Amy I. Post 10

Amy Iarrobino

Post 10

Part 1

The general evolution of anti-abortion protest included change from peaceful protest to militant protest to the greater use of media to promote awareness. Such change occurred due to the change in leadership and accompanying change in protest theory. Escalation resulted due to more aggressive tactics and greater reach through national media.

After Roe v. Wade, protestors such as Joan and Susan Andrews reacted strongly to the “trauma of legalized abortion” (Risen & Thomas, 190). In 1973 Joan decided to find an abortion clinic to break into and vandalize; she felt as though “she could not be at peace unless she did as much damage as possible in an effort to stop abortion” (Risen & Thomas, 190). Joan’s feelings are not unlike those of other protesters across the United States. Anti-abortion activities began with volunteer work “praying outside abortion clinics, handing out leaflets, and offering shelter in their own apartment for pregnant teens” (Risen & Thomas, 191). In 1979 word came of Sam Lee’s first sit-ins in St. Louis, these sit-in campaigns “caught fire in early 1980” (Risen & Thomas, 191). Joan Andrews continued protest with John Ryan’s group and later joined O’Keefe’s sit-ins in Washington.

However, early leaders such as O’Keefe and Lee who supported “a peaceful presence” theory about anti-abortion protest began to phase out and be replaced by the militant tactics of protesters such as Joan Andrews and “harsh rhetoric of Joseph Scheidler” (Risen & Thomas, 192). Andrews’ tactics began to include secretive patterns of clinic vandalism in several cities: spray-painting anti-abortion graffiti, superglueing locks and spreading noxious liquids in the clinics (Risen & Thomas, 193). Leniency in law enforcement encouraged the rise in anti-abortion protestors as local police were reluctant to fill jails with such activists; thus local anti-abortion leader Michael McMonagle gained power (Risen & Thomas, 193). Compared to protests by John Ryan, these were more chaotic and often included “angry pushing and shoving confrontations with the new abortion-rights volunteer “escorts” who were beginning to appear at clinics around the country” (Risen & Thomas, 193). On November 17, 1984 a new type of protest emerged. O’Keefe’s sit-in included the arrest of forty-six activists, blockade of the clinic’s doors, use of volunteer abortion-rights escorts and local media on the scene in full force. The sit-in drew the desired crowd but also became raucous (Risen & Thomas, 91). Under such conditions anti-abortion protests reached a new level in 1985 when the Northeast Women’s Center filed a lawsuit charging “twenty-seven activists in McMonagle’s group with violating the federal racketeering laws by conspiring to put the clinic out of business. It marked the first time that RICO was used in the abortion war” (Risen & Thomas, 193-194). The abortion war thus escalated as abortion providers began to use counterstrategy to control the growing wave of activism.

In such a tense atmosphere, anti-abortion activists began to rely more on protestors such as Joan Andrews and John Burt who embraced the aggressiveness in Philadelphia (Risen & Thomas, 194). Other protestors such as John Bray and Thomas Spinks even employed the use of bombs to damage clinics; Bray was convicted in May 1985 (Risen & Thomas, 99). By 1986 Pensacola “was rapidly becoming the hottest of America’s anti-abortion hot spots” (Risen & Thomas, 200). Andrews arrived on the scene to join John Burt and called for Northern activists such as Joe Scheidler and John Ryan. On March 26, 1986 Joan Andrews, John Burt and two other activists made it into The Ladies Center clinic in Pensacola. Burt was soon stopped by police and the two girls proceeded to “trash” a procedure room. Andrews was arrested with much resistance after being caught by police while yanking wires from an abortion sucking machine. After release on bond Andrews rebelled by going back “to protest at The Ladies Center again” (Risen & Thomas, 203). In July 1986 Andrews was convicted and refused the probation offered. As a result, the “Escambia County circuit court judge… gave her five years in prison, double the sentencing guidelines” (Risen & Thomas, 204). Andrews refused to cooperate because she felt that “the only way [she] could protest for unborn children now was by non-cooperation in jail” (Risen & Thomas, 204). The harsh sentence was typically reserved only for the most militant clinic bombers and had never been applied to the more peaceable “rescue movement.”

