Justin Wright Post 10

Part 1: As soon as Justice Blackmun made the ruling in favor of abortion in Roe vs. Wade, legal abortions were being performed almost immediately. Some doctors were performing them the afternoon after the Court’s decision was announced. However, anti-abortion protests were only sporadic at first.

The Catholic church banned abortion over a hundred years prior to Roe vs. Wade. It was not treated as important news that it was now legalized, as its establishment as a sin was well entrenched. But the number of abortions performed in the United States became so large that Catholic John O’Keefe could not ignore it, so he began to stage sit-ins as a method of civil disobedience. O’Keefe pledged to follow in the traditions of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement, and swore to use nonviolent tactics to fight abortion.

Groups of Protestants gradually allied with O’Keefe’s movement. But a few individuals began to become frustrated with the lack of results, so they resorted to more violent tactics on their own. Michael Bray, Thomas Spinks, Matthew Goldsby, and James Simmons, among others, began late night bombing raids on abortion clinics in 1984. All of them were captured, and the anti-abortion movement began to be portrayed as a few radical and violent people through the media. For those who bombed the clinics, any attention was good attention, but non-violent leaders such as O’Keefe were appalled. Support for the anti-abortion movement began to decline.

In Pensacola in 1986, Joan Andrews, John Burt, and two others stormed an abortion clinic during a protest and damaged equipment. Andrews refused to comply in any way with the prison system, and was given a five year sentence for a minor crime. Andrews became a martyr for her defiance, and an icon of the movement.

In 1988, Randall Terry led the rise of the fundamentalist Protestants in the anti-abortion movement. Catholics began to join his movement as well. Terry used similar tactics to O’Keefe, but wanted to create a national anti-abortion movement called “Operation Rescue.” While he did manage to assemble larger and larger protests, setting records for numbers of participants and arrests, he never generated a truly national following.

In 1993 there still had been almost no progress in the movement, and an outraged Michael Griffin shot Pensacola’s only abortion doctor, David Gunn, to death. This began a string of debates over whether murdering abortion doctors was justified, a debate that ultimately led to the increasing unpopularity and subsequent collapse of the movement. The federal government began conspiracy investigations to try to uncover a ring of anti-abortion protestors committed to the use of violence. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was passed and signed into law, which pushed protestors even further away from clinics and carried federal penalties for protestors who blocked anyone from entering an abortion clinics. The remaining activists transformed into extremists, and supported the use of violence to stop abortion. Those committed to more peaceful tactics began to give up, as abortion protests had been totally ineffective, and some even argued counterproductive, as they created a public perception of pro-life activists as backward and violent people.

Paul Hill emerged as a radical in favor of the new doctrine of “justifiable homicide.” He wrote a paper after Gunn’s death on the topic, and not long afterward shot Doctor John Britton, who came from Jacksonville to perform Pensacola’s abortions, to death, along with James Barrett who drove him from the airport.

At this point, O’Keefe said: “The direction of the [anti-abortion] movement?...I think it is a disaster.” (Risen and Thomas, “Wrath of Angels,” p. 371)

Part 2: McVeigh and Sikkink cite four factors that correlate with support for more radical protest movements: “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.” (McVeigh and Sikkink, “God, Politics, and Protest: Religious Beliefs and the Legitimation of Contentious Tactics,” p. 1425)

During the time of anti-abortion protests, most Evangelicals stayed uninvolved in the issue of abortion due to a belief in rapture theology – “the belief that the Second Coming of Christ was close at hand – the End Times – so that there was no point in worrying about events on Earth.” (Risen and Thomas, p. 81) But the young Michael Bray began to read the writings of conservative minister Francis Schaeffer, which encouraged a return to old Reformation teachings by John Calvin. Bray began to incorporate Calvinist doctrine to his beliefs. “Bray came to see the rapture as a distraction, and he was anxious to find an alternate version of Evangelicalism.” (p. 81) Calvin argued for the doctrine of predestination, which declared that good works could get no one into heaven, only God’s chosen “elect” could gain entrance, and they were obligated to do His work. Since God expected his followers to carry out his will, “Calvin and his followers believed that God wanted them to run things on Earth.” (p. 82) This is clearly one of the four factors mentioned by McVeigh and Sikkink, a belief that individuals should be forced to follow Christian moral standards, as God authorized such force in Calvinist theology.

Bray took a job offer at Grace Lutheran Church in Bowie, Maryland, where he became deeply involved in church organizations, another of the factors that correlates with support for contentious actions. He joined the local right-to-life organization, spoke at a rally, and “prodded his church to help the Bowie Right to Life Committee to establish a local ‘crisis pregnancy center.’” (p. 84) When Bray was later forced out of Grace Lutheran for trying to take over the church, he founded a new one, Reformation Lutheran Church. Bray’s involvement with church activities kept him around like-minded individuals, and also provided him with an opportunity to meet future accomplice Thomas Spinks.

Bray also felt that his religious values were under attack from within his own church when he served at Grace Lutheran, which is another factor mentioned in McVeigh and Sikkink’s article. Bray “chafed under the liberal Lutheran theology preached at Grace Lutheran. He believed that the Lutheran denomination to which Grace Lutheran belonged indulged in excessive modernism and, worse, adhered to a revisionist interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.” (p. 84) One “excessively modern” doctrine was abortion rights, which had strong support at Grace Lutheran, enough to cause controversy over his establishment of the crisis pregnancy center.

Part 3: Interestingly, there were no articles in the New York Times about Paul Hill shooting Doctor John Britton, yet the incident is mentioned in articles the very next day as if it was already widely known. The article

A Cause Worth Killing For? Debate Splits Abortion Foes

By TAMAR LEWIN

New York Times (1857-Current file); Jul 30, 1994; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)

pg. 1

is the first to mention the incident, and barely describes it at all compared to the length devoted to it in Wrath of Angels. This is most likely due to information not being known only a day after the crime. But generally, everything mentioned about Hill in the book is mentioned in this lone article as well, including Hill’s former priesthood, his paper on justifiable homicide, his appearance on Donahue, and his speech on justifiable homicide at a Chicago pro-life convention. Hill is portrayed a lone extremist who has tainted the anti-abortion movement, which is consistent with Risen and Thomas’s observations. Most activists were indeed distancing themselves from the extremism of the criminals in their midst.

