Jessica Duran
Republicans are against abortion until their daughters need one; Democrats are for abortion until their daughter wants one. -Grace McGarvie
Thirty years after the monumental decision of Roe vs. Wade abortion rights still remain a highly controversial and divisive moral and legal issue in the United States. The history of abortion dates back to thousands of years ago. Since ancient times, most cultures have had not only methods, but also individuals who specialized solely in providing women with abortions. They often utilized primitive drug concoctions and crude tools; leaving women that had abortions in great pain and even life-threatening danger (London). During the 18th and 19th century, there is ample evidence that reveals that abortion until “quickening” was both prevalent and popular in the United States (London). It is estimated that in New York City there were at least two hundred full time abortion practitioners in 1870 (London). Not surprisingly, the history of abortion discourse mirrors and follows temporally the history of contraceptive rights. By the 1860's, new legislation in the United States outlawed abortion except those "necessary to save the life of a women" and in 1869 Pope Pius IX declared that all abortion was murder. In 1873, Anthony Comstock was able to persuade Congress to pass a law that made it illegal to deal with or transport materials or information dealing with contraception. Subsequently over twenty states passed similar prohibitions that considered the distribution of contraceptive information to be obscene (London). Many of the apparent arguments against contraception at the time mimic the subsequent rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement. Ranging from secular to religious beliefs, the issues raised by the anti-abortion movement are quite varied. Physical and emotional damage to the woman, followed by the religious/moral arguments are the main speaking points of the anti-abortion movement.
Initially, the anti-abortion movement prided itself on being a pacifist movement; dedicated to nonviolent sit-ins, vigils, and protests, that would help bring attention to their movement and cause (Risen & Thomas 77). The movement felt it had an ideology that followed that of the Civil Rights Movement; reverently utilizing sit-ins, prayers, and peaceful dissemination of their arguments, as tools which would help them best to achieve their ultimate goal; removing “the unholy stain on America” and saving the unborn (Risen & Thomas 199). Risen and Thomas elaborate on how the ideology and tactics utilized by the anti-abortion movement shifted. Soon the passive civil disobedience sit-ins which were directed at both bringing attention, and possibly saving individual women from choosing abortion transformed into aggressive “rescue missions” where violent behavior and damage to abortion facility property occurred (Risen & Thomas 61). Temporally associated with this change in tactics was the influx of more aggressive ideology from Protestant Fundamentalists who viewed themselves as God’s instruments to physically impose both judgment and punishment on both the physical act of abortion as well as those who facilitated it. "They set out to transform the law, but in the process they transformed themselves, transformed their theological beliefs, and ended generations of isolation”; willingly ready to wash away and eradicate the "blood guiltiness" of abortion at all costs (Risen & Thomas 40). Stark in contrast to the more passive early liberal Catholic protestors of earlier years; this violence was directed by more aggressive Protestants and helped bring the attention of the media (Risen & Thomas 96). Less scrutiny in the screening of new members into the movement contributed greatly to the escalation of the level of violence seen in the movement; as religious “fanatics” and “closet extremists” were allowed to enter and even become leaders (Risen & Thomas 241). Early protest leaders such as O’Keefe would later express their great sadness over not explicitly and forcefully opposing the escalation of attacks and violence against abortion facilities and providers that would ultimately be the downfall of the anti-abortion movement (Risen & Thomas 94). The violence continued to intensify with the bombings in Pensacola in 1984 by Goldsby and Simmons and actually helped the movement achieve the sustained national media coverage they had so long yearned for (Risen & Thomas 199). The notorious Randall Terry would continue this violent streak by artfully channeling the passion and solidarity that Joan Andrew, the legendary “nun from Florida”, had helped unite and utilize his revolutionary ardor to attract large numbers to the movement and ultimately help it gain more power (Risen & Thomas 206). He resorted to street tactics and “borrowed a few pages from the radical fringe of the antiwar movement”; turning “rescue” into a mass movement (Risen & Thomas 207). National Right to Life leaders feared that if Terry utilized his extremist/illegal tactics on a nationwide scale