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.