Ashley C. Post 10

Ashley Cannaday

1) Initially, the anti-abortion movement was not even thought of as a religious issue. Evangelicals during this time period strongly believed in rapture theology, or “the belief that the Second Coming of Christ was close at hand” (Risen and Thomas, Pg. 81). They believed that because the End Times was so imminent, there was no use in worrying about the mortal events of earth. Also, some believed that before the Coming of Christ, there would be the rise of the Antichrist who would bring chaos and darkness (Risen and Thomas Pg. 81). This chaos should not be interfered with because it was a prerequisite to the return of Christ. Some Christians saw the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade and the prevalence of it thereafter as an inevitable part of this process, and as a result most Protestant fundamentalists during the 1970s stayed out of the pro-life movement. Abortion was seen as a Catholic issue. However, activists like Schaeffer were soon urging Protestants to return to the views of Reformation theologians such as Calvin and Knox. The view of these followers was that God did not want them to sit idly by, but instead wanted them to make the world a more righteous place by whatever means necessary. As Risen and Thomas state, “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 revival in Calvinist thinking persuaded many Protestant fundamentalist into taking up the fight against abortion. Religion soon became a factor in the pro-life movement.

The movement began with political involvement, peaceful rallies, handing out pamphlets, and the creation of over three thousand crisis pregnancy centers across the country by 1981 ( Thomas and Risen Pg. 84). One of the main organizations of the movement was John O’Keefe’s Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project. O’Keefe’s tactics involved civil disobedience, such as clinic sit-ins and prayer vigils, and the recruitment of leading activists, priests, and ministers. One of PNAP’s greatest achievements came in 1984 with a sit-in at the Wheaton clinic. Forty six people were arrested, including both Catholic and Protestant clergy members, and this was the greatest number of arrests for a pro-life event (Risen and Thomas Pg. 91).

However, some, such as Michael Bray and Thomas Spinks, became frustrated by the ineffectiveness and slowness of the current state of the movement. Destruction of abortion clinic property and bombings began to take place across the nation, with the belief in mind that it was acceptable to God as long as no human life was injured in the process. These violent actions seriously hurt the anti-abortion movement, especially the PNAP. Two days after O’Keefe’s sit-in, the Wheaton clinic was bombed by Spinks, dealing a harsh blow to the pro-life movement. The abortion bombings now started to make national headlines, and the PNAP was discredited. Hand described how it was “shot in the heart for the work we had done” (Risen and Thomas Pg. 93). After this, clinic bombings became more frequent, and O’Keefe’s civil disobedience campaign never regained strength thanks to its association with Bray. Not only were the bombings more frequent, but they came to be advocated. Also advocated was the murder of abortionists.

Protest campaigns now included an alliance of Catholics and Christians. Many of these campaigns began to unite behind their belief that clinic bombers and abortionist murderers should be freed from jail, such as the “Free Joan Andrews” campaign (Risen and Thomas Pg. 187). These cases put the spotlight on the movement to a much greater degree than O’Keefe’s efforts had, and the movement began to rapidly grow. “When early leaders such as O’Keefe and Lee began to fade away, so did their theories about ‘a peaceful presence.’ Instead, it was the street-level aggressiveness of Joan Andrews, combined with the harsh rhetoric of Joseph Scheidler that began to spread” (Risen and Thomas Pg. 192). Graffiti was drawn on clinics, the doors were superglued shut, and noxious gas was spread throughout the clinic while patients were inside. Vandalism was the new tactic. Pensacola became a hot spot for protests, and activists such as Burt began to personalize the movement against clinic staffers and doctors. With the 1984 Christmas bombings, “activism had taken a sudden turn to extremism” (Risen and Thomas Pg. 198). Much more graphic anti-abortion pamphlets, posters and documentaries, such as The Silent Scream, began to circulate. The extremists were giving the movement a bad name, and some protestors actually pulled back. But extremists such as Joan Andrews fought even harder. Andrews believed that noncooperation was the key to the movement’s revival and success. This tactic lead to much stricter penalties for protestors, but it also rallied the abortionist movement once again.

After years of Republican control of the government, pro-life activists were not content with the results. Randall Terry argued that after 6 years, the fight against abortion had not seen any significant gains. Reagan had not come through on his promise to end abortion. If Democrats won the 1988 election, it could be guaranteed that the anti-abortion movement would continue to make no ground. Terry proposed a national protest campaign to take place with the presidential race, again putting abortion on the front burner. Terry’s campaign was radical, encouraging followers to “storm abortion clinics; solder shut elevators and blockade doors so that police could not reach them; and completely trash clinic offices” (Risen and Thomas Pg. 207). Terry was approached by many people asking him to tone it down, and he soon dropped his radical ideas. Activists were not ready for that level of radicalism yet.

However, the anti-abortion protests gradually came closer and closer to actual harassment, and the shopping centers that housed abortion clinics were boycotted. The actual impact was still negligible. Abortions were on the rise. 1984 saw 1.57 million abortions, an increase of thousands over four years (Risen and Thomas Pg. 240). Boycotts now included hospitals that performed abortions, and out of town abortionists became the new target of protestors. As a result, the clinics became more aggressive, employing clinic escorts, and fights began to break out outside the clinics. It was not long before radicals began rushing the clinics, locking themselves in the procedure rooms, and chaining themselves to a sink, all to keep abortions from happening for that day.

After the Cherry Hill protest, the anti-abortion movement was transformed. “Clinic sit-ins and blockades were no longer small, isolated local events; they had suddenly become the most important form of political expression in the entire national debate over abortion” (Risen and Thomas Pg. 263). The Abortion War was no longer small scale. It was going national. Publicity was at an all-time high, and so were recruits. Legal punishments were also increased for protestors.

In the 1990’s the anti-abortion movement took a dark turn. In 1993 abortion doctor David Gunn was murdered by Michael Griffin in Pensacola, ushering in a slew of abortionist homicides. All credibility seemed lost for the movement. This lead to debates among activists over whether this use of violence was justifiable. Many activists advocated the killing of doctors, saying that it was for the greater good. Bible verse Genesis 9:6 became their defense: Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. Shelly Shannon attempted to murder Dr. George Tiller in 1993, and the term u.d.r. – ultimate determined rescue – was coined as the killing of abortion doctors (Risen and Thomas Pg. 354). As a result of the killings, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the FBI cracked down on the anti-abortion movement. The entire pro-life movement was collapsing, and many activists believed that the only way to save it was to make a break with the violent extremists.

2) McVeigh and Sikkink argue that four main factors lead to Protestant approval of contentious actions, which include “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 Pg. 1425). Also, religious beliefs that depict life as a struggle between good and evil can lead to the acceptance of controversial tactics.

On July 29, 1994, Paul Hill, a Protestant fundamentalist, murdered Dr. John Britton, an abortion doctor, and one of his clinic escorts, James Barrett, while injuring the other, June Barrett. Hill was an avid supporter of Michael Griffin’s homicide of abortionist Dr. Gunn, and after the murder he went on various television shows declaring that it was justifiable homicide. He was a strong advocate of anti-abortion violence. Hill stated that he has no remorse about killing and injuring the clinic escorts, because they were enabling the abortion doctor. Upon being arrested, Hill’s words were that “no innocent babies are going to be killed in that clinic today” (Risen and Thomas Pg. 365). Hill was deeply involved in religious organizations, to the point that it was his livelihood. He believed that Christian moral standards are universal. Whether you are religious or not, you should adhere to these morals. There is no doubt that Hill believed his values to be threatened with the continued increase in abortions, and in his eyes, the death of innocent babies. Hill fits McVeigh and Sikkink’s model of someone who would approve of radical actions exactly.

