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

etibbetts post 10

Erica Tibbetts

Question #1: How did the anti-abortion movement evolve from the first reaction to Roe Vs. Wade until Pensacola? Why did this escalation take place? How and why did the protestors change their approach?

The anti-abortion movement started with non-violent, sit-ins and protests that aimed to raise attention to the movement and the leaders, but no to harm anyone or do damage. Organizations such as Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project led by Scheidler, John O’Keefe and Harry Hand, aimed at alerting the public of the “crimes and sins” they perceived to be occurring. O’Keefe staged sit ins- his crowning moment coming on November 17^th 1984 when, “forty-six people, including seventeen Catholic and Protestant members of the clergy were arrested, which at the time was the largest number of arrests for any one anti-abortion event” (91). O’Keefe had been active since the 1970’s and he never strayed from this sort of protest.

Michael Bray pretended to be a part John O’Keefe’s movement, acting in many of his sit-ins and adding his fervor to PNAP. However, while he was doing this he was also advising Thomas Spinks. The two began bombing abortion clinics in January, 1984, under the auspices of AOG, Army of God.

Bray said of himself and Spinks, “Before God, we both felt committed that we had to do all we could to save as many of these children as we could, short of destroying the human lives who took human lives” (86). After the first two bombings Bray had Spinks act alone, in order to keep himself distanced from the physical action of bombing. However, he still advised Spinks on where to bomb, and helped him store the materials he used.

Meanwhile he took a bigger role in PNAP. So, it was Bray himself he sort of started the downfall of non-violent anti-abortion movements in the north. After the November 17^th success, in which Bray did not participate, he heard about the arrests made and is recorded to have said, “Getting arrested. That sounds like something we should do” (88). When Spinks was caught, after bombing a site that PNAP had recently picketed, O’Keefe’s movement suffered a blow. Because O’Keefe could not and did not distance himself sufficiently from the bombings, he alienated certain members of the movement who were not interested in violence. About the bombings, O’Keefe said, “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 action take. (94)

After Brays’ arrest and incarceration, and O’Keefe’s wishy washy response, the PNAP movement struggled to make any more important anti-abortion actions.

About the same time as this was going on, however; Joan Andrews was starting her rise to stardom. She differed from the above mentioned activists in that she was a Catholic and they were Protestants, and the anti-abortion problem was traditionally viewed as a Catholic one, due to that sects idea of the wrongs of contraception, etc. Her actions, arrest, and behavior while in jail turned her into a martyr, appreciated by all religious activists, no matter their affiliation. While O’Keefe strayed away from damaging any property, and Bray headed towards the other extreme in his choice to blow things up, Andrews seemed to provide a sort of middle ground. Her actions consisted of filling abortion clinic door locks with super glue and damaging equipment (she was arrested for the latter). During her time in court and in jail, Andrews refused to do anything of her own volition, making police officers and jail guards carry her from place to place. This kind of behavior gained her a huge following and forwarded the message and prestige of the anti-abortion movement in ways that almost no other occurrence could have She was what Risen and Thomas call, “the movement’s first full-time intinerant protestor”(192).

One of the most interesting things about Andrews was her ability to unite the Protestant and Catholic religion: “It is one of the great ironies of the anti-abortion cause that fundamentalist Protestants, who until then had steered clear of anti-abortion activism in part because of their antipathy toward all things Catholic were finally mobilized by the plight of a woman who was feverishly Catholics: a woman who gripped her rosary beads at each moment of crisis, who felt the greatest punishment she could endure in prison was to be denied attendance at Catholics Mass” (188). Even while she was endlessly pacing her jail cell, she was strenthgening the bonds between fellow protestors.

After Andrews, Cindy and Randy Terry took center stage. They began picketing together with little more than their own persons and a few anti-abortion posters outside of Southern Tier abortion clinic in Binghamton. The authors mention an interesting statistic “In 1973 more than half of all abortions were performed in hospitals: by 1988, 86 percent of all abortions were being performed in freestanding clinics like southern tier and only 10 percent in hospitals” (244). The importance of this statistic is that it caused more demonstrators like the Terry’s to feel compelled to picket and protest outside of abortion clinics, because they were easier and more important targets. After being frustrated by very few successful attempt at convincing women to reconsider their decisions to abort, Randy Terry managed to enlist the help of Pastor Dan Little and his congregation. With this added support he founded “Project Life”- a non-profit organization that would help him fund his new obsession with picketing and protesting. The author’s state that Terry had a “heavy reliance on Evangelical rhetoric and biblical references” which helped attract religious groups and individuals (249).

