Jenn Post 10

Jenn Shea

Question One

Initially, anti-abortion movements focused mainly on quiet lobbying and the formation of pro-life groups. These groups consisted of individuals who were morally opposed to the destruction of the potential for human life and participated in non-violent forms of protest including sit-ins, picketing, and campaigning. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade case, a group of Catholics formed right-to-life groups: “The NCCB quietly asked local bishops to recruit Catholic volunteers to set up local anti-abortion organizations, and the national group retained a political consultant to support these new ‘right-to-life’ organizations. These state groups later formed the backbone of the mainstream anti-abortion movement when they united under the umbrella of the National Right to Life Committee, founded by the American bishops in 1972” (Risen 19). Even Michael Bray, who is responsible for aiding several clinic bombings, showed some form of nonviolent protest as an effective means to attract media attention and increase public awareness at the Wheaton clinic on November 17, 1984: “Outside the Wheaton clinic, Michael Bray sat down with his young son in his arms, waiting quietly for the police to take him away. He offered a perfect image of nonviolent civil disobedience, one that was quickly captured by local television cameras and broadcast on that evening’s newscasts” (92). However, that same clinic was then bombed the next day. Anti-abortion advocates were becoming more and more hungry for effective action, and in seeing that peaceful sit-ins were not ending abortion, even nonviolent protestors began resorting to violent means or justifying those who did. For example, O’Keefe’s Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project was sabotaged by other anti-abortion bombers who blew up the clinic where he had organized a non-violent sit-in the day before. “‘Yes, it [the bombing] is just,’ O’Keefe told the Washington Post hours after the bombing. ‘Is it prudent? No. [But] it is just to respond to violence against people by destroying property. Human life is far more valuable than property. Pro-lifers are going to act….The question is what shape will the action take’” (94). After that, when the idea of civil disobedience was called upon as a course of action, O’Keefe failed to step up to lead, and when he did schedule more sit-ins, they were unsuccessful due to his tarnished reputation: “O’Keefe tried to stage more sit-ins, but his Washington civil disobedience campaign never recovered from its association with Bray, and it soon faded away” (99). Because of this, violent means became prominent, especially in Pensacola, Florida. In general, individuals sought more than just preaching the immorality of abortion and wanted to make a stronger statement by acting. A man by the name of Randall Terry also began to transform the means of anti-abortion protest, which brought concern from National Right to Life leaders, as they saw his impulsivity as dangerous to the cause: “In a speech in Pensacola’s Seville Square, Terry called on his fellow activists to storm abortion clinics; solder shut elevators and blockade doors so that police could not reach them; and completely trash clinic offices, throwing furniture and abortion equipment out clinic windows and down into the street…National Right to Life leaders immediately saw that if Terry carried out his radical tactics on a nationwide scale, he would bring the full weight of the government down on the activists and perhaps do as much to cloud the reputation of the entire anti-abortion movement as had earlier clinic bombings and arsons” (207). Silent protest was no longer sufficient for Reverend David Shofner, a pastor of West Pensacola Baptist Church: “Frustrated that so few other fundamentalist Protestants were joining, Shofner went on a local Christian radio station to criticize local pastors who ‘preach about abortion in church but don’t do anything outside the pulpit’” (196). Joan Andrews was one of the most recognized irrational and destructive protesters in Pensacola. She went as far as to spread noxious liquids, damaged abortion equipment, and when sent to prison, took on a vow of noncooperation within the prison system to answer “God’s calling.” The most appalling bombings occurred in Pensacola on Christmas 1984 and clearly demonstrated that civil disobedience was taking a backseat to violence, which was gaining far more attention than sit-ins had. As Risen notes, “The Christmas bombing spree put Pensacola on the abortion map. The three bombings, which occurred within minutes of each other between 3 and 4 A.M. on Christmas morning, 1984, were by far the most spectacular acts of anti-abortion violence yet staged. Isolated acts of arson and vandalism had been occurring for years at clinics, but they had never generated this sort of sustained, national press attention…anti-abortion activism had taken a sudden turn to extremism. President Reagan was forced to issue a statement denouncing the bombings” (197-198). Thus, the negative attention certain pro-life initiatives began receiving made civil disobedience pointless, as individuals did not want to listen to activists who believed that violence and destruction solved problems. Activists saw that the more violence and destruction they took part in, the more their anti-abortion position became broadcast and publicized. Their message began spreading faster the more irrational their actions became. As Hand said, “‘Blowing up clinics only hardens hearts’” (94). Because of this, activists resorted to more severe means to get their anti-abortion sentiments across.