Another article,

Suspect in Abortion Clinic Killings Is Charged

By RONALD SMOTHERSSpecial to The New York Times

New York Times (1857-Current file); Jul 31, 1994; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)

pg. 26

mentions Hill being indicted, what happened at the crime scene, and community reactions to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and the failure of local police to uphold it when Hill violated it. Of note is the opening of the article which states that Hill had “long advocated violence against abortion doctors,” but in Wrath of Angels, Risen and Thomas show that Hill only became involved with the doctrine of justifiable homicide after David Gunn’s murder, which had only been a year before Hill killed Britton and Burnett. This seems to be due to a perception soon after the murders that Hill was someone who had a long history of hate, even though it actually began at a definable point not too far into the past.

The image to the left shows Hill being led from jail soon after the killings, while he shouts, “Now it's time to defend the unborn in the same way we should defend slaves about to be murdered.” (www.christiangallery.com/DogsPartTwo.html) The second picture shows Paul Hill on death row for the murders. Hill appears happy in both photographs, since he went to the grave believing that he did God’s work. The images confirm what was stated by Risen and Thomas and in the newspaper articles – Hill killed out of religious fervor and had no remorse. He truly believed that he died a martyr.

Ruth D. Post 10

Ruth E. Day

1.

The pro-life movement started out as a relatively peaceful endeavor during and for a while after the pro-life decision. Roy O’Keefe was very adamant about remaining peaceful. He did not want to fight violence with violence. He led protests outside abortion clinics, organized sit-ins, and tried to show women that to get an abortion means to murder your child. Such tactics may not have made headlines but they gave the pro-life movement a rather respected and pacifistic reputation. This is the kind of reputation that O’Keefe wanted. He wanted the abortionists to look like the violent murderers and the pro-lifers to represent the peaceful good guys. However, this reputation did not last for ever. Eventually, a few people involved in the pro-life felt the need to take more drastic measures to get their message across. The first of these people were Michael Bray and Thomas Spinks. These people became so frustrated with the existence and legalization of something as fundamentally evil as abortion that they felt the only to get their point across was to blow up abortion clinics. In this way, they ended up committing sin to combat sin. One this trend of violence started, there was no stopping it. Why is that? Because no leader involved in the pro-life movement was willing to condemn such violent tactics. Exploding clinics got them press coverage. Many of them were faced with a moral dilemma. Was it okay to blow up buildings with no one in them if it prevented babies from being murdered? The fact that no pro-life leader came out and said that no, it isn’t okay to fight violence with more violence made their followers believe that such tactics were justifiable. Even though O’Keefe believed in peaceful protest, he also could not speak out against the bombings. “‘Yes, it [the bombing] is just,’ O’Keefe told the Washington Post hours after the bombing. ‘Is it prudent? No. [But] 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 the action will take.’” (Risen & Thomas, 94). O’Keefe is right, human life is more valuable than property, but the justification of the destruction of the buildings where abortions will eventually lead to the justification of the murder of the doctors who perform them. The mind set that led to the Christmas bombings in Pensacola also led to David Griffin’s murder of David Gunn and other violent acts against doctors. These tactics of fighting violence with violence also led to the down fall of the pro-life movement. “Griffin’s murder of Gunn in March 1993 ended all hope that the movement could regain credibility or influence through nonviolent civil disobedience,” (Risen & Thomas, 344).

2.

Randall Terry is a good example of a protestant who refused to use violent tactics to spread his pro-life message. However, he also did not condemn the bombing of abortion clinics but he did speak out against the murder of abortionists and made his followers swear an oath to non violence. He did agree with other types of contentious tactics to spread the pro-life message. He started out by waiting in the parking lot of an abortion clinic with his wife trying to convince women on their way to the clinic to change their minds and allow their child to live. Eventually, he became the head of peaceful pro-life organization and organized many successful sit-ins. Many of these sit-ins took the clinics by surprise and caused them to shut down for the day. He and his followers were repeatedly arrested but always released quickly because his tactics were fundamentally peaceful. He organized and huge series of sit-ins in New York and Philadelphia. According to McVeigh’s and Sikkink’s article, there are three beliefs that make Protestants approve of “contentious actions”. “Perceptions that religious beliefs and values are being threatened, a belief that individuals should not have a right to live by their own moral standards if they are not Christians standards, and a belief that humans are basically sinful will each increase the likelihood that Protestants will approve the use of contentious tactics to change society,” (McVeigh and Sikkink, 1448 – 1449). The factor that most influences Terry’s approval of contentious actions is that he perceives his religious beliefs and values as being threatened. He sees abortion as the murder of an innocent human being and according to Christian beliefs, murder is a mortal sin. The fact that such a horrible crime against humanity is legal could be perceived as a huge threat to his beliefs and values. Another factor contributing to Terry’s used of contentious actions is the fact that he and his wife could not conceive a child of their own. For this reason, neither of them could understand why a woman who did have the gift of fertility would want to abuse that gift by murdering her unborn child. Because of this, abortion was not only a threat to Randall and Cindy Terry’s religious beliefs and values but also their desire to adopt a child.

3.

I used The New York Times to find articles on the arrest of Joan Andrews after she destroyed some equipment in The Ladies Center clinic of Pensacola, FL. The main difference between how the article describes the event and how Rise and Thomas’ book describes it is the amount of knowledge about the event. Obviously, the article was written very soon after the event took place so they only had time to get one side of the story. According to the article, “… a local anti-abortionist activist, John Burt, knocked down the manager of the Ladies Center clinic and a clinic volunteer when they tried to block his path into the building,” (NYT, March 27, 1986 pg. A18). According to Wrath of Angels, “Abortion-rights activists who were at the clinic supported the charges by Taggart and Wilde [the manager and the volunteer], but Burt and Andrew deny anyone touched either woman,” (Risen & Thomas, 201). In this way, the New York Times skews the event in favor of the pro-choice movement while Wrath of Angels provides a more objective account. I could not find many images surrounding this event. This is an image of abortion protestors outside of the clinic on that day. The images surrounding events such as this tends to let on more of the chaos that surrounds them than just text does. Text gives the facts one at a time. Images can show a million different things happening at once. Text can give the impression that everything went smoothly without much interruption whereas pictures can let on a little more about the true nature of events.