As he became more confident and better supported, Terry moved on to bigger projects, naming his organization “Operation Rescue”. He managed to organize a boycott of the entire shopping center in which Southern Tier was located, he began locking himself and his followers into rooms, chaining himself to equipment, and basically becoming more and more invasive and confident with his tactics. After being arrested, he reveled in the media: “Their sit-in had generated more news coverage than Terry could have ever imagined, and he quickly became convinced that civil disobedience is the only path to successful protest in modern America” (254). After this he was arrested multiple times and saw his fame rise within the anti-abortion movement. He attended many meetings where Catholics and evangelists united, saying at one point, “For the first time I was at a pro-life meeting where I was no the token Protestant’ (259).

After garnering even more support he moved onto to mass protest organization. He first hit Cherry Hill, New Jersey, after being foiled a his attempt to get at Philadelphia clinics. He and about 400 protestors officially kept the clinic from operating until after 4 p.m. and only 210 of the protestors were arrested (263). After this he moved on to New York City, where he hit 3 different sites in the span of a week, and eventually angering the local police to the point where they started dragging protestors away from the site. He eventually overstepped his own boundaries and grew too big for his boots, becoming overstretched and ineffective.

After Terry and the peak of non-violent yet still highly invasive anti-abortion tactics, the anti-abortion killing sprees began. It started with Michael Griffin’s slaying of David Gunn, an act that he called “Providence”; “I knew he was getting ready to kill children that day. I asked the Lord what he wanted me to do. And he told me to tell him that he had one more chance” (339). Griffin shot Gunn three times, in the back and did it under the auspices of the following bible verse, ‘Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by his blood shall be shed” (340). After this, Shelley Shannon went on an anti-abortion rampage, detonating bombs all over the country and ending her spree in the shooting of George Tiller. While she didn’t succeed in killing him, she was tried and convicted of attempted murder. She confessed immediately to the crime, saying “If there ever was a justifiable homicide, that would have been it” (356). And this was exactly the motivation that spurred Shannon and the rest of the killers. They all thought they were doing the right thing in stopping what they perceived to be “murder”. None of them stopped to think of the consequences of the murder they themselves were committing, and all of them seemed to think they had God’s will on their side. Risen and Thomas write that, “Shannon’s transformation from a housewife participating in mainstream protest to a radical member of a new violent underground was, in many ways, a metaphor for the decline and fall of the anti-abortion movement itself”(349). She went from being committed and passionate, a great asset to the cause because she had few ties or restrictions, to becoming a great liability because of her over-zealousness and borderline mental breakdown. The killings that took the lives of not just doctors who performed abortions (Gunn, Britton, Tiller) but also patients, people aiding the doctors, and patients, turned popular opinion, the media and the government against the cause. With a liberal President in office, the anti-abortion lobbyists lost ground and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was passed, “making it a federal crime to block access to clinics or to commit acts aimed at denying a woman access to an abortion” (357). With this legislation, the lack of any sort of public support, and the conflict within the anti-abortion groups themselves over the issue of violence, the movement basically fell apart.

Question #2: McVeigh and Sikkink’s article argues that certain factors make Protestants approve of “contentious actions.” Apply their analysis to one of the individuals you have reads about in Risen and Thomas: Michael Bray, Joan Andrews, Randall Terry, Michael Griffin, or Paul Hill.
McVeigh and SIkkink argue that the single greatest factor leading Protestants to protest is their approval of “contentious action” however; after this first indicator, they are a little hazy on what exactly makes them approve or what (after their approval has been affirmed) makes them actually participate. A few factors such as a single mindedness about the kind of morality people should follow, the inherent sinfulness of humans, the idea of a God at odds with humanity, and participation in church related activities.

