Faith Facts

• The FACE Act was signed into law in 1994 to protect both abortion facilities and pro-life pregnancy centers from violence and intimidation
• Since 2022, over 400 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and churches have been documented, yet few prosecutions have occurred under the FACE Act
• Meanwhile, pro-life activists have faced aggressive federal prosecution under the same statute, raising questions about equal application of justice

A federal law meant to protect everyone appears to be enforcing justice selectively. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act was designed to shield both abortion facilities and pro-life pregnancy centers from violence and obstruction. Yet its application tells a troubling story about unequal treatment under the law.

Since its passage in 1994, the FACE Act promised equal protection for all facilities providing reproductive health services. That commitment now rings hollow for many Americans of faith who have watched their churches and crisis pregnancy centers targeted with minimal federal response.

The statistics reveal a troubling pattern. Beginning in 2022, following the Dobbs decision that returned abortion policy to the states, pro-life pregnancy centers and churches experienced a dramatic surge in attacks. Vandalism, arson, and intimidation became routine occurrences across the nation.

More than 400 documented incidents targeted pro-life facilities and houses of worship. Windows were shattered, threatening messages spray-painted on walls, and fire damage inflicted on buildings serving vulnerable women. Yet federal prosecutions under the FACE Act for these crimes remain remarkably rare.

The contrast with enforcement against pro-life activists could not be starker. Federal authorities have pursued FACE Act charges aggressively against those accused of blocking access to abortion facilities, even in cases involving peaceful protest. Some defendants have faced years in federal prison for non-violent civil disobedience.

This disparity raises fundamental questions about justice in America. When federal law enforcement agencies choose which victims deserve protection and which perpetrators merit prosecution, the rule of law itself suffers. Equal protection under the law is not a suggestion—it is a constitutional guarantee.

For Christian Americans who operate pregnancy centers, the message seems clear: your safety matters less. These centers provide free ultrasounds, material support, and counseling to women facing unexpected pregnancies. They serve their communities without government funding, motivated by faith and compassion. Yet when extremists target them with violence, the federal response has been largely silent.

The broken promise of the FACE Act extends beyond statistics. It touches the lives of volunteers who now serve with heightened security concerns, donors who watch their charitable investments literally go up in smoke, and women in crisis who lose access to services because centers cannot afford to rebuild.

Churches have not been spared either. Houses of worship have been vandalized with threatening slogans, their sanctuaries defaced, their congregations intimidated. These are not merely property crimes—they are attacks on religious freedom itself. Yet prosecutions remain scarce.

The path forward requires courage from federal law enforcement. Equal access to reproductive health services, as the FACE Act promises, cannot exist without equal protection for all facilities providing those services. Selective enforcement undermines both justice and public trust.

Congress may need to examine whether the FACE Act requires clarification or whether the problem lies purely in its application. Americans of all perspectives should agree that violence and intimidation have no place in our public discourse, regardless of the target.

Until federal authorities demonstrate genuine commitment to protecting all facilities equally, the FACE Act’s promise remains broken. True justice demands that those who firebomb a pregnancy center face the same federal scrutiny as those who block an abortion clinic’s entrance. Anything less betrays the fundamental American principle of equal justice under law.

The crisis pregnancy centers and churches that have been attacked are not asking for special treatment. They are simply asking for the protection that federal law already promises them. That should not be controversial—it should be guaranteed.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Faith Facts

• Pastor Steve Maile of Oasis City Church was arrested while preaching in Watford.
• He said he was left in pain during the encounter but remains committed to sharing the Gospel.
• The incident has raised concerns about religious liberty and the treatment of Christian speech in public spaces.

Watford police recently suppressed the Great Commission by arresting Pastor Steve Maile of Oasis City Church while he proclaimed the Gospel. Footage reveals three officers detaining the senior pastor despite his repeated assertions that no offense had been committed.

Maile reported being victimized and left in excruciating pain by the authorities during the encounter.

He remains resolute in his calling to share the Word of God regardless of opposition.

Faith Facts

• Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a powerful address on how progressive ideology has undermined the Declaration of Independence and Constitutional principles
• Thomas traced the rise of early 20th-century progressivism and its direct challenge to America’s founding documents
• The speech comes as America prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a stark warning about the progressive movement’s fundamental challenge to America’s founding principles. In a compelling address, Justice Thomas outlined how progressive ideology has systematically worked to undermine the timeless truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The justice traced the historical trajectory of progressivism’s rise in early 20th-century America. He detailed how this political philosophy directly contested the foundational premises upon which our nation was built—principles that recognize God-given rights and limited government power.

Thomas’s remarks carry particular significance as the nation approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a milestone that invites Americans to reflect on whether we have remained faithful to our founding vision. The Declaration’s assertion that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights stands in direct opposition to progressive theories of governance.

The progressive movement’s invasion of American political thought represented more than mere policy disagreements, according to Thomas’s analysis. It constituted a fundamental reordering of the relationship between citizen and state, replacing eternal truths with malleable government power.

Justice Thomas has long been a defender of originalist constitutional interpretation, arguing that the Constitution’s meaning remains fixed unless properly amended through the democratic process. His concern about progressive ideology reflects a broader understanding that abandoning our founding principles threatens the very liberties those principles were designed to protect.

As one of the Supreme Court’s most consistent voices for constitutional fidelity, Thomas’s warning serves as a call to Americans to reacquaint themselves with the Declaration’s revolutionary assertion that our rights come from God, not government. This understanding formed the bedrock of American exceptionalism and continues to distinguish our republic from nations built on different foundations.

The justice’s address reminds faithful Americans that the battle for our nation’s soul is not merely political but philosophical and spiritual. When progressivism challenges the Declaration’s self-evident truths, it challenges the very concept of transcendent moral order that has sustained American liberty for nearly 250 years.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.