that government would come down on activists and the reputation of the anti-abortion would be tainted once again; they were right (Risen & Thomas 207). In 1993, as the violence had continued to escalate, Dr. Gunn, an abortion doctor, was fatally shot by Michael Griffin at the only clinic providing abortion services at the time in Pensacola (Risen & Thomas 342). “By drawing blood, Michael Griffin changed forever the shape and direction of the anti-abortion movement”; helping to initiate the first wide open debate among activists and leaders whether the use of violence was justifiable (Risen & Thomas 343). The peak period of severe violence was seen in the 1990s when radical anti-abortion extremists began committing the “justifiable homicide” of abortion doctors and associated individuals (Risen & Thomas 357). As the violence continued to escalate, the anti-abortion movement faced a huge dilemma. It became much harder to persuade the public that abortion was an ethical crime, a mortal sin that took innocent lives, and so on, as the public and government began to fear and see the irony of the movement’s violent tactics. It would now certainly be difficult to make a claim of the benefits of the movement resorting to violence; especially after physicians were being killed, staff and patients terrorized, and a strong atmosphere of brutality and terrorism was being associated with the movement. Unfortunately, many of these radical anti-abortion activists never took into account the disastrous legal, political, and social ramifications, that there violent actions would not only have on themselves, but also on the movement they so proudly belonged to. In 1994, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) was passed by President Bill Clinton making it a Federal crime to commit violent, obstructive, and threatening actions, towards medical staff and patients at abortion clinics. Finally, someone had stepped in to stop the violence; it was now the Federal government protecting abortion clinics against the use or threat of force, or physical obstruction in anyway. Ultimately, it was the chillingly violent behavior and actions of radical activists that caused the downfall of a movement that had been so passionately dedicated to peacefully saving the unborn. John O’Keefe, “the father of rescue”, would look disapprovingly at the movement he had helped to found and say, “I think it is a disaster” (Risen & Thomas 371).
During the anti-abortion movement, visual images were utilized to have a more dramatic effect than text, for a variety of reasons, on the viewer. In the mid-1980s, the anti-abortion movement began circulating graphic, anti-abortion documentaries like the Silent Scream, “the movement’s single most effective piece of propaganda”, to provoke disgust and outrage and radically recruit members (Risen & Thomas 198). Both text and verbal communication certainly played a huge role in the anti-abortion movement. Pamphlets and spoken information given to the public, patients, or medical staff, helped conveyed the movement’s agenda and ultimate goal, but were less effective than visual images because they required some degree of participation and interest on the behalf of the individual; while images were able “attack” individuals regardless of whether or not they were interested. Written propaganda requires someone to make an effort to stop and read-a handout, or an article on a web site. These texts also leave lots of room for the audience to have the opportunity to disagree or at least easily reject what is being presented. Be it the feebleness of the woman, the dangers associated with abortion procedures, or the immorality of abortion, the reader can easily stop and disagree at any time they want to. On the other hand, visual imagery, especially of an aborted fetus, can be utilized to quickly express how the violence and cruelty involved in abortion both rationalizes and justifies pro-life motives and methods; thereby making it harder for the audience to quickly disagree and look away. Though the audience has free will to look at the image as long as they want to; by the time they chose to walk away they have already instantaneously absorbed the “whole” message of the image while the text would require them to read from start to finish. Another strong technique utilized by pro-life activists is having pregnancy counseling centers where the women are offered free sonograms. The rationale being that once the woman sees the fetus she would be more likely to continue the pregnancy till term. These are all strong examples of how visual imagery can be utilized as propaganda to promote a particular position or belief. I believe text is less effective in this type of situation for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the immediate impact, strength, lasting effect, and the lack of cooperation required from the audience, all help to increase the effectiveness of visual imagery over text. Also, not only does a picture speak a thousand words, but it can avoid “mentioning” those you wish to avoid.