The authors mention that the main difference between being politically active by voting or functioning within approve, conventional foundations, and being politically active by protesting is “the contentious and disruptive nature of protest” (1426). People have to feel strongly enough about something, and have to feel sufficiently dissatisfied with the political framework in pace, in order to engage in protest type behavior. In quoting an earlier study, the authors point out that “Biblical Literalism and religious participation had a strong impact on the likelihood of participating in protest movements in the 1960’s” (1426).

The main things the authors are looking at are the connection between “a perceived threat to deeply held religious beliefs or values” and “specific religious beliefs that characterize life as a struggle between the forces of good and evil” (1427). In both cases, the correlation is being predicted to be positive. If people have deep seated beliefs and do not see these beliefs mirrored in the behavior of society, then they are more like to act; just as if they feel there is a fundamental struggle going on, and it is their responsibility to act.

Another thing McVeigh and Sikkink mention is the idea of “grievance interpretation”. Religion gives people a lens through which to view the world and the world’s slights. It also give people a group in which to gather support or be rallied towards a certain end. “Before collective protest can occur, a group must define the situation as one that can and should be addressed through collective action. Another important point that McVeigh and Sikkink mention is that, “A religion’s system of collective beliefs can be drawn upon to construct a worldview that legitimizes the use of contentious tactics” (1433)
The authors also mention the difference between different types of Protestant religion, saying that, “Fundamentalsits, for example, have developed countercultural religious netweorks, [which] de-emphasize the importance of bringing about social and political change” (1430). While evangelical groups are much more likely to participate and try to distance themselves from the perceived apathy of the fundamentalist mindset.

Also discussed is the idea of “moral absolutism” and a kind of “God vs. the world” mentality. If a relgion stresses the fact that modern culture is sinful and individuals tend to go against the will of God, then a member of this religion is going to feel at odds with society and be more likely to protest (1432).

There is basically a link between the vehemence with which a group feels destined to protect a certain value, and an individual’s link to this group, and protest. When a person feels they can relate with Protestant views, especially as an evangelical, and this person attends church or meetings often, then he or she is more likely to participate in some form of protest.

In the case of a person like Joan Andrews, who while not a Protestant, was a fervent Catholic religion was a foundation of life, a reason for being, something to lead ones life by, and something to drive one’s passion. She grew up in a home with lots of siblings, and was shown the sanctity of life when her mother had a miscarriage and the fetus was christened and buried. She identified with everything Catholic and saw abortion as an evil that God would disapprove of and that was as bad or worse than the murder of any other human being. She found an anger in herself that was bred by her identification as a Catholic. And because she had little else to tie her down, no money, family, job, she was able to dedicate herself to the movement. She threw herself whole-heartedly into this movement because she felt no apprehension about protesting, vandalizing, or being arrested. To her, these things were insignificant compared to the wrongs of abortion.

The Catholic religion itself is very clear in its opposition to abortion. Thus, it provides a very clear lens through which Andrews could view the act, and through which she could also see herself as responsible for fighting against the perceived evil.

Question #3: Using The New York Times,* find articles relating to a specific event that you read about in Risen and Thomas and examine how the event was portrayed in the Times versus how Risen and Thomas interpret it. What if any differences do you see? How would you explain them? Using a Google Image search find photographs of these events. Again compare the written description to the images you discover. Do you find different messages imbedded in the text and images? If so, how do you explain it?

Abortions, Bibles and Bullets, And the Making of a Militant

By DIRK JOHNSONSpecial to The New York Times

New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 28, 1993; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004)

pg. 1

In the case of Shelly Shannon, the Risen book portrayed her as a fanatic, a zealot, someone who took her daughter along to protests and got her arrested, someone who took her husband’s car while he was out of town, spent his money, did little but fight against the perceived evil of abortion. The book discusses her background, her marriage, her children, her married life, her family, her need to homeschool her children to protect their beliefs, etc. The book makes her seem like a full person, if deeply obsessed. Meanwhile, in the article I found on the New York Times site, she merely seems crazy. The tone is almost ironic; as if pointing to the moral dilemma that is posed by someone who kills for the sake of saving lives. The article has none of the bibliographical elements, none of the things that make Shannon whole, interesting and compelling. While in Risen, the reader can almost (almost) identify with the woman’s dedication, her desire to protect what she saw as innocent lives, in the article, the absurdity of the situation, the possible conspiracy theory, the plight of the injured doctor are stressed, and the woman is not sympathetic at all.