3)

News Accounts Presaged Trouble
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jul 30, 1994. p. 26 (1 page)

Pensacola Trial to Be First Test for Clinic Access Law
By RONALD SMOTHERSSpecial to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Oct 3, 1994. p. B11 (1 page)

The first article, News Accounts Presaged Trouble, is very brief and doesn’t give a lot of detail concerning the actual events that took place with Britton’s murder. The article discusses Hill’s past, bringing up his appearance on “The Phil Donahue Show”, “Nightline”, and CNN, and stating how on all of these shows he defended the homicide of Dr. Gunn. A majority of the article deals with another article: “The Abortionist” in February 1994’s edition of GQ magazine. It was explained that in this article Paul Hill, Dr. John Bayard Britton, James Barrett, and June Barrett were all mention, and how this was extremely ominous foreshadowing. The actual double homicide that took place the day before this article was written is only briefly mentioned once in the article, with little detail given to what occurred.

The second article, Pensacola Trial to Be First Test for Clinic Access Law, focuses more on the trial of Paul Hill. The charges against Hill are mentioned, but again, very briefly. It is stated that Hill is the first person to be tried under the Federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law, which was designed to reduce violent protests outside of abortion clinics. This article was written just before the trial took place, and therefore the outcome would not have been known at the time.

The New York Times’ account of Dr. Britton’s murder by Paul Hill is much less focused on the details of the actual event compared to Risen and Thomas’s account. This may be due to the fact that the details of Britton’s homicide were simply not available to the public, or where unknown to the police themselves, at the time of the articles’ authorship. Risen and Thomas are extremely detailed in their account of the homicide, taking you through Hill’s preparations throughout the day, step by step, not forgetting any slight detail. This difference could also be contributed to the fact that newspaper articles have to fill a certain space in the paper. The cannot be any longer or shorter than the space they are allotted. Because of this, the details may have been cut to save space. Also, The New York Times gave much more focus to Hill’s trial than Risen and Thomas did.

Source

Source

The first image above is of Paul Hill protesting outside an abortion clinic. He is carrying an extremely large sign that reads, “Execute murderers, abortionists, accessories?” The second photograph is of Hill being arrested by the police shortly after he gunned down Dr. Britton and Mr. Barrett. The written description of Hill and his deeds in Wrath of Angels paints a much more evil picture than the images do. Just by looking at the images above, one could not tell that the man pictured was a murderer. He doesn’t come across as threatening. In his photos, he is smiling, dressed in all white, which represents holiness. However, Risen and Thomas explain with their written description just how dark Hill is. In the text, the true murderer is revealed. This difference is in large part due to the fact that a photograph cannot convey every aspect of a person to the viewer. Some characteristics cannot be seen on the surface. In many instances, people can change their outward appearances to hide their inner selves.

Fatema, post 10

Fatema Kermalli

1) The anti-abortion movement escalated from the initial concept of non-violence, following the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr., to increasingly more violent actions such as the destruction of clinic property, arsons and bombings, and finally even murder.

At the beginning, the difference was really just one of belief: how far each person though it was possible or necessary to go in fighting against abortion. This can be seen through the fact that O’Keefe’s non-violent movement was going on at the same time as Bray’s and Spinks’ attacks on clinics: “Thomas Spinks stayed away from the sit-ins, and Bray made certain that Spinks never attacked the Gaithersburg clinic, for fear of injuring protesters or perhaps drawing police suspicion directly on O’Keefe’s movement” (89). This kind of difference is apparent in all different aspects of life, between all types of people. In the continuum of values, there are always those who are closer to the fringe, those termed “extremists” by the mainstream population. The anti-abortionist movement was no different.

What did apparently turn the tide was the “apparent” connection that emerged when clinics that had been targeted by the nonviolent movement also became targets of Spinks’: “…he could see his dream of a large-scale sit-in movement evaporating almost overnight…O’Keefe’s ambition of winning widespread public support for civil disobedience disappeared…” (93). “It was becoming harder for the public and the media to tell the difference…” between those leaders who advocated violence and those who didn’t (94-5). This really hurt the peaceful movement that had existed until this point, because it placed the movement under suspicion.

This is also a good point at which to stop and look at the difference between the impact of images and that of rhetoric. Images seem to overwhelmingly have both more lasting influence and a more immediate impact. O’Keefe’s movement was never really given much attention by the media, thus making it harder for his idea of nonviolence to gain widespread use and approval. It was harder for him to, peacefully, make an impact: “He was frustrated that his sit-ins in Washington and Connecticut were still so small, never attracting more than about a dozen people, and were still getting brushed off and ignored by the media, police, and the clinics” (65). As soon as more violent actions began occurring however, these stronger images grasped the audience and were shown more and more within the news on the television screen. The basic rhetoric behind both types of movements was essentially the same; both said that abortion is like murder and is wrong. Yet, the violence that occurred got more coverage quicker… and is still being discussed today to a much greater extent than the many nonviolent protests that have occurred throughout history. Even the readings that were assigned in this class were biased towards the violence: we started with Chapter 4: The Father of Violence, and completely ignored Chapter 3: The Father of Rescue.

Going along with the difference in the amount of attention afforded to each movement, the gradual movement by some towards violence over the simultaneously present nonviolence can also be explained by impatience with the slow and scarce victories of peaceful protest as compared to the immediate effects of violence. “In the late 1970’s, anti-abortion violence was limited to sporadic and amateurish fires… Clinic arsons and bombings became more common—and more serious—by the early 1980’s…O’Keefe realized that Anderson’s violence had been successful, however briefly; Zevallos had not been able to perform abortions while he was being held” (75). This is very similar to the realization arrived at by Scheidler in Pensacola that “even negative press is better than no press at all” (197). The evolution was thus a result of the increased response that came with sensationalized news.

At the same time, as stated above, there were always those who did fight peacefully. An example would be Terry, whose radical vision was leashed by the National Right to Life Committee. They knew what kind of negative consequences such actions could have (207), and actually succeeded as far as to convince Terry to actually prohibit “Operation Rescue demonstrators from going inside clinics” (208). His success too, however, can be connected to the (Christian) media’s attention as bestowed upon the character of Andrews; Terry “saw that he had a second chance to sell his ideas” at a gathering meant to support Joan Andrews (205)… support that was allowed to grow because of the importance given to it by the Christian broadcasting (187).

2) According to the article, there are some main factors which make people much more likely to approve of “contentious actions”. For example: “Perceived threat to religious values, a belief that people should not have a right to follow their own moral standards unless they are Christian standards, and a belief that humans are basically sinful are significant predictors of approval of contentious tactics” (1447). Also, volunteering for church organizations was found “to be a strong predictor of the approval of contentious tactics…” (1445).

When applying this type of analysis to Michael Griffin, or any other of the anti-abortionists, it is very clear to see that they do indeed perceive a threat to their religious values regarding the sanctity of all life… including that of the unborn. Griffin himself used the verse “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed” in his warnings to David Gunn, proving that the basis for his actions was indeed a firm religious belief in the value of the life of the unborn child which was being threatened by the institution of abortion. The fact that he actually uses this against Gunn also seems to indicate his belief in the universality of the Bible. The fact that the Bible said it was enough for Griffin, and according to Griffin, also ought to be enough for anyone else, including David Gunn.

There does not seem to be much of a background with Griffin, however, regarding the belief that “humans are basically sinful”. He is said to have switched churches many times, being described as a “church shopper” (341). This may mean that his beliefs on the subject were not totally stagnant; in any case, they are not overtly mentioned. It also seems to indicate a lack of the devotion to church volunteering that was found to be a strong predictor for contentious approval. What seems more important than Griffin’s steady presence in a church is the type of belief/church which he prescribed to: the book states that “Griffin became immersed in fundamentalism and began attending the Brownsville Assembly of God Church in Pensacola, which later became the scene of the largest fundamentalist revival in recent U.S. history” (341). Not much information is really given concerning why he made this change in the first place.