Image Source: http://www.prolife.org.au/nletters/15n1au.htm

Ally, Post 10

Ally Best
Post 10

1. Few debates in American history have been as heated and widespread as the one centered on abortion. Members of the anti-abortion movement have generally always held very passionate beliefs. Their methods of acting on these beliefs, however, have changed drastically over the years. Following Roe vs. Wade, most anti-abortion protests were relatively peaceful. John O’Keefe led several sit-ins at abortion clinics in an attempt to disrupt their daily schedules and show his discontent with the system (Risen, 88). While these demonstrations did not create violence or uproar, neither did they create much attention. They passed fairly quietly and without incident, therefore slipping under the radar of the media and public attention, which were apt to focus on more dramatic incidents. This calm would not last for long. Protestors quickly turned to more drastic methods. These more violent acts can be explained by the desire of protestors to attract media attention. Clinics were bombed and turmoil broke out. Joan Andrews led the way with new tactics for vandalizing clinics and fighting the anti-abortion war, such as pouring repellent from hunting stores on the floor and spray painting the walls of clinics (193). In fact, she soon became heralded as a martyr (186-187). Her courage and stoicism throughout her long prison stays were particularly admired by her growing number of fans. As a martyr, she was able to inspire many more people to join in the protests. The protests continued to evolve and much more emphasis was placed on the power of the visual. Many of the anti-abortion protestors had, at some point, viewed a disturbing image of an abortion, fetus, etc., at some point in their lives. For example, Andrews and her siblings viewed and held the fetus of what would have been their brother after their mother’s miscarriage (190). Remembering the powerful impact images had had on them, many protestors began integrating images into their protests. At one point, John Burt actually walks around a courthouse holding a jar containing a dead fetus that he has named “Baby Charlie” (199). As courts still appeared to be making no effort to change the legislation, protestors increased their efforts on the clinics themselves. Doing everything from chaining themselves to procedure tables to creating 17-vehicle blockades, their tactics became increasingly imaginative. For a while, the violence seemed like it might have been ebbing. Randall Terry decided to focus on less violent methods of protesting, not simply for the decrease in arrests or destruction, but also because of the media attention such an action would generate (260). The sight of many people standing and praying together “would be a great visual to capture people’s hearts” (260). However, the peace would not last for long. The final wave of tactics was the most violent yet as protestors turned to murder. Abortion doctors began quitting right and left and several that did stay lost their lives. This drastic final step was a sort of last-chance effort to bring about change in the system. Who would have believed that just years earlier the protests had involved a few dozen people gathered around an abortion clinic, saying prayers. The increase in violence and intensity took place because the more calm methods were not effective. It also took place because protestors had begun to grow in dedication to their cause as a result of the dedication of the people around them. Passion was contagious and, pretty soon, people across the country were jumping on board.

2. In the Wrath of Angels, Risen describes Paul Hill as a “national symbol of anti-abortion extremism” (346). By first attempting to validate the murder of abortion doctors, then providing encouragement to individuals considering such a murder, and finally actually committing a murder of an abortion doctor (as well as an innocent escort), Hill has certainly earned this notorious title. Abortion stirs up strong emotions in many people. Yet, thankfully, not all these people run out and attempt to shoot up abortionists. So what, then, prompts some people to behave in such abominable ways? In their article “God, Politics, and Protest,” McVeigh and Sikkink explain that several factors of religion (and, more specifically, Protestant religion) can affect a person’s actions, causing them to act in argumentative, uncommon ways. By examining Paul Hill through their analysis, we can begin to at least see, even if we can never truly understand, some of the reasons Hill behaved the way he did. The first issue to consider is Hill’s religious identity. Hill first attended a Presbyterian college and then went on to study at the Reformed Theological Seminary, where his professor was a “leader in a radical new Reconstructionist movement” (347). This reconstructionist approach to religion would have been much more supportive of protesting and public displays than some of the more traditional religions. Next we must consider how his beliefs may have led him to believe he was acting out of defense. In McVeigh and Sikkink’s article, they explain how, “religions can provide a ‘cultural toolkit’ of collectively held meanings and symbols that can be used by movement activists to legitimate the contentious tactics of protest” (1429). In other words, religions oftentimes attempt to validate their actions by claiming they are for the “common good.” In a reasoning that occasionally comes off as arrogance, religions assume that what they believe is right is ultimately right and that people, regardless of whether they share the same beliefs or religious views, should be forced to follow what is “right.” Paul Hill saw abortion as morally wrong. Therefore, he took it upon himself to make sure that other people stayed away from this “wrong.” After viewing “Whatever happened to the Human Race,” Hill began picketing in an attempt to show the world the evils of abortion. Finally, it is important to consider his role in an organization. Mob mentality is a very powerful tool and, when it affects certain people, it can have disastrous effects. After Hill’s 15 minutes of fame on Donahue, he began to friend other extremists like himself. Their hunger for revenge on these murderous abortionists fueled his own desire for retaliation and he was soon being swept away by the big ideas and influence of others.

3. After reading about Shelley Shannon’s attempted murder of an abortion doctor, I looked up articles that appeared in the New York Times on the same topic. I was actually surprised to find the NY Times article more objective, or at least more two-sided, than the Wrath of Angels. The Times article presented the story with the basic facts and offered commentary from other anti-abortion protestors. This portrayal allowed the viewer to reach their own conclusions, as well as view the attempted murder as a singular incident, as opposed to a part of the anti-abortion movement. While the Times presented the facts, Wrath of Angels gave a somewhat more biased view, making the doctor seem almost heroic in his chase after Shannon and making Shannon seem like a monster as opposed to a person. However, the images that I found of the incident appeared to reflect more of the book’s biases. One image of Shelley makes her appear insane, or at least more than a little crazy. Her eyes are slightly out of focus and her smile appears somewhat crooked, giving her a somewhat “possessed” appearance. In another image of Shannon (her mug shot), she looks downright evil. Her angry glare at the camera sends chills down the spine makes the viewer glad that she will be locked behind bars for quite a few years. Finally, in the picture of the doctor lying on the ground, the paramedics have cleverly been cut out of the picture by angry red flames and protest signs so that the seemingly lifeless head of the doctor is all that is visible to the viewer. These techniques aim to target the public's emotional appeal by creating a sense of deepest sympathy for the doctor and hatred for the woman who caused him so much pain.

