Kim post 10

Kim Hambright

Images and text alike are meant to impact their viewer. Whether in a positive or negative way, in support of a cause, or in opposition to a cause, both images and rhetoric speak to the viewer on a personal level. An image, by definition, is visual, and therefore makes an instantaneous impact on the viewer. While there may be subtext to the image, as well as underlying meanings that require more time and extensive visual analysis, a viewer is generally able to generate an opinion or understanding of an image in a very short period of time. Text however, requires more attention; this includes the obvious, reading, but also analysis. It is pertinent for a reader to fully comprehend and understand the words on the page for one to reach an understanding of the meaning of a written work. Just as people are different, so are the ways in which they understand images and textual pieces. The genre with the most lasting influence therefore, is indeterminable. For some, a visual image of an aborted fetus may burn into their mind for years; while for others, a Biblical passage about life may have a greater impact. Neither rhetoric nor images can be said to have the longest lasting influence on people, because influence is personal and unique to every individual.

After the trial of Roe vs. Wade, anti-abortion activists began taking a violent approach to protesting. Beginning with Bray and Sprinks in the early 1980’s setting off homemade car bombs, the often evangelical Christians took matters into their own hands. Activists moved from relatively small homemade explosive devices to larger explosive devices, and from attacking individuals to attacking buildings and clinics. Anti-abortionists vandalized abortion clinics, damaging equipment and personal property, and held prayer sessions outside of clinics all while claiming to be fighting for the “Army of God.” As time went on protestors became even more violent, committing such crimes as arson, assault, and even murder. Two radical supporters of the anti-abortion movement should be noted: Joan Andrews and Michael Griffin. In March of 1986, Joan Andrews, nicknamed “Saint Joan,” set fire to The Ladies Center, an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida. She received a sentence of five years in prison for the damages she caused, and instead of turning their backs, the anti-abortion community supported her. She was considered the first martyr of the movement, and other protestors looked to her as an iconic figure. Similarly Michael Griffin was sentenced due to actions prompted by his involvement with the anti-abortion movement. In March of 1993, Griffin shot abortion doctor David Gunn in a parking lot. The only explanation he gave was a statement that he felt God wanted him to. He felt that it was his personal duty to take the life of a man whom he felt had taken the lives of so many innocent unborn children.

The gradual increase in violence associated with the anti-abortion movement can be explained in several different ways. First off, they were not being heard. Protestors had been rioting and picketing, speaking out and fighting for years and nothing had been done to illegalize abortions. Understandably, the people associated with the movement became frustrated: they wanted to get their point across, they wanted to change the laws, and nothing had happened. Their increase in violence can be seen as a stronger attempt to be heard. With homemade explosives, firearms and lighters, the activists felt they would be able to make more of an impact. In another direction, the increase in violent protests could be seen as a result of improvements in technology, and one’s increased ability to possess more dangerous weapons. Since the technology was more readily available to them, protestors became involved in crimes of opportunity. For example, Shelley found the directions for making a pipe bomb on the internet and was able to buy all of the materials she needed at her local hardware store, so what is keeping her from bombing a place she deems evil? While the reasons for the violent uprisings may be debatable, the actual events are written in the history books. After the moral and political awakening that was the Roe vs. Wade case, anti-abortionists became vocal, and eventually violent. Their malicious and sometimes homicidal actions brought their stories to newspapers all over, and gave their stories and opinions exactly the kind of publicity that they had been aiming for.

A group of extremist protesters at an anti-abortion rally.
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070424/070424_abortion_hmed_4p.hmedium.jpg

Paul Hill, Father Trosch, and Andrew Cabot at the trial of Michael Griffin.-

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.christiangallery.com/Hill.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.christiangallery.com/spr95new.html&h=336&w=484&sz=22&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=8Us6sL7OXscq8M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMichael%2BGriffin%2BDavid%2BGunn%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Michael Griffin reportedly told authorities that he shot David Dunn because God had asked him to. Strangely enough, according to McVeigh and Sikkink, and Protestant approval, Griffin’s actions would be justified. As mentioned in the article, religion, though not the only factor influencing anti-abortionists’ behavior, was certainly a part of the reason many anti-abortionists “acted out.” The strong faith of the people, specifically Christianity, validated their actions, whether legal or illegal. It was Michael Griffin’s claim that upon seeing David Gunn in the gas station that fateful day, God asked him to warn the doctor of his wrong-doings. Griffin was apparently also told by God that Dunn’s punishment for taking so many lives, was to have his own life taken. Michael Griffin was just the man to do it. Strong in his faith, and even stronger in his beliefs, Griffin felt that his actions were justified to the Lord, and that no matter what happened to him on earth, he would have a place in Heaven. Unafraid of the consequences, Griffin even reported to the authorities not long after the murder, claiming that he had taken the doctor’s life.