Andrews’ supporters, which included anti-abortion protesters across the nation, were very upset. In their minds Joan Andrews was a saint. Images and media gained much importance during this case. As Joan Andrews was arrested at The Ladies Center, television cameras caught the sympathetic image of a limp woman being dragged by police to jail (Risen & Thomas, 202). As protestors arrived to “Free Andrews” reporters came as well to publicize the anti-abortion happenings. Randall took advantage of the Thanksgiving protests to promote radical behavior but was soon stopped. When Andrews’ efforts seemed to fail the Christian Action Council joined her cause, followed by fundamentalist Paul Lennox and finally James Kennedy, the televangelist of Coral Ridge Hour who interviewed Andrews from prison and called for letter writing to the governor to free Andrews (Risen & Thomas, 210). Protestants thus joined in on the momentum and “jammed phone lines to radio talk shows and launched nation-wide letter-writing campaigns to state prison officials and Governor Bob Martinez” (Risen & Thomas, 211).

Part 2

Factors that make Protestants approve of contentious actions include absolutist religious values and the belief that humans are inherently sinful.

Absolutist religious values provide moral basis for actions. Values are firmly established and as a monotheistic religion, Christianity interprets moral standards to be applied to everyone, not just Christians. Thus, Christian moral beliefs must be applied to all situations, in this case, abortion. The absolutist view that abortion is sinful leaves little room for exception or understanding and thus promotes conflict. These moral beliefs are so deeply held that violation of the standard is unacceptable and highly offensive. As such, the issue of abortion becomes an abortion war of good versus evil. The reading directly supports this line of thought: “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” (McVeigh & Sikkink, 1427). The nature of collective religious beliefs lends itself to effective gathering of group grievances. The group atmosphere encourages protest as individuals gain confidence. For example, in psychology, the greater the cohesiveness and majority of believers in a group, the more likely the conformation of other members to the majority. Thus, the anti-abortion values of the religious group would be reinforced as the group grows. Moral absolutism guarantees such reinforcement and cohesiveness by ensuring that an issue such as abortion is always defined as in conflict with religious values.

In addition, “Like moral absolutism, a belief that humans are inherently sinful leads to support for contentious tactics because it increases the salience and ultimate significance of social issues” (McVeigh & Sikkink, 1432). Religious protestors argue that if humans are inherently sinful they will continue in self-destruction and go to hell if they are not made aware of God’s disapproval of the evils in the world. Protestors feel that they must practice “tough love” to transform sinners for society’s own good before it is too late for them to change (McVeigh & Sikkink, 1433). “Tough love” may parallel contentious actions. Also, the use of tough love is recurrent throughout Scripture. In almost all biblical stories, God employs harsh tactics to make the human aware that he is sinning and needs to change to win God’s approval. The frequent reference to the fear of God’s wrath is a clear indicator of this approval of contentious action and justifies the wrath with which religious activists protest immorality as vessels of God. For example, take the biblical stories of Jonah and the whale, in which the prophet Jonah would not obey God and was shown tough love by being sent into the stomach of a leviathan. Once Jonah turned from his ways and agreed to do God’s will, God released him from the whale. In the same sense, the protestors thought of themselves as acting out God’s will to change the sinners. The title of the reading The Wrath of Angels is indicative of such a feeling. The protestors think that they are God’s angels here on earth to call sinners to repent and be instruments through which God shows His tough love.

Signs of a contentious protestor include volunteering for church organizations, a perception that religious values are being threatened and strong religious convictions to absolute morals (McVeigh & Sikkink, 1425). Michael Bray embodies these factors. “In the late 1970s, Bray and other young fundamentalist began to follow Schaeffer into Calvinism” (Risen & Thomas, 81). Part of this view involves the Second Coming of Christ which is preceded by the Antichrist and darkness. Those such as Bray believed that “Christians thus should not stand in the way of chaos” (Risen & Thomas, 81). The chaos and darkness would likely include contentious actions and justify Bray’s radical, aggressive destruction of abortion clinics. The chaos created by Bray is then not considered sinful. Bray’s early practices included volunteering within church organizations. For example, he began by “picketing and leafleting religious groups he considered to be cults… [and when a] local right-to-life organization came to the church to ask Bray to volunteer, Bray was receptive, and after reading literature and viewing some anti-abortion films, he was hooked” (Risen & Thomas, 83). The precedent of church volunteering also fits in well with the psychoanalysis of protestors. The tactic involved here is called foot in the door persuasion. The term refers to the method of persuasion in which a small request is asked and granted which makes a second, larger request more likely to be complied with. A small request by the church to hand out leaflets to other religious groups leads to a greater request to join the anti-abortion movement and eventually even bomb clinics.

