As you can see, Stanley, there is more than ample demand for two front-page posts.
From the article it sounds like he was actually shot inside the church. Wow.
Ah, pro-lifers, if only I loved irony better I might like you more.
The precedent is clear. Eisenhower sent the National Guard to Little Rock to enforce desegregation.
Obama should station a brigade in Lawrence, with armored escorts at the Kansas state borders, to provide free late-term abortions to any and all comers. Forever. Like a lawyer or a press, a right that is not available is not a right. It is a gov't responsibility to make sure rights are easily exercised.
But we will have to make Obama do it. At Yglesias's, I suggested that a million+ choicers spend part of their summer in Kansas. We can call it "Freedom Summer II"
5. Still hoping for blood running in the streets, I see.
I endorse 5. Obama should get on TV and say that these people are terrorists who do not respect the rule of law, and that they will be hunted to their hiding places. We will not let this terroristic aggression against America and its citizens stand.
8: In an alternate universe, Dick Cheney is saying, "See, I told you. If you coddle terrorists, you just get more terrorism."
Straight fucking line due North. 361.29 miles, 5 hrs 31 minutes. 32 gallons, around a hundred dollars, which we already had mistakenly put aside for something not due til August 1. Take food and water with me, sleep in the car.
7:Blood's already staining a church floor, scumbag.
6: Where'd you see that? Neither CNN nor nytimes.com says that anyone's been caught, just what kind of car they're looking for.
11, CNN says "Sunday afternoon, authorities took a man into custody near Kansas City after stopping a car that matched a description of the killer's getaway vehicle, according to sheriff's deputies in Johnson County, Kansas. No charges had been filed."
I like McManus's plan. Reproductive Freedom Riders!
It wouldn't work, but I like it.
14. Wow. I know the information wouldn't be hard to come by in any case, but was it necessary for the Wichita Eagle to print the street address of the clinic?
Something is deeply wrong
Something has been deeply wrong since before the election. No, they did not have the ...will to start a war with the Iranians, or declare the election results invalid, but they (the R's) were happy to federally fund election year spending to drive up GDP and to... work the stock market such that it peaked just on election day. (And the effects showed in the exit polling.) Likewise, Obama won VA by 5% points, but somehow it took VA hours and hours to figure that out, never mind that they weren't running a concurrent election and they had lots of electronics. Then there was the big payoffs for the banks, and the big freakout about the rumoured banning of guns, followed by the threatened revolt of the overclass, and then the Southern dudes start threatening secession (for realz). We even got Rush Limbaugh going about how he is an oppressed minority. That's all on top of the R's flushing constitutionalism and actual free markets and whatnot down the tubes.
when the implied promise of one of the two major political parties in a country is that electing their members will mean a reprieve of its leaders or surrogates inciting their followers to violence against that country's own citizens or its government.
Tired broken old record that I am, I will say that that was the MO during the decades previous to the civil war, as the people supporting the slavocracy were feeling desperately threatened by the economic and social situation and decided they would do whatever it took to defend their 'way of life'.
I would've said, a day ago, that we're in a Cold Civil War, since all the bad stuff went down except the actual shooting, but then I suppose the Cold War had its share of hot spots.
max
['History... never repeats... I tell myself, before I got to sleep.']
15:I call it Situational Vanguardism. You create circumstances that might lead to attention grabbing events and then you use the flood of publicity and emotion to shove minority policies through.
Bush used it in the summer of 2001 after 9/11.
I wouldn't initiate violence, but I would hope to receive some. If the next week or month some choicers got beat up (or screamed at, or whatever) in Kansas it would prolong and intensify the Tiller story nationally.
We have been investigating, harrassing, even RICO'ing the women-haters for decades and still losing choice. We need to the FEDs to go up another level. Take abortion policy away from the states. Let Roberts and Alito and misogynist Kennedy try to enforce their decisions. Hand out brasstip canes to Senators.
It's not terrorism. It doesn't do anyone any good to call it that. Terrorism involves the willful harm to civilians; this, being targeted, was not terrorism.
But targeted at an innocent civilian, right?
It is exactly terrorism.
5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-- (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended-- (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
Ah. Point taken.
It's really quite frightening that we don't have any detention facilities that can safely and reliably house this dangerous thug.
Brings to mind the relevant daily FoxNews memo from John Moody suggested covering Eric Rudolph:
We have good perp walk video of Eric Rudolph which we should use. We should NOT assume that anyone who supported or helped Eric Rudolph is a racist. No one's in favor of murder or bombing of public places. But feelings in North Carolina may just be more complicated than the NY Times can conceive. Two style notes: Rudolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." and TODAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING.
The good news is that since we're not claiming the right to hold him under the laws of war, we can have him in a "penitentiary" without violating the Third Geneva Convention.
(One wouldn't know from watching the TV that this option is not available for people captured in connection with a war who are (a) deemed "dangerous" but (b) not brought before a Military Commission. But there a whole lot of things one wouldn't learn from watching TV . . .)
1. Re 19 this, being targeted, was not terrorism.
The Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany carried out quite a few targeted murders.
2. Oh, and the Obama/Hitler comparison in link #2. Yes, on this side of the Atlantic we all know that the Nazis were big on multiculturalism.
Yes, on this side of the Atlantic we all know that the Nazis were big on multiculturalism.
I understand that the two are connected through the devious and vile web of organic honey production.
This would be a good time to get off the internet, and re-read one of Ron Takaki's books. Bye, y'all.
28: I understand that the two are connected through the devious and vile web of organic honey production.
Please don't make light of the systematic rape of bees.
the systematic rape of bees
UR DOIN IT RONG
Such terrorism is always a possibility. Every day.
You know it is out there. Plenty of crazy people who wish it to happen.
You just hope that it does not happen. You cannot function in a permanent state of fear so you adjust to the fact that it could happen any day.
I guess soldiers and police officers have that similar knowledge that any day could be the day.
Peace be with you, George.
Were there any assassinations of abortion providers during Bush's terms? I don't remember there being any. So... were the deranged anti-abortion types quiescently waiting for George II to advance their cause?
Were there any assassinations of abortion providers during Bush's terms?
No, the last one was over 10 years ago, in 1998.
This just makes me so sick and sad. My presumptions about the relative lack of public ire to be expected in response make me that much sicker and sadder.
35,36:There were at least 5 assassinations during Clinton's term, none during Bush. No one was been prosecuted or even investigated for providing support to the murderers.
There may be multiple explanations for this strategy of violence during Democratic administrations. One would be to demoralize pro-choicers who can't protect providers or choice even when in political power. The de-legitimization of civil leadership is terrorism 101, obviously used in Iraq.
So were the lunatics biding their time under George II, hoping that the political process would advance their cause? That just seems inconsistent with the type of mentality I presume an assassin to have.
Alternatively, these people are batshit crazy, yes, but they're set off by the kind of generalized cultural paranoia that Becks's second link illustrates.
Didn't the Obama DOJ retract that Bush-era memorandum on right-wing domestic terrorism? Perhaps that's an issue that could be revisited. I feel like we've seen a bunch of right-wing "lone whackos" go on shooting sprees recently; even though some of them are really *are* lone whackos, this is starting to look like a nasty trend.
Alternatively, these people are batshit crazy, yes, but they're set off by the kind of generalized cultural paranoia that Becks's second link illustrates.
This seems pretty likely.
It just drives me crazy how disingenuous the right-wing enablers are about this shit.
The fact that Operation Rescue has denounced the act says quite a bit. This can and should, and apparently will, be treated as a criminal act, pure and simple, without being blown up into a public outrage. The message to the public is: this is obviously unacceptable.
Should there be a public conversation about it? Yes, and there probably will be. It's too soon to bemoan any lack thereof.