Ironically, throughout history religious beliefs have been on both the calling and receiving ends of contentious tactics and actions. Although the word religion comes from Latin and means “to bind together”; many individuals have used religion to legitimize and justify violent behavior that is detrimentally damaging to both society and themselves. The impact religious beliefs had on the actions of Michael Bray, the American anti-abortion activist/extremist and avid member of the pro-life terrorist organization, the Army of God, can be analyzed by using McVeigh and Sikkink’s article, God, Politics, and Protest: Religious Beliefs and the Legitimation of Contentious Tactics. According to the article, Religious institutions and leaders can have the power to recruit and summon impressionable individuals into action; spurring them to “stamp out the evil” in the world (McVeigh & Sikkink 1445).The teachings and writings of Francis Schaeffer and the Reformation theologians, Calvin and Knox, “helped” Michael Bray break free from the “premillenial trap” and planted the seed of rebellious religious militancy in his heart (Risen & Thomas 81). Bray’s personal religious beliefs sanctioned the use of radical contentious tactics to convert individuals that deviated from Christian moral standards (McVeigh & Sikkink 1449). He would later be recruited into O’Keefe’s organization, Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project (Risen & Thomas 88). Ironically, it would be Bray’s deeply concealed belief in the “just use of violence to end abortion” that would ultimately tarnish the reputation of O’Keefe’s organization; an organization passionately dedicated to fighting abortion solely through nonviolent means (Risen & Thomas 82).
The article discusses how “a perceived threat to deeply held religious beliefs or values” may entice individuals to participate in contentious tactics (McVeigh & Sikkink 1427). Bray’s long standing rebellious nature coupled with his “religious intensity” spurred him to view violence as the absolute solution to achieving moral cohesiveness in society. He was hell bent on ending the cosmic struggle between the conflicting forces (“good” vs. “evil”) in our society by superimposing Protestant Christian morality on the population (McVeigh & Sikkink 1449). As a devoted Protestant fundamentalist, Bray viewed abortion as a murderous sin and was ready to go to any length to save the unborn and uphold the truth (Risen & Thomas 84). He was ready to utilize the absolute moral standards associated with Protestant Christianity to alter the sinful nature of human beings, achieve moral cohesiveness, and restore moral order to the world (McVeigh & Sikkink 1441). Since at the time abortion was a legal practice in the United States, Bray construed it as a direct attack on his moral and spiritual values (McVeigh & Sikkink 1449).Therefore, planning and executing abortion clinic bombings with his partner in crime, Thomas Spinks, was his view of changing society to better reflect and glorify God’s will (Risen & Thomas 86). As was shown by the data in the article, respondents who felt that Christian values were under attack are more likely to approve of the use of contentious attack (McVeigh/Sikkink 1435). Bray felt that his religious beliefs and values were being challenged and resorted to violent tactics in order to defend and “preserve the moral order that provided meaning to his life” McVeigh/Sikkink 1431). He reasoned that the “cultural toolkit” his religion had endowed him with legitimized and justified his actions as a valid defensive strategy (McVeigh/Sikkink 1429). He blatantly disregarded individualistic preferences and passionately attempted to convert individuals to his own personal moral values and beliefs; bypassing institutionalized politics and instead reveling in violent contentious actions (McVeigh/Sikkink 1431).
The article also discusses how religious individuals may feel the need to ease the tension between God and humanity and carry out “God’s work in the world” (McVeigh/Sikkink 1432). These individuals will embark on the journey of ridding the world of sin and in doing so may even resort to detrimentally destructive behavior in order to “shape the will” of society (McVeigh/Sikkink 1432). Bray’s religious identity placed him in conflict with a society that viewed abortion as a legal practice (McVeigh & Sikkink 1449). His strongly held belief that abortion should be an illegal practice prompted him to take matters into his own hands and confront the sin in the world instead of channeling his rebellious “energy into electoral politics” (McVeigh & Sikkink 1441). He was ready to “shape the will” of society to better reflect God’s will at all costs even if it meant resorting to contentious actions in the public realm. Bray would ultimately go down in history as the first “prisoner of conscience” of the militant wing of the anti-abortion movement (Risen & Thomas 99). His extreme dissatisfaction with the “existing conditions” prompted him to take the law into his own hands and ultimately earn the title, the “father of violence” (McVeigh & Sikkink 1427).
