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?)
No comments:
Post a Comment