3) The Wheaton blast

Articles:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=120466026&sid=5&Fmt=10&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=HNP

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=120500220&sid=5&Fmt=10&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=HNP

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=256577042&sid=5&Fmt=10&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=HNP

One large difference that I see is obviously the result of hindsight; the articles all talk about the string of violent acts that had been occurring at the time, and refer to the protests that had just taken place at the Wheaton clinic prior to the blast as though to connect the two occurrences together. Whilst the articles do acknowledge the existence of some people who assert the use of nonviolence, and claim that the blast had nothing to do with those previously peacefully protesting there, these statements are still presented as just that: claims. On the other hand, the book looks at it more from O’Keefe’s point of view, talking about how distraught he was that this had occurred due to the fact that it had such a detrimental effect on his whole nonviolent movement. Because we now know that the two were indeed NOT directly connected, we are able to look at it from the other side. This difference in portrayal could also be explained by the fact that the article was meant simply to inform, whilst the book almost appears to trail the evolution of the movement itself. This following of the escalation process causes a greater need for focus on such pivotal events from all angles (especially O’Keefe’s, as he represents nonviolence).

Images:

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/pqdweb?index=1&did=120466026&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1194495555&clientId=394 (same article contains picture)

I find the same message basically embedded within the image as within the text of the articles; both, understandably and obviously, focus on the effect of the bombing from the traditional victim’s point of view (as opposed to that of the peaceful movement). Because of this, all anti-abortionists are given just one face: the face of violence. That is what the viewers/readers are shown, and that is what sticks out in their minds. The image of a destroyed building is very powerful in helping to form those types of stereotypes.

Aaron post 10

Aaron Childree

When the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade finally came to a close on January 22, 1973, a huge change had been made to the laws of the United States. Anti-abortion laws were declared unconstitutional and were said to violate the privacy of the women wanting an abortion. The court decided that during the first trimester there could be no restrictions on abortion and after that the state could intervene in some form (information on Roe v. Wade is from tourolaw.edu). This case caused a huge controversy and split the nation into those for abortion (pro-choice) and those against it (pro-life). This controversy slowly escalated over time until suddenly people were being killed over the issue. The controversy continues to this day and abortion is still an important political and legal issue.

Part 1

The anti-abortion movement had small and peaceful beginnings. John O’Keefe, known as the “father of rescue” (Wrath of Angels, p.78) was one of the first anti-abortionists to begin to organize peaceful sit-ins at abortion clinics. O’Keefe was a firm believer in “the power of nonviolence” (Wrath of Angels, p.79). He created an organization called the “Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project” (Wrath of Angels, p.89) in which he would gather relatively small groups of protesters to gather around abortion clinics to hopefully interfere enough to close down the clinic for the day in order to send a message. Some of the clinics would decide to close down before the protesters even arrived and there were usually no arrests made. The idea was to get the point that abortion is murder across in a nonviolent way. O’Keefe realized that you can not fight against violence by being violent (similar to the beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King).

Next came Michael Bray, the anti-abortion movement’s “father of violence” (Wrath of Angels, p.78). Bray started as a participant in some of O’Keefe’s sit-ins but began to turn towards more militant ideas. He and his friend Thomas Spinks began to make plans to bomb abortion clinics. “Their first target was the Reproductive Care Center, a clinic in Dover Delaware, which Bray had scouted out while visiting nearby relatives” (Wrath of Angels p. 86). They bombed the clinic in January of 1984. Spinks described the experience: “So Mike opened the hatchback, and I grabbed a log and threw it through the door. Mike was to the right of me, and he threw a cinder block through the window, the big plate of glass. We began to throw the cans and things of gas inside” (Wrath of Angels, p.87). Bray and Spinks did not think that what they were doing was wrong; they thought it was for the good of society. Spinks later said, “it would be okay to destroy buildings. We saw 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 hurt in the process” (Wrath of Angels, p.86) This marked the beginning of the more militant and destructive side of the anti-abortion movement. There was still no talk of harming other human lives, but the ideas of nonviolence were slowly being pushed away and labeled ineffective.

Another anti-abortion activist that attempted to get her point across in destructive and rebellious ways was Joan Andrews. Like most activists, Andrews began by participating in peaceful sit-ins but soon became frustrated and began to turn to violence and destruction. Andrews started driving by “St. Louis-area clinics late at night to inject superglue, a remarkably tough adhesive, into door locks to seal them shut” (Wrath of Angels, p.193). Soon Andrews was “getting arrested throughout Pennsylvania” (Wrath of Angels, p.193). Joan Andrews finally got her “big break” in Pensacola. On March 26, 1988, became frustrated during a sit-in she was participating in. She entered The Ladies Center clinic and began tearing apart the equipment. “While Andrews was yanking on the wires, two police officers arrived and grabbed her” (Wrath of Angels, p. 201). Andrews was then taken to jail and given an offer of probation which she quickly refused. “Joan Andrews didn’t want a deal; she saw an opportunity in Pensacola to challenge the system” (Wrath of Angels, p.203). Andrews was sentenced to 5 years in prison and decided to use her time behind bars to make a statement with total noncooperation. She expressed some of her ideas in a speech before she went to jail: “I do recommend fasting two or three times a week in jail and praying constantly- but total noncooperation. Going limp where you have to be carried to your cell- total disobedience. Now let me ask you, what jail would want you? You will create such a disturbance in the minds and hearts of all the people you come in contact with that they are going to say, wow, they really mean it” (Wrath of Angels, p.204). Joan Andrews’s noncooperative show in prison received lots of attention and caused large problems for the justice system until she was finally released.

Soon after, the anti-abortion movement took a turn for the worst. Activists started using Genesis 9:6 to establish the morality of “justifiable homicide”. The verse reads: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man” (Genesis 9:6, NIV). This verse is often seen as advocating the use of the death penalty in legal systems are more loosely as a “what goes around comes around” type of thing, but some activists saw it as a call to carry out God’s justice themselves by killing abortion doctors. Two such activists were Shelley Shannon and Paul Hill. Shannon shot George Tiller in August of 1993 and Hill shot and killed John Britton in July of 1994. These killings gave an understandably bad reputation to the anti-abortion movement and crippled its progress.

So why did everything turn sour so fast? The answer is frustration. Anti-abortion activists were looking for change, and no matter how hard they tried, they didn’t see it. They could shut down a clinic for a day, but it would open the next day and be back to business as usual. So the activists began to attempt to destroy the clinics. Abortions would then be stalled for a short period of time, but the clinics would find ways to provide abortions anyways. It just didn’t seem like any progress was being made. The final act of frustration, the killing of abortion doctors, was certainly a drastic step. But instead of making progress, it set the whole movement back to square one. How could people take pro-life advocates seriously if they are taking life away? They were now just a bunch of insane, murderous hypocrites. Changing the legal system takes lifetimes of slow and patient work, and the anti-abortion activists weren’t willing to be that patient.

Part 2

Randall Terry was a very important figure in the anti-abortion movement. “He had a gift, a relentlessness, that made it possible for him to talk to perfect strangers” (Wrath of Angels, p.241). He was one of the first people to take the anti-abortion movement to a national level. The fact that Terry was a Protestant Christian has a lot to do with why he decided to get involved with protests and “contentious actions”. First of all, because Terry wasn’t Catholic, he didn’t have to answer to the higher officials of the Catholic Church. Protestantism is less unified and structured and allows people to read the Bible and come to their own conclusions. Naturally, this leads to more freedom to carry out your believes without interference from the church. Another factor is that Christians believe in what McVeigh and Sikkink refer to as “moral absolutism” (God, Politics, and Protest, p.1432) Christians believe that anyone who doesn’t believe in Christianity will go to hell and that is why they believe they are doing the right thing by attempting to impose their beliefs on others. Yet another reason why Terry felt so compelled to protest abortion was because, like all Christians, he believed that all humans are sinful. Because of this he saw that people weren’t going to stray from their immoral ways on their own and took it upon himself to help push them to change.

Part 3

Article 1

KILL FOR LIFE?

[By Lisa Belkin]

New York Times; Oct 30, 1994; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)

pg. SM47

Article 2

Is Abortion Violence a Plot? Conspiracy Is Not Confirmed

By TIMOTHY EGAN

New York Times (1857-Current file); Jun 18, 1995; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)
pg. 1

The first article talks about the rapid evolution of the anti-abortion movement from peaceful sit-ins to ruthless murder. It mentions how ridiculous it is that pro-life advocates think that the best way to get their point across is to kill. They say that they are trying to save lives but now they are taking it away. The article talks a lot about Roy McMillan, an anti-abortionist who advocates “justifiable homicide” but says that he has no plans to kill anyone. The article also mentions Paul Hill and his murder of abortion doctor John Britton. Hill was close friends with McMillan and they shared a lot of the same ideas. The article says that government officials were trying to tie many of these political extremists together in order to uncover any conspiracies that might be going on.