The title of the article, “Abortions, Bibles and Bullets, And the Making of a Militant” sets the tone immediately. There is no softening of the crime, no rationalizing, just this bold statement about violence and a contentious subject. A friend of Shelley’s tells the journalist that Shannon supported the recent, earlier killing of an abortion doctor. There is no defense of her character, just statements about her bail charge, where she is being held and what she did. Similar to Risen, Dirk (the author of the article) compares Shannon’s rise to violence with the changing attitude among all anti-abortion groups. She is described as the radical, the outlier, the one who signifies a change in the movement, and the one who is a problem with in it. The article describes her reaction to hearing about the killing of Gunn by Griffin. She thought it was the correct thing to do, and saw nothing wrong with murdering abortion doctors. She is also described as writing letters to those who were imprisoned as part of the invasive anti-abortion protests. All in all the article does not portray as complete a picture as does the Risen book, and the description of her and her actions is much more biased than in the book. This discrepancy probably arises for a number of reasons. Mainly, Risen has more space to describe Shannon, whereas Dirk has 2 pages, Risen has half a chapter. And, Risen seems given to a journalistic description of details, background, and explanation that Dirk cannot go into. Also, while Risen is by no means unbiased, he does attempt to show both sides of each anti-abortion activist. While Dirk attempts to show some of the frustration facing the anti-abortion movement, he cannot capture the full scope of the obstacle and problems these activists faced in trying to get their message across. Risen does capture this progression, and adding Shannon as the final step in the escalation towards violence makes sense to the reader of a full book, whereas in the article, the same progression is not clear.
As for images, I found on a “court tv website” http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/mugshots/indepth/shannon/. It has a composite picture of Shannon before the crime, a picture of the injured doctor being administered oxygen by paramedics, some anti-abortion signs, and then a mug shot of Shannon in prison. The image is a mixture of many different ideas. The doctor’s face, in the oxygen mask is probably the most telling, although it does compete with the text in the anti-abortion signs to catch the viewer’s eye. The text helps keep the image from entirely condemning Shannon as just another crazy, unjustified killer, but it is also an aggressive element that may or may not create a softer portrayal of her. It reads, “How old does a child have to be before you defend her with force?” This message is exactly what Shannon stands for within the anti-abortion movement. She is at the tipping point, where non-violent protest turned into frustrated, last ditch efforts, and murder. The mug shot is grainy and dull, making her look every part the killer. So, while the image is not entirely condemning it is not very supportive of Shannon.

Amanda D. Post # 10

1. Overall, the anti-abortion movement shifted from a focus on non-violent civil disobedience to violent extremism, especially as the core protesting organizations changed. John O’Keefe and the earlier Catholic protesters believed in a “merciful. . . Christ” (Risen and Thomas 78) and thus pursued and encouraged peaceful protest. However, when intensely religious Protestant fundamentalists such as Michael Bray began to make abortion into a fundamentalist issue, they approached it from the standpoint of believing in predestination and an “angry…wrathful Son of God” (Risen and Thomas 78). As the fundamentalists began joining the peaceful clinic sit-ins of civil disobedience protest organizations such as the Pro-Life Non-Violent Action Project, a rift in ideas formed. Many fundamentalists began to crave and take an aggressive approach toward stopping abortion, as they soon felt that sit-ins and disobedience were not doing enough to bring God’s judgment and justice upon the sinful “murderers” who got or gave abortions. Their goals became more “ambitious and brazen” (Risen and Thomas 90) and their tactics became more militant and violent, including clinic chain-ins and vandalism (including lock-gluing), spreading noxious fumes within the building, clinic bombings, and eventually, the shooting of abortion doctors. As peaceful tactics became overshadowed by militant and violent ones, new anti-abortion leaders took over, generally without permission, as spokespeople for the organizations founded by the peaceful protest leaders. This understandably caused more difficulty for the “public and media” in telling the “difference between” peaceful protesters and the increasing base of radical and violent protesters (Risen and Thomas 94). On top of this, the only media attention that was given to the anti-abortion movement was when a radical protester used showy and violent tactics that caused her or his arrest and/or the destruction of property or a human life. Therefore, this could be one of the factors that caused the movement to morph into violence and extremism, where no attention would be given to it otherwise. Especially after witnessing the events of Joan Andrews in Pensacola and her disobedience while in prison, people became more daring and extreme in their protesting of abortion and fundamentalists and Catholics found common ground (Risen and Thomas 188). Her actions and publicized arrest encouraged others such as John Burt, Michael Griffin, and Rachelle Shannon to make a real impact and to act violently against all who were involved in the abortion process. This marked the changing face of the anti-abortion movement into a radical and violent force which called for public attention. With the “martyrization” of violent protesters and the attention that came to be paid to violent and destructive acts, the number of extremist protesters and organizations of the movement, acting on what they deemed to be “God’s will” or “God’s justice” on earth, grew and came to the foreground, confusing public opinion of the anti-abortion movement between the peaceful and non-violent groups that used to dominate the scene and the violent, extremist groups that pulled down and destroyed the movement.