In fact, contra CC at 21, I would say that the primary purpose of terrorism is to destroy the confidence and support for civil government within the citizenry, by inspiring over- or under- reaction.
The government really won't protect providers or choice. A liberal government really can't do the kind of pre-emptive or preventative actions that would protect choice from terrorism.
Terrorism is only effective within a liberal framework, I suspect. As in the recent example of Sri Lanka, illiberalism has less of a problem.
41:
Oh please.
They do nothing to calm the lunatic fringe. Denouce and wink.
41: Although apparently the suspect (Scott Roeder) has posted on Operation Rescue websites, specifically about confronting Tiller at his church (as long ago as 2007). And in the 1990's it seems he was arrested or having bomb components in his trunk.
I'd be just fine with a hearty helping of mainstream public outrage, personally.
41:No offense, but you are missing the important difference between terrorism and criminality.
Terrorism is a political act.
# Scott Roeder Says: May 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Bleass everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn't seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.
From Google cache of Operation Rescue website.
43: Yeah. I saw that response coming, and almost deleted what I wrote. I am not sure why I feel the urge to be upbeat about the news coverage of this.
Probably just resisting the wailing and gnashing of teeth. We've worried about right-wing crazies (actually, more about the possibility of widespread hate crimes against blacks or muslims, or gays, to be honest), and I'm not seeing them upping the ante here, but just being the same as they ever were.
I am not, by any means, diminishing Tiller's murder, which disturbs me tremendously.
Operation Rescue has denounced the act says quite a bit
Given that it's a long-time OR guy who's in custody for it, you'd kinda expect them to. RICO and all that.
Operation Rescue and other anti-choicers compares providers to Nazis, calls their operations Death Camps, calls them Baby Murderers.
When you call yourselves the Defenders of Babies, you instill in your followers that your actions are defensive. What could be holier than defending babies from evil, money-grubbing abortionists?
I'm shocked, shocked to find there's murder going on in here!
Terrorism is a political act.
This was terrorism, and it would be nice if there was an official statement from the government that used that word. It won't happen, and I understand that.
But when I read the news, and saw an Obama quote to the effect of, "as Americans we should never let our divisions rise to the level of violence." I though that, for once, I would have liked to see Obama embrace the macho rhetoric of, "we will hunt down and punish this person."
I walked by the Allston PP for the first time in a few years on Saturday, it's awesome that the latest buffer zone law in MA makes the protestors pretty much have to stand on Comm. Ave. Are there any proposals for a federal version?
All OR's denunciation says is that they recognize that it's not a good idea to publicly celebrate murder in so many words. Look at this jpb of their site: denunciation of murder, accompanied by lower-right-hand corner picture of Tiller with label "America's Doctor of Death." And hellfire.
I'd be just fine with a hearty helping of mainstream public outrage, personally.
Me too.
Terrorism is a political act.
And conveniently, reproductive rights is a political concern.
I remember as a kid hearing that it was justifiable homicide to kill abortion doctors. Fuck 'em. Sanctity of life my ass.
Oh man. There's a 300-comment thread at Balloon Juice where people are providing details about how seriously Operation Rescue has been targeting this poor doctor. It's much, much more serious than generalized political miasma.
52""we will hunt down and punish this person."
Not good enough, like saying we will prosecute any suicide bombers who survive the disco bombings.
Terrorism is a political act, and requires a political response.
Been reading the Patriot Act. Apparently the real useful stuff about "material support" has been watered down by the courts.
I don't think the standard COIN techniques would work in this situation. I could be wrong, off to read about COIN
Oh man. There's a 300-comment thread at Balloon Juice where people are providing details about how seriously Operation Rescue has been targeting this poor doctor. It's much, much more serious than generalized political miasma.
Truly. I can't imagine having the strength of mind to choose to provide late-term abortions in this country, knowing what it would let me in for. And that scares the shit out of me--sometimes shit goes really wrong in pregnancies, late in the pregnancy, or in a way that is only evident late in the pregnancy, and then what?
OR's been targeting Tiller for *years*. Their website has a "Tiller Watch" page, for chrissake.
I remember as a kid hearing that it was justifiable homicide to kill abortion doctors.
You travelled in strange circles.
And the FBI's investigated them before (not sure if they are currently.)
You travelled in strange circles.
You don't have to get too far into some religious circles to hear such sentiments.
From Cala's previous discussions of her background it sounds like anti-abortion sentiment was perhaps particularly acute, but I suspect it's a matter of degree more than kind. Especially in a Catholic context.
Crazy Randall Terry:
WASHINGTON, May 31 PRNewswire-USNewswire -- The following was released today by Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue.
Background: In 1991, Mr. Terry was arrested by federal agents in front of Dr. Tiller's office for his part in leading the "Summer of Mercy." Mr. Terry's leadership gave birth to multitudes of protests in front of Tiller's office.
Following is the statement of Randall Terry, Founder, Operation Rescue.
"Dr. Tiller was a mass murderer.
"I grieve for him that he did not have an opportunity to properly prepare his soul to face his Maker. Unless some miracle happened, he left this life with his hands drenched with the innocent blood of tens of thousands of babies that he murdered. Surely there will be a dreadful accounting for what he has done.
"I believe George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the 'legal' murder of the Jews that fell into their hands. But even Mr. Tiller - like other murderers - deserved a trial of his peers, and a legal execution, not vigilantly justice.
"His killing presents us a severe challenge.
"The arch proponents of child killing such as Planned Parenthood, the National Organization of Women, NARAL, and a host of other enemies of children are already blaming the pro-life movement for Dr. Tiller's death.
"The child killers, and their allies in the Obama administration and on Capitol Hill, will attempt to browbeat the pro-life movement into surrendering our most effective weapons in this battle: our rhetoric, our actions, and our images.
"Pro-lifers must not flinch, waver, or in any way alter our course in our epic struggle to make child killing illegal again.
"Our rhetoric must bear witness to the truth: abortion is murder.
"Our actions must be equal to this crime: we must continue with vigorous (yet peaceful) actions such as have been used by every social revolution since America's birth. The easiest picture to have is that of the civil rights activists of the 1960s. They held 'illegal' marches, freedom rides, and 'sit-ins' at lunch counters; they were met with water canons, dogs, police brutality, arrests, and jail. If we are going to end child killing, we must unflinchingly adopt the strategies of heroes past.
"Our images must reflect the truth. We must continue to show the victims' bodies that we have pulled out of dumpsters; we must not retreat a single inch from showing the decapitated heads of little boys and girls, the arms and legs that were suctioned or carved out of their mothers wombs; we must paint the picture of sewers and landfills being used as unholy graves for these holy victims.
"Of course we are peaceful; that is why this horrific shooting in a church has immediately garnered national attention. It is precisely because we are peaceful that Dr. Tiller's killing sticks out like a huge wart on an otherwise flawless complexion. If abortionists were gunned down every week, it would gather no more attention than crack dealers who are gunned down every week."
I've heard people say that murdering abortion docs is justifiable homocide, and not when I was a kid. And not in particularly Catholic contexts, either.
My background's not that weird. Crazy, yes, but not weird, which of course is the point.
Once you call a provider a baby killer, it isnt a stretch to start the justifiable homicide talk.
66: Wow.
If I could stand to review it without throwing up, I'd check on Operation Rescue's membership numbers.
I don't know how widespread this sort of thing is in general, but I see it a lot.
