etibbetts post 10

Erica Tibbetts

Question #1: How did the anti-abortion movement evolve from the first reaction to Roe Vs. Wade until Pensacola? Why did this escalation take place? How and why did the protestors change their approach?

The anti-abortion movement started with non-violent, sit-ins and protests that aimed to raise attention to the movement and the leaders, but no to harm anyone or do damage. Organizations such as Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project led by Scheidler, John O’Keefe and Harry Hand, aimed at alerting the public of the “crimes and sins” they perceived to be occurring. O’Keefe staged sit ins- his crowning moment coming on November 17^th 1984 when, “forty-six people, including seventeen Catholic and Protestant members of the clergy were arrested, which at the time was the largest number of arrests for any one anti-abortion event” (91). O’Keefe had been active since the 1970’s and he never strayed from this sort of protest.

Michael Bray pretended to be a part John O’Keefe’s movement, acting in many of his sit-ins and adding his fervor to PNAP. However, while he was doing this he was also advising Thomas Spinks. The two began bombing abortion clinics in January, 1984, under the auspices of AOG, Army of God.

Bray said of himself and Spinks, “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” (86). After the first two bombings Bray had Spinks act alone, in order to keep himself distanced from the physical action of bombing. However, he still advised Spinks on where to bomb, and helped him store the materials he used.

Meanwhile he took a bigger role in PNAP. So, it was Bray himself he sort of started the downfall of non-violent anti-abortion movements in the north. After the November 17^th success, in which Bray did not participate, he heard about the arrests made and is recorded to have said, “Getting arrested. That sounds like something we should do” (88). When Spinks was caught, after bombing a site that PNAP had recently picketed, O’Keefe’s movement suffered a blow. Because O’Keefe could not and did not distance himself sufficiently from the bombings, he alienated certain members of the movement who were not interested in violence. About the bombings, O’Keefe said, “It is just to respond to violence against people by destroying property. Human life is far more valuable than property. Pro-lifers are going to act… The question is what shape will action take. (94)

After Brays’ arrest and incarceration, and O’Keefe’s wishy washy response, the PNAP movement struggled to make any more important anti-abortion actions.

About the same time as this was going on, however; Joan Andrews was starting her rise to stardom. She differed from the above mentioned activists in that she was a Catholic and they were Protestants, and the anti-abortion problem was traditionally viewed as a Catholic one, due to that sects idea of the wrongs of contraception, etc. Her actions, arrest, and behavior while in jail turned her into a martyr, appreciated by all religious activists, no matter their affiliation. While O’Keefe strayed away from damaging any property, and Bray headed towards the other extreme in his choice to blow things up, Andrews seemed to provide a sort of middle ground. Her actions consisted of filling abortion clinic door locks with super glue and damaging equipment (she was arrested for the latter). During her time in court and in jail, Andrews refused to do anything of her own volition, making police officers and jail guards carry her from place to place. This kind of behavior gained her a huge following and forwarded the message and prestige of the anti-abortion movement in ways that almost no other occurrence could have She was what Risen and Thomas call, “the movement’s first full-time intinerant protestor”(192).

One of the most interesting things about Andrews was her ability to unite the Protestant and Catholic religion: “It is one of the great ironies of the anti-abortion cause that fundamentalist Protestants, who until then had steered clear of anti-abortion activism in part because of their antipathy toward all things Catholic were finally mobilized by the plight of a woman who was feverishly Catholics: a woman who gripped her rosary beads at each moment of crisis, who felt the greatest punishment she could endure in prison was to be denied attendance at Catholics Mass” (188). Even while she was endlessly pacing her jail cell, she was strenthgening the bonds between fellow protestors.

After Andrews, Cindy and Randy Terry took center stage. They began picketing together with little more than their own persons and a few anti-abortion posters outside of Southern Tier abortion clinic in Binghamton. The authors mention an interesting statistic “In 1973 more than half of all abortions were performed in hospitals: by 1988, 86 percent of all abortions were being performed in freestanding clinics like southern tier and only 10 percent in hospitals” (244). The importance of this statistic is that it caused more demonstrators like the Terry’s to feel compelled to picket and protest outside of abortion clinics, because they were easier and more important targets. After being frustrated by very few successful attempt at convincing women to reconsider their decisions to abort, Randy Terry managed to enlist the help of Pastor Dan Little and his congregation. With this added support he founded “Project Life”- a non-profit organization that would help him fund his new obsession with picketing and protesting. The author’s state that Terry had a “heavy reliance on Evangelical rhetoric and biblical references” which helped attract religious groups and individuals (249).

As he became more confident and better supported, Terry moved on to bigger projects, naming his organization “Operation Rescue”. He managed to organize a boycott of the entire shopping center in which Southern Tier was located, he began locking himself and his followers into rooms, chaining himself to equipment, and basically becoming more and more invasive and confident with his tactics. After being arrested, he reveled in the media: “Their sit-in had generated more news coverage than Terry could have ever imagined, and he quickly became convinced that civil disobedience is the only path to successful protest in modern America” (254). After this he was arrested multiple times and saw his fame rise within the anti-abortion movement. He attended many meetings where Catholics and evangelists united, saying at one point, “For the first time I was at a pro-life meeting where I was no the token Protestant’ (259).