An important component to the escalation of church volunteering to contentious activities is strong, absolutist religious beliefs. Bray firmly believed that “Abortion was murder, a sin against God…and now it was up to the faithful… to stamp out this evil” (Risen & Thomas, 83). Bray was so convinced of his beliefs that he could no longer sit in inaction and “continue to permit the tragedy to continue without direct intervention” (Risen & Thomas, 83). He held this view as an absolute and considered the Bible to be “the inerrant word of God” (Risen & Thomas, 84). Such strong conviction was used to justify his contentious actions.

Part 3

By DUDLEY CLENDINENSpecial to The New York Times "Abortion Clinic Bombings Have Caused Disruption for Many." New York Times (1857-Current file), February 6, 1985, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed November 7, 2007).

The article from The New York Times focuses more on the effects of the violence on the public while the interpretation by Risen and Thomas focuses more on the event’s contribution to the timeline of the abortion movement. For example, Clendinen of The New York Times explains the counter-productiveness of the bombings. For example, on Christmas Eve Bray and Spinks were involved in the bombing of the Wheaton Clinic in which surrounding businesses and establishments such as ironically the First Baptist Church in Suitland, Md. were damaged more than the actual clinic. The bombs were highly ineffective as they did not reach the intended target. Protests and fear of bombing was shown to deter teenage women from seeking counseling about contraceptives and thus leading to more abortions. The New York Times also indicated that these bombings only lead to greater polarization of society and does not help the anti-abortion cause. On the other hand, Risen and Thomas never mention the effectiveness of the actual bomb. The fact that the bombs damaged nearby businesses that were either anti-abortion or had nothing to do with abortion not necessarily the abortion clinics themselves. Also, in Wrath of Angels it seemed like abortion was the primary goal of the clinics. However, these clinics also offered counseling on contraception to avoid abortion and even fertility treatment to produce children. Thus, even if the bombing was effective the damage done may have resulted in greater loss of children through interrupted fertility treatment and increased need for abortion than those saved by not allowing abortion as these mothers would most likely find abortionists elsewhere. The Risen and Thomas interpretation also focused more on the responsibility of each party involved and the exact planning of the bombings more so than on the event itself. However, the article in the newspaper may simply have not had these facts available as it was written at the time rather than being revealed in retrospect after Bray and Spinks were already convicted. On the other hand, all of the planning and actions described in Wrath of Angels confirmed evidence given in The New York Times of February 6, 1985.

This image is of Michael Bray seems in stark contrast to the image of him portrayed by Risen and Thomas and the article in The New York Times. From the readings Michael Bray seemed to be a frightening and scheming radical. Risen and Thomas explain that he used the cover of peaceable actions with O’Keefe’s group in order to gather intelligence and plan the next bombing with Spinks (Risen & Thomas, 89). The newspaper article also focuses on his careless criminal acts and seemingly complete inconsideration of the consequences. Creating a mental image of such a man, one would imagine a frightening man with grotesque features and an unwelcoming visage. However, this image makes him appear to be the model of virtue. For example, the entire background is dark while light comes from behind him to illuminate his face. Symbolically, the light could be God shining through Bray and backing him up. The way that the light encircles his head is similar to the way the arc of light surrounds the Virgin Mary’s head or a saint’s head in the Christian tradition. Bray also appears to be sitting on a living room couch in a sensibly decorated home with a family atmosphere. Also, the stuffed animal next to him reminds the viewer of the importance of children and Bray’s supposed care for them and ability to protect them. Such stuffed animals are typically played with by infants and toddlers, thus indicative of Bray’s cause to save the babies. Bray is also wearing the typical garb of a pastor as opposed to an orange prison jumpsuit. The attire and concerned facial expression have a disarming appeal and make Bray to seem saintly.

Although this picture was taken many years after the 1985 bombing incident, it is interesting to note the way that Bray’s image has chained. As he ages he has transitioned from the saintly activist in the previous image to the ideal Christian, American family. The numerous children that he fathered may even indicate a belief in not using contraceptives. The website on which this photo was found is even adamant in describing the success of the family in admiration and reinforcement of Bray’s representatng the ideal:

Sire of 11 children by the most excellent wife in the land. While eight are still at home under seventeen years old, grown children include a 2005 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, a social worker with a graduate degree, and a third college graduate (2006) presently working in Wilmington as a firefighter in training, a substitute teacher, high school assistant soccer coach, and a regular volunteer at the Women’s Center.

http://www.ezekielsystems.com/Bray/ (accessed November 7, 2007)

The imbedded message in both images of Bray is the promotion of his status as the Christian American ideal. The message is much different than that which is portrayed by the texts as both images are from anti-abortion websites in fervent support of Bray. However, the original images of The New York Times of February 6, 1985 are unavailable due to copyright. If these images were available they would probably shed a less slanted light on the bombings of the clinics and of the protestors Michael Bray and Thomas Spinks.