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=116513706&sid=1&Fmt=10&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=HNP

Ted Post 10

1.)

The anti-abortion movement went through a very definite and very extreme change from the time of the Roe vs. Wade trial to the massive amount of protests and pro-life action that took place in Pensacola during the late 1980s. This change was not only constant, but was continuously exponential, and as anti-abortion activists built up more and more steam and drew further attention to their cause throughout the 1980s, so their seeming craving for heightening levels of media/public attention and dominance in their ongoing “war” against pro-choice activists correspondingly inflated. In this period of ever-increasing funding/group members, and public (as well as clandestine) action taken by pro-life activists, many specific changes can be noted both in the confidence of and group commitment to anti-abortion protest on the part of these activists, as well as the overall severity of action taken by those with more extremist views on the subject of abortion.

These changes include the continuous growth of particular pro-life groups who frequently protested at abortion clinics across America-groups such as those headed by Randall Terry, John Burt, and John O’keefe. The fact became increasingly clear during the few years following the Roe vs. Wade court ruling that these devoutly religious and, at least in their religious circles, highly convincing men were not going to allow abortion clinics to go smoothly about their business, and had plans to recruit the help of as many church-members and anti-abortionists to further the volume of their cause as possible.

As well as the general growth of anti-abortionist groups, and the subsequent “noise” they were able to make through their protest due simply to increased size, well-known extremists of the anti-abortion movement during the 1980s took to increasingly hostile and even violent methods in their fight against abortion doctors/clinics/supporters. What started as midnight vandalizing of abortion clinics (i.e. jamming door-locks with superglue, spray-painting pro-life maxims on walls, etc.) turned into frequent destruction of entire facilities through carefully calculated methods of arson ,bombing, and gaseous poisoning, many of which were outlined in an underground extremist manual entitled Army of God. Eventually, even these methods of stalling the actions of abortion doctors and clinics proved to be too tame for the most hardcore and adventurous of the anti-abortion movement. Soon to follow the use of the aforementioned tactics of force used against abortion clinics was the direct targeting of the murderers themselves-abortion doctors. Harassment of abortion doctors ranged from threatening letters sent to their homes, to verbal intimidation utilized in brief parking lot trips from car to clinic, to the eventual (rare as it may have been) occurrence of attempted as well as successful murder of a few unfortunate doctors on the part of activists who took solace in the thought that they were killing to save lives.

Certainly, during this decade in which the actions of anti-abortionists increased monumentally both in amount and severity, many were baffled as to why these groups were willing to go to such extremes in their discourse, and perhaps an even more puzzling quandary, why were they able to do so for as long as they did? To address the inquiry as to why these activists found such seeming excitement in using increasingly exaggerated tactics, one might make note of a thought that was frequently suggested in Risen and Thomas’ Wrath of Angels. This is the assertion that a good number of few prominent anti-abortionists in the 1980s were, previous to their activist ventures, somewhat lost souls searching for some cause or movement in which to pour all of their otherwise dormant efforts and time. The authors’ description of Joan Andrews, one of the most recognizable martyrs of the anti-abortionist movement, includes statements such as, “Single and unattached, permanently unemployed, and with no money and almost no need for any except to pay for food and bus fare, she was free to become the movement’s first full-time itinerant protestor.” In the case of anti-abortion activist Michael Bray, Risen and Thomas first establish the fundamentalist’s seeming need to latch onto some cause or belief system, “…In Orlando, (Bray) attended a Baptist tent revival and, still piecing together a new direction, began to think seriously about the role religion should play in his life,” and soon follow up with an explanation as to how abortion came to fill this void of Bray’s, “…by the time he was settling into Bowie, the election of President Ronald Reagan and the conservative flood tide in Washington put abortion back into the headlines. Abortion soon became Bray’s main focus.” There are many other similar descriptions of those pro-life activist leaders of the 1980s most blatantly vehement in their dedication to their cause that can be found within Wrath of Angels. This seeming parallel found in the possible need for these anti-abortion extremists to commit unconditionally to a cause can offer some explanation as to why the anti-abortionist movement escalated, both in amount and conduct, so notably during the years following Roe vs. Wade. If Risen and Thomas’ assertions concerning the reasons for these men and women’s commitment to pro-life activism hold some truth, then one could easily argue that these specific anti-abortionists were responsible for leading their groups to committing increasingly hostile acts of protest. These few but dominating members of the movement, because of their need for absolute commitment to their cause (to any cause), needed to believe that, at what ever cost, any and all action should be taken that would further their victory over legalized abortion in America. They had an inner need to believe that their fight was a righteous one, and therefore called for any necessary measures of insuring its being publicly recognized, and eventually, its overthrow of the opposition.

A possible explanation as to why such progressively severe methodology on the part of anti-abortionists was allowed following the Roe vs. Wade court battle is that, frankly, many Americans (including government and law enforcement officials) were “one the fence” concerning the abortion issue, and were therefore uncertain as to how much of these protests should be prohibited by law/force. Certainly, if those members of the pro-life movement were vandalizing, bombing, and publicly protesting local fast-food chains for the distribution of food products that could lead to health problems in their consumer, their actions would have been curbed far sooner. The fact of the matter is, these activists were fighting for a cause that did, in many ways, appear just, despite the often unnecessarily hostile manner in which they fought for it. Abortion deals with the killing of the defenseless; be its victims actual “people” or not (a topic that incites infinite debate), the large amount of propaganda, including disturbing images and video, utilized by pro-life activists did shed the light of a fight for justice on their cause, and therefore granted them the ability to go to drastic, and in many cases (ironically) inhumane methods of protest.

2.)