Question Two

In their article “God, Politics, and Protest,” McVeigh and Sikkink discuss, test, and analyze three different reasons as to why Protestants approve of “contentious actions.” They discuss that traditionally, Protestants avoid tension and conflict and instead express their religious tendencies at a more tranquil level: “Mainline Protestants have developed religious traditions that support a quiet, individual expression of their religious faith in public life. Similarly, liberal Protestants construct a relatively low degree of tension between religious faith and the surrounding social and cultural environment, which may lead to less support for contentious politics as an expression of their religious faith” (1430). They note that despite this traditional behavior of Protestant expression, these individuals are becoming more and more likely to get involved with protest and conflict concerning their religious values: “…a perceived threat to deeply held religious beliefs or values may provide an incentive to participate in social protest. In addition, 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 protests” (1427). One theory for this participation in protest is the cultural defense theory, which involves when individuals’ religious values are challenged, and thus the individuals feel obligated to defend these values, even if such defense means involvement in contentious behavior: “The basic argument of cultural defense theory is that moral reform movements emerge in response to a challenge to deeply held beliefs and values that are rooted in the participants’ religion…participants in a moral reform movement are acting defensively in an effort to preserve a moral order that provides meaning for their lives…We argue that 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). McVeigh and Sikkink also suggest in their analysis that individuals may sometimes feel that they should carry out God’s will. When confronted by something sinful, these individuals feel it is their duty to carry out God’s punishment themselves. In this way, such individuals are God’s messengers and thus their actions are justified because God is the driving force behind their behaviors: “When God is represented as in radical conflict with humanity and human history, we expect that contentious tactics in the public square will be seen as a legitimate expression of carrying out God’s work in the world…Some scholars have noted that a belief in human sinfulness promotes support for corporal punishment…The ‘tough love’ of God’s dealing with sin becomes the frame that justifies parallel contentious tactics for believers in a sinful world” (1432-1433). Finally, McVeigh and Sikkink found that by being involved in an organized church setting, individuals are more likely to be exposed to organized protest movements because such movements target large and already organized institutions: “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” (1433).

Randall Terry demonstrates McVeigh and Sikkink’s theory that individuals are driven to partake in protest and other contentious actions because they believe they are acting on the word of God. He also demonstrates a defense of values, as he recites passages from the Bible saying that abortion was condemned by god: “‘Abortion…is an attack on the Word of God and ultimately on the kingdom and Church of God…Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood, which God condemns and God commands His people to rise in defense of those who cannot defend themselves” (249). As described by Risen and Thomas, Terry attempted to “translate the language of social protest into the language of Protestant fundamentalism” (249). In doing so, Randall insisted that Project life was Christ centered and its goals included “sharing the love of God with young women and their boyfriends/husbands, and telling them the truth about themselves and their babies…We proclaim what God’s Word says concerning life in the womb, and what a Christian’s responsibility is in this Holocaust (249). In addition, Pierce Creek’s Pastor Dan Little proclaimed Terry as “God’s chosen leader in the fight against abortion” (251).

Question Three

In the book, Risen and Thomas give very little text about the impact of the film The Silent Scream by Dr. Bernard Nathanson. It simply states that the film “was highlighted by traumatic footage of an ultrasound examination conducted during an abortion. During the mid-1980s, The Silent Scream became the anti-abortion movement’s single most successful piece of propaganda and one of its most effective recruiting tools” (198). The book fails to mention that it was also recognized as one very controversial film in that it portrayed misleading information. In both of the New York Times articles I found, one from January 25, 1985 titled “Debate on Abortion Focuses on Graphic Film,” and the other from March 11, 1985 titled “A False ‘Scream,’” individuals claim that there is no evidence that a fetus has the capability of reacting aggressively to intrusion or that it is capable of struggling. Instead, according to Dr. Jenniger Niebyl in the “A False ‘Scream’” article, “‘The fetus, at this gestational age, is really exhibiting strictly reflex activity’” (A18). At that stage, according to another doctor, the fetus is not be able to perceive pain or process information because the cortex is not developed in the brain. In the “Debate on Abortion” article, Dr. Nathanson defends his statements in the film and insists that even without the cortex, the fetus feels pain, stating, “‘Pain is a reflex. It is not an intellectual exercise.’ The fetus, he said, ‘is being stuck and stalked, and responds reflexively as any animal would when exposed to pain’” (NYT). Whether or not the fetus actually does feel pain, the images seen in this film are nonetheless very disturbing. The link below is for a clip in the film showing the aborted fetuses outside of the womb, and the supposed mouth in the form of a scream. Below, the image on the left shows the aborted fetuses in containers, while the right photo is a still of the “silent scream,” but is very difficult to see in ultrasound form. The text in the book does not nearly describe the reaction the film actually received, nor does it portray very strongly the types of images in the film and how disturbing they are. The photographs of the aborted fetuses are almost indescribable in how uncomfortable and heart-wrenching they are, and Risen and Thomas’ use of “traumatic” does not seem sufficient. The two New York Times articles, although they make a good point about the evidential non-existence of the cortex, which is the part of the brain the sends and receives neurotransmitters for pain, still cannot compete with the images of fetuses discarded into containers or a fetus being sucked out of a woman’s womb. In the images, the message of torture and the destruction of the potential for life can be seen, while in the text such issues are simply a topic of debate or are understated and lightly touched upon. Finally, in the film The Silent Scream, even if one does not listen to the man’s explanation of what is happening, the scenes with showing the woman on the exam table during the actual abortion procedure and the images mixed in of aborted fetuses say enough. Even if a viewer does not wish to hear the arguably propagandist and sensationalized preaching of Dr. Nathanson, the images are still enough to probably make even the most extreme pro-choice advocate a little uncomfortable. With rhetoric, one can stop listening at any time and close out another’s opinions in disbelief; with images, one simple viewing of an aborted fetus leaves a lasting impression on the mind, no matter how tight one tries close his or her eyes to try to block the image out afterward.

Part 4 of Movie:

http://www.silentscream.org/video/SScream%20English/SilentSc_Eng_4.mov

Still Images from
http://www.abortiontv.com/Movies/silentscream.htm