The second article talks about how the government was trying to get information from Shelley Shannon on other anti-abortion extremists in order to establish whether or not there is a large conspiracy going on between anti-abortion activists who are willing to kill to get their point across. Shannon was unwilling to give any names even though she was already serving a ten-year sentence for the attempted murder of George Tiller, an abortion doctor.

Both articles mention that the federal government was investigating these murder cases closely and looking for any hints to a possible conspiracy. It seems that it was very widely believed that these murders were connected and that an “anti-abortion crime circle” was under operation. These articles also seem fairly intent on pointing out that they think the ideas of these murderers are crazy and ridiculous. This is probably because these extreme views are harmful to both sides of the debate. It harms the reputation of anti-abortionists by giving people reason to believe that they are just a bunch of lunatics, and it doesn’t help those for abortion because their doctors are being killed. Both sides wanted to stay away from supporting these views and the articles that were written at the time reflect that mentality.

1^st image is from www.fadp.org

2^nd image is from www.childrenneedheroes.com

The first image is a picture of Paul Hill the day before he is to be executed for murdering an abortion doctor. He seems to be shown smiling in order to show just how crazy he really is. He still believes that what he did was right and thinks that he will be rewarded by God in heaven for carrying out His work on earth. The second image is of Shelley Shannon, another person who shot an abortion doctor. This image also shows her smiling, but for a completely different reason. The site that this photo comes from (childrenneedheroes.com) is trying to say that Shannon should be seen as a hero and that she is smiling because she knows she has done the right thing. This site is trying to tell young children that they should be more like Shelley Shannon. The Children Need Heroes newsletter claims to be “Honoring the brave men and women who, at great personal cost, used force to defend preborn children from unjust violence” (childreneedheroes.com). Whereas the New York Times articles gave a more neutral and factual account of the happenings, it seems that these images are being used to aggressively promote one view on the issue.

The fight over the legality of abortion turned into a huge debate that included religious, political, and moral issues. It really is sad that some people can say they are “pro-life” and then turn into murderers. While the abortion issue continues to be a very difficult problem to solve, I think most people can now agree that violence will not help either side. This issue will not be resolved by destroying abortion clinics or even by killing doctors. If people want something to be changed they need to understand that it takes a lot of time and patience.

Kim post 10

Kim Hambright

Images and text alike are meant to impact their viewer. Whether in a positive or negative way, in support of a cause, or in opposition to a cause, both images and rhetoric speak to the viewer on a personal level. An image, by definition, is visual, and therefore makes an instantaneous impact on the viewer. While there may be subtext to the image, as well as underlying meanings that require more time and extensive visual analysis, a viewer is generally able to generate an opinion or understanding of an image in a very short period of time. Text however, requires more attention; this includes the obvious, reading, but also analysis. It is pertinent for a reader to fully comprehend and understand the words on the page for one to reach an understanding of the meaning of a written work. Just as people are different, so are the ways in which they understand images and textual pieces. The genre with the most lasting influence therefore, is indeterminable. For some, a visual image of an aborted fetus may burn into their mind for years; while for others, a Biblical passage about life may have a greater impact. Neither rhetoric nor images can be said to have the longest lasting influence on people, because influence is personal and unique to every individual.

After the trial of Roe vs. Wade, anti-abortion activists began taking a violent approach to protesting. Beginning with Bray and Sprinks in the early 1980’s setting off homemade car bombs, the often evangelical Christians took matters into their own hands. Activists moved from relatively small homemade explosive devices to larger explosive devices, and from attacking individuals to attacking buildings and clinics. Anti-abortionists vandalized abortion clinics, damaging equipment and personal property, and held prayer sessions outside of clinics all while claiming to be fighting for the “Army of God.” As time went on protestors became even more violent, committing such crimes as arson, assault, and even murder. Two radical supporters of the anti-abortion movement should be noted: Joan Andrews and Michael Griffin. In March of 1986, Joan Andrews, nicknamed “Saint Joan,” set fire to The Ladies Center, an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida. She received a sentence of five years in prison for the damages she caused, and instead of turning their backs, the anti-abortion community supported her. She was considered the first martyr of the movement, and other protestors looked to her as an iconic figure. Similarly Michael Griffin was sentenced due to actions prompted by his involvement with the anti-abortion movement. In March of 1993, Griffin shot abortion doctor David Gunn in a parking lot. The only explanation he gave was a statement that he felt God wanted him to. He felt that it was his personal duty to take the life of a man whom he felt had taken the lives of so many innocent unborn children.

The gradual increase in violence associated with the anti-abortion movement can be explained in several different ways. First off, they were not being heard. Protestors had been rioting and picketing, speaking out and fighting for years and nothing had been done to illegalize abortions. Understandably, the people associated with the movement became frustrated: they wanted to get their point across, they wanted to change the laws, and nothing had happened. Their increase in violence can be seen as a stronger attempt to be heard. With homemade explosives, firearms and lighters, the activists felt they would be able to make more of an impact. In another direction, the increase in violent protests could be seen as a result of improvements in technology, and one’s increased ability to possess more dangerous weapons. Since the technology was more readily available to them, protestors became involved in crimes of opportunity. For example, Shelley found the directions for making a pipe bomb on the internet and was able to buy all of the materials she needed at her local hardware store, so what is keeping her from bombing a place she deems evil? While the reasons for the violent uprisings may be debatable, the actual events are written in the history books. After the moral and political awakening that was the Roe vs. Wade case, anti-abortionists became vocal, and eventually violent. Their malicious and sometimes homicidal actions brought their stories to newspapers all over, and gave their stories and opinions exactly the kind of publicity that they had been aiming for.

A group of extremist protesters at an anti-abortion rally.
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070424/070424_abortion_hmed_4p.hmedium.jpg

Paul Hill, Father Trosch, and Andrew Cabot at the trial of Michael Griffin.-

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.christiangallery.com/Hill.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.christiangallery.com/spr95new.html&h=336&w=484&sz=22&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=8Us6sL7OXscq8M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMichael%2BGriffin%2BDavid%2BGunn%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Michael Griffin reportedly told authorities that he shot David Dunn because God had asked him to. Strangely enough, according to McVeigh and Sikkink, and Protestant approval, Griffin’s actions would be justified. As mentioned in the article, religion, though not the only factor influencing anti-abortionists’ behavior, was certainly a part of the reason many anti-abortionists “acted out.” The strong faith of the people, specifically Christianity, validated their actions, whether legal or illegal. It was Michael Griffin’s claim that upon seeing David Gunn in the gas station that fateful day, God asked him to warn the doctor of his wrong-doings. Griffin was apparently also told by God that Dunn’s punishment for taking so many lives, was to have his own life taken. Michael Griffin was just the man to do it. Strong in his faith, and even stronger in his beliefs, Griffin felt that his actions were justified to the Lord, and that no matter what happened to him on earth, he would have a place in Heaven. Unafraid of the consequences, Griffin even reported to the authorities not long after the murder, claiming that he had taken the doctor’s life.

Some Protestants, though not all, would agree with the actions of Michael Griffin. As the cartoon satirizes, people strong in their faith and moral codes even testified in favor of him at his trial. For those who believe in Divine Intervention, and those who believe in God’s prescence in everyday life, believing Griffin’s assertion that God had wanted him to shoot Gunn would not be difficult. It is for the reason of religion alone that Protestants may have agreed with the actions of David Griffin, actions that would usually have been defined as “heinous” and “evil.”

