’s authors knew it would be challenged, and a state judge has already put it under a temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court has declined to hear the case, but that won’t last long—as soon as a private citizen moves to sue a clinic, a case will begin workings its way through federal court.

Texas’ new abortion law will have its day in court, which makes Garland’s promise to “protect” baby killers nothing more than a political stunt. The weakness of his FACE Act argument is proof of this.

Here’s what the FACE Act prohibits:

by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;

intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services

Eagle-eyed readers will note that nothing in the Act exempts abortion providers from duly passed state laws. The wording of the Act, furthermore, is clearly meant to prohibit physical violence. Pro-life activists can’t stand outside Planned Parenthood and physically bar women from entering, but the law says nothing about suing the clinic under a legitimate state law.

SEE ALSO: Deconstructing Biden’s Latest Cowardly, Asinine Speech

Garland’s purpose here is clear: to smear pro-life activists as thugs who act only out of a desire to “threaten” and “intimidate” women who want to kill their babies.

Thanks to the mainstream media, the plan is working. Corporate media coverage has fawned over Garland as headlines claim the AG is seeking to “protect women seeking abortions” who may come “under attack.” As per usual, the big, bad pro-life Texas activists are painted as the bad guys while the baby killing “reproductive health clinics” are fighting for constitutional rights (or some such nonsense).

As a pro-life Christian, I hope and pray that Texas’ abortion law withstands these specious attacks. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a related case next year, and for the sake of the millions of children at risk of being killed in the womb, I hope they resist the media pressure, slap down Merrick Garland, and make the right decision.

About The Author

Mark was a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, and served as the national coordinator. He left the organization to work more broadly on expanding the self-governance movement beyond the partisan divide. Mark appears regularly on television in outlets as diverse as MSNBC, ABC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, Bloomberg, Fox Business and the BBC. He’s highly sought after for the tea party perspective from print and electronic media outlets, from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Examiner, Politico and the The Hill. Mark blogs at, and his opinion editorials regularly run in many of the leading political newspapers both on and offline. Mark has a BA in English from San Diego State University and graduated with honors from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1988. He practiced real estate and business law for almost a decade. For the last eleven years of his legal career he specialized in Internet advertising law. When not fighting for the future of our nation, Mark is an avid horseman, and lives in rural northern California with his wife Patty and two children.