After garnering even more support he moved onto to mass protest organization. He first hit Cherry Hill, New Jersey, after being foiled a his attempt to get at Philadelphia clinics. He and about 400 protestors officially kept the clinic from operating until after 4 p.m. and only 210 of the protestors were arrested (263). After this he moved on to New York City, where he hit 3 different sites in the span of a week, and eventually angering the local police to the point where they started dragging protestors away from the site. He eventually overstepped his own boundaries and grew too big for his boots, becoming overstretched and ineffective.

After Terry and the peak of non-violent yet still highly invasive anti-abortion tactics, the anti-abortion killing sprees began. It started with Michael Griffin’s slaying of David Gunn, an act that he called “Providence”; “I knew he was getting ready to kill children that day. I asked the Lord what he wanted me to do. And he told me to tell him that he had one more chance” (339). Griffin shot Gunn three times, in the back and did it under the auspices of the following bible verse, ‘Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by his blood shall be shed” (340). After this, Shelley Shannon went on an anti-abortion rampage, detonating bombs all over the country and ending her spree in the shooting of George Tiller. While she didn’t succeed in killing him, she was tried and convicted of attempted murder. She confessed immediately to the crime, saying “If there ever was a justifiable homicide, that would have been it” (356). And this was exactly the motivation that spurred Shannon and the rest of the killers. They all thought they were doing the right thing in stopping what they perceived to be “murder”. None of them stopped to think of the consequences of the murder they themselves were committing, and all of them seemed to think they had God’s will on their side. Risen and Thomas write that, “Shannon’s transformation from a housewife participating in mainstream protest to a radical member of a new violent underground was, in many ways, a metaphor for the decline and fall of the anti-abortion movement itself”(349). She went from being committed and passionate, a great asset to the cause because she had few ties or restrictions, to becoming a great liability because of her over-zealousness and borderline mental breakdown. The killings that took the lives of not just doctors who performed abortions (Gunn, Britton, Tiller) but also patients, people aiding the doctors, and patients, turned popular opinion, the media and the government against the cause. With a liberal President in office, the anti-abortion lobbyists lost ground and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was passed, “making it a federal crime to block access to clinics or to commit acts aimed at denying a woman access to an abortion” (357). With this legislation, the lack of any sort of public support, and the conflict within the anti-abortion groups themselves over the issue of violence, the movement basically fell apart.

Question #2: McVeigh and Sikkink’s article argues that certain factors make Protestants approve of “contentious actions.” Apply their analysis to one of the individuals you have reads about in Risen and Thomas: Michael Bray, Joan Andrews, Randall Terry, Michael Griffin, or Paul Hill.
McVeigh and SIkkink argue that the single greatest factor leading Protestants to protest is their approval of “contentious action” however; after this first indicator, they are a little hazy on what exactly makes them approve or what (after their approval has been affirmed) makes them actually participate. A few factors such as a single mindedness about the kind of morality people should follow, the inherent sinfulness of humans, the idea of a God at odds with humanity, and participation in church related activities.

The authors mention that the main difference between being politically active by voting or functioning within approve, conventional foundations, and being politically active by protesting is “the contentious and disruptive nature of protest” (1426). People have to feel strongly enough about something, and have to feel sufficiently dissatisfied with the political framework in pace, in order to engage in protest type behavior. In quoting an earlier study, the authors point out that “Biblical Literalism and religious participation had a strong impact on the likelihood of participating in protest movements in the 1960’s” (1426).

The main things the authors are looking at are the connection between “a perceived threat to deeply held religious beliefs or values” and “specific religious beliefs that characterize life as a struggle between the forces of good and evil” (1427). In both cases, the correlation is being predicted to be positive. If people have deep seated beliefs and do not see these beliefs mirrored in the behavior of society, then they are more like to act; just as if they feel there is a fundamental struggle going on, and it is their responsibility to act.

Another thing McVeigh and Sikkink mention is the idea of “grievance interpretation”. Religion gives people a lens through which to view the world and the world’s slights. It also give people a group in which to gather support or be rallied towards a certain end. “Before collective protest can occur, a group must define the situation as one that can and should be addressed through collective action. Another important point that McVeigh and Sikkink mention is that, “A religion’s system of collective beliefs can be drawn upon to construct a worldview that legitimizes the use of contentious tactics” (1433)
The authors also mention the difference between different types of Protestant religion, saying that, “Fundamentalsits, for example, have developed countercultural religious netweorks, [which] de-emphasize the importance of bringing about social and political change” (1430). While evangelical groups are much more likely to participate and try to distance themselves from the perceived apathy of the fundamentalist mindset.

Also discussed is the idea of “moral absolutism” and a kind of “God vs. the world” mentality. If a relgion stresses the fact that modern culture is sinful and individuals tend to go against the will of God, then a member of this religion is going to feel at odds with society and be more likely to protest (1432).