Riding through some not-particularly-batshit rural areas today, and seeing all the crazy anti-reproductive freedom stuff, it struck me that one of the most important things that can't be said in mainstream political discourse is that if you scratch a pro-lifer, you cut a white supremacist. The specific image that brought this great unspoken truth to mind was a Pro-Life America billboard with the usual image of a gigantic, smiling white baby with the caption "A Baby: God"s Original Creation" (or something very close to that). Of course, as we all know, the original human baby was not a white boy. But it's convenient for the antis to intertwine their white supremacy and opposition to abortion. It's unfortunate that they are able to dupe so many people of color into their insane ideology too, but that doesn't change the fact that its roots are in white supremacy.
I've gone to jail for my opposition to Operation Rescue -- what will you do?
67:There is a comment at ObsWi that tends toward justification.
COIN may be analogy or metaphor or something, but I think there is stuff here that helps show how to think about our problem.
Rather, they seek through a constant campaign of sneak attacks to inflict continuous casualties upon their superior enemy forces and thereby over time demoralize the occupying forces and erode political support for the occupation in the homeland of the occupying forces. It is a simple strategy of repeated pin-pricks and bleedings that, though small in proportion to the total force strength, sap the will of the occupier to continue the fight.
Democracy and liberalism are fragile, and require the consent of the governed at nearly 100% to survive. This does not necessarily mean the majority must make concessions until all give consent, although as the example of Jim Crow shows, democracies will make horrendous compromises to avoid social unrest or the alternative illiberal measures.
Martin van Creveld has 5 imperatives in his section of the Wiki article, learning from Assad's success against the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama.
So were the lunatics biding their time under George II, hoping that the political process would advance their cause? That just seems inconsistent with the type of mentality I presume an assassin to have.
They're rational. They were quite explicit about giving Bush a break. Rudolph actually forgave Ashcroft for prosecuting him.
The fact that Operation Rescue has denounced the act says quite a bit.
Bullshit. Pure ass-covering. The right hand denies what the left hand was doing. Afterwards they'll have a group hug.
The hard core right wing is as angry as it's ever been, and they've always fantasized about murder. Expect more. This is their normality.
74.last: I can't handle that right now. It's too much. I realize I can't stop it by declining to dignify it with a response, but I can't handle it without becoming hateful myself.
That's not my general political perspective, just a personal thing right now for me. Can you guys take care of it while I take a time out?
"Operation Rescue/ Come to our town?
We'll lock you in a church/ And burn the fucker down!"
Ah, those were the days.
60:I spent sometime looking for the link I followed today, about the family with badly conjoined twins and fatal birth defects. Feministe or Pandagon I think, but I couldn't find it.
I think Anacephaly is the most common reason for late-terms.
78: I think so too. This Metafilter comment (I haven't read the whole thread and am sure I don't really want to) recounts some rather heartbreaking memories of Dr. Tiller's kindness when the commenter and his wife traveled to his clinic for a late-term abortion under circumstances of that sort.
Cala's background was mainstream normal.
So we coastal liberals really are outliers. Where Cala says that "hearing that it was justifiable homicide to kill abortion doctors" is not weird (read: unusual), she really means that as an assessment of what's weird and what's not in these here United States.
Wow. I knew that there's an entire segment of the US that's rather religiously conservative, but I really didn't know that the notion of killling abortion doctors was considered mainstream.
The conjoined twin story was told over at Balloon Juice and linked everywhere today. So sad.
78 is maybe wrong
There is a comment by "Funkhauser" in this LGM thread saying a Ob/Gyn in Connectivut would refer patients to Tiller in Kansas because saving the life of the woman via the least risky procedure was illegal in most states
I guess Obama needs to make another empathetic, conciliatory speech at a different forced childbirth bastion to lessen the tensions and bring the sides together. Bastard.
I wouldn't call the sentiment itself mainstream (and I didn't), but I certainly didn't have the sense that calling the murders of abortion doctors justifiable homicide was considered unspeakable.
Collection of various usual suspects' statements on the Tiller murder, apologies if it's already been linked.
"Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice."
Fuckers.
38: Alternatively, these people are batshit crazy, yes, but they're set off by the kind of generalized cultural paranoia that Becks's second link illustrates.
I had not looked at the gun show link before: that's pretty much gun show land right there. Mostly ex-military and gun collectors, with the usual (small) helping of white power dudes, and general oddballs. (I think the bookseller is the Loompanics guy. Bush cracked down on him in 2001.) They are very paranoid of a general gun ban, which was the impetus for that Georgia secession resolution. (Just substitute guns for slavery and you have the old SC secession declaration, more or less.)
Cala: I remember as a kid hearing that it was justifiable homicide to kill abortion doctors. Fuck 'em. Sanctity of life my ass.
Same assumptions, two very different reactions - Vox Day:
Good riddance
Media outlets are reporting that late-term abortion doctor George Tiller has been shot and killed at his church in Wichita, Kan.
Tiller should have been jailed and had his license revoked for the abortion-related midemeanors he blatantly committed; had justice been done then perhaps he would still be alive. Not that I care, as I wouldn't shed any more tears for dead abortionists than I would for murdered concentration camp guards. And at his church? What sort of church that calls itself Christian allows a totally unrepentant man with the blood of many children on his hands to attend it?
It should be amusing to watch the pro-abortion camp go hysterical with fear over this, as they still hadn't gotten over the previous round of abortionist shootings that ended over a decade ago. They know at heart that the issue will never be settled; the murder of unborn children will never, ever be acceptable to decent men and women. Abortionists have killed more Americans than every American military foe in history combined, so based on the body count alone, the post-natal termination of an abortionist is more rationally justifiable than the killing of a jihadist in Iraq or Afghanistan.
UPDATE:National Review: "It's hard to be anything but sick over the news."
Yeah, it's really not. And so-called "conservatives" are sick indeed if they can shrug off the death of innocent Iraqis and Afghans as collateral damage, call for military action that spells the certain death of innocent Iranians, and then be genuinely upset over the fittingly violent end of one serial child-killer.
The murder of George Tiller
I've just logged on and seen the news about the murder of abortionist George Tiller.
I condemn this murder, full stop. I think Tiller was an evil man. I really do. He was one of the few doctors who performed late-term abortions. He was an infanticide doctor, as far as I'm concerned. Nevertheless, his murder was wrong, wrong, wrong, in an of itself. And as a practical matter, it will do more harm to the cause of protecting unborn life than it will help. We already see that despite the plain fact that the overwhelming majority of pro-life activists are peaceful, and peace-loving, people, many on the other side demonize all pro-lifers as potential abortion-clinic murderers. Whoever committed this murder is not only guilty of a heinous crime and a moral outrage, but prudentially, he or she has also done tremendous harm to the noble cause of protecting unborn life.
That said, I would hate to be George Tiller facing judgment with those grave sins to explain.
UPDATE: Princeton's Robert P. George says it well:Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.
max
['So much for Sotomayor being on the front page.']
80: Cala is a coastal liberal, but she knows coastal conservatives.
"Normal" doesn't mean "50%+". It means "a significant fraction". I'd guess that 10% of Americans approve of abortionist-killing and another 20% are wishy-washy.
I guess I am just mean spirited, but I am not remotely soothed by the "different reactions". Tiny victims. Eat me.
||
This is the current events thread, right? Congratulations! You're the proud owner of GM now!
|>
If you count Lake Erie as a coast, sure.
I'd guess that 10% of Americans approve of abortionist-killing and another 20% are wishy-washy.
I think the wishy-washy might be a larger group. My sense was (and take it for whatever it was worth -- I was a young teen when the last major round of killings started) that people knew that the logical implication of thinking that abortion is murder is indeed that violence would be justified, but they were unable or unwilling to endorse that position themselves. I guess it's like extremists in any movement, really.
83: I'm concerned about the prospect that what wasn't unspeakable in your environment, growing up, is mainstream in America at large. Where's that idea coming from?