Certainly, there are many reasons to argue that Michael Griffin’s actions comprise one of history’s most extreme (if not the most extreme) cases of anti-abortion activism. The obvious reason for viewing the religious extremist in such a manner is that he was, in fact, admittedly guilty of murdering abortion doctor David Gunn by firing three gunshots directly into the doctor’s back in the midst of his walk from automobile to office. Most

useful in application to an explanation of Griffin’s actions are two of the four factors said to “increase the likelihood that Protestants approve of contentious actions” by writers Mcveigh and Sikkink, these being, “…a perception that religious values are being threatened,” and most importantly, “…a belief that individuals should not have the right do deviate from Christian moral standards.” Obviously, Michael Griffin, along with countless other American Christians of numerous denominations, felt that the legalization and carrying out of abortion was a direct threat to his religious values. There are many passages within the Bible that form the base for the basic Christian belief that God values all of his creation and creatures, and that for any man to take it upon himself to destroy any number of these creatures is to commit a mortal sin, punishable by death. A favorite of these Biblical passages of Griffin’s, and in fact that which he deemed Gunn’s well deserved sentence was Genesis 9:6: “Whosoever Sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed.” Griffin found Dr. Gunn to be blatantly going against a fundamental Christian moral standard, and thus felt it perfectly justifiable, if not by man’s law than by the law of a higher being, to take it upon himself to see that Gunn was properly punished. In Griffin’s own mind, as well as the mind’s of his supporters, he was carrying out the work of God, and was thus ever more right in his murderous actions because of a seeming command of God’s (Genesis 9:6) than any man-made law might find him to be.

3.)

When browsing through some past New York Times articles concerning Michael Griffin’s murder of David Gunn, one will certainly come across a fair share of mere expository articles on the case-writings that display little or no personal opinions of the author’s on abortion. Along with these “just the facts” type of articles about the event, for example Larry Rohter’s Doctor is Slain During Protest Over Abortions, one will also find articles that voice a clear-cut opinion concerning the extremist actions of Michael Griffin. An excellent example of this latter type of article is Anthony Lewis’ Right to Life. In stark contrast to Risen and Thomas’ chapter concerning this murder case, which seem to display an honest attempt of the authors’ to explicate the happening with little bias, Lewis’ piece uses Griffin’s contentious act as a means of painting a picture of anti-abortion activists as a group that is less than flattering, to say the least. In fact, in the article’s very opening paragraph, the reader will come across the following statements: “The murder of a doctor in Pensacola, Fla., tells us the essential truth about most anti-abortion activists. They are religious fanatics, who want to impose their version of God’s word on the rest of us. For them, the end justifies any means, including violence.” Obviously, the authors’ opinion on abortion-activists previous to David Gunn’s murder was a negative one, and he merely utilized Michael Griffin as a prime example of what he believed to be the general character found in pro-life activists. In actuality, one can be fairly certain that very few abortion-activists would be willing to go to measures in the fight for their cause as extreme as those used by Griffin. Thus, this over-generalized portrait of abortion-activists painted by Lewis is of a decidedly different tone than the more objective views found in Risen and Thomas’ writing on the subject.

Some very distinct and curious differences can be noted between Risen and Thomas’ description of abortion clinic protests led by Randall Terry and available images depicting these protests. Again, Risen and Thomas seem to maintain an at least somewhat objective outlook in their description of anti-abortion activism, and in doing so, provide their reader with some insight into reasons why people such as Terry made decisions to stage such massive and disruptive protests. On the other hand, if one were to view images of these abortion protests led by Terry in the late 1980s without much previous knowledge of the nature of and reasons for these protests’ having taken place, they would undoubtedly come to the conclusion that those activists depicted in such images are clinically insane. The men and women that are shown in these images are taking part in acts such blocking the doors to a regularly functioning office building in which no acts of inhumanity can be seen as taking place (at least not within the confines of the image), laying on the pavement of a parking lot in the path of a moving car, hurriedly climbing over fences so as to block the entrance of a clinic just before its presiding doctor is able to gain entrance into it, and even images of Terry himself placed on a high pedestal and outstretching has arm over his followers as he preaches to them (an image not unlike countless depictions of notorious dictators caught in speeches aimed at the masses under their control). Again, when seen only within these images, Terry and his followers appear to be out of their minds, a clear testament to the thought that images cannot be trusted to admit every truth of a situation, and in fact rarely, if ever, do. Though the actions of Randall Terry and his followers during their numerous protests, even when described in more objective texts, can appear as rather extreme by nature, certainly when they are depicted in photographic images, a certain side of the story is taken out of the picture (no pun intended), and thus any real objective grasp on or understanding of the situation is lost.

Images:

1.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy17.jpg

2.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy15.jpg

3.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy31.jpg

4.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy26.jpg

5.) http://www.dr-tiller.com/images/mercy27.jpg

Sources:

1.) James Risen, Judy L. Thomas, Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion WAR, Perseus Publishing, February 1999

2.) Rory Mcveigh, David Sikkink, God, Politics, and Protest: Religious Beliefs and the Legitimation of Contentious Tactics, The University of North Carolina Press, Social Forces, June 2001

3.) Anthony Lewis, Right to Life, New York Times, Mar. 12, 1993

Kelly blog 10

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]

Rob H, Post 10

Rob Hoffman

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

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&did=116298510&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1194501952&clientId=394

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&did=116706604&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1194502167&clientId=394

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=5&did=116835167&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1194502167&clientId=394

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 Shannon does and how she came to shoot George Tiller. Motive is much more important for the authors of the book than for the author of the article.

The images (the first of Tiller, the second of Shannon, and the third of the Wichita abortion clinic where the shooting took place) do not shed much light upon the situation. They do nothing particularly to reinforce or to damage the picture created by the text. In some ways they are more in keeping with the newspaper article, given that they seem equally straightforward and strictly factual. Given that there are no specific images of the shooting or images of aborted fetuses specifically related to this one event (or at least, none that I could find on Google), it is hard to say that images have the kind of power here that we would ordinarily expect of them.

http://billykess.com/ablog3/photos/2006-11/tillerkiller.jpg

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/kopp/inside/offlede/shannon200w190h_insidesmall_031103.jpg

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/images/2007b/Wichita.jpg

Shea Post 10

1. 
   

The Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 was met with both outrage and celebration from different sphere’s within the American public. Until that point, the federal government was equipped to prohibit the practice of abortion medicine within certain states, Texas in particular. On both sides of the controversy, violation of constitutional rights was named as the source of injustice. The matter of whose rights were being violated, however, separated the pro-lifers from the pro-choicers. Women’s rights activists were prevalent among many who saw the verdict as a triumph for their cause. In their eyes it reclaimed the female’s right to control her body along with her right to privacy.

The outrage was not limited to religious groups, although McVeigh and Sikkink found that members of an established religious faith were more likely to disapprove of laws favoring abortion. It came from the belief that life begins at the time of conception which was advocated in 1869 by Pius IX (abortion power point). Abortion was seen as murder, a violation of the unborn child’s right to life.

The progression of the anti-abortion movement towards Pensacola over the next two decades is well exemplified by the actions of Joan Andrews, excluding her years spent in jail. Her mother’s heavy emphasis on Catholicism throughout her upbringing certainly influenced Andrews’s position on abortion. After the Roe v. Wade case, she was strongly moved to fight the new policy and began doing so by participating in sit-ins throughout the country. Sit-ins were the first popular step taken by the anti-abortion movement and so organizers were encouraged to take caution when conducting them. Small groups, rarely exceeding 100 people would block the entrance to abortion clinics holding signs and chanting either slogans or hymns, depending on religious affiliation. These signs were probably text-based to begin with so as not to overly agitate the police who would eventually be called to break up the protest.

These first organized efforts were not always enough to satisfy activists like Joan Andrews who longed to leave more lasting impressions on abortion providers. She represents one of the many individuals who took matters into their own hands by secretly performing illegal acts of protest. “I knew right away I had to go bust up the equipment.” (190) Her acts of personal vandalism include graffiti, equipment destruction, circulation of noxious and often airborne chemicals, and interestingly enough, gluing doors shut (193). Others, like Michael Bray, Thomas Spinks and Rachelle Shannon behaved more radically and recklessly by choosing arson as their weapon against abortion (86, 351).

Such extreme behavior was not initially advocated by organized groups like PLAN or Project Rescue although they did eventually begin to take more drastic measures over time. Andrews participated in sit-ins while simultaneously performing acts of vandalism on her own time (191). What had been pleading with ingoing patients for a change of heart became shouting accusations of murder. The pickets took on images of aborted fetuses in addition to their textual messages in an effort to alarm patients into turning back. This behavior often brought about physical violence from harassed patients and restraining orders against leaders like Randall Terry who practiced “sidewalk preaching”.

Legal action was taken in 1985 when the Northeast Women’s Center in Philadelphia charged a group of protesters led by Michael McMonagle with conspiring to run the center out of business. This charge fell under violation of the federal racketeering laws and marked the transition from disturbing the peace to breaking the law (193). Protests only gained speed after the judge ruled against them. “A sense of betrayal by Regan’s Washington was sending mainstream abortion foes into the arms of the militants.” (241) With abortion rates doubling each year and their sit-in efforts getting them nowhere crowds enlarged to reach numbers of 600 and the goal became getting arrested rather than closing clinics. Joan Andrews became very accomplished at offending the law not only by violating trespassing laws and the like, but by violating her parole with complete abandon. Like the desperate movement Andrews turned to figures whose tactics held a higher level of shock value. John Burt was a “former Marine, former Klansman, former alcoholic, former speed abuser and divorced father as well as a born again Christian…who ran “a home for wayward girls, called Our Father’s House.” (195) His methods were extremely visual, utilizing anti-abortion propaganda films like The Hard Truth and Who Will Cry for Me – David as well as an aborted fetus which he carried around in a jar and called “Baby Charlie” (341, 199).

It was with John Burt that Joan Andrews broke into The Ladies Center clinic in Pensacola in 1986 and destroyed medical equipment (186). This act landed her in prison for three years where, ironically, her activism was much more effective than it had been outside bars due to her newfound position as a “martyr” or a “prisoner of consciousness”. By taking on the system through total non-cooperation “she was forcing others to reevaluate their limits.” (210)

As it turns out, many of their limits extended much beyond the realm of property damage as even more vehement figures took hold of the movement, encouraging violence against abortion doctors. “With pacifists like John Okeefe and Sam Lee long gone from the leadership ranks there were no counterbalancing forces within the movement pushing for peace.” (344) Of course, and thankfully, the entire anti-abortion movement did not take this course. Only extremists of the highest caliber took the words of Paul Hill’s Should We defend Born and Unborn Children with Force? and Michael Bray’s A Time to Kill to heart. As Proverbs 24:11 were lost in the wake of Genesis 9:6 and more doctors began wearing bullet proof vests to work the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993 popped up as well as the Justice Department’s conspiracy investigation on the anti-abortion movement. No conspiracy was uncovered and the department stated that “there is a difference between having a common purpose and having an actual criminal conspiracy.” (369) This suggests, although they were advocated, no murders were actually planned in advance by any pro-life organizations.

2. 
   

“Biblical literalism and religious participation had a strong impact on the likelihood of participating in protest movements” (McVeigh, 1426). Michael Bray’s life was at all times steeped in religion. Throughout the course of his life he practiced as a Baptist, a Protestant, a sort of Calvinist Puritan and a Premellenial Dispensationalist. Ultimately his beliefs centered on predestination and the writings of Calvin and John Knox. These advocated the “rebellion against idolatrous and tyrannical sovereigns” with the justification that “if God is for us who can be against us?” (Risen, Thomas, 82). His powerful belief in the superiority of the ‘elect’ and their responsibility to God was certainly the driving force behind the bombings which he performed with Thomas Spinks but McVeigh and Sikkink offer a more multidimensional view of the contributing forces that lead Bray down this path.