Anthony Lewis’ article, “Right to Life,” from the New York Times, reads very similarly to Risen and Thomas’ book, Wrath of Angels. Like the book, the article takes an obvious liberal standpoint, not only taking on the position that murder is wrong, but also that anti-abortion protests are wrong. A specific excerpt from the passage reads, “It is time to be serious about the menace of anti-abortion violence.” While the article mainly focuses around the death of abortion doctor David Gunn, it also Lewis criticizes actions of Michael Griffin, the man accused of murdering the doctor, along with the anti-abortion movement in general. In his opinion, the protesters “are religious fanatics that want to impose their version of God’s word on the rest of us.” He denounced their use of Biblical reasoning to make their point, and reported their unification of Church and State as unconstitutional. Clearly compatible with the book, both works would agree with the statement that violent anti-abortionists have gone too far. As Lewis claims in the article, they need to be stopped.

An article printed on May 10, 1990, also by the New York Times, entitled “95 Abortion Protesters are Freed,” discusses anti-abortionist actions in a much more objectified manner. The article consists mainly of stated facts about the arrest, trial, sentencing and release of anti-abortionists associated with the raid of an abortion clinic, led by Joan Andrews. Little bias is detectable, especially considering the inclusion of personal statements from Joan Andrews and her lawyer. Unlike Risen and Thomas’ book, the material in the article is presented in a way that allows the reader to make up their own minds about the actions of the anti-abortionists. The closing statement, “One leader of the protesters said a prayer vigil was scheduled at an abortion clinic in Burlington on Thursday morning,” even offers a way for the readers to express their agreement with and sympathy for the convicted protesters.

When searching for images on the anti-abortion movement, I discovered something: they aren’t easy to find. When I was searching the New York Times for articles however, my search was very bountiful. Though I’m not entirely sure as to the reason of this, I can attribute it to the ease of textual production. To write an article about an event, one must not necessarily attend the event, while it would be impossible to photograph an event without actually being there. Though the riots and protests were a big deal at the time, the number of people present at such events nowhere compared to the number of people all across America and beyond that heard about them. Text is also much easier to manipulate. Especially at the time, it was difficult to capture images of anti-abortionist activity in a way that would lead the viewer to only one conclusion. Images were open to interpretation by the viewer, and he or she could use his or her own personal beliefs to evaluate a photograph and form an opinion. Working with text however, allowed a writer to lead the readers in any way they wanted to. Overall, the text I found was much more diverse in opinion compared to the images. Though I realize my own personal beliefs influence my opinion, I felt that it was difficult to find photographs or images in support of the anti-abortion movement. I also found it interesting that everywhere I looked I saw the words “anti-abortion.” Though that may be the term deemed appropriate for such extremists, I had always known those against abortion to be called “pro-life.” In a way, I feel this use of language almost automatically denounces the actions of those against abortion. Instinctively one hears “anti” and a negative connotation is given, whereas if they had been called “pro-life,” a more positive connotation would have been given to them. Additionally, I’m curious to know how the protesters identify themselves, as “pro-life” or as “anti-abortionists,” and even if it matters at all. To me, the simple choice of words adds a great deal of disapproval to the actions described. Justified or unjustified, “anti-abortionist riots” sounds exceedingly more dangerous than “pro-life riots.” Ultimately, propaganda through rhetoric was (and is) extremely prominent, and it is understandable that it is still easier to find than images to this day.

Tawny N post 10

Tawny Najjar

“Religion provides life, the world, and history with meaning, through a sacred reality which transcends those mundane realities. But in doing so, religion establishes a perceived objective reality above and beyond temporal life, the world, and history, that then occupies ad independent and privileged position to act – through those who believe in the religion – back upon the mundane world. That which is sacred and transcends temporal, earthly reality also stands in the position to question, judge, and condemn temporal earthly reality. In this way, the ultimate legitimator of the status quo can easily become its ultimate judge.” – Smith (McVeigh 1430)

Abortion has long been an extremely controversial topic among Americans. One reason for this conflict is that this issue directly relates to many American women, and challenges moral beliefs and ideas. Opposition to ideas that are considered by some to be “amoral” is inevitable, but a question that arises from this opposition is: How far is too far? Are there valid reasons for protestors to resort to violence? Many protestors that represented various religious groups believed that they had a “God-given” right to fight for what they believed to be moral. Actions speak louder than words, and this idea was clearly shown during the anti-abortionist movement.

The Roe versus Wade decision launched what came to be known as the anti-abortionist movement. In this decision, the court abolished all laws prohibiting abortion. They declared that abortion was permissible for all reasons up until the fetus reaches a point in which it is “viable,” which is when it has the potential to live outside of its mother’s uterus. This period of “viability” began during the second trimester of pregnancy. This decision triggered many debates about under what circumstances abortion is permissible and acceptable.

The beginning of the anti-abortionist movement was characterized by political involvement. Rallies were organized to recruit other to join the cause. In 1981, Michael Bray attended a rally in Bowie in support of the county executive, who had proposed a ban on abortion (Risen 83). Group involvement was mostly seen in churches. The Assemblies of God, for example, formed the backbone of the protests in Pensacola, protesting every Saturday morning. This became the first large-scale anti-abortionist protest campaign in the South, as well as the first in the nation to be dominated and organized by Fundamentalist Protestants, rather than Catholics (Risen 197). Projects were developed, such as the Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project, started by Bray and O’Keefe in Gaithersburg, Maryland. This protest project occurred on November 17, in which forty-seven people, including seventeen Protestant and Catholic members were arrested. Over one hundred protestors blocked the doors of the clinic. This was the first publicized protest, gaining media recognition from the Washington Post. Anti-abortionists used propaganda as well, creating a documentary called The Silent Scream. This documentary was produced by a former abortion doctor who turned anti-abortionist. It contained traumatic footage of an ultrasound examination conducted during an abortion. This was the most successful piece of propaganda and one of the most effective recruiting tools (Risen 198).

However, protests, posters, and letters did not inflict the change that anti-abortionists were demanding. In an effort to make their point more noticeable, protestors started to resort to violence, starting with vandalism, and ending with total destruction of buildings. Joan Andrews, a Pro-Life advocate, spray-painted anti-abortion graffiti in clinic walls, superglued the door locks, and spread noxious liquids throughout clinics in St. Louis, which forced a temporary closure. Another advocate, Michael McMonagle, staged sit-ins, and invaded clinics and damaged equipment whenever possible. Besides picketing and inflicting damage on clinics, protestors started to make more personal attacks against clinic employees. McMonagle picketed the homes of abortion doctors, clinic owners, and clinic staffers (Risen 193). John Burt, another protestor, also personalized his protests against doctors and clinic staffers.

The final stage of the protest movement was obvious violence. Some protestors felt that this method would be the most effective way to get through to people and stop abortion. As John Burt stated, “When the history of this period is written, it won’t be the pickets or the letter-writers who will be the heroes. It’s going to be the bombers” (NY Times, Jan 18 1985). Clinic bombing began in 1984, started by Bray and Spinks. The Wheaton blast, occurring on November 19, 1984, was the first clinic bombing to make national news. One protestor gave the statement, “Yes, it is just…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 that action will take” – O’Keefe (Risen 94). Protestors created the group, The Defenders of the Defenders of Life, which was a support group for clinic bombers and their families. Clinic bombing reached a high in 1984. Those activists who did not want to resort to this level of violence instead turned to civil disobedience. Half of the abortion providers claimed that they had become the “targets of anti-abortion ‘harassment,’” a politically loaded term that clinic personnel and abortion-right advocates used to describe civil disobedience and even legal protest activity, such as picketing (Risen 241).

The bombing in Pensacola was the final straw for the government. On Christmas of 1984, three bombs destroyed twp clinics and a doctor’s office. Matthew Goldsby was arrested for the bombings. This event gave people the impression that the anti-abortion movement was taking a turn to extremism. As Risen stated in the reading, “The Pensacola bombers were not active members of the anti-abortion movement and in fact had no ties to any of the Pensacola activist leaders. What they shared with the more visible activists was religious fundamentalism and a belief in the literal power of the Scriptures to tell them that abortion was an unholy stain on America” (Risen 198). Although the bombing in Pensacola marked the extremism that the anti-abortion movement was starting to appeal to, the protests did not stop there. In 1986, Joan Andrews was convicted of a third-degree burglary for entering The Ladies Center clinic in Pensacola and damaging equipment there. The anti-abortion movement unified behind a “free Joan Andrews” campaign, which gave the movement a second wind (Risen 187). This campaign gained a lot of media coverage. “It was one of the great ironies of the anti-abortion cause that fundamentalist Protestants, who had until them steered clear of anti-abortion activism in part because of their antipathy toward all thing Catholic, were finally mobilized by the plight of a woman who was feverishly Catholic” (Risen 188).