I may be quibbling here: you wanted to say that it wasn't weird to hear it, and I want to say that that doesn't mean it wasn't unusual in the country at large. Even in my own rather homophobic and slightly racist extended family, which is probably much like shiv's family from the sound of it, we would never hear people say that anyone could be killed. That's freakin' radical.
The only thing at stake in this particular quibble is that I'd not like to hear you say that your community, which apparently said that murdering abortion doctors was justifiable homicide, was mainstream normal. It's not. Is it? (Someone else put those words in your mouth, though, at comment 75 upthread.)
Would whoever is writing comments 86, 75, 74 please identify her- or himself, by the way.
You know, the turn towards violence on the anti-abortion side seems to coincide with when abortion went from being just a Catholic issue to being an issue for fundamentalist Protestants as well. I wonder if it's a coincidence, or if it has some deeper significance.
your community, which apparently said that murdering abortion doctors was justifiable homicide
That's not at all what Cala said. She said she had heard people say it. Individuals. So have I. I think that if you talk about abortion at any length, eventually you'll hear someone say this. It's a logical consequence of the "abortion is murder" rhetoric.
No, I meant that my upbringing wasn't unusual for a middle class American. I wasn't in a remote rightwing outpost or born into a fringe religious group or even in a red state. The county I grew up in went for Obama in 2008 (though not, I suspect, my hometown.) So, while I don't know whether my experience generalizes, I'm confident that it's not particularly unique, and I do know there are more conservative areas of the country, so it wouldn't surprise me.
It's not parsimon's fault. She's never met any people.
You know, the turn towards violence on the anti-abortion side seems to coincide with when abortion went from being just a Catholic issue to being an issue for fundamentalist Protestants as well. I wonder if it's a coincidence, or if it has some deeper significance.
Is there any good evidence that abortion is an issue for any significant fraction of fundamentalist Protestants (and not just the nuttiest extreme)? Everyone I've ever known for whom it's an issue of any significance is Catholic, and I grew up among Southern Baptists.
Yes, on abortion; no on contraception. (Dobson & co aren't Catholic.)
My evidence is anecdotal only, but most of the Protestants I grew up around (not just the fundamentalist ones) are pretty vocally anti-abortion.
Also, wow: lots of people I went to high school with who are now my facebook friends are quite vocal in their profiles about their anti-abortion views. These aren't necessarily super religious people; I think it's part of a broader conservatism.
I guess I should count myself lucky that I didn't encounter much of the anti-abortion sentiment in my youth, then. (On the other hand, I would be willing to bet that some of my relatives were at that machine gut shoot event outside L'ville....)
A nice presentation from Pew on polling results of views on abortion by denomination. From earlier this year.
Results for (Legal all, legal most, illegal most, illegal all)&mdashbut worth clicking through.
Mainstream Protestant 20,42,25,7
Catholic 16,32,27,18
Evangelical Protestant 9,24,36,25
95: It's not parsimon's fault. She's never met any people.
This makes me smile. No, I've never really met many people who are violently anti-abortion, as far as I knew.
Some historical trends and other breakdowns from Pew.
It's funny, because for at least the beginning of the distance, I can walk myself right through the concerns these people have -- they are in some respects word-for-word how one might feel about executioners, if one were anti-death-penalty.
But then you get to the parts about harassing and killing people...and it's like stepping in the abyss.
And the statements in 85 just make my my imagination fail completely. Obviously these guys have completely left the realm of any reasonable understanding of WHY someone would seek a late-term abortion.* I wonder what on earth could bring them back.
*The case I always think of in these sitations is a woman I knew years ago who had a second-trimester abortion because of I think trisomy 18. It was horrific and agonzing for her and her husband, maybe the more so because it was a very much planned and wanted first child. When I read stuff like 85, I just think -- what would these men have had her do?
103 and 105 are useful.
One thing I always wonder about is how/whether people's answers would change if you went all the way through the survey without ever using the terms "pro-life," "pro-choice," "abortion rights," "anti-abortion" or "reproductive rights," and instead just asked them for their opinions on case studies. Describe 3-4 cases to them and ask in each instance: Should this be legal in all cases, legal with restrictions, or completely banned? And then report the answers to each question, without assigning political labels to each one, but with reference to existing laws.
But then you get to the parts about harassing and killing people...and it's like stepping in the abyss.
Exactly. That's where the full stop occurs, and is why I avail myself of the phrase "violently anti-abortion."
If this perspective is considered not unusual, such that one probably just hasn't gotten out much if one hasn't encountered it, then I really don't know what people are thinking out there (possible, I guess), or we're granting way too much power to this perspective. Can we marginalize it, please?
I truly believe that virtually everyone who is anti-abortion, including people who favor restrictions, is because they think in abstract terms and imagine, mostly, people electing abortion for frivolous reasons. I just cannot believe that anyone but the craziest person, actually reading individual people's stories about their decisions, wouldn't allow that maybe *this* case is reasonable....
die, probably.
I think the appropriate phrase is "offer it up".
Speaking of the righteous, for the past fortnight, the country formerly known as Holy Catholic Ireland has been churned up by the Ryan Report. Don't know if anyone here has seen this, for example. It's an audience member on a political Q&A show -- a former small town mayor -- speaking off the cuff to a government minister (a guest on the show) about the care he enjoyed at the hands of the Church in a State-funded Industrial School in the 1950s.
Can we marginalize it, please?
Well, that was kind of my thought with 106. I don't think this attitude is currently all that marginal in the US, but I do think that a lot of people who ostensibly hold it are, as bob (?) says above, "wishy-washy" about it -- or rather, haven't actually thought through the consequences of their condemnation. Making explicit the types of situations we're talking about would be one small step in changing the social consensus about "bad" women and "bad abortions."
I do think the phrase "abortion on demand" has done tremendous damage to the reproductive rights movement, though I'm ignorant of where it originated. Maybe it was always a slur.
those witterings about Tiller's immortal soul really fucking piss me off; he was murdered in a church for god's sake!
It's a very odd thing, parsimon, that you haven't personally run across someone exploring the ethical ambiguities associated with allowing abortion-performing doctors to live.
Once you've accepted that abortion is cold-blooded, premeditated murder, the ethical problem becomes explaining why you shouldn't kill doctors. I mean, this wasn't even the first time that Tiller himself was shot, and varying degrees of violence at abortion clinics is routine - as one would expect given the way so many people talk about abortion. Odd that you haven't heard this talk before.
I just cannot believe that anyone but the craziest person, actually reading individual people's stories about their decisions, wouldn't allow that maybe *this* case is reasonable....
IMfairly limitedE, conversations about this tend to go in one of three directions:
1. Huh. Wow. That's awful. Yeah, abortion should be available in those situations.
2. You're just cherry-picking sympathetic cases. Most of them aren't like that.
3. Even if it's true that most abortions are like that now, normalizing it in the social context will remove the stigma and we'll go down a slippery slope until in the future it becomes common to get them for frivolous reasons.*
*It should be noted that I actually believe this is true, for some definition of true. But for me it falls into the category of "There will always be people who do things that I think are morally terrible, and the question to ask is what collateral damage society is willing to absorb to stop them."
110: Somewhat. My sense is that a lot of people would count a garden-variety "I'm too young to have a baby" to be frivolous. I do get the sense that anti-choice people think that late-term abortion is performed for frivolous reasons, and far more common than it actually is.
114: And the second piece of "ethical ju-jitsu" is that all but the craziest ant-abortion folks do not advocate the logical conclusion of jailing women getting abortions because they know what a political loser that is (I don't know, maybe thank God for small favors). So the "mainstream" anti-abortion movement is all about jail the docs and shame the women and both are going to hell. But of course their extreme rhetoric logically would lead to much worst fates for both.