The concepts of moral absolutism as well as that of personal threat, though not wholly consistent, provide more insight to the question of why certain members of religious groups take such drastic measures in opposition to practices like abortion. “Participants in a moral reform movement are acting defensively in an effort to preserve a moral order that provides meaning for their lives.” (McVeigh, 1431) Abortion is perceived not only as murder, but as attack on the religious doctrines which deem it to be immoral. These rulebooks are not meant only to apply to their followers, but to the entire human race. Everyone is accountable to a single, inflexible moral code which “promotes definitions of issues as conflictual that from another perspective might be defined otherwise.” (McVeigh, 1432) In this way, the violation of a universal moral code by anyone, weakens the code and threatens both the faith and well being of those who live by it. Michael Bray saw himself as the defender of such a moral code. “It was appropriate for the Godly man to take the law into his own hands because his hands were the tools of God.” (Risen, Thomas, 82)

The belief that humans are sinful by their very nature also contributes to the enactment of contentious tactics, particularly those used against abortion. The inherent instinct towards wrongdoing deprives what Michael Bray would have considered to be the ‘damned’ of the capacity to choose the moral path. For this reason, people must either be denied access to abortion medicine by means of the law, or they must be destroyed. This mentality was obviously in action when Bray wrote A Time to Kill.

3. 
   

On September 18^th, 1988, the New York Times printed an article entitled 250 Arrested at Jersey Anti-Abortion Protest. The facts were these: Operation Rescue, under the leadership of Randal Terry, organized a protest outside the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Shrewsbury, NJ, blocking the entrance with linked arms. When arrests began, the protesters went limp and broke into song making the police to carry them away from the site. The Wrath of Angels presents a relatively less biased portrayal of these anti-abortionists than does the NYT. This is not due to the language employed by the author, but to the organization of the article. First the facts are relayed and the members of Operation Rescue are represented by a quotation defending their position. Then the patient reaction is described, a matter that was hardly ever touched by Risen and Thomas. The patients’ responses along with the sturdy words of the clinic employee leave the reader with a sense of triumph by the Planned Parenthood. “None of them are shaken up.” The book of course had more room to develop the actions of Operation Rescue with an extensive background on Randal Terry and his methods. The detail, however, is mostly one-sided and works to construct an image of the man as obsessive and power-hungry.

These images of Randal Terry, the leader of Operation Rescue, as he protests and preaches make him out to be both a powerful figure and a lunatic. The first depicts a righteous man preaching down from on high with the nation’s capital behind and below him. The text discusses this event with a much different tone. That is because terry takes this moment to praise Christmas morning clinic bombings as “a birthday gift for Jesus.”

The second image shows a freak with a dead baby in a box. This characterization is immediately much harsher than the one given by the book. Terry is accused of wielding graphic pamphlets against abortion patients but never of utilizing an actual fetus. Such tactics seemed to be reserved for John Burt. (this image was unable to load but can be located on page 218 of the Risen book)

The New York Times article Judge Won’t Let Accused in Clinic Attack Argue that Killing was Justified remains impartial and factual, adhering strictly to court proceedings until its final paragraphs which shed a more sinister light on Paul Hill’s behavior throughout his murder trial. Once the witnesses’ testimony is approached, the man’s reserved composure becomes disturbing due to graphic descriptions of “brains” and Mrs. Barrett’s reaction to her husband’s death. The Wrath of Angels takes this portrayal to an even higher degree by describing the entire shooting scene in detail after a thorough development of Hill’s religious and activist progression up to that point. The scene in which he screams “Mommy mommy please don’t kill me!” outside the same abortion clinic along with the one in which he practices shooting the murder weapon in his own home bring the reader to see him as mentally unstable and downright scary.

These men’s support of Paul Hill’s unthinkable deed is just as scary. The image’s disturbing quality, however, comes from the name’s connotation and so it is mostly attributed to textual rather than visual power. The book too depends almost entirely on textual power aside from a few photos at the center. Both the image and the book’s discussion on Paul Hill supporters are about equally effective at delivering their message.

Here, Paul Hill stands behind bars, awaiting his death sentence. Again, if it were not for his name’s societal weight, this image would be likely to invoke sympathy from viewers. But since Paul Hill is the infamous abortion murderer, we are able to take solace, even celebration in his defeated and hopeless position. The Wrath of Angels allowed the reader to feel nothing but awe and disgust at the character of Paul Hill. After his arrest, his role in the piece was finished.

Theresa C, Post 10

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.

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/kopp/inside/offlede/griffen162w190h_insidesmall_031103.jpg

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

http://www.trosch.org/bra/hill-paul-interviewb.jpg

Morgan, Post 10

Morgan Frost

1.) From the first reaction to Roe vs. Wade up until Pensacola, the anti-abortion movement escalated in its aggressiveness. The initial reaction was one of shock, where the already existing middle-aged anti-abortionists used “timid” and slow tactics of lobbying the state house; but younger people were incited to take immediate action. The type of action they took followed the “1960s traditions of social protest” and civil disobedience (Risen 39). John O’Keefe heralded in civil anti-abortion protest, emulating the peaceful styles of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. He also made connections to the national debate of the Vietnam War, and saw that the successful “sit-ins, arrests, (and) building takeovers” could be used for the anti-abortion purpose as well.

Then violence was coming into the scene. “In the late 1970s, anti-abortion violence was limited to sporadic and amateurish fires that did little damage” (Risen 74). But even peace advocates could not deny the success the more violent protests were having (Risen 75). As the number of protestors being recruited rose, screening of these people declined, and those who supported violence were becoming integrated within the mass with those who didn’t. The movement began to be led by “newly militant Christian fundamentalists,” and “a new, religious-based social protest movement was born” (Risen 39). Soon bombings broke out in abortion clinics—executed at night so ass not to harm anyone. Finally the idea of violence crossed the line of destruction on to murder, with the murder of abortionist John Britton by anti-abortion radical Paul Hill in 1994 in Pensacola, FL (Risen 362-3).

As we can see, there were four major causes of these changes: religious motives, information dissemination by the media, successful results, and a lack of negative consequences. Religious motives caused such an escalation as fundamentalists began to take center stage, and (as seen in section 2) they used their adherence to religion as justification for more violent methods of protest. The media constantly depicted protests both non-violent and violent. One pivotal moment was the coinciding civil sit-in and the bombing at the same place on the same weekend. Bray’s bombing partner, Spinks, bombed the Wheaton clinic the day after O’Keefe and Hand led a sit-in. The two were immediately connected, and “it was becoming harder for the public and the media to tell the difference between leaders like O’Keefe…and the bombers themselves” (Risen 94). Hand-in-hand with media portrayal was the success of the violence. As these stories reached broader audiences through the media, others were motivated to mimic the actions of others that worked successfully toward their cause. All of this was done without much fear of consequences. The security on the anti-abortion movement was below par, as the problems were deemed “not serious enough to trigger...an investigation by the FBI,” and instead the responsibility was placed on ATF. This security proved to be less powerful, and investigations reached conclusions more slowly than would have been possible with FBI involvement (Risen 93).