The proverb, “A picture is worth a thousand words”, succinctly expresses the dominant power that the visual has over the textual. The textual leaves much to the imagination; the visual explicitly divulges its contents to the viewer thereby allowing them to interpret them as they wish. Images are innately able to convey complex ideas and concepts quickly and effectively; instantaneously evoking deep emotions in their viewers. The pervasive power images have on altering beliefs, emotions, and behavior, in individuals derives from their divine ability to ingrain themselves instantaneously into the mind. The brain does not require images to be as carefully analytically reasoned as rhetoric in order to extrapolate meaning; we can look at, remember, and be moved by an image that we have not really thoroughly scrutinized. Images can serve to advocate, denounce, or even choose to remain completely neutral concerning social, political, or cultural issues. Throughout history the persuasive power of images has been utilized and even exploited as propaganda to motivate people into collective action by leaders such as: Hitler, Stalin, Deng Xiaoping, and many others. During the mid-1980s, the anti-abortion movement began circulating graphic, anti-abortion documentaries like the Silent Scream, “the movement’s single most effective piece of propaganda”, to provoke disgust and outrage and radically recruit members (Risen & Thomas 198). Anti-abortion leaders such as: Randall Terry, Paul Hill, John Burt, and Michael Bray, utilized these graphically disturbing images in hopes of winning "America's most volatile, most divisive and most irreconcilable debate since slavery” (Risen & Thomas 194).
On July 29, 1994, Paul Hill, “the fundamentalist preacher with the eerie smile”, would release all his "pent- up religious zeal” and commit the ultimate crime of passion that he had so long dreamed of committing (Risen & Thomas 345). Hill’s anti-abortion fervor was fueled by the film series, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, and from then on he adamantly defended the homicide of abortion providers as a just action (Risen & Thomas 347). The text goes into great detail describing how Paul Hill murdered Dr. John Bayard Britton and James Barrett on that fateful July morning. “Like a good boy scout”, he fired five rounds at Dr. Britton and quickly fled the scene of the crime (Risen & Thomas 363). The text then goes on to thoroughly explain how Hill was quickly arrested afterwards and details the eyewitness accounts that were told to police. Hill was “tickled pink” with the results that “no innocent babies are going to be killed at that clinic tonight” (Risen & Thomas 365). In chapter 14, the text is able to gradually yet thoroughly present the reader with Hill’s background, family life, radical reputation, behavior and views, and how he was able to rally supporters with his extremist actions. Hill, the ultimate icon of anti-abortion extremism, was quoted many times chillingly admitting that he had no remorse for his actions and believed that he would be greatly rewarded in heaven for his “good deeds” (Thomas & Risen 371). On the other hand, the article in the New York Times, "From Thought to Deed: In the Mind Of a Killer Who Says He Served God", sets out to expose Hill in a much more direct and overt manner. While Wrath of Angels takes nearly a whole chapter to detail the life of Paul Hill; the New York Times’ article is succinctly able to relay nearly the same information in just one page. From the title alone, it is quite obvious that the “unapologetic killer that haunts society” is not going to be given any leeway. Although the book does not portray Hill in a good light, it relays his story in a chronological order; letting the facts and actions about Hill speak for themselves. Both the book and the article describe the murder scene and event exactly the same. The article uses quotes such as, “Mommy, don’t kill me!” and “I’m saying what I did was moral, and according to the highest legality”, to vividly and instantly portray Hill as a psychotically unstable murderer. It also strongly focuses on Hill’s radically psychotic view of justifiable homicide and features much more of an interview from Hill discussing his actions and why he believes they are justifiable than the book does. Though the book may be far from unbiased it leaves much more room for the reader to draw conclusions based on the chilling events and action involving Paul Hill than the New York Times article does. The bias in the article can be attributed to the fact that the reporter and the staff of the newspaper will spin the story to support whatever personal views they may have about the topic or event. The picture above depicts Paul Hill, passionately protesting outside the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Florida; diligently holding a sign with his favorite slogan, “execute murders, abortionist, accessories?” There are dozens of photos and video clips of Paul Hill diligently protesting outside the Ladies Center. It can be claimed that these images do hold more power over the viewer than the texts, Wrath of Angels or the New York Times article. They are able to instantly portray to the viewer the intense hate and aggression Hill had towards anyone involved with abortions. If provided with the context of the photo and previous actions of Hill, it could be argued that the viewer might even be able to predict that Hill would eventually go on to commit chilling crimes towards abortion providers. The innate message of this photograph does not differ from the message that the texts presented, but instead serves to be a “photographic truth”; strengthening their authority and validity. This photo is able to instantaneously portray the psychotically hateful sentiments of the infamous homicidal religious fanatic that would go down in anti-abortion history.
