Blog Critical Reflection # 10
Kelly Gordon
1.
Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision that made it illegal to refuse a woman an abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy in every state in the United States. This, of course, caused Christians and Catholics to respond with sit-ins and protests at abortion clinics: “Michael Bray came to believe that John Knox was speaking to him across the centuries, telling him that it was his duty as a Christian to fight abortion by any means necessary.” (Wrath of Angels p 82) As Ronald Reagan reached office, his conservative viewpoints made abortion more public in the media. Bray and his partner in crime, Spinks, took the protests and sit-ins one step further by planning clinic bombings that wouldn’t harm anyone but would disable that clinic’s ability to perform abortions. This, they though, was God’s will: “ ‘Before God, we both felt committed that we had to do all we could to save as many of these children as we could, short of destroying the human lives who took human lives,’ Spinks said later, when he testified against Bray in federal court as part of his own plea agreement. ‘In other words, it would be okay to destroy buildings…we viewed them as death camps. So we came to the agreement that it was okay to destroy these places as long as it was carefully carried out so that no human life would be lost in the process.’” (Wrath of Angels, p 86) A bombing that finally made anti-abortion bombings reach the ten o’clock news was the Wheaton blast performed and planned by Spinks and Bray. A sit-in that was held by different activists a few days before was wrongly connected with those who committed the bombing. This disabled a lot of the peaceful progress that the activists made during the nonviolent sit-in. Eventually Spinks and Bray were caught as were their lemmings. They were all tried in court and sent to prison. Bray’s wife participated in an anti-abortion case where she was the lead plantiff. Bray v. Alexandria Health Services supported the right to clinic sit-ins. Mr. and Mrs. Bray continued violent anti-abortion acts even after Bray was released from prison. When asked about his legacy Bray replied, “Upholding truth. And clarifying what it is.” (Wrath of Angels p 100)
Joan Andrews was one woman who changed the face of anti-abortion activism. She broke into The Ladies Center Clinic in Pensacola in March of 1986 in order to damage the abortion equipment and superglue the locks shut. She was arrested and her lack of cooperation earned her a sentence of 20 months solitary confinement. She became a martyr for the anti-abortion activists for her willingness to sacrifice her freedom to save unborn babies’ lives.
The escalation of activism since Roe v. Wade was due to the publicity that sit-ins and protests gained and the minimal progress that they achieved. People began turning toward more violent acts in order to make the news, truly prevent abortions from taking place by destructing instruments and buildings, and have a physically outlet for their anger. Certain Christians felt personally guilty for the abortions that were taking place: “If the church failed to act, then the church would be guilty of sin as well.” (Wrath of Angels, p 83) This inspired more and more extreme and radical protests and actions among activists.
2.
“Acceptance of the appropriateness and feasibility of disruptive collective action are critical components of actual protest participation” (God, Politics, and Protest, 1429) There are two types of Christians who are against abortion: one individual expresses their opposition by voting against laws that enable abortion to take place more consistently or through a wider spectrum, and the second person also votes in that favor, but additionally participates actively in the protests or sit-ins that contribute to the exploitation of abortion. If one were greatly involved with a church and the activities within that parish and felt strongly about a certain issue, it would be common for that person to vote and also actively take part in any protests concerning that issue.
For example, Michael Bray’s employment as a minister explains his approval and support of contentious tactics. Contentious tactics are more controversial forms of expressing your opinion in line with your religion. For example, sit-ins or protests at abortion clinics are a more contentious tactic than simply voting. Acceptance of contentious tactics is consistently affiliated with religion and a view that there in conflict between God and the world. If a Christian believes that all non-Christians are sinners and against Christ, they are more likely to participate in contentious tactics. Also, being strongly involved in church activities makes it more likely that individuals will interact with fellow parishioners who engage in contentious tactics; church activities, in a sense, act as a recruitment process for potential protestors.
Michael Bray was a minister who felt strongly about abortion as did his wife. He believed that bombing buildings was God’s will and not a sinful act; he though that he was right in running contentious tactics. Michael Bray even went to the extent to go on a Christian radio show and speak out to the Christian community. He condemned those ministers who were not actively taking part in the anti-abortion sit-ins and protests: “If the church failed to act, then the church would be guilty of sin as well.” (Wrath of Angels, p 83) In result, ministers gathered up parishioners who were interested in contentious tactics and joins Michael Bray’s regime.
3. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=119132733&sid=1&Fmt=10&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=HNP
The Christmas Bombings in Pensacola –
The New York Times article discussed many more aspects of the Christmas bombings in Pensacola. It talked about the different dispositions of each group of people that was affected – the clinic owner, the community, the bombers, the wives, and ministers within the area. Risen and Thomas concentrated a lot more on the facts of the events and what the repercussions where. They also discussed how these bombings changed the face of the anti-abortion activists. The most interesting thing that The New York Times touched on that Risen and Thomas missed was the response of Burt: “He said he believes more clinic bombings are inevitable. Asked if he felt responsible in any way for the bombings, he said: ‘I can’t be responsible for everyone. It’s like blaming the President for deaths in a war just because he’s Commander in Chief.’” (Nordheimers, “Bombing Case Offers a Stark Look at Abortion Conflicts”) Risen and Thomas almost avoid the subject of less radical Christians. They don’t mention how religious, yet not those involved with contentious tactics, people respond to these bombings. In a way, if you weren’t educated about the Christian religion, you’d think all Christians were as radical as the individuals discussed in Wrath of Angels. I think it gives a skewed perspective of Christians who are pro-life.
[I can’t find any images of the Pensacola abortion clinic bombings. Google isn’t being helpful]
2 comments:
I definitely agree with your reasoning for the escalation of violence; people saw it as being more effective, both at stopping abortions and bringing the issue to the forefront. At the same time, however, I think its important to remember that the group that did go towards violence for these reasons was by no means the majority, but rather likely a fringe minority of the anti-abortion movement. "The silent majority" did not perform these acts... which is also unfortunately why they are termed "silent".
:D I just read your part 3, and now what I said above is rendered obsolete! Basically, I agree with the following: "In a way, if you weren’t educated about the Christian religion, you’d think all Christians were as radical as the individuals discussed in Wrath of Angels."
Most of the book definitely is about violence... yet I think part of it is also that we didn't have to read chapter 3, which actually does talk in depth about the NONVIOLENT movement and gives the religious background on O'Keefe.
I definitely agree that the violent minority of pro-life activists are a very small part of the group. They give a skewed view of pro-lifers in general and gives all of them a bad name. At its core, the pro-life movement is a movement against violence. To use violence against violence invalidates the whole movement. I believe that if everyone had stuck with nonviolent tactics, the movement would have gone a lot further. I also believe that if the peaceful leaders had come out and spoken against the violence, the movement would have been able to keep its good name. Instead, they lost sight of the core of the pro-life movement and allowed the whole thing to lose its credibility.
Post a Comment