1
The changing goals, values, and tactics of the anti-abortion movement followed what is a fairly standard progression for protest movements. The initial event that caused widespread discontent was the decision in Roe v. Wade and the change in legal status of abortions caused by it. Although there were certainly those who applauded this decision, there was also a considerable number of people, especially religious individuals, who felt that the decision was extremely disturbing. Many felt the need to demonstrate their opposition; members of the Catholic church took the lead in organizing against the practice of abortions.
John O’Keefe is described by Risen and Thomas as being one of the (if not the) first devoted abortion protestors. Like many similar movements, he made sure to conduct his protests in a nonviolent manner. In the early days of the anti-abortion protesting he never advocated or supported violence or destruction of any kind. Others, such as Sam Lee, held comparable ideologies. They organized sit-ins and other forms of civil disobedience, but never violence.
Also like many other movements, however, the anti-abortion movement did not stay nonviolent for long. On the one hand, there were individuals who, from the moment they heard of the Roe v. Wade decision, were immediately incised to react more violently. One such example was Joan Andrews. Her initial reaction to the news was a desire to go and destroy equipment at abortion facilities. Other members of the anti-abortion movement, such as Randall Terry, were also naturally inclined toward violent behavior, but they took longer to become a part of the movement. Once they did join it, they brought an increased willingness to commit destructive behavior to the group as a whole.
Another cause of the increase in violence was the disappointment of certain members of the anti-abortion movement with the pace, effectiveness, and success of the tactics being used by peaceful protestors, such as O’Keefe. Michael Bray and Thomas Spinks are perhaps the best examples of this group. While they were initially just a part of the mainstream anti-abortion movement, they became increasingly radical as time went by and the small-scale sit-ins were not very successful. Joan Andrews had taken things into her own hands by entering abortion clinics and destroying their equipment, but that was not a large enough scale.
To truly make an impact, Bray and Spinks began bombing abortion clinics. Their reasoning can be seen as two-fold. The first reason, as we have already discussed, was their disillusionment and their desire to actually get something done. The second reason that the pair began bombing the clinics was for the added publicity and therefore recognition that such an act would generate. The issue of abortion, which was going too unnoticed for anti-abortionists’ tastes, needed to be brought to focus, and the bombing of the clinics seemed like the perfect way to accomplish this.
When Bray and Spinks were found out and imprisoned, the movement had the chance to denounce them, distance itself from them, and salvage something of its reputation. However, the movement did a poor job of doing any of those things. Instead, leaders such as O’Keefe who would normally have condemned violence under any circumstances were not sure what to say.
The story does not end here, however. Violence decreased shortly, but soon it was back with a vengeance. After an increased focus by people such as Randall Terry on the organization of the movement and how best to proceed, the violence soon returned. In this case, though, bombing and burning buildings was simply not enough. Rallying under the Bible and Genesis 9:6, certain members of the anti-abortion movement began to feel that their best hope for a change of policy and increased publicity was to be even more extreme than the bombings. What could fill that role? Why, the killing of abortion doctors, for instance.
The murder of the doctors themselves by individuals such as Michael Griffin and Paul Hill is never something that the early leaders of the anti-abortion movement would never have condoned. Unfortunately, these more pacifistic leaders had been marginalized and pushed out of the spot light. There was no one to denounce the killings with the kind of intensity and fervor as there ought to have been.
2
McVeigh and Sikkink examine the idea that certain beliefs, specifically religious beliefs, could incline one to be more likely to engage in protests and other “contentious actions.” Their main focus is on Protestants and whether or not the views commonly attributed to Protestantism would cause more contentious behavior in those who held these views. In many ways, this makes sense. They give examples of how groups as diverse as the Klu Klux Klan and the Civil Rights Movement both relied heavily on the support of Protestant Christians.
Protestantism especially contains within it the potential to be an extremely disruptive religious force. Not only is there a great amount of history in Protestantism to support this idea, but some of the core beliefs of this type of Christianity also lend support. Many fundamentalist and evangelical, Protestant Christians feel as though they are outnumbered in a hostile world. They take it as a personal mission to spread the word of God however possible to as many of the heathen masses as they can.
Michael Bray clearly shared some of these feelings. After coming to Christianity late, he took to it with an extreme degree of fervor and devotion. He was ousted out of Grace Lutheran for his radical beliefs and his contentious behavior. When he clashed with the minister, he raised his own group of supporters and challenged his authority. This alone could have served as clear enough evidence of what the future would hold for Michael Bray.
His refusal to listen to O’Keefe also singled Bray out as a potentially contentious figure. While he pretended to be an abiding member of O’Keefe’s movement, he was really planning bombings with Spinks. He clearly saw these actions through the lens of his Protestant Christianity; he believed that what he was doing was justified because he was doing the will of God.
3
These three articles are all related to the shooting of Dr. George Tiller by Rachelle Shannon on August 19, 1993. The picture they create of the events surrounding and following the shooting is interesting; in many ways it seems identical to the story presented in the Risen and Thomas’ book, but in some ways the two seem quite different. The most obvious difference is how the events are told. In the Times articles, the events are told in a general, brief overview. The book, on the other hand, goes into a great degree of detail. The reason for this is actually very obvious: Risen and Thomas are attempting to create a compelling narrative. The reader of Wrath of Angels has to be interested in order to stick with it, and so the authors face the added difficulties of telling a good story.
This does highlight another important difference, however. The newspaper articles are all very short. They are more than likely little side notes that would go widely overlooked by the casual reader of the newspaper. While the story is important enough to make it into the Times in the first place, it is clearly not considered important enough to waste or take up unnecessary space. This is substantially different than the book. Risen and Thomas devote quite a bit of effort to recounting exactly what
The images (the first of Tiller, the second of Shannon, and the third of the
No comments:
Post a Comment