Brynne post 10

Brynne Piotrowski

1. Although John O’Keefe had started his non-violent anti-abortion tactics in the 1970s, his heyday began with a protest outside Metro Medical and Women’s Center in Wheaton, Maryland on November 17, 1984 (Risen 91). O’Keefe’s methods contrast starkly with those of Michael Bray, who—despite being a member of O’Keefe’s movement—had earlier begun his own destructive protests through covertly bombing apportion clinics in January 1984 (Risen 86). The coexistence of these two anti-abortion movement methods demonstrates that a consistent, gradual rise in temper or escalation in tactics is not always the case in the specific events that comprised anti-abortion work. However, the ways and means of the cause did, on the whole, increase from the time spanning the decision made by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973 to Paul Hill’s murdering of John Bayard Britton and James Barrett in 1994.

One cause of escalation was certain persons’ disillusionment with the methods they saw being used. O’Keefe and Bray again serve as a prime example: when Bray found O’Keefe’s peaceful methods ineffective, he decided to shoulder the burden himself (with the help of like-minded recruit Thomas Spinks) and started sabotaging and bombing abortion clinics (Risen 84, 86). Another important factor for increasing violence was a demographic shift in those individuals active in the anti-abortion cause. As Risen noted, by the late 1970s, Francis Schaeffer was becoming successful in his efforts to remove the Protestant fundamentalist view of abortion as a Catholic issue (81). The inclusion of pragmatic fundamentalist and evangelical Protestant Christians galvanized the movement with fresh, energetic supporters such as Randall Terry.

Two other important reasons for escalation in the anti-abortion movement were the sense of empowerment abortion opponents got from others’ “victories,” and the disappointment they felt at the shortcomings they perceived in potential political allies. Paul Hill is the epitome of an instance of escalation resulting from encouragement. A staunch defender of Michael Griffin’s murder of abortion doctor ­­­David Gunn, Hill began to question who would be the next person to take such actions, and why shouldn’t it be him (Risen 362). He was inspired and encouraged by Griffin’s “success.” Finally, escalation resulted from inaction/indifference by government officials. The FBI declined to become involved in investigations of clinic bombings, leaving them to the ATF (Risen 93). Thus, scrutiny by the country’s foremost criminal investigation unit was lacking as a deterrent to individuals thinking about perhaps upping the intensity of their actions to prevent abortion. Also, some anti-abortion activists were incensed by the apparent indifference of the conservative Reagan administration on the issue. Risen notes how, “[in] the fourth year of the Reagan administration…the anti-abortion movement was finally beginning to see through White House lip service…the first ‘pro-life president’ had an abortion ‘deficit’” (240). The protestors changed their approach for many of the reasons above and also for the sake of distinguishing themselves from other activists and seeking publicity. Risen comments on how, “Randall Terry soaked it all up and saw in [anti-abortion activist Joseph] Scheidler what he hoped for himself: national recognition through controversy and acts of extremism” (254).

The “how” of the evolving means of protesting abortion ranges from O’Keefe’s early non-violent sit-ins in the 1970s to the extremely militant tactic of shooting abortion providers in the early 1990s. In between are the “sidewalk counselors” of Randall Terry’s group that bordered on harassment who became “‘a persistent and troublesome presence’” to the Southern Tier clinic and the destructive methods of clinic saboteurs, such as Joan Andrews’s gluing shut the locks of abortion clinics (Risen 193, 242). Even further on the militant fringe are the clinic bombers such as Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons in Pensacola on Christmas Day 1984 (Risen 197-8). The final and undoubtedly most extreme measure come in the cases of Michael Griffin, “Shelly” Shannon and Paul Hill who found murder an appropriate measure to stop the horror of abortion. Hill in particular is notable for his writings on “justifiable homicide” and his “Defensive Action” petition that endorsed violence (Risen 347). These key players demonstrate the broad range of methods used in the escalation of the anti-abortion movement.

2. Compared to Michael Bray, Michael Griffin and Paul Hill, Randall Terry seems a man of relatively milder methods in the history of anti-abortion activism. Despite some early radical tactics, by the time Terry came to the forefront of the movement as the head of Operation Rescue he was sworn to nonviolence, required his fellow activists to sign nonviolence pledges to be part of his organization, and declared a prohibition on “clinic invasions”—meaning demonstrations would be limited to the outside of facilities (Risen 260). However, all these seemingly pacifist qualities cannot mask the fact that Terry did approve of “contentious actions.”