Some Protestants, though not all, would agree with the actions of Michael Griffin. As the cartoon satirizes, people strong in their faith and moral codes even testified in favor of him at his trial. For those who believe in Divine Intervention, and those who believe in God’s prescence in everyday life, believing Griffin’s assertion that God had wanted him to shoot Gunn would not be difficult. It is for the reason of religion alone that Protestants may have agreed with the actions of David Griffin, actions that would usually have been defined as “heinous” and “evil.”

Anthony Lewis’ article, “Right to Life,” from the New York Times, reads very similarly to Risen and Thomas’ book, Wrath of Angels. Like the book, the article takes an obvious liberal standpoint, not only taking on the position that murder is wrong, but also that anti-abortion protests are wrong. A specific excerpt from the passage reads, “It is time to be serious about the menace of anti-abortion violence.” While the article mainly focuses around the death of abortion doctor David Gunn, it also Lewis criticizes actions of Michael Griffin, the man accused of murdering the doctor, along with the anti-abortion movement in general. In his opinion, the protesters “are religious fanatics that want to impose their version of God’s word on the rest of us.” He denounced their use of Biblical reasoning to make their point, and reported their unification of Church and State as unconstitutional. Clearly compatible with the book, both works would agree with the statement that violent anti-abortionists have gone too far. As Lewis claims in the article, they need to be stopped.

An article printed on May 10, 1990, also by the New York Times, entitled “95 Abortion Protesters are Freed,” discusses anti-abortionist actions in a much more objectified manner. The article consists mainly of stated facts about the arrest, trial, sentencing and release of anti-abortionists associated with the raid of an abortion clinic, led by Joan Andrews. Little bias is detectable, especially considering the inclusion of personal statements from Joan Andrews and her lawyer. Unlike Risen and Thomas’ book, the material in the article is presented in a way that allows the reader to make up their own minds about the actions of the anti-abortionists. The closing statement, “One leader of the protesters said a prayer vigil was scheduled at an abortion clinic in Burlington on Thursday morning,” even offers a way for the readers to express their agreement with and sympathy for the convicted protesters.

When searching for images on the anti-abortion movement, I discovered something: they aren’t easy to find. When I was searching the New York Times for articles however, my search was very bountiful. Though I’m not entirely sure as to the reason of this, I can attribute it to the ease of textual production. To write an article about an event, one must not necessarily attend the event, while it would be impossible to photograph an event without actually being there. Though the riots and protests were a big deal at the time, the number of people present at such events nowhere compared to the number of people all across America and beyond that heard about them. Text is also much easier to manipulate. Especially at the time, it was difficult to capture images of anti-abortionist activity in a way that would lead the viewer to only one conclusion. Images were open to interpretation by the viewer, and he or she could use his or her own personal beliefs to evaluate a photograph and form an opinion. Working with text however, allowed a writer to lead the readers in any way they wanted to. Overall, the text I found was much more diverse in opinion compared to the images. Though I realize my own personal beliefs influence my opinion, I felt that it was difficult to find photographs or images in support of the anti-abortion movement. I also found it interesting that everywhere I looked I saw the words “anti-abortion.” Though that may be the term deemed appropriate for such extremists, I had always known those against abortion to be called “pro-life.” In a way, I feel this use of language almost automatically denounces the actions of those against abortion. Instinctively one hears “anti” and a negative connotation is given, whereas if they had been called “pro-life,” a more positive connotation would have been given to them. Additionally, I’m curious to know how the protesters identify themselves, as “pro-life” or as “anti-abortionists,” and even if it matters at all. To me, the simple choice of words adds a great deal of disapproval to the actions described. Justified or unjustified, “anti-abortionist riots” sounds exceedingly more dangerous than “pro-life riots.” Ultimately, propaganda through rhetoric was (and is) extremely prominent, and it is understandable that it is still easier to find than images to this day.