115: That's my experience too. But I find it telling that if you give people *specific* cases they start to backpedal, even a little.
Speaking of changing the social framework, Amanda Marcotte's laste post is headlined: Doctor who saved many women's lives murdered.
Once you've accepted that abortion is cold-blooded, premeditated murder, the ethical problem becomes explaining why you shouldn't kill doctors.
A lot of people have been saying this as if it's obvious, and maybe it is, but if so, it's surely not a very hard problem. One could also, say, strip them of their right to practice and ensure that they don't. (Not by killing them.)
114: I don't know what to say. No, I haven't run across these people. I've heard the talk before, of course, online, but have never met anyone in real life who would say such a thing. Apparently it's normal to talk to these people in real life. That shocks me.
The people I know who are anti-abortion are against it for themselves and for people they know, but do not believe that it should be illegal.
Once you've accepted that abortion is cold-blooded, premeditated murder, the ethical problem becomes explaining why you shouldn't kill doctors.
Once you've accepted that cold-blooded, premeditated murder is very, very wrong, then maybe the ethical problem is how to deal with this problem while perhaps not killing anyone yourself?
One could also, say, strip them of their right to practice and ensure that they don't. (Not by killing them.)
In fact, this is precisely what one can't do. I think it's pretty likely that if the killer could have done this, he would have, rather than killing this doctor.
120: The question would be what would be done if efforts to criminalize the practice failed. It's not a stretch to think that if you believed that abortion was murder and going on right in your town, there would be a duty to rescue.
I don't think I've ever heard people talk about abortion using actual words uttered by their mouths. The internet, though...
Once you've accepted that cold-blooded, premeditated murder is very, very wrong
The murder of my tribe, my people, people I choose to be empathetic with, is very very wrong. More accurately, I don't like it.
"My people" is very large and ever expanding but does not include Jeffrey Dahmer, Gacy, Saddam for three examples.
What, we are supposed to be morally connected to all human beings in equal measure? Saints and philosophers, maybe.
I understand Goneril. I simply don't want Goneril in the foxhole covering my back or determining how I can protect the people I love when the bullets are glying.
No fear of that, Bob. There are no Gonerills in the foxholes.
Ally and enemy is where politics begins. You have a set of rules for your allies, and a different set of rules to govern interactions with your enemies. This is what is human.
After forty years of this shit, I have no empathy for the forced-birthers. I don't care about their feelings, or their moral qualms or tormented souls. Not a whit.
The only real question is how to get what my side wants while minimizing damage and pain to my side. The liberals on my side would be most comfortable with trying certain methods first. I care about them, but not so much I am willing to let doctors and teenagers die for the sake of their qualms.
Dispatches from wishy-washy America; this was a comment on an acquaintance's fb status msg on the killing by some dude I don't know. Judging by his picture he seems not the religious right type at all:
I'm kinda up in the air on this one. "Late Term Doctor" might be a bad pr spin by the news. He already had been shot once. I think any fool championing late term abortions after he already had a murder attempt on his life is a dumbass. I personally would have decided to become a cancer/aids/world hunger doctor after the first attempt. I try not to have a opinion on abortion because I don't carry babies inside me and I can see both sides point of view
Rot in hell you dumb douchebag. Ugh.
Bitch and Witt are correct.
For anti-choicers, late term abortions are about convenience, not the health and safety of their mother.
Women's health and safety. That is what this is about.
The attack on "Partial Birth Abortion" = an attack on women's medical safety.
Remember when all the right wingers got their panties in a wad about the Department of Homeland Security's report on a possible upswing in right-wing terrorist violence? Yeah, well, about that...
138: Apo, my brother, I was just signing on to comment about the prescience of Janet Napolitano.
137: That's really a point where more clarity about the facts would, I think, help the pro-choice side. There are a lot of people who are mushily disapproving of but wouldn't want to bad early abortions. And they wouldn't want to ban later abortions if they knew that they were for medical reasons. But the anti-abortion side has created this vague impression that there are lots and lots of whimisical abortions being done in the seventh month; if that could be cleared up, we'd be in much better shape.
Don't you love how the reporting so far keeps quoting anti-choicers as saying "We simply just dont condone murder" and omit all of their comments about Tiller being a baby killer with blood on his hands?
138, 139: Not so fast you two, maybe he only became unhinged after he saw himself and his cohort being unfairly targeted as a radical. Where's your empathy? How many more white men must die thanks to the haters in the Obama administration.
That's really a point where more clarity about the facts would, I think, help the pro-choice side. There are a lot of people who are mushily disapproving of but wouldn't want to bad early abortions. And they wouldn't want to ban later abortions if they knew that they were for medical reasons. But the anti-abortion side has created this vague impression that there are lots and lots of whimisical abortions being done in the seventh month; if that could be cleared up, we'd be in much better shape.
At the Supreme Court, a Justice specifically said "So this ban will not reduce the number of abortions at this stage? Just eliminate the one kind that some doctors feel is the safest for the mother?"
An actual doctor got shot and killed yesterday, by someone who more than likely justified it to himself because the doctor was providing emergency late terminations to women who desperately needed them, and this thug had been told over and over and over again that this kind of medical work was MURDER.
Bob, I think about the only thing that could induce me to cross the United States borders again would be the prospect of a pro-choice freedom ride against the pro-life movement.
Cities should be no-go zones for the religious right. Every fundamentalist should be made to feel as though they are totally despised by mainstream society. Furthermore, they should feel like they are putting themselves at risk by showing their faces in anyplace dominated by coastal liberal elites. People who support reproductive freedom need to put down their lattes and pick up...
Every fundamentalist should be made to feel as though they are totally despised by mainstream society.
They already believe that, and wear it like a badge of honor.
This makes me smile. No, I've never really met many people who are violently anti-abortion, as far as I knew.
I think the "as far as I knew" part is the key. I sort of imagine Parsimon is not the sort of person one would feel particularly comfortable telling, "Hey, I think it would be okay to kill a doctor who performed an abortion." I imagine anyone likely to be discussing abortion with her at all would know exactly what she'd think of such a position.
An actual doctor got shot and killed yesterday, by someone who more than likely justified it to himself because the doctor was providing emergency late terminations to women who desperately needed them, and this thug had been told over and over and over again that this kind of medical work was MURDER.
This is so true. It needs to be repeated over and over again.
146: It's a matter of degree. Can a fundamentalist go into the hardware store down the street from me and not feel like every eye is on them? Of course. Can they go to a football game in a car festooned with Jebus crap and anti-abortion stuff safely? Of course. I want them to feel, not just disapproval, not just estrangement, I want them to feel absolute terror whenever they go out of their nasty little enclaves.
Once you've accepted that abortion is cold-blooded, premeditated murder, the ethical problem becomes explaining why you shouldn't kill doctors.
Exactly. If I lived in Nazi Germany I hope I'd have the courage to off a few SS men. That's the forced-birther's analogy, not mine, btw. Anti-abortion violence is a perfectly logical extension of the forced-birther rhetoric.
149: Um, so long as we're distinguishing between people who advocate the murder of doctors and people who are just opposed to legal abortion, that'd be okay. But it's a difficult distinction to make on the fly.
Having read A Lawyer's Journey, there seems to be a phenomenon in extremist groups (it wouldn't surprise me if Operation Rescue, too) where the leaders instruct everyone to obey the law at all times. They do this solemnly, "earnestly", and without a shred of grounding in how this relates to advancing their beliefs.
Of course another manifestation of this rhetoric was the insanity of the "shame" of Notre Dame having Obama speak there because of his position on this one issue. If a large segment of society truly believes (or is manipulated to believe) that there is a "genocide" in it's midst, it frays at all aspects of civil discourse.