McVeigh and Sikkink’s article’s analysis thoroughly accounts for Randall Terry’s support of “contentious actions.” First, the reason that Terry entered into the social protest movement is articulated in the suggestion that, “a perceived threat to deeply held religious beliefs or values may provide an incentive to participate in social protest” (1427). Whatever other sides there were to Randall Terry, the Evangelical part of him found abortion strongly set against his religious beliefs, and spurned him on to action.
From here, McVeigh and Sikkink’s analysis is applicable to explain how approval of “contentious actions” went hand-in-hand with Terry’s interest in protest. The suggestion that, “acceptance of the appropriateness and feasibility of disruptive collective action are critical components of actual protest participation,” (1429) brings into light the possibility that Terry’s approval of “contentious action” was not a result of protesting; rather his support of such actions was already deeply held when he took up protesting.

Randall Terry is prime evidence for the argument of anti-abortion activism as a “moral reform movement.” McVeigh and Sikkink’s article characterizes participants in a moral reform movement by stating that they, “are acting defensively in an effort to preserve a moral order that provides meaning for their lives…[and] 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). This analysis seems tailor-made for Randall Terry and explains his approval of “contentious actions” as a logical extension of his views that abortion posed a serious and imminent threat to his firmly held religious beliefs.

Terry also fits the criterion in McVeigh and Sikkink’s analysis that links “volunteering for church organizations” with acceptance of “contentious actions” (Abstract, 1425). He was heavily involved in the Church at Pierce Creek and, while he was initially shaped by it, Terry eventually became the shaping force of the church (Risen 247). The influence Randall Terry came to wield over Pierce Creek and other religious figures (clergy and lay worshipers alike) further demonstrates how he fits into the category of those who rubberstamp “contentious action.” McVeigh and Sikkink note how, “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….Movement recruiters typically enlist participants through pre-existing organizational networks” (1433). Randall Terry both was affected by such organizational causes and utilized their power himself. In their book, Risen and Thomas point out how Terry devoted much time to establishing contact within the ministry, showed respect for established religious leaders, eventually found useful contacts in pastors such as Jesse Lee in New York City, who took up Terry’s cause and recruited others for it (Risen 260, 264).

Overall, it is very clear that McVeigh and Sikkink’s analysis on the individuals who approve of “contentious action” fits Randall Terry very well. Terry refrained from taking extreme actions himself, despite expressing interest in the beginning (Risen 257). The reasons for this are unknown—maybe they were some of the “barriers to participation such as obligations to work or family” (McVeigh 1429). Randall Terry did approve of “contentious action” as demonstrated by his flat refusal to denounce clinic bombings. In fairness though, it must be noted that in time he did oppose murdering abortion doctors—perhaps that is what distinguishes him most from some of the other activists. As Anne Bower said, “Randy Terry is not that crazy” (Risen 257).

3. Articles:
“Send in the Marshals” (1994, July 31). New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. A.14.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=967971691&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=PQD
SMOTHERS, RONALD (1994, July 30). DEATH OF A DOCTOR: THE OVERVIEW -- Abortion Doctor and Bodyguard Slainin Florida; Protester Is Arrested in Pensacola's 2d Clinic Killing. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. 1.1.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=967960781&sid=3&Fmt=3&clientId=394&RQT=309&VName=PQD


My chosen event is the murder of Dr. Britton and James Barrett in Pensacola by Paul Hill in July 1994. The two articles listed above were published by the New York Times within 3 days of Hill’s actions. In comparison with Risen and Thomas’s book, I find the articles more quick to condemn and very hostile towards not only Paul Hill, but to the anti-abortion movement in general. Also notable is that the articles by the New York Times seem to look rather unfavorably upon Pensacola and the Gulf Coast region as a whole due to the irresponsible actions of some parties in the anti-abortion movement. In his article, Smothers notes how “this region of the Gulf Coast stretching from Tallahassee, Fla., west to Mobile, Ala., is regarded as the "belly of the beast" by many abortion rights groups because of the intense anti-abortion sentiment that is so deeply rooted here.” Overall, the newspaper articles seem more rash, but that is somewhat understandable because of the sensationalism produced by Hill’s actions in the days immediately following the shootings. Also, Risen and Thomas have the benefit of hindsight and they tend to take a predominantly historical view—simply recounting the events—which prevents them from overtly taking sides or sensationalizing in order to engage their audience.