There is basically a link between the vehemence with which a group feels destined to protect a certain value, and an individual’s link to this group, and protest. When a person feels they can relate with Protestant views, especially as an evangelical, and this person attends church or meetings often, then he or she is more likely to participate in some form of protest.

In the case of a person like Joan Andrews, who while not a Protestant, was a fervent Catholic religion was a foundation of life, a reason for being, something to lead ones life by, and something to drive one’s passion. She grew up in a home with lots of siblings, and was shown the sanctity of life when her mother had a miscarriage and the fetus was christened and buried. She identified with everything Catholic and saw abortion as an evil that God would disapprove of and that was as bad or worse than the murder of any other human being. She found an anger in herself that was bred by her identification as a Catholic. And because she had little else to tie her down, no money, family, job, she was able to dedicate herself to the movement. She threw herself whole-heartedly into this movement because she felt no apprehension about protesting, vandalizing, or being arrested. To her, these things were insignificant compared to the wrongs of abortion.

The Catholic religion itself is very clear in its opposition to abortion. Thus, it provides a very clear lens through which Andrews could view the act, and through which she could also see herself as responsible for fighting against the perceived evil.

Question #3: Using The New York Times,* find articles relating to a specific event that you read about in Risen and Thomas and examine how the event was portrayed in the Times versus how Risen and Thomas interpret it. What if any differences do you see? How would you explain them? Using a Google Image search find photographs of these events. Again compare the written description to the images you discover. Do you find different messages imbedded in the text and images? If so, how do you explain it?

Abortions, Bibles and Bullets, And the Making of a Militant

By DIRK JOHNSONSpecial to The New York Times

New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 28, 1993; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)

pg. 1

In the case of Shelly Shannon, the Risen book portrayed her as a fanatic, a zealot, someone who took her daughter along to protests and got her arrested, someone who took her husband’s car while he was out of town, spent his money, did little but fight against the perceived evil of abortion. The book discusses her background, her marriage, her children, her married life, her family, her need to homeschool her children to protect their beliefs, etc. The book makes her seem like a full person, if deeply obsessed. Meanwhile, in the article I found on the New York Times site, she merely seems crazy. The tone is almost ironic; as if pointing to the moral dilemma that is posed by someone who kills for the sake of saving lives. The article has none of the bibliographical elements, none of the things that make Shannon whole, interesting and compelling. While in Risen, the reader can almost (almost) identify with the woman’s dedication, her desire to protect what she saw as innocent lives, in the article, the absurdity of the situation, the possible conspiracy theory, the plight of the injured doctor are stressed, and the woman is not sympathetic at all.

The title of the article, “Abortions, Bibles and Bullets, And the Making of a Militant” sets the tone immediately. There is no softening of the crime, no rationalizing, just this bold statement about violence and a contentious subject. A friend of Shelley’s tells the journalist that Shannon supported the recent, earlier killing of an abortion doctor. There is no defense of her character, just statements about her bail charge, where she is being held and what she did. Similar to Risen, Dirk (the author of the article) compares Shannon’s rise to violence with the changing attitude among all anti-abortion groups. She is described as the radical, the outlier, the one who signifies a change in the movement, and the one who is a problem with in it. The article describes her reaction to hearing about the killing of Gunn by Griffin. She thought it was the correct thing to do, and saw nothing wrong with murdering abortion doctors. She is also described as writing letters to those who were imprisoned as part of the invasive anti-abortion protests. All in all the article does not portray as complete a picture as does the Risen book, and the description of her and her actions is much more biased than in the book. This discrepancy probably arises for a number of reasons. Mainly, Risen has more space to describe Shannon, whereas Dirk has 2 pages, Risen has half a chapter. And, Risen seems given to a journalistic description of details, background, and explanation that Dirk cannot go into. Also, while Risen is by no means unbiased, he does attempt to show both sides of each anti-abortion activist. While Dirk attempts to show some of the frustration facing the anti-abortion movement, he cannot capture the full scope of the obstacle and problems these activists faced in trying to get their message across. Risen does capture this progression, and adding Shannon as the final step in the escalation towards violence makes sense to the reader of a full book, whereas in the article, the same progression is not clear.
As for images, I found on a “court tv website” http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/mugshots/indepth/shannon/. It has a composite picture of Shannon before the crime, a picture of the injured doctor being administered oxygen by paramedics, some anti-abortion signs, and then a mug shot of Shannon in prison. The image is a mixture of many different ideas. The doctor’s face, in the oxygen mask is probably the most telling, although it does compete with the text in the anti-abortion signs to catch the viewer’s eye. The text helps keep the image from entirely condemning Shannon as just another crazy, unjustified killer, but it is also an aggressive element that may or may not create a softer portrayal of her. It reads, “How old does a child have to be before you defend her with force?” This message is exactly what Shannon stands for within the anti-abortion movement. She is at the tipping point, where non-violent protest turned into frustrated, last ditch efforts, and murder. The mug shot is grainy and dull, making her look every part the killer. So, while the image is not entirely condemning it is not very supportive of Shannon.