Wrath of Angels describes the Christmas bombings of the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Floirda in 1984 as the “most spectacular acts of anti-abortion violence yet staged” (Risen & Thomas 197). The book quickly talks about Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons’ short lived bombing spree in less than two pages. It mainly focuses on why and how the two men felt they were religiously justified to destroy the “unholy stain on America” as a “gift to Jesus” (Risen & Thomas 199). Though both the book and the New York Times article, “Bombing Case Offers a Stark Look at Abortion Conflicts”, describe the actual bombing events nearly identically; the manner in which the two men are presented and the severity of the event is quite distinct. The book gives the reader more information about the two men’s personal lives and in doing so portrays them in a more humane light than the New York Times article does. The book talks about how after watching the documentary, The Silent Scream, the two men “felt called by God to act”; thereby providing the reader with the reason as to why these men felt justified in bombing the Ladies Center (Risen & Thomas 198). On the other hand, the New York Times article focuses on the actions of the men and uses the quote, “It’s easy to say God made me do it, but that’s a cop-out in my opinion”, from an outraged pastor to further stress the insane justification these men had for committing this destructive crime; thereby portraying the men in a very negative light. Some of these differences between the book and the article can be contributed to the fact that the article is focusing on this one story in a journalistic fashion and the book is telling this story as a mini piece of the anti-abortion movement puzzle; a minor event compared to the chilling murderous crimes that would later occur. Also, the New York Times would try to spin the story to emphasize the drama and action in order to captivate readers, persuade their opinions about the event, and hopefully make headlines. The picture above depicts anti-abortion protesters outside the Ladies Center in Pensacola, the location of the Christmas bombings of 1984; diligently staking out with picket signs in hopes of saving the lives of the unborn. It can be claimed that this image has more power over the viewer than the texts, Wrath of Angels or the New York Times article. By looking at the faces of the protesters, the viewer is able to instantly “feel” the intense hate, frustration, and anger, these individuals feel deep in their souls. This photo magically transports the viewer to a time when “America's most volatile, most divisive and most irreconcilable debate since slavery” was raging on (Risen & Thomas 194). This picture is able show just how dedicated these protesters were and how fanatically willing they were to go to any length to win their cause. It could be argued that from this photo the viewer might even be able to predict that the actions of the protesters would continue to escalate; gradually increasing to the bombing spree of Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons. The message of this photograph does not differ from the message that the texts presented, but instead serves to be a further support their claims concerning the anger, rage, and frustration, anti-abortion activists including Goldsby and Simmons had during that time in history.
Sources:
By JON NORDHEIMER Special to The New York Times "Bombing Case Offers a Stark Look at Abortion Conflicts." New York Times (1857-Current file), January 18, 1985, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed November 1, 2007).
Paul Hill By TOM KUNTZ "From Thought to Deed: In the Mind Of a Killer Who Says He Served God." New York Times (1857-Current file), September 24, 1995, http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed November 1, 2007).