Images:




"Paul Hill, Father Trosch, and Andrew Cabot at the trial of Michael Griffin."
http://www.christiangallery.com/spr95new.html

"Abortion opponent Paul Hill, right, is shown on Feb. 28, 1994, as he confronted a female passer-by outside the judicial center in Pensacola"
http://www.fadp.org/news/PensacolaNewsJournal-20030831.htm







"Police crime scene investigators photograph the bullet-riddled truck in which Dr. John Britton and his escort, James Barrett, were riding when they were gunned down by Paul Hill on July 29, 1994."
http://www.fadp.org/news/PensacolaNewsJournal-20030824.htm







The "Paul Hill Memorial Tour" at the Pensacola courthouse in 2004.
http://www.christiangallery.com/PaulHillTour.html



I put these images in roughly chronological order (the only two that might be switched would be the first two). These images demonstrate some of the build-up to, actual events of, and effects of Paul Hill’s murder of abortion doctor John Bayard Britton and his escort James Barrett. The images definitely have a more direct approach to the issues: we see Hill encouraged at Michael Griffin’s trial, his personal protesting, the aftermath of the shooting, and the “Paul Hill Memorial Tour” stop at the courthouse in Pensacola in 2004.

Surprisingly, I found the images somewhat similar to Risen and Thomas’s book—they are a chronology. There are obvious messages conveyed through each, but I did not find the condemning tone that was present in the New York Times articles. Part of this has to do with the concept of pictures sometimes being a less “emotional” medium than words for recounting historic events. This is not to saw images lack in impact; rather, they are not necessarily overtly supportive or unsupportive. For example, when reading the two Times articles, it is evident that the position taken is against Hill and the anti-abortion movement. However, the picture of Hill protesting in Pensacola could be interpreted as promoting him or decrying him. The same could be said for the picture of Hill with Father Trosch and Andrew Cabot outside of Michael Griffin’s trial. Overall, Risen and Thomas’s text, along with these images have less of an obvious message embedded within them than the New York Times articles. They remain open to the interpretation of the individual reader/viewer and his/her personal beliefs on the subject of abortion. The exception is the “Paul Hill Memorial Tour” image that very plainly supports Hill’s actions. (I was amazed that such a “tour” existed and stopped in Pensacola three years ago—not something the city likes to give publicity to perhaps?)

Christopher Post 10

Christopher McCauley

1. The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade said that any laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy. Therefore, all such laws were abolished, and abortion was made legal throughout the entire United States. The country had mixed feelings about this decision—some were overjoyed, some were outraged, and others were indifferent.

After the decision of Roe vs. Wade, there were many opposed, who wanted to do something to show their disapproval. They resorted to vandalism, bombing, and arson of abortion clinics, or even just destroying the equipment and medical tools and instruments used to perform abortion. Most of these people were religious extremists and Christian Fundamentalists. The Roe decision “stirred them from a fifty year slumber and served as a catalyst for them to drop long-held theological beliefs that had kept them far removed from politics.” (Risen, 6). Anti-abortion violence became a common term as one of the only conservative religious protests emerged in the United States of America.

One of the first men to start to use violence as a protest was Michael Bray. Bray was expelled from the Naval Academy, later received a degree in Religious Studies, and was later ousted from his job at a small church in Maryland. From that description, it does not seem like he was a very agreeable person, which makes sense when he ends up being the mastermind behind several bombings of abortion clinics in the Washington DC area. After abortion was made a national issue, and Roe vs. Wade was argued, “Abortion… became Bray’s main focus.” (Risen, 82).

At first, Bray only tried to start arguments within Grace Lutheran, the small Maryland church at which he worked. However, Reverend Al Ericksen, the church’s pastor, disagreed with his radical views. The congregation sided with Ericksen as well, and Bray was soon out of a job.

Soon after he was fired, he paired up with a buddy of his, Thomas Spinks (who was also radically against abortion), to start a plan of action. They worked together in Spinks’ home improvement business. Spinks and Bray both believed that abortion was an atrocity, and they wanted to make the country aware of their and other’s displeasure with its legality. They viewed abortion clinics as “death camps.” Together, they made a decision that “it was okay to destroy [abortion clinics] as long as it was carried out so that no human life would be lost in the process.” (Risen, 86). It is no wonder that Risen refers to Bray as “The Father of Violence,” in the title of a chapter in his book, Wrath of Angels.