Religious protestors felt that they were morally obligated to fight for their ethical beliefs. As Appleby said, “There is a crime going on, the murder of babies…This is a war. We’re at a battlefield. We’re soldiers for Christ” (Risen 202). In their study, McVeigh and Sikkink came up with proven reasons for why these people accept contentious tactics as a means of protest. These reasons were a belief in coercive moralism, a belief that all humans are sinful, and a belief that one’s moral standards are being threatened. Religious groups may feel that their moral standards are being threatened, and so may be “acting defensively” to preserve moral order. When they feel threatened, groups may be more likely to resort to contentious tactics. Volunteering for religious organizations may also implicate that one may be accepting of contentious tactics. Joining an organization requires that one believes in what that organization believes. There is a unity among those people, an understanding. These anti-abortionists believe that they were in a struggle of “good versus evil,” “God versus the world.” As McVeigh stated, “If human history is about God struggling with Satan, about right struggling against an indifference to what is right, about a religious community embattled by external forces, it only makes sense that contentious tactics will, by analogy, be required for social change” (McVeigh 1450).

One example of a Protestant man who believed in the use of contentious tactics was Michael Bray, the man who started clinic bombing. He was convinced to “fight with everything at [his] disposal – tools of politics as well as weapons of war – and 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” (Risen 82). Bray believed that “any members of the ‘elect’ – anyone saved by God through faith – had the right to ‘rebellion against idolatrous and tyrannical sovereigns’…it was his duty as a Christian to fight abortion by any means necessary” (Risen 82). Bray’s decision to become involved in the anti-abortionist movement began when he was confronted by a woman who had had four abortions before the Roe versus Wade decision. Her story made it clear to Bray that “abortion was murder, a sin against God; she was a sinner seeking salvation; and now it was up to the faithful, the elect, to stamp out this evil. If the church failed to act, the church was guilty as well.” As Bray later stated, “It became impossible for me to continue to permit the tragedy to continue without direct intervention” (Risen 83).

Bray began with political involvement. In 1981, he went to a rally and met Thomas Spinks. They were both fundamentalists and members of the Cornerstone Assembly of God. In his writing, McVeigh stated that the “activist faith” of Evangelicals calls for a public presence of Christians, which would include protesting (McVeigh 1430). Bray convinced his church to help the Bowie Right to Life Committee to establish a local “crisis pregnancy center.” However, Bray and Spinks soon turned to more extreme measures to get their point across to the public. Their first clinic bombing occurred on January 14, 1984 at the Reproductive Care Clinic in Dover, Delaware. The clinic was completely destroyed by their homemade Molotov cocktails. By February 17, they had been reading up on more sophisticated weapons, and wired seven pipe bombs together, planting them against the outer wall of the Hillcrest Clinic in Norfolk, Virginia. Bray also left a sign there that read, “AOG – Army of God” (Risen 87). On May 19, Bray joined O’Keefe’s protests and started the Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project campaign at a brand-new clinic in Gaithersburg, Maryland (Risen 89). He continued to give Spinks more clinic targets to hit. Bray was a highly religious man, and believed that the rules laid down by the Bible should be strictly followed. As McVeigh stated, “Biblical literalism and religious participation had a strong impact on the likelihood of participating in protest movements” (McVeigh 1426). Spinks once said, “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…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” (Risen 86).

The actions of these anti-abortion protestors were discussed in the media, including the New York Times. Research of the archives revealed that there were many newspaper articles that discussed the clinic bombings in Pensacola, Florida. However, the story that was discussed in these articles is not the same story discussed in Risen’s book, The Wrath of Angels. All of the newspaper articles are very factual. They tell what happened, when it happened, where it happened, and who was involved. However, they do not go very deeply into why these bombers were so fervent in their beliefs and statements. Risen’s book gives a more personal account of the activists and bombers, so that the reader can relate to them and understand why they did what they did. The articles do not show evidence of a strong bias, and many have quotes from both sides: the activists and the victims of the bombings. In one article about the Pensacola bombings, Mr. Pelham, who testified against Goldsby, stated, “If he saved one life, then what he had done was worthwhile. He felt that God’s law was what he had to follow, not man’s law” (NY Times, Jan 1, 1985). Other articles showed that not all of the religious activists condoned the bombings. The Reverend Lindall Ballenger of the First Assembly of God in Pensacola was quoted ass saying, “It’s easy to say, ‘God made me do it,’ but that’s a cop-out in my opinion. I’m not saying God can’t talk to people, but God doesn’t tell people to go out and bomb abortion clinics. Like it or not, abortion is legal, and blowing up a building is not. Our weapons are not bombs. All that does is take the issue away from us” (NY Times, 1985). Another article showed that people did condone the bombings. John Burt, an anti-abortionist said, “When the history of this period is written, it won’t be the pickets or the letter-writers who will be the heroes. It’s going to be the bombers” (NY Times, 1985). One article discussed the possibility that the bombers were mentally unstable. It said that they were claiming to suffer from “severe mental disorders” and were “borderline personalities capable of slipping in psychotic behavior” (NY Times, April 1985).

The photographs of this event also tell their own stories. Though not many photographs could be found that directly related to the Pensacola bombings, the photographs of the protest groups show the fervor that these activists had. Pictures relate to viewers differently than words do. Photos show emotion and speak to the viewer’s sentiments. They are vivid; the viewer cannot escape the reality of what the image is trying to say. An excellent example of the difference between images and words is the Silent Scream documentary. The Silent Scream was used as anti-abortionist propaganda. It depicted an abortion taking place, using an ultrasound for viewers to see the effects that an abortion has on the baby. The doctor who narrated this documentary explained the exact steps of an abortion, showing the viewer the tools that are used. It was scientifically based, yet it appealed to people’s emotions, and deterred many from supporting or having an abortion. This factually based documentary had a strong effect on the viewer, because it was the harsh reality. There was no “sugar-coating” what really happens during an abortion. The depiction was ugly, graphic, and highly disturbing. In the Abortion Power Point, many of the Protestant and Catholic views of abortion were stated and discussed. However, these statements about why abortion is wrong and should not be taken lightly did not have the same effect of actually seeing an abortion take place. In one reading, it stated, “aborting an unborn child destroys a unique creation which God has called specially into existence” (Abortion Power Point). However, viewing that actual destruction is what really makes the viewer/reader consider the issue more seriously. Images have a powerful impact on people. They can show the harsh realities of life, and speak to the viewer’s emotions. However, as seen from the activists, words can also have a lasting influence on people. Bray had the belief that the Bible was to be taken literally, which spurred him to use whatever means necessary to spread his beliefs to other people, and impose a change on society. What people see and read has an effect on their beliefs and standards. This has been seen in many culture wars throughout the decades, and will continue on as more controversial issues rise up.