2. McVeigh and Sikkink seem to have found through their survey data that religious identity, “a lot” of church and some protest participation, and the belief in a tense relationship between God and the world including emphasis on the idea that humans are sinners, are factors that make one more likely to accept “contentious tactics” in protest acts than other Christians (McVeigh and Sikkink 1449). Michael Griffin happens to posses a number of these characteristics that McVeigh and Sikkink have connected to the acceptance of “contentious actions.” At one point in his life, Griffin became deeply associated with the Brownsville Assembly of God, a church which was instrumental in the “fundamentalist revival” (Risen and Thomas 340-341), and later became a part of John Burt’s fundamentalist church, Whitfield Assembly of God (Risen and Thomas 343). This particular religious identification (the fundamentalist and evangelical) is the one that, statistically, is the most likely to be related to cases of people who approve of such “contentious tactics,” (McVeigh and Sikkink 1449) and Griffin obviously did, having murdered abortion doctor David Gunn. Interestingly, though, other factors appear to have swayed Griffin into violent protest actions. He was mentally/emotionally unstable to begin with, having allegedly abused his wife and tried to kidnap his children from her custody (Risen and Thomas 341). This and his response to the power of anti-abortion images and propaganda are also key factors unrelated to any data gathered in the McVeigh and Sikkink survey that would no doubt influence his attitude toward “contentious” behavior and violence. After watching the “graphic” anti-abortion film The Hard Truth, Griffin was so affected that he felt shocked into the realization of what abortion really was and that he should do something to prevent it, as God would want (Risen and Thomas 341). Also, Griffin participated in church activities, one of the other characteristics that McVeigh and Sikkink link to the approval of “contentious actions.” Griffin sat in the front row during services and addressed the congregation to ask for a prayer request for the soul of David Gunn, to get him to “stop killing babies” (Risen and Thomas 343). While this is not intense involvement in a church activity, it certainly reflects Griffin’s active participation in the church, which shows his willingness to take charge and act on his thoughts and beliefs, as one would have to in order to stand during a service and make such a direct statement in request. Through his fundamentalist beliefs in a wrathful and angry God who is pitted against the sinful world, the influence of powerful anti-abortion propaganda films and images, aggressive church participation, and the influence of a spiritual leader such as John Burt, whose protest participation was great and violent (and perhaps a bit of mental instability), Michael Griffin possesses the characteristics that McVeigh and Sikkink found from their survey to be connected to the approval by a Protestant to “contentious tactics” in protest of an issue, here the issue being anti-abortion activism. So violent and publicly attention-drawing was Griffin’s murder of David Gunn that he is pinned with “flushing the extremist fringe” of the anti-abortion movement “out into the open” and destroying all “credibility or influence” of the movement through nonviolent means (Risen and Thomas 344).