Bray and Spinks began their campaign of destruction with the Reproductive Care CenterDover, Delaware. in This first time was done very rudimentarily, using only homemade bombs, and cans of gas, but they accomplished exactly what they wanted—successful destruction of an abortion clinic, and an undetected getaway. As they continued to target abortion clinics throughout the area, they became more and more organized and efficient. Eventually, Bray became solely the brains, while Spinks carried out the actual arsons and bombings.

Bray was also part of the Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project (PNAP), started by John O’Keefe. Despite the irony of Bray’s violent actions, and his membership in a non-violence group, he continued to work closely with Bray to target abortion clinics. They were careful not to target the same clinics at which PNAP made demonstrations so as not to tie the two together. They did however use inside information that Bray obtained as part of the group to help them with their campaign of destruction. As time went on, Spinks became slightly careless and bought bombing supplies in bulk. He was tracked and finally confessed along with Bray. The “biggest anti-abortion bombing” spree had finally come to a close.

Despite the illegality and lack of morality, Bray and Spinks were very organized and had well-thought-out plans and operations. It wasn’t until they became more experienced and comfortable that their work slipped, and their identities became obvious. These two men were among the first, and most efficient at what they did, and in achieving that they were trying to accomplish.

A few years later, similar people and similar events and protests arose in Pensacola, Florida. Although these cases were similar in motivation, they were radically different in their executions.

During the same time as Bray and Spinks’ bombing spree, there were incidents of abortion violence in Pensacola as well. On Christmas morning in 1984, all abortion clinics in Pensacola were bombed and destroyed within minutes of each other. This incident was planned by two evangelicals named Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons, and their wives. They were inspired by anti-abortion propaganda films shown at their increasingly fundamentalist church, such as The Silent Scream. They believed that God wanted them to destroy these clinics, to stop the atrocities of abortion.

However, they were not careful enough to hide themselves after the Christmas bombings and within a week, were caught and being arraigned in federal court.

Another anti-abortion activist in Pensacola was named Joan Andrews. She had already had a reputation as being against abortion before coming to Pensacola, having led campaigns in St. Louis. She, along with a man named John Burt, made plans to damage and destroy abortion equipment at the Ladies Center in Pensacola. During a demonstration, which the two were not par of, outside the clinic, Andrews was able to find her way into the clinic without using force, followed by Burt (who did use force, and was stopped before he could cause any damage), and two other young women. The three women were able to get in, and completely trash and destroy equipment. Police had to use force to subdue these women. This incident caused anti-abortionists to flock to Pensacola to protest and picket abortion, and Andrew’s arrest.

There is a great disparity between the early anti-abortion acts led by Bray and Spinks, and the ones in Pensacola. In Pensacola, the activists (Goldsby, Simmons, Andrews, and Burt), had no safety, or protection for themselves. They were not careful, and disorganized. Although Goldsby and Simmons took time to plan out their actions and carried out that plan specifically, the left an easy trail to be caught. Andrews and Burt were completely blatant and obvious in their actions. They had no specific plan or course of action they wanted to take out. This may have been more effective because it led to a pilgrimage of anti-abortionists to Pensacola, however it landed them in jail right away, and prevented them from continuing their campaign and protests.

2. Tactics McVeigh and Sikkink’s article, God, Politics, and Protest: Religious Beliefs and the Legitimation of Contentious Tactics outlines four specific reasons why Protestants approve of contentious tactics, or controversial actions. Michael Bray, the man involved in the bombing of abortion clinics in the Washington DC area in the early 1980s fits in to each four of these “categories.” Although he was not religiously affiliated with the Protestant Church, he was a protester of abortion, so in that case, he could be considered a Protestant.

The first reason or criterion is volunteering for church organizations. As stated above, Bray received a degree in Religious Studies from the Denver Theological Seminary in 1979. Bray was raised as a Lutheran, and as he grew older and began to find himself, he began to identify with Calvinist principals as well. After leaving college, he took a job at Grace Lutheran Church in Maryland, which was in fact the church in which he was baptized. Instead of volunteering for church organizations, he actually worked for a church, and ran his own prayer groups, and other anti-abortion groups.

A second factor is a perception that religious values are being threatened. This is exactly what Bray saw as the problem with abortion. Bray believed that since the bible said abortion was wrong, this meant that it was completely wrong in all cases and applied to everyone. The writings in the bible were very important to Bray. In his mind, the church, and religion as an institution is harmed when people go against its values and have and give abortions.