Here's something that I don't understand. Kansas is not the most pro-choice state, and the attorney general went after clinics that provide abortions. (he requested the medical records of some group to make sure that they were psychologically healthy or something.)
And yet, people from Connecticut (see the comment thread at LGM that mcmanus referred to) referred people to Dr. Tiller, because the procedures he was able to do in Kansas were not legal in many other states. Can someone explain this apparent contradiction?
151: Nope, this is not a subject upon which reasonable people can disagree. Being anti-reproductive freedom means being anti-freedom, period, full stop. Beyond that, as I've said above, people need to speak truth to power and point out that the "anti-abortion" part of the movement is only the tip of the iceberg. The antis are also opposed to equality for women, racial minorities, immigrants and queer people. The abortion issue is merely the narrow end of the fascist wedge. These people are truly and completely a fifth column, operating mostly in the open in our society. That has to be stopped, by any means necessary.
155: Spoken like a true fundamentalist.
I think folks from CT were referred to Dr. Tiller because he was one of two or three doctors in the entire US who performed 3d trimester abortions. There's another in CO, at least.
That has to be stopped, by any means necessary.
In light of the weekend's events, that's an unfortunate turn of phrase.
According to this post at Kos, the suspect covered all the spaces on his Wingnut Bingo card.
154: Many states don't permit abortion after the viability line, 22 weeks, iirc. Kansas's laws permit abortion after that point despite being more restrictive in other ways. So if your problem is an emergency in week 24, your options are limited even if the laws that governed what you could do at week eight are more permissive.
156: No, like a true radical.
Here's the thing: This is one of those cases where procedural liberalism just doesn't work. The aim of these people is to destroy civil institutions. They're just not concerned with fighting fair. Moreover, this is a gigantic criminal conspiracy with one huge advantage over any other criminal conspiracy: They have allies and sympathizers in every police department, every sheriff's office, every investigative bureau and every district attorney's office in the country. Randall Terry has been conspiring to promote the murder of doctors for over 20 years, often resulting in their murder. How much time has he spent in jail? A few weeks at most? The debate here is not "abortion vs. anti-abortion" it's freedom vs. death.
Here's the thing: This is one of those cases where procedural liberalism just doesn't work. The aim of these people is to destroy civil institutions. They're just not concerned with fighting fair.
Curiously, the right-wing feels exactly the same way as you do about "fundamentalists". (Of course they're talking only about Muslims, and you're talking only about Christians.)
Moreover, this is a gigantic criminal conspiracy with one huge advantage over any other criminal conspiracy: They have allies and sympathizers in every police department, every sheriff's office, every investigative bureau and every district attorney's office in the country.
And your plan to counter this advantage is . . . ?
161:Curiously, the right-wing feels exactly the same way as you do...
Stop. This is not the time for empathy or understanding of my enemies. I may show mercy when they are defeated and in full submission.
They are not like me, and I cannot become like them, no matter what I do. Abstracting away from the contingent circumstances and specific cases in order to achieve a comforting universalism is a large part of the problem.
hilzoy doesn't want to prevent Operation Rescue from parking semis with foetus pictures in fromt of clinic workers' homes, because it is an infringement on free speech I suppose. Fuck principles, we need different rules for forced-birthers involved in murderous criminal conspiracies.
162:And your plan to counter this advantage is . . . ?
So we have moved away from discussion of morality and principles to matters of hard-headed tactics and strategy? Into "whatever it takes" mode?
Good. Finally.
There are no Gonerills in the foxholes.
Or commenting.
Fuck principles, we need different rules for forced-birthers involved in murderous criminal conspiracies.
Luckily, we have Gitmo available for just this reason.
Curiously, the right-wing feels exactly the same way as you do about "fundamentalists".
If they were wrong about that and minneapolitan wasn't, would it matter?
162: And your plan to counter this advantage is . . . ?
Well, Step #1 is getting you to admit that you have a problem. Step #2 is using the tools at our disposal to organize a response. Step #3 is persevering until we start seeing changes. Step #4 is building on our gains until we're triumphant.
Take as an example what the Bash Back! folx are doing. That's the right kind of radical action in my book. Build your own community, disrupt your enemies' networks and lines of support.
Your steps are awfully formal in character.
Disrupting their lines of support, does that mean blowing up rail lines or what?
Fact. Most important fact
People are going to suffer and die. Deal.
The question is whose people are going to suffer and die.
Does it really make the liberals around here feel better that the people who suffer and die are our people, incredibly kind and courageous medical professionals and vulnerable & desperate women? How is that choice justified?
I've never object too much to peaceful protestors. I don't like it, but I deal with it.
I do object to signs being placed on the streets where providers and their staff live. I do object to websites with workers' pictures and names on the websites. I do object to pamphlets being placed on cars in parking lots near where people live.
167: yes. But that so obvious that I'm not sure I understand your question.
My point in 161 was that in both cases the word "fundamentalist" is being used far too broadly. LB basically pointed this out in 151, but the word you're looking is not "fundamentalist" but "terrorist". In both cases, the latter is only a very narrow subset of the former.
169: I think it would depend on what their lines of support look like. I expect that actual destruction of rail will be minimal, however.
Bring back Sherman's Hairpins!
174: Yes, our side rides the rails, so disabling the tracks would probably be counterproductive.
I do agree the raising the cost of being a radical pro-lifer would be a reasonable strategy, partly because it would split their coalition. Raise the cost of being a radical pro-lifer by publicity and protest, do some kind of positive woman-friendly and anti-racist health initiative to isolate the white men in the movement....
Part of the trouble is that the left (even my kind of left) doesn't really have a culture of meannness. We're not generally out in front of pro-lifer wingnuts' houses hassling their kids on the way to school, we're not out there saying that we sorta-kinda would be okay if, you know, they just were to die or something. We may have a bunch of other flaws, but the will for that just isn't in us, even the most truculent of us.
178 to 175. Probably obvious, but I don't want anyone deciding to burn my shit down for no good reason.
169,174:Their lines of support include a national political party.
Cristina Page at Huffington h/t Feministe
I think this is a prima facie case that connects anti-choice violence to mainstream national politics.
178: The National Railway Historical Society recognizes both terms. And they're national, ari. And historical. So there.
169: Well, there's lots of specific tactics that have been used in the past -- the recent article in Rolling Thunder about SHAC was a good primer in Long War-style protest/direct action campaigns. Obviously, the discussion of specifics with regard to tactics, targets, etc. should happen in affinity groups made up of people who have known each other well for at least 3 years. Given that there's at least one cop, and several gov't lawyers here, it would be inappropriate to speak in any but the most general terms.
We're not generally out in front of pro-lifer wingnuts' houses hassling their kids on the way to school
Are you and/or minne and/or bob saying we should be hassling their kids?
Given that there's at least one cop, and several gov't lawyers here it would be inappropriate to speak in any but the most general terms
But that's to protect you, sympathetic government lawyers! You'll still show up and extract me from the prison camp later on, right? Right?
181 heaps statist normativity upon LB's earlier sexism.
183: Of course not. I was saying that we don't have the same culture as the wingnut right, which is a culture of meanness, hassling people's kids, telling people that they're going to hell, making veiled death threats. Those things are much, much rarer on the left. (And I've been in political situations around enough pro-life wingnuts to know that there's a substantial difference between what the heavy rads are willing to say and do and what the wingnut prolifers are down with)
We're not generally out in front of pro-lifer wingnuts' houses hassling their kids on the way to school
You don't have to because their kids are generally in the medium or on the sidewalk with large billboards of aborted fetuses.