3. The Risen and Thomas interpretation of the June and December bombings of the Ladies Center by Matthew Goldsby and James Simmons details more of the religious justification for and reasons as to why the men felt as if they needed to bomb the Center. It explains from a more personal standpoint than the Times articles do the background stories of the young men and makes it out to be more sympathetic than the articles. For instance, the book explains how the men felt “badly shaken” after watching the anti-abortion film The Silent Scream and how it made them believe that God had called them to act (Risen and Thomas 198). On the other hand, one Times article almost seems to mock the men while making them appear cocky, apathetic and emotionless, and even a bit unintelligent. This could be attributed to the fact that the book is not written to report a news story, as the Times is, but rather can take the time to weave a more personal account of the event and those responsible for it. Also in Risen and Thomas’s interpretation, the event itself seems rather un-shocking and even inferior to similar actions made by others, whereas in the Times articles, the events are made to seem much more important and on a larger scale than the authors of the book make it appear. The reasons for this could be due to the fact that the book accounts the progression and history of the anti-abortion cause, including what could be considered more serious and important and better-executed and effective in the overall history of the movement, descriptions that the Goldsby-Simmons case do not warrant when compared to the other events Risen and Thomas describe. Furthermore, a newspaper such as the Times would write about something small as if it was great and important in order to catch the attention of the reader and get him or her to adopt a certain attitude or opinion towards the event, and that seems as if this may have happened in the case of the coverage of the Goldsby-Simmons bombings. Plus, the anti-abortion movement has yet to reach its most violent and extreme form, so when reading the Risen and Thomas book there is already prior knowledge of events which are far greater and more significant than the one mentioned here, a foresight that those reporting as the event occurs have not. The Risen and Thomas text make the bombings out to be a dramatic event, but not one that warrants too much attention and not overly important when considering the history of the movement and the greater violence to come, while the Times articles make it out to be a greater deal than perhaps it really was in hindsight, making the men involved out to be just short of domestic terrorists.

Though I looked extensively on multiple databases, I could find no photograph from or relating to the Goldsby and Simmons bombings of the Ladies Center or of the other abortion providers. However, based on many of the images of other protests outside of the Ladies Center, particularly and overwhelmingly of Paul Hill, it can be argued that the images do hold more power over the viewer than the texts of both Risen and Thomas and the Times. The messages of these photographs do not seem to be any different from the text, especially since they are carefully selected to match the feeling of the texts which they usually accompany, but they can contribute a visual element that is easier for one to respond to and in a quicker time, be that response positive or negative. In the case of many of the Paul Hill photographs, Hill is viewed in an almost sympathetic light, sometimes with his family, sometimes protesting and promoting what he knows to be right, and other times defending his beliefs from jail, often with quotes that explain how he looks at his execution positively because it will bring him back to his God. In general comparison, the written descriptions in the Risen and Thomas book mirror some of these sentiments of occasional sympathy and justification for the actions made while those in the Times (or probably any other newspaper) will stick with facts but spin them to support whichever view the reporter personally (or editorial staff) has toward the event, presenting a bias when compared to the book, which tends not to support one side over the other but rather leaves the decision up to the reader.

Jessica D., Post 10

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 18^th and 19^th 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

Joe K Post 9

Part One:

The portrayal and controversy of homosexuality in film has undergone almost a complete turnaround over the past century. While in today's entertainment industry, it is not difficult to find movies portraying homosexual characters, and even less difficult to find intense debate on the merits of these portrayals, the entertainment industry of the early twentieth century very seldom turned its attention toward homosexuality. Barrios explains that there was no demographic demanding such portrayals, that "people who were bold enough to consider themselves gay and lesbian existed either behind locked doors or in the most ghettoized subareas of the population."(15) It is for this reason that there were so few depictions of homosexuality during this era.

However, things began to shift during the twenties. During that period, homosexuals were portrayed in a very blunt, often caricatured manner. This escalated during the early thirties, the period of films after the start of the Depression known as the "pre-code" era. In a response to the pre-code era's increased portrayal of sexuality and violence, the Roman Catholic Legion of Decency's protests resulted in the establishment of the Motion Picture Production Code. Among other things, the Code banned the portrayal of same-sex relationships.

For the next several decades, gay characters were portrayed with much more subtle performances. Film producers could avoid interference from the enforcers of the Code with longing glances and effeminate characteristics. Though it was officially prohibited, homosexuality remained in films, and long as it was portrayed in a specifically implicit manner.