A third factor is the belief that Christians do not have the right to deviate from Christian moral standards. Again, Bray despised abortion. He went around to different clinics to protest, and even destroy the buildings themselves. He felt so strongly that abortion was breaking Christian law, and that people were in fact deviants for allowing the procedures to carry on day after day. Bray allowed the image of destruction of these buildings, parallel the destruction of an unborn child.

The fourth reason is that Humans are inherently sinful. Abortion in Bray’s eyes is a sin. Therefore, as a human, he had to commit a sin himself in destroying abortion clinics to stop another sin. Bray probably did not view his actions as sin, but as a battle of God to stop sinning from continuing to occur.

3. The article, 6 Arrested at Abortion Clinic, published on March 27, 1987 in The New York Times, describes the event involving Joan Andrews and John Burt at the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Florida. This article is only ten sentences long. It gives a very brief description of the events, and focuses more on the fact that Burt “knocked down the manager of the Ladies Center when they tried to block the path into the building.” The article barely focuses on the abortion protesting. And rather provides the reader with a sad story of two women, now in a hospital, because of harsh treatment by a man. Although this is also a horrible thing, and part of the story, the article fails to mention details of the destruction of abortion equipment, or the anti-abortion protest that was going on outside at the time.

I think there is more to be said by these images. Although these two are not taken from this specific occurrence, they show the signs, and protests of the people who are opposed to abortion. Seeing an opposition is more effective than reading about one because a visual image is easier to remember and recognize than some words on a page.

http://www.fadp.org/news/PensacolaNewsJournal-20030831.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1846778.stm
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=119248629&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1194491321&clientId=394

Joe K Post 10

Joe Kelly

1. The beginnings of the anti-abortion movement after Roe v. Wade were much more solemn than what we see today. Originally, the movement was led by men such as Randall Terry and John O'Keefe, who envisioned peaceful protests. This seemed like a straightforward system to them; it was the abortionists who were on the side of violence. The anti-abortion movement, they believed, should be on the side of peace so that they could save lives. The idea of using violence to save lives seemed counter-intuitive. In the decade following Roe, this philosophy seemed to be fairly successful, as the movement continued to grow and receive coverage.

In time, a new aspect of the movement emerged. Vandalizing and tampering with abortion clinics in time escalated into bombings and arson under the leadership of men such as Michael Bray and Thomas Spinks. This new wave of protesters did not hesitate to use intimidation or threats of force to both frighten abortion doctors and attract attention. While they were certainly quite successful in these attempts, they did a lot of damage to the anti-abortion cause. When these leaders were tracked down, they became the face of a movement that was now viewed as radical and violent. Many of those who had followed John O'Keefe no longer wished to be associated with it.

While other movements, such as Randall Terry's in the late 80s, have sprung up to repair the movement's image, no unified national movement has been established since the days of O'Keefe's leadership. Frustration has led to further violent protest incidents, such as the exploits of Michael Griffin and Paul Hill, which have only served to fragment and divide the movement further.

2. Michael Bray's actions seem to have been motivated by “…a belief that individuals should not have the right do deviate from Christian moral standards.” (McVeigh and Sikkink) It is surprising to examine Bray's religious background and see that it is marked with confusion. He spent time among Baptists, Mormons, and Presbyterians before he finally started down the path to becoming the first truly radical anti-abortion leader.

The seeds for Bray's passionate objections and violent protests were sown when he turned to fundamental Calvinist beliefs. Risen and Thomas succinctly explain the implications of these convictions: "That meant a return to concepts that had been out of fashion in mainline American Protestant churches for generations: a return to the Puritans, to predestination and Godly election, and finally, to "Dominion" teaching. Ultimately, it led fundamentalists back to the Augustinian view that God intends his followers to build a City on a Hill: a Christian city."

With such beliefs, there was clearly no room for differing religious interpretations. To establish a Christian society, it was necessary to force other ideas out of the way. After all, as John Calvin asked, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" Bray read these beliefs, and followed faithfully the implications (which were reinforced to extreme measures by John Knox) that if he was doing God's work, he could do no wrong.

3. The differences in coverage of Michael Griffin's shooting of David Gunn between The New York Times and Wrath of Angels are significant. Risen and Thomas cover the murder from Griffin's perspective. They use Griffin's claims about the events. "Right to Life" and "The Death of Dr. Gunn", two Times articles, take a much different angle. They condemn Griffin's actions, as well as the actions of all anti-abortion protesters.

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.