Theresa Chu
Part I
After the decision about Roe vs. Wade had been established, the reaction on the part of the conservative groups was one of rage without violence. Protests were held, but they consisted of peaceful acts such as prayer vigils and singing; however, as time went on, many protesters became restless because they felt as if the movement towards saving babies was not making enough progress if any at all. As the statistics revealed that more and more abortions were being conducted each year, the radical protesters became even more desperate for change; thus, they turned to violence in hopes of making headlines and bringing attention to their cause. Initially, John O’Keefe led peaceful protests outside abortion clinics and complied with authorities when asked to leave the premises.
Despite his efforts to keep these protests peaceful, participants in this cause became hungry for more action that would make a bigger impact on abortion. Bray and Spinks were two of these people. They began to secretly bomb abortion clinics and were able to avoid capture. The actions taken by these men soon inspired more anti-abortionists to take the same route of violence. Michael Griffin eventually murdered David Gunn, an abortionist, which sparked people like Paul Hill and Rachelle Shannon to follow in his footsteps.
An important aspect of this evolution in protests is the use of images in place of text. Reading about an aborted fetus creates a vastly different reaction than seeing an image of a mangled/dismembered dead fetus with red blood surrounding it. Films such as The Silent Scream also served to further the anti-abortion movement, for they showed images of fetuses being suctioned out of the uterus as well as containers full of aborted fetuses.
Part II
Paul Hill is described by Risen and Thomas to be “a fundamentalist preacher with a fixed and eerie smile” (345). He praised Griffin’s actions in the killing of an abortionist and continually sought to make headlines with “outrageous” statements and slogans such as “execute murderers, abortionists, accessories” (346). McVeigh and Sikkink assert in their article that “contentious actions” are often approved by Protestants in response to abortion. Factors that justify this approval are “volunteering for church organizations, a perception that religious values are being threatened, a belief that individuals should not have a right to deviate from Christian moral standards, and a belief that humans are inherently sinful.” Hill appears to fit all these descriptions, for he was active in church and held extremely radical ideals. He wrote a paper justifying the murder of abortionists in order to save the hundreds of babies that the doctor would have killed. In the article, the authors mention that religion provides a sort of “cultural toolkit” that permits contentious acts by harboring symbols and meanings to justify violence in places like the Bible which fundamentalists would take literally (Gen. 9:6). Scheidler even commented that Hill’s arguments were “strong and from a biblical perspective quite convincing” (346).
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Paul%20Hill-729741.jpg
Part III
By LARRY ROHTERSpecial to The New York Times (1994, March 6). Abortion Case Verdict :PROTESTER GUILTY OF KILLING DOCTOR Jury Convicts Man of Murder in 1993 Shooting Outside Florida Abortion Clinic. New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 1. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004) database. (Document ID: 116309424).
In this article, the sentencing of Michael Griffin is detailed. No significant difference exists between the Times and Wrath of Angels in the portrayal of this event. Both sources give religious reasons as to why Griffin would shoot Dr. Gunn; furthermore, both sources describe the scene of the crime without becoming too personal. One difference between the Times and the book is the fact that the newspaper quotes the family of Griffin while the book only quotes supporters of Griffin’s actions.
In this image of Michael Griffin, he is seen as unhappy and angry; however, in the book, he is described as being satisfied and content with his actions as well as his sentence.
By RONALD SMOTHERSSpecial to The New York Times (1994, October 6). Guilty in Clinic Attack :Abortion Protester Is Guilty Under Clinic Access Law Florida Case Is First Under a New Statute. New York Times (1857-Current file),p. A1. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004) database. (Document ID: 116530136).
Paul Hill’s trial and sentencing is described in this article in the same way as it is described in Wrath of Angels. Facts are presented without bias. In the newspaper article, though, more details about the trial are given. In these images of Paul Hill, the emotion described in the book matches the facial expression shown on Hill’s face. Hill did not regret murdering two men, and he felt that the violence he committed was justified.
http://www.fadp.org/news/MiamiHerald-20030903_files/44636154179.jpe
3 comments:
I agree with your observation of the differences between the Times articles and the book. In my post I mention that the articles seem to simply present the facts, without bias or opinion of any kind. The book, on the other hand, does seem to have a sort of bias, as you mention is represented in the pictures of Michael Griffin. Thomas and Risen seem to want to portray the more human aspect of these anti-abortion protesters. The authors go into the histories and aspirations of the individuals, which makes them more relatable, and makes us less likely to quickly condemn them. If I were to read the articles, prior to reading the book, I would only see the murderousside of Paul Hill, or the bomb supporting side of Michael Bray, in short, the radical, extreme side of the individuals. While I still feel that murder is wrong, bombing facilities is wrong, and destroying expensive medical equipment is wrong, reading the book softened my view.
Wow... I think that the pictures you have up on your blog of Paul Hill really help to make the case for the (immediate) effectiveness of images over that of text. Saying that Hill thought his act was justified is one thing, but it was really amazing to see how he actually looked happy after committing the murder. Its really unbelievable (especially the second picture).
Going back to part one... great explanation. I think that its important to note that these people really were not the majority by any standard however, even after it seemed that nonviolence was not going anywhere. Not everybody turned to violence as a second option. Part of it is just realizing that there are radicals in all groups who can take their beliefs to the extreme or out of context.
I agree with Fatema about the pictures. Paul Hill really does have quite a creepy smile. He obviously is not all remorseful for killing a man. This, to me, seems a bit hypocritical since he is expecting others not to kill unborn people and repent for those that they have killed. He doesn't set a very good example.
I would have to disagree with Maxine when she says that the books are more biased than the NYT articles. To me, the books had almost no bias. They just told the whole story. Just because they told the pro-life activists' back story doesn't mean that they are biased. A person's history has a lot to do with their motives behind committing a crime and motives are usually very importing in convicting criminals.
Post a Comment