183: Is it possible that we can try to avoid baiting anyone here into saying something that might be misconstrued (or even properly construed) if it's seen by the wrong (or even the right) set of eyes?*
* It seems unlikely that you can read that without thinking that I'm being a jerk and/or hewing to the anarchists' path. Please believe me when I say that neither of those things is true. I'm actually with you in substance; it's just that I really do wonder who's watching the Internets today. And I'd hate to see people here writing things, in the heat of the moment, that they'll later regret. I don't think that's likely, but still.
186: What I was trying to get at is that I think that those thing being much, much rarer on the left is a good thing, and part of why I'm on the left. I can't exactly tell from your description of that as "part of the trouble" what your feelings are about it.
Is 188 the weeniest comment ever? Probably.
183: Are you and/or minne and/or bob saying we should be hassling their kids?
We don't reproduce [much], we recruit. I mean, why bother hassling kids whose parents, teachers and ministers are already hassling them so much? We should be liberating fundies' kids from their fucked-up home situations. After all, we're the nice ones.
188: Sorry if it seemed like I was baiting. That's definitely not my intention. I'm genuinely curious as to what is being called for by the commenters mentioned.
188: Given that I am someone who is known to the cops (or at least some of them) for my (very irregular, extremely small-potatoes) left-wing reporting, given that we have grand juries coming to MN, given the state of things here, it's only prudent.
189: It's part of the trouble because the easiest way to drive those people out would be to hit back as hard as we could using their tactics. But sadly, their tactics are evil! So we actually can't, which makes things more difficult. Also, it makes things more difficult because the DFHs are everywhere depicted in the media as both ruthless and incompetent, so we can't usually even make the plays for sympathy that the right can do.
Oh, I'm always figuring the Fibbies are generally aware of what I'm up to.
192: No need to apologize just because I'm a paranoid weenie.
182: I've been thinking a lot about the SHAC 7 since yesterday. They're in jail for --what?--15 years for linking to things already on the Internet. Nothing comparable will ever, ever happen to the anti-choice terrorists.
Could somebody with better knowledge of the subject than me (which wouldn't take very much knowledge) talk some about how applicable RICO might be to the various anti-abortion groups? Or, for that matter, all these shiny new anti-terrorism-support laws we've got on the books these days? If it started raining magical ponies and the feds decided to come down on these groups with both feet, what tools would they have at their disposal?
It's part of the trouble because the easiest way to drive those people out would be to hit back as hard as we could using their tactics.
This is incorrect. Ratcheting up the confrontation would simply turn more forced birthers out, would lead to more violent confrontations, and would result in pro-choicers getting locked up at rates disproportionate to their role in the violence. The forced birthers have, as pointed out above, sympathizers going all the way up to the governorships of states, and they periodically capture the presidency. For those people this is *the* moral issue of our times. On the pro-choice side there are a few tireless and dedicated people for whom this is issue number one, but the vast majority of pro-choicers have a slate of issues they care about more-or-less equally.
Also, the other side is far more heavily armed and much more willing to use violence.
For RICO you need two or more predicate acts (most obvious criminal acts are going to qualify) committed in a ten year period in relation to the same 'enterprise'. It'd probably be pretty easy to do something with RICO, but it'd depend on who exactly the target was.
183,188:Oh, I am wide open on tactics and strategy. IOW, candlelight vigils are also terrific and maybe preferable.
But there were only 100 people at the candlelight vigil in Wichita last night. To my shame, I didn't make it.
It's about achieving our goals, with "minimal damage to our side" doing a lot of work, but not so much it keeps us from achieving our goals.
And I am not very patient.
196: Don't forget the AETA 4 either. These are dangerous times. But, if you're an anarchist or a Wobbly, it's always a dangerous time.
200 continued
And of course "our goals" might be more narrowly defined than is usually the case in a liberal democracy. But maintaining a respectful or even peaceful relationship with my adversaries at the expense of my values or preferences has never been a priority for me.
201: Also if you're an abortion provider, even a non-anarchist abortion provider
Oops. 196 was me. Stuck in airport! Drinking!
198: See, I don't think this is true. Abortion wingnuts are only a small fraction of pro-lifers, but they're key--they work really hard, they produce a lot of material, they have creepy passion that helps them pull people together.
Fragmenting the pro-lifer movement is key--it's super-unified now, and skews far more to the right/forced-birth/white-supremacist side than I think most individual pro-lifers do.
In my experience with this type of person, you really can drive them out by mirroring/exceeding their hard core tactics. That's how the rads broke up Klan rallies in this town, that's how folks drove out the far right pro-lifers back in the nineties. You show up, you yell, you don't back down, you...er....do other stuff. You raise the costs of doing what they do.
This is not a tactic that works well on large-and-diverse groups of people. It's not the number one way to fight the right, because even most wingnuts are more ordinary than they are bizarre. But when you have a small, key group of rightists, you tackle them individually. That's how the feds work on the left. Think of it as the left COINTELPRO, if you will.
In the mid to late 90s the Feds finally got serious about preventing right-wing terrorism, and were pretty successful. I believe this is the first time in over ten years where a U.S. abortion provider was killed or seriously injured by anti-abortion terrorism.
This is a terrible incident, but it seems like you guys are overreacting.
206: I'm surprised by this, but if what I've been reading over the last few days is accurate (and it seems incredible, so maybe I'm confused), this weekend, terrorists killed either a third or a half of the practitioners doing the late-term abortions Dr. Tiller provided. There's one or two people who do the same work left in the country. If that's right, I don't think we're overreacting.
207: not overreacting in terms of the threats to abortion access, I didn't say that. But much of the post and comments were specifically about violent anti-abortion terrorism. By the casualty count, the legal system has been fairly effective in addressing that. A lot of the access stuff is related to legislation and policy that passed through the system, not terrorism outside of it.
In the mid to late 90s the Feds finally got serious about preventing right-wing terrorism, and were pretty successful.
They were successful they used RICO to destroy OR financially. (Sorry if pwned; I'm just starting into this thread.)
the first time in over ten years
Hmm, seems like there might be something during eight of the past ten years that could explain that other than really good federal enforcement.
From the link in 180: "In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401."
207: You're not confused; it's true. Terrorism works.
A lot of the access stuff is related to legislation and policy that passed through the system, not terrorism outside of it.
The preponderance of access stuff is related to most practitioners being too intimidated to offer services because of terrorism.
Cala, Thanks for your answer. I was a bit unclear in phrasing my question. You wrote, "Kansas's laws permit abortion after that point despite being more restrictive in other ways."
Can anyone explain how the history behind this? How did Kansas come to allow post-viability abortions (a fairly liberal stance) while being more restrictive in other ways?
post-viability abortions (a fairly liberal stance)
The anti-abortion focus on late-term abortions as distinct from abortion generally is pretty recent -- ten, fifteen years? I think in statutes from before that a lack of regulation of late-term abortion wouldn't be closely connected to political attitudes.
215: Webster was 1989. I think that may have been the start of a lot of the broad politicization specifically of the late-term stuff.
I also wonder if improvements in technology which have pushed back the point at which a fetus is viable explain part of the differences in the laws.
I feel the need to stamp my feet and insist that we recognize that there are any number of very liberal states with very liberal abortion laws with zero doctors in those states willing to perform entirely legal proceedures. Dr. George Tiller is a motherfucking saint.
215-217:It was not a change in their ultimate goals, but a smart shift in strategy, to change the focus from women's rights or choice to the viability of the foetus. It was also the terrible mistake SCOTUS made in RvW.
I try never to mention the fetus or issues pertaining when discussing abortion.
A 22-week fetus is "viable" in only the most optimistic possible sense of the word.
I feel the need to stamp my feet and insist that we recognize that there are any number of very liberal states with very liberal abortion laws with zero doctors in those states willing to perform entirely legal proceedures. Dr. George Tiller is a motherfucking saint.
