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.