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.

Michael Bray is a prime example of the conclusion made by McVeigh and Skikkink in “God, Politics, and Protest” concerning Protestants’ approval of “contentious actions” serving as a means to reach a political goal. For Bray, this goal was a pro-life America, free of abortion clinics. With his religious background, he possessed all the “tools” necessary for justifying the actions he took toward achieving his goal. McVeigh and Sikkink recognize what Smith says about religion, that it provides people with “an independent and privileged position to act…back upon the mundane world.” This means religious people can believe their religion gives them the right to impose their beliefs upon society; Michael Bray used his beliefs specifically to “legitimate the contentious tactics of protest” against abortion (McVeigh 1429-30).

Michael Bray was deeply influenced by the Calvinist work of Knox, who held the conviction “that it was appropriate for the godly man to take the law into his own hands, because his hands were the tools of the Lord.” This encompassed the utilization of “tools of politics as well as weapons of war” to be used by “members of the ‘elect’—anyone saved by God through faith—…to ‘(rebel) against idolatrous and tyrannical sovereigns’” (Risen 82). For Bray this meant not only attending protests, but expressing his dissent in such ways as performing and conducting secret bombings of abortion clinics. He believed that “abortion was murder; a sin against God” (Risen 83).

Here we see Michael Bray as an illustration of the cultural defense theory, where protesting was a “response to a challenge to deeply held beliefs and values that are rooted in the participants’ religion.” Since Bray believed abortion was a sin, anyone and anything in support of abortion was a sinner, and threatened his beliefs. McVeigh and Sikkink identify with this in their argument “that those who do perceive that their religious values are being threatened are likely to view the use of contentious tactics as a legitimate defensive strategy” (McVeigh 1431). Bray’s defensiveness even extends beyond his religious motives. This is evident when he chose the Hillcrest Clinic as the next bombing target on the grounds that “its owner had just filed a lawsuit against local picketers” (Risen 87). Under Bray’s religious stance other opinions have developed in his oppositional binary of religion against any contradictions, as shown by picketers against their target.

With such conceptual conflicts breeding under the umbrella of his fundamentalism, Bray also defines the case McVeigh and Sikkinks offer on moral absolutism. These authors recognize the “schema of God vs. world” produced by religion, where those who follow God can carry out his work onto the world. This idea “becomes for the moral absolutist a frame for contentious action” when the “behavior of other groups or individuals (are) in opposition to their own values” (McVeigh 1432). Bray holds his own beliefs to be the absolute morals which he should enforce upon the world in the name of God. He even regards his beliefs so highly that other people of his religion who do not agree in his “’high’ view of Scriptures” possess a “’low’ view,” and are thus below the absolute frame of morals. Bray even accuses the Reverend Ericksen of his own church of sinning because he does not teach fundamentalist “high” views on the Scripture (Mcveigh 84).

As Michael Bray demonstrates these analyses on Protestants and their conduciveness to “contentious acts,” he also receives the benefits McVeigh and Sikkinks highlight as being the benefit of a person’s organizational affiliation. These authors note that “participation in religious activities can also increase an individual’s exposure to social movement activists and recruiters. Organized religion provides a ripe target for activists practicing bloc recruitment” (McVeigh 1433). Once Michael Bray joined up with O’Keefe and Hand in the Pro-Life Nonviolent Action Project, he “took full advantage of his new ties…to aid Spinks in his bombings, through both intelligence gathering and the recruitment of potential accomplices” (Risen 89). As a result of being involved with this religiously driven organization, Bray was able to acquire the resources available for further participation in “contentious acts.”

3.) Risen and Thomas’s account of the Pensacola bombings is imbued with a disapproving tone. It is clear that these authors do not support the bombings as an ideal method of fighting abortion. In their description they frequently use words with more or less obviously negative connotations such as “propaganda,” “convinced,” “conconspirators,” and “exploit” (Risen 198-199). They even ridicule Goldsby and Simmons, saying “they might as well have taken out an advertisement” (Risen 199). This display gives the audience a look at the bombers as criminals, and the conclusion that their actions are not justified.

Source

The New York Times presents this story in an objective surface tone, but with a subjective perspective latent in the structure. Taking a neutral position as what is expected of a piece of news, the author presents both sides with equal amounts of information and quoted advocates. Actual subjectivity can be drawn from the order that the cases are presented and from the final sentence of the story. Since the opinion of those in support of the bombings was presented first, those opposed come across as having a rebuttal to shut down the original argument. This structure favors non-supporters as they have the last word and the chance to remark on the contents of the first comment. Also, the last sentence stating that the men “had constructed the bomb on Mr. Goldsby’s kitchen table” is belittling to the bombers (NYT). This statement leaves readers with the image of two ignorant people creating the destructive item in their own home like some kind of cartoon comedy where sticks of dynamite are held together with bubble gum. The statement may be true, but the information is not necessary. Instead it serves to make a point about the bombers; a point from a condescending and disapproving perspective.

(Due to lack of visual resources of this particular abortion clinic bombing, pictures are from a different bombing, but still represent the anti-abortionist motive as the building bombed was an abortion clinic)

Source 1

Source 2

The pictures of the bombing are also objective in that they display the actual damage done to the clinic after the explosion. Anti-abortionists, however, can argue that these pictures support the abortionist’s side because it sends a negative portrayal. They may claim that by only showing the negative affects of destroying an abortion clinic, the positive side is unaccounted for but not nonexistent. The argument in support of the bombing would need a visual that illustrates the point that the result of this building’s destruction is a decrease in murders (abortions) performed. More complicated images or textual evidence would be necessary to communicate this, though; and so whether the images hold an opinion or not, they are still the most readily available visual in depicting the direct consequence of damage to the building.