Maxine R. Post 10

Maxine Rivera

Part I

At the beginnings of the anti-abortion movement the number of protesters was small and so the demonstrations were not very impressive or effective. There was emphasis on non-violence, so sit-ins were popular (as we know, sit-ins can be very effective, however a large number of people is generally required to make an impact.) As more people were drawn to the cause, some recruited, others searched for it, new personalities and ideas came to the movement. In Thomas and Risen's Wrath of Angels one such personality is discussed in chapter four. Michael Bray, the "father of violence" was not content to simply sit-in and pray for change, he wanted a more proactive approach, something that would grab attention and force people to deal with the issues. While he participated in peaceful protests, planned by O'Keefe, he wanted more. He found an outlet in Thomas Spinks. (p 83) Spinks was a fundamentalist who bombed abortion clinics to get his message across. Spinks worked alone, he and Bray became good friends, and while Bray did not go on bombing excursions with Spinks, he was extremely supportive. Bray and Spinks were not the only ones pushing the anti-abortion movement in a more violent direction, others like Joan Andrews and John Burt were pushing for a more violent approach prior to Pensacola as well. Andrews in fact, began her protesting career with the intention of breaking into an abortion clinic and damaging whatever she could, she was unsuccessful at first, but determination earned her success and a prison sentence. (p 190) John Burt was no stranger to violence, "a former Marine, former Klansmen," he owned a halfway house for girls where he employed corporal punishment. (p 195) He and Joan Andrews were arrested together at The Ladies Center Clinic in 1986, he was charged with assault among the other offenses. (p 201) While Andrews was in prison, new leaders like Randall Terry promoted violence in the movement, "street level tactics... trash clinic offices, throwing furniture and abortion equipment out clinic windows and down into the street." (p 207) Bombers were doing their part to gain publicity for the movement with events such as the Christmas bombings of 1984 by Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons (p 198) As time passed the protesters became more militant, the young leaders were going in a different direction, "When early leaders such as O'Keefe and Lee began to fade away, so did their theories about 'a peaceful presence.'" (p 192) This is not to say that their contributions were not important or impacting, the early, peaceful leaders are what sparked the movement, what drew the new, proactive leaders to demand change in their forceful way.

This change took place because people like Bray and Burt did not feel that the nonviolent approach was bringing enough attention to the cause. Bombings, violence, and arrests caught the attention of the press (at first only local and religious press, but eventually national) and demonstrators like Scheidler and Burt began to adopt "no press is bad press" and "as-long-as-the-spell-my-name-right" policies about the media. (p 200) This seemed to be an effective strategy because with press came attention to the issue, some people were completely unaware of the issue and therefore had not picked a side, the coverage, whether good or bad brought the war on abortion to the public eye and brought supporters to the cause.

Publicity was not the only factor that encouraged change from a small nonviolent movement to a national scale, more militant, movement, much of the change also came from guilt. Associate Pastor Steve Zepp was guilted into the movement by Shofner's radio attack on hypocritical pastors. (p 196) Bray charged Ericksen with sin for not acting out. (p 85) Basically protesters changed their methods for several reasons, one of which being that the old way wasn't getting results and this new, more violent approach gained attention and thus, supporters, and a second reason is that they felt duty-bound to forcefully oppose the murder of babies.

Part II

In God, Politics and Protest, Rory McVeigh and David Sikkink provide two ways that "religion can facilitate social protest." Each of these is evident in the anti-abortion movement and in Randall Terry's involvement in the movement. The first is that there must be a "perceived threat to deeply held religious beliefs or values" and the second is that "specific religious beliefs that characterize life as a struggle between forces of good and evil may carry over to acceptance of the contentious tactics of protest." (p 1427) Terry being a Christian believed murder was wrong, he also believed abortion was the murder of a baby, thus abortion was wrong. The legalization of abortion was essentially the legalization of murder of the innocent, this is a clear example of evil. So, according to McVeigh and Sikkink, Terry meets the two main requirements for someone who has been inspired to participate in social protest by religion. In Wrath, Thomas and Risen explain that the Evangelical Church was "booming" at the time Terry proposed action, and why Terry figured that fundamentalists would be a good group to reach out to. (p 206) "The 'activist faith' of evangelicals calls for a public presence of Christians in all aspects of life, including protest." (God, Politics, and Protest, 1430) Not only does the faith support taking action against evils in "all aspects of life," the fundamentalist ministers are not tied to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Their independence makes them ideal, they could bring their "flock" with them, without checking with bishops, cardinals, the Pope, etc. to see if participation was okay. (Wrath 206)

Part III

69 More Opponents Of Abortion Jailed In Atlanta Protests
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1D61F39F934A3575BC0A96E948260

CLINIC BOMB TRIAL TOLD OF DISORDERS

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E07E2DC1E38F932A15757C0A963948260

In comparison with Thoman and Risen's summaries of the anti-abortion events, the authors of these two articles were very removed. In Wrath of Angels Risen and Thomas seemed to present the people involved in the movement as heroes, not that they necessarily agreed with every one of their moves, but that they acknowledged that there was a kind of honor in fighting for what you believe in. In the Times articles above, the tone is nonpartisan, they simply relate the facts of the situations. In the first article they tell of a demonstration protesting abortion and Joan Andrew's imprisonment. Randall Terry was among the arrested, the author provides quotes, but no personal opinion. The same holds true for the second article which tells of the trial of Goldsby and Simmons and their respective partners. Each was diagnosed with mental disorders, at the end of the article, the author tells of how Miss Wiggins sobbed as she insisted that she was unaware of the plan, but there is no noticeable tone of pity. The reason for this lack of opinionated writing in the newspaper is that the New York Times is a fairly well known, widely read paper. The editors probably would not want their articles to seem like they were taking a side and risk losing customers or causing even more controversy.

Photos, on the other hand, need not worry about proper wording to keep customers. Photos tell things the way they are, without bias (or so we are to believe.) The photo above is propaganda for the anti-abortion cause. The image of the baby's unattached head above is very powerful, more powerful than an unopinionated article in a widely read newspaper, or a homemade sign that reads "STOP ABORTION NOW!!!" The photograph makes abortion seem real, it is not an abstract concept, it is not a way to solve a problem, it is the "destruction" of a life, to quote Bernard Nathanson in The Silent Scream. Text is undoubtedly very powerful, but in this particular instance, and for the purposes of the Pro Life movement, images hold even more power. The film The Silent Scream made me nauseous, and I imagine it had similar affect on others. I could have read about the process of abortion, but i could easily wipe words from my memory, the image will not go as easily. I am personally Pro Choice, but the film did make me think, and even more importantly, feel.

http://amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion06.jpg (image 1)

Jenn Post 10

Jenn Shea

Question One

Initially, anti-abortion movements focused mainly on quiet lobbying and the formation of pro-life groups. These groups consisted of individuals who were morally opposed to the destruction of the potential for human life and participated in non-violent forms of protest including sit-ins, picketing, and campaigning. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade case, a group of Catholics formed right-to-life groups: “The NCCB quietly asked local bishops to recruit Catholic volunteers to set up local anti-abortion organizations, and the national group retained a political consultant to support these new ‘right-to-life’ organizations. These state groups later formed the backbone of the mainstream anti-abortion movement when they united under the umbrella of the National Right to Life Committee, founded by the American bishops in 1972” (Risen 19). Even Michael Bray, who is responsible for aiding several clinic bombings, showed some form of nonviolent protest as an effective means to attract media attention and increase public awareness at the Wheaton clinic on November 17, 1984: “Outside the Wheaton clinic, Michael Bray sat down with his young son in his arms, waiting quietly for the police to take him away. He offered a perfect image of nonviolent civil disobedience, one that was quickly captured by local television cameras and broadcast on that evening’s newscasts” (92). However, that same clinic was then bombed the next day. Anti-abortion advocates were becoming more and more hungry for effective action, and in seeing that peaceful sit-ins were not ending abortion, even nonviolent protestors began resorting to violent means or justifying those who did. For example, O’Keefe’s Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project was sabotaged by other anti-abortion bombers who blew up the clinic where he had organized a non-violent sit-in the day before. “‘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 will the action take’” (94). After that, when the idea of civil disobedience was called upon as a course of action, O’Keefe failed to step up to lead, and when he did schedule more sit-ins, they were unsuccessful due to his tarnished reputation: “O’Keefe tried to stage more sit-ins, but his Washington civil disobedience campaign never recovered from its association with Bray, and it soon faded away” (99). Because of this, violent means became prominent, especially in Pensacola, Florida. In general, individuals sought more than just preaching the immorality of abortion and wanted to make a stronger statement by acting. A man by the name of Randall Terry also began to transform the means of anti-abortion protest, which brought concern from National Right to Life leaders, as they saw his impulsivity as dangerous to the cause: “In a speech in Pensacola’s Seville Square, Terry called on his fellow activists to storm abortion clinics; solder shut elevators and blockade doors so that police could not reach them; and completely trash clinic offices, throwing furniture and abortion equipment out clinic windows and down into the street…National Right to Life leaders immediately saw that if Terry carried out his radical tactics on a nationwide scale, he would bring the full weight of the government down on the activists and perhaps do as much to cloud the reputation of the entire anti-abortion movement as had earlier clinic bombings and arsons” (207). Silent protest was no longer sufficient for Reverend David Shofner, a pastor of West Pensacola Baptist Church: “Frustrated that so few other fundamentalist Protestants were joining, Shofner went on a local Christian radio station to criticize local pastors who ‘preach about abortion in church but don’t do anything outside the pulpit’” (196). Joan Andrews was one of the most recognized irrational and destructive protesters in Pensacola. She went as far as to spread noxious liquids, damaged abortion equipment, and when sent to prison, took on a vow of noncooperation within the prison system to answer “God’s calling.” The most appalling bombings occurred in Pensacola on Christmas 1984 and clearly demonstrated that civil disobedience was taking a backseat to violence, which was gaining far more attention than sit-ins had. As Risen notes, “The Christmas bombing spree put Pensacola on the abortion map. The three bombings, which occurred within minutes of each other between 3 and 4 A.M. on Christmas morning, 1984, were by far the most spectacular acts of anti-abortion violence yet staged. Isolated acts of arson and vandalism had been occurring for years at clinics, but they had never generated this sort of sustained, national press attention…anti-abortion activism had taken a sudden turn to extremism. President Reagan was forced to issue a statement denouncing the bombings” (197-198). Thus, the negative attention certain pro-life initiatives began receiving made civil disobedience pointless, as individuals did not want to listen to activists who believed that violence and destruction solved problems. Activists saw that the more violence and destruction they took part in, the more their anti-abortion position became broadcast and publicized. Their message began spreading faster the more irrational their actions became. As Hand said, “‘Blowing up clinics only hardens hearts’” (94). Because of this, activists resorted to more severe means to get their anti-abortion sentiments across.