London, Kathleen. "The History of Birth Control." Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute. Available from http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/6/82.06.03.x.html. Internet; accessed 2 November 2007.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~dbisigna/images/ProChoice.jpg
http://arsepoetica.typepad.com/blog/images/pro_choice_white_imprint_tshirt_1.jpg
http://www.gmu.edu/org/prochoicepatriots/narallogo.gif
http://www.flickr.com/photos/patia/524451549/
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/8/8c/Michael_Bray_(ROAE).jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_02/foetusDM1210_468x505.jpg
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/AbortionPictures/images/abortion-08-01.jpg
http://www.cbrinfo.org/GAP/signs/f-insanity.jpg
http://blogs.indiewire.com/twhalliii/hill%20protest.jpg
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPST/BodyWorks/11300/kruger.gif
Ironically, throughout history religious beliefs have been on both the calling and receiving ends of contentious tactics and actions. Although the word religion comes from Latin and means “to bind together”; many individuals have used religion to legitimize and justify violent behavior that is detrimentally damaging to both society and themselves. The impact religious beliefs had on the actions of Michael Bray, the American anti-abortion activist/extremist and avid member of the pro-life terrorist organization, the Army of God, can be analyzed by using McVeigh and Sikkink’s article, God, Politics, and Protest: Religious Beliefs and the Legitimation of Contentious Tactics. According to the article, Religious institutions and leaders can have the power to recruit and summon impressionable individuals into action; spurring them to “stamp out the evil” in the world (McVeigh & Sikkink 1445).The teachings and writings of Francis Schaeffer and the Reformation theologians, Calvin and Knox, “helped” Michael Bray break free from the “premillenial trap” and planted the seed of rebellious religious militancy in his heart (Risen & Thomas 81). Bray’s personal religious beliefs sanctioned the use of radical contentious tactics to convert individuals that deviated from Christian moral standards (McVeigh & Sikkink 1449). He would later be recruited into O’Keefe’s organization, Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project (Risen & Thomas 88). Ironically, it would be Bray’s deeply concealed belief in the “just use of violence to end abortion” that would ultimately tarnish the reputation of O’Keefe’s organization; an organization passionately dedicated to fighting abortion solely through nonviolent means (Risen & Thomas 82).
On July 29, 1994, Paul Hill, “the fundamentalist preacher with the eerie smile”, would release all his "pent- up religious zeal” and commit the ultimate crime of passion that he had so long dreamed of committing (Risen & Thomas 345). Hill’s anti-abortion fervor was fueled by the film series, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, and from then on he adamantly defended the homicide of abortion providers as a just action (Risen & Thomas 347). The text goes into great detail describing how Paul Hill murdered Dr. John Bayard Britton and James Barrett on that fateful July morning. “Like a good boy scout”, he fired five rounds at Dr. Britton and quickly fled the scene of the crime (Risen & Thomas 363). The text then goes on to thoroughly explain how Hill was quickly arrested afterwards and details the eyewitness accounts that were told to police. Hill was “tickled pink” with the results that “no innocent babies are going to be killed at that clinic tonight” (Risen & Thomas 365). In chapter 14, the text is able to gradually yet thoroughly present the reader with Hill’s background, family life, radical reputation, behavior and views, and how he was able to rally supporters with his extremist actions. Hill, the ultimate icon of anti-abortion extremism, was quoted many times chillingly admitting that he had no remorse for his actions and believed that he would be greatly rewarded in heaven for his “good deeds” (Thomas & Risen 371). On the other hand, the article in the New York Times, "From Thought to Deed: In the Mind Of a Killer Who Says He Served God", sets out to expose Hill in a much more direct and overt manner. While Wrath of Angels takes nearly a whole chapter to detail the life of Paul Hill; the New York Times’ article is succinctly able to relay nearly the same information in just one page. From the title alone, it is quite obvious that the “unapologetic killer that haunts society” is not going to be given any leeway. Although the book does not portray Hill in a good light, it relays his story in a chronological order; letting the facts and actions about Hill speak for themselves. Both the book and the article describe the murder scene and event exactly the same. The article uses quotes such as, “Mommy, don’t kill me!” and “I’m saying what I did was moral, and according to the highest legality”, to vividly and instantly portray Hill as a psychotically unstable murderer. It also strongly focuses on Hill’s radically psychotic view of justifiable homicide and features much more of an interview from Hill discussing his actions and why he believes they are justifiable than the book does. Though the book may be far from unbiased it leaves much more room for the reader to draw conclusions based on the chilling events and action involving Paul Hill than the New York Times article does. The bias in the article can be attributed to the fact that the reporter and the staff of the newspaper will spin the story to support whatever personal views they may have about the topic or event. The picture above depicts Paul Hill, passionately protesting outside the 
Wrath of Angels describes the Christmas bombings of the 
No comments:
Post a Comment