Wednesday, November 7, 2007

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Christopher, I have two comments on your post. First, I just wanted to clarify something regarding Michael Bray's status as a Protestant. He was religiously affiliated with the Protestants, by virtue of being a Lutheran (Martin Luther started the Protestant movement with the Protestant Reformation, from which came the Lutheran church). Just a little historical/religious clarification. I do not think it is fair to characterize someone as a Protestant because they are a protestor of abortion (there is a good bit more to it).

My second comment has to do with the picture of Paul Hill protesting. I used the same picture in my post, but after reading your analysis I noted a curious juxtaposition of the effectiveness of text and images. You claim (and I agree) that images draw a very powerful, clear picture. However, it is interesting to note that while we mention the power of seeing an image of Hill protesting, Hill himself relied on text to get his message across. Indeed, his sign reading "Execute Murders Abortionists Accessories?" became the infamous standard-bearer of his campaign.

Christopher said...

Brynne, thank you for clarifying my silly error. What could I have been thinking?

I do realize that the image of the protesting relies on text as well to get the point across, but there is a difference between Times New Roman, 12 point font in a newspaper, or a magazine, or a book, and big, bold red and black capital letters. Somehow, this is able to transcend text, and make it an easy image to remember, and reproduce, talk and debate about in the future.