Question Two

In their article “God, Politics, and Protest,” McVeigh and Sikkink discuss, test, and analyze three different reasons as to why Protestants approve of “contentious actions.” They discuss that traditionally, Protestants avoid tension and conflict and instead express their religious tendencies at a more tranquil level: “Mainline Protestants have developed religious traditions that support a quiet, individual expression of their religious faith in public life. Similarly, liberal Protestants construct a relatively low degree of tension between religious faith and the surrounding social and cultural environment, which may lead to less support for contentious politics as an expression of their religious faith” (1430). They note that despite this traditional behavior of Protestant expression, these individuals are becoming more and more likely to get involved with protest and conflict concerning their religious values: “…a perceived threat to deeply held religious beliefs or values may provide an incentive to participate in social protest. In addition, specific religious beliefs that characterize life as a struggle between forces of good and evil may carry over to acceptance of the contentious tactics of protests” (1427). One theory for this participation in protest is the cultural defense theory, which involves when individuals’ religious values are challenged, and thus the individuals feel obligated to defend these values, even if such defense means involvement in contentious behavior: “The basic argument of cultural defense theory is that moral reform movements emerge in response to a challenge to deeply held beliefs and values that are rooted in the participants’ religion…participants in a moral reform movement are acting defensively in an effort to preserve a moral order that provides meaning for their lives…We argue 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” (1431). McVeigh and Sikkink also suggest in their analysis that individuals may sometimes feel that they should carry out God’s will. When confronted by something sinful, these individuals feel it is their duty to carry out God’s punishment themselves. In this way, such individuals are God’s messengers and thus their actions are justified because God is the driving force behind their behaviors: “When God is represented as in radical conflict with humanity and human history, we expect that contentious tactics in the public square will be seen as a legitimate expression of carrying out God’s work in the world…Some scholars have noted that a belief in human sinfulness promotes support for corporal punishment…The ‘tough love’ of God’s dealing with sin becomes the frame that justifies parallel contentious tactics for believers in a sinful world” (1432-1433). Finally, McVeigh and Sikkink found that by being involved in an organized church setting, individuals are more likely to be exposed to organized protest movements because such movements target large and already organized institutions: “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” (1433).

Randall Terry demonstrates McVeigh and Sikkink’s theory that individuals are driven to partake in protest and other contentious actions because they believe they are acting on the word of God. He also demonstrates a defense of values, as he recites passages from the Bible saying that abortion was condemned by god: “‘Abortion…is an attack on the Word of God and ultimately on the kingdom and Church of God…Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood, which God condemns and God commands His people to rise in defense of those who cannot defend themselves” (249). As described by Risen and Thomas, Terry attempted to “translate the language of social protest into the language of Protestant fundamentalism” (249). In doing so, Randall insisted that Project life was Christ centered and its goals included “sharing the love of God with young women and their boyfriends/husbands, and telling them the truth about themselves and their babies…We proclaim what God’s Word says concerning life in the womb, and what a Christian’s responsibility is in this Holocaust (249). In addition, Pierce Creek’s Pastor Dan Little proclaimed Terry as “God’s chosen leader in the fight against abortion” (251).

Question Three

In the book, Risen and Thomas give very little text about the impact of the film The Silent Scream by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. It simply states that the film “was highlighted by traumatic footage of an ultrasound examination conducted during an abortion. During the mid-1980s, The Silent Scream became the anti-abortion movement’s single most successful piece of propaganda and one of its most effective recruiting tools” (198). The book fails to mention that it was also recognized as one very controversial film in that it portrayed misleading information. In both of the New York Times articles I found, one from January 25, 1985 titled “Debate on Abortion Focuses on Graphic Film,” and the other from March 11, 1985 titled “A False ‘Scream,’” individuals claim that there is no evidence that a fetus has the capability of reacting aggressively to intrusion or that it is capable of struggling. Instead, according to Dr. Jenniger Niebyl in the “A False ‘Scream’” article, “‘The fetus, at this gestational age, is really exhibiting strictly reflex activity’” (A18). At that stage, according to another doctor, the fetus is not be able to perceive pain or process information because the cortex is not developed in the brain. In the “Debate on Abortion” article, Dr. Nathanson defends his statements in the film and insists that even without the cortex, the fetus feels pain, stating, “‘Pain is a reflex. It is not an intellectual exercise.’ The fetus, he said, ‘is being stuck and stalked, and responds reflexively as any animal would when exposed to pain’” (NYT). Whether or not the fetus actually does feel pain, the images seen in this film are nonetheless very disturbing. The link below is for a clip in the film showing the aborted fetuses outside of the womb, and the supposed mouth in the form of a scream. Below, the image on the left shows the aborted fetuses in containers, while the right photo is a still of the “silent scream,” but is very difficult to see in ultrasound form. The text in the book does not nearly describe the reaction the film actually received, nor does it portray very strongly the types of images in the film and how disturbing they are. The photographs of the aborted fetuses are almost indescribable in how uncomfortable and heart-wrenching they are, and Risen and Thomas’ use of “traumatic” does not seem sufficient. The two New York Times articles, although they make a good point about the evidential non-existence of the cortex, which is the part of the brain the sends and receives neurotransmitters for pain, still cannot compete with the images of fetuses discarded into containers or a fetus being sucked out of a woman’s womb. In the images, the message of torture and the destruction of the potential for life can be seen, while in the text such issues are simply a topic of debate or are understated and lightly touched upon. Finally, in the film The Silent Scream, even if one does not listen to the man’s explanation of what is happening, the scenes with showing the woman on the exam table during the actual abortion procedure and the images mixed in of aborted fetuses say enough. Even if a viewer does not wish to hear the arguably propagandist and sensationalized preaching of Dr. Nathanson, the images are still enough to probably make even the most extreme pro-choice advocate a little uncomfortable. With rhetoric, one can stop listening at any time and close out another’s opinions in disbelief; with images, one simple viewing of an aborted fetus leaves a lasting impression on the mind, no matter how tight one tries close his or her eyes to try to block the image out afterward.

Part 4 of Movie:

http://www.silentscream.org/video/SScream%20English/SilentSc_Eng_4.mov

Still Images from
http://www.abortiontv.com/Movies/silentscream.htm