YES. This.
220: My neonatal pediatrician friend puts "viability" in the sense of "medicine has tools that it can use to help" at 23 weeks. Younger than that and not only is the baby too immature, but the medical equipment can't be made strong enough (e.g., a breathing tube suitable for a 500g infant.) 22 would be pushing it.
A 22-week fetus is "viable" in only the most optimistic possible sense of the word
Two somewhat underreported scientific lines of inquiry leap to mind:
1) Aren't premature children at significant risk for developmental and auto-immune problems down the road? I recall hearing that the statistical correlation was getting quite strong, yet I never see this idea brought up in abortion debates. "Can" survive outside the womb is very much not the same thing as "should" survive outside the womb.
2) Related, but I keep reading tantalizing clues to the incredible chemical interaction that takes place between the mother's system and the ifetus's: hormones and ions and all kinds of mysterious things combining to alter in very permanent ways the development of the fetus's individual biology. Just because a fetus at X stage looks kinda cute on a sonogram doesn't at all mean that everything is in place. Also, the artificial womb is at least a good two generations away from even being thinkable.
1) Aren't premature children at significant risk for developmental and auto-immune problems down the road? I recall hearing that the statistical correlation was getting quite strong, yet I never see this idea brought up in abortion debates. "Can" survive outside the womb is very much not the same thing as "should" survive outside the womb.
Yes. The ability to keep a severely premature fetus alive is more advanced than the ability to allow a severely premature fetus to complete the development that would have ideally happened in utero. I have a family friend who became a doctor after his son had a really problematic birth and ended up severely retarded; he said that working in the neonatal ICU was incredibly depressing. You can keep them alive for a while, but invariably they have serious problems for the entirety of their very short lives.
You could argue that it'd be better for everyone to not try to save the baby in that case, and I might agree, but I don't think it's a culturally American thing to do.
224: My fairly-uninformed impression is that the advances in viability for premature babies have included a couple of different things. First, preemies that had, maybe, a one in four chance of survival twenty or thirty years ago are now much much more likely to live and thrive -- there are huge advances, but not really that can be described as pushing back the point, in terms of dates, at which a baby is viable outside the womb. Then, there are babies that would have had no chance at all thirty years ago, and for those I think you're right that there are often major problems for the ones who survive.
Hairpins
The hobos support me in email.
Orcinus explains pretty well why right-wing terrorism is higher in democratic presidential terms. I forget where exactly they explains it (and which one), but they do. That's probably the blog I've read for the longest that I still read.
I feel the need to stamp my feet and insist that we recognize that there are any number of very liberal states with very liberal abortion laws with zero doctors in those states willing to perform entirely legal proceedures. Dr. George Tiller is a motherfucking saint.
Agreed.
This is such an important issue.
Some of these older doctors need to retire!! Step up people. Many of them thought that this would be a short-time gig until medicine made them unnecessary.
The obgyn profession is starting to become overwhelmingly female and not enough of them are stepping up.
My sister was premature in 81, and she's had some learning disability issues, but there are enough cross currents in her development and our genes that I would feel comfortable saying that it caused her problems.
She was supposedly due in April but was born on February 5. Would that have made her 28 weeks? I wonder whether they were wrong about the due date. She was in an incubator for a while, but she was pretty much completely developed, e.g. her lungs were good; she was just quite small.
Aren't premature children at significant risk for developmental and auto-immune problems down the road? I recall hearing that the statistical correlation was getting quite strong, yet I never see this idea brought up in abortion debates.
Wait, seriously? I never heard about the autoimmune thing.
228:Oh thank you so very very much. I haven't been to Orcinus in a long time.
I forget where exactly they explains it (and which one), but they do.
Try This One by Sara Evans. She just fucking nails it.
I thought it was Sara Robinson?
This is from TPM:
LeRoy Carhart, a Nebraska physician who has been working at George Tiller's Wichita clinic for ten years, says the clinic will resume operations Monday on a permanent basis. "What people need to know is... the women's services that we provided for 30 years are not going to change. The same abortion services will remain available in Wichita."
My check will be in the mail tomorrow.
233:Right. Thanks,
Sara Evans is a country singer.
More on Carhart, from Wikipedia:
On 6 September 1991, the day of the passage of the Nebraska Parental Notification Law, arsonists targeted Carhart's farm, setting fire to his home and a 48-stall barn, along with two other buildings and numerous vehicles. The attack killed two family pets and 17 horses. The fire, which had started in seven different locations on Carhart's property, was never deemed arson and no one was prosecuted. Carhart received a note the morning after the fire claiming responsibility and likening the deaths of his animals to the "murder of children". At the time of the fire, abortions had been a small part of Carhart's surgical practice; afterwards, determined not "cede a victory to the antis", Carhart began performing abortions full-time.
oudemia, was his clinic a non-profit? I can only get certain portions of the site through google cache. The actual site is temporarily unavailable.
237: You know, I don't know 100%, but this from SarahMC over at The Pursuit of Harpyness broke my heart all over again:
I will never forget the handwritten thank-you note Dr. Tiller sent me when I donated $50 to his clinic. He said he'd been having a rough week because someone had just smashed one of his windows, but that my card and check had brightened his day. My god. I just can't believe this.
Feministe posted the following from the National Network of Abortion Funds:
The Network has also received many requests from women who received care from Dr. Tiller and from activists in the reproductive justice community to set up a Fund in Dr. Tiller's name. In response, we have established the George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund to assist the women to whom George Tiller dedicated his life. The Fund will assist women in the second trimester to pay for abortion care, as well as pay for travel and lodging en route to providers. To donate to the Fund in Dr. Tiller's name, please send contributions to:
George Tiller Memorial Abortion Fund
c/o National Network of Abortion Funds
42 Seaverns Ave.
Boston, MA 02130
You may also donate online at http://www.nnaf.org/tiller.html
They list some other donation possibilities in the linked post.
The Federal Marshalls are being offered to providers.
239: You may also donate online at http://www.nnaf.org/tiller.html
Thanks. That went smoothly.
I messed up the link to the Feministe post with the other donation possibilities. It's here.
I suggest donations to the Center for Reproductive Rights. They were instrumental in in the Carhart, et al case.
http://reproductiverights.org/en/about-us/donate
when the implied promise of one of the two major political parties in a country is that electing their members will mean a reprieve of its leaders or surrogates inciting their followers to violence against that country's own citizens or its government.
Hey, it's just the domestic application of a strategy perfected in Central America in the eighties. Ask some Nicaraguans why they voted the Contras into power in the early nineties.
Good news, relatively speaking: Nebraska physician vows to keep Tiller's abortion clinic open.
Damnit, pwned by oudemia. I, too, will be sending a check right away.
Just to repeat: The Center for Reproductive Rights largely funded Carhart et al's Partial Birth case.
Minne's point about the overlap between the forced-birth movement and white supremacists is quite right. That was one of the most striking things I learned when reading about the Rudolph case: he had moved in circles where it was an explicit part of the ideology that abortion should be outlawed for white women and encouraged for everyone else.
Regardless of the overlaps, though, the larger hook on which I hang almost all of my opinions about the matter is that forced-birth people want to control the most basic functions of our most private organs. They are an invasion force. I want to see nothing but peaceful, legal responses to them, but if they think of doctors as murderers then I have to confess that in all honesty, in my heart of hearts, I think of the forced-birth thugs as rapists.
21: CharleyCarp, thanks for the citation -- I was able to use it in another forum. Ultimately it won't be helpful as the guy I'm talking to is a fucking shitbag troll, but at least I've got the facts on my side.
This thread seems to be dead, but the post at Slacktivist about evangelicals and abortion is worth reading.