It was not until the advent of the sexual revolution in the 1960s that these restrictions were questioned. When it became clear that the Code prevented the depiction anything that in any way resembled reality, filmmakers began to challenge it or even ignore it completely.

However, though the enforced silence of films on homosexuality came to an end, the things that it began to say were not entirely positive. The increased visibility of homosexuality resulted in a negative reaction from the general population, and this increased homophobia was reflected by the film industry. At worst, gay characters were the villains, or died at the end of the movie. At best, they were to be pitied, as the victims of a psychological disease.

As time has continued to the modern era, homosexuals have been given broader and less negative (though not entirely extensive nor positive) portrayals in films, due largely to changing attitudes of the general population.

Part Two:

When we see things happen in television of movies, we must accept them for the truth of the plotline. However, often, we tend to accept these things beyond the scope of their intent, and apply them to the real world. This is a completely unconscious process on the part of viewers, though it has profound effects on the beliefs that they may hold on a subject, especially if it is one with which they have no real life experience.

For instance, in the early twentieth century, most homosexuals carefully hid their sexual identity from the world at large. Since most heterosexual people, then, had never met a gay person, their only ideas about their behavior came from the screen. These ideas have become deeply rooted in society's psyche, and to this day, in some capacity, still inform modern stereotypes about homosexuals.

Analysis of the 1929 movie The Broadway Melody provides telling insight about that era's attitude toward homosexuality. The character Del Turpe, a costume designer, is the stereotypical gay male at the time: he has effeminate characteristics, especially "a voice that seems to drawl and whine simultaneously." (38) He is used often as the butt of jokes, whether it be for his voice or for his assumed fondness for the color lavender. This movie tells us two things about the portrayal of gay men during this era: 1) that they were considered to fit the sissy archetype, and 2) that they were to be laughed at and humiliated, not hated and despised.

In 1940, Alfred Hitchcock's movie Rebecca featured a lesbian housekeeper named Mrs. Danvers, who held a terrifying fascination with her dead mistress Rebecca. Granted, this was in the midst of the Code era of films, so Mrs. Danvers sexuality was not brought to the forefront of any discussions. However, she has an eerie fascination with any of her late employer's possessions-- in one scene she rubs the contents of Rebecca's still full wardrobe over her skin. The subtext available here is that homosexuality is not a normal love: it is darker and more obsessive than heterosexual love, because there is something wrong with it.

In 1961, The Children's Hour was released. The most compelling subtext in the movie was the idea that homosexuality was something to be ashamed of. When Shirley MacLaine's character confesses her love for Audrey Hepburn's, she shouts, "I feel so damn sick and dirty I can't stand it anymore!" (307) She eventually kills herself. While the subtext of the other two movies gave heterosexuals ideas to hold about gay people, this movie gave gay people ideas to hold about themselves, specifically, as Barrios aptly puts it, "that self-loathing is their only option."

Part Three:



This is a positive representation of homosexuality, as love that is as positive as any force. It does not imply any sort of degenerate ideas, only the affection that is present between the two men. This is not an artistic image, exactly, but it is captured in a fairly artistic manner, considering the choice of angles.


This picture is a much more negative portrayal of homosexuality than the first image. It cheapens and degrades the idea of homosexual love, instead reducing it to an object of ridicule. This is certainly a product of the culture industry. It attempts to portray homosexuality as vulgar by showing two men naked together, shamelessly laughing at the camera. Their faces are contorted in strange, almost subhuman expressions, and their is no evidence of a loving connection between them.

Morgan, Post 9

Morgan Frost

1.)The ever-changing portrayal of gay people developed throughout history predominately due to forces of social and political nature. Though there are recorded instances of homosexuals themselves altering the public’s perceived image, the amount remains minor. As is the theme throughout movie history, the monumental “sense of identity that came with the rise of the Gay Liberation, (was) in no way reflected on screen” (Barrios 363). Instead we see a separate realm of homosexuals in their portrayal through the cinema. It is debatable whether the changes these portrayals took were a product of historical forces or rather events that coincided with historical events, but there is no doubt that the historical aspects had an influence on the changing views.

The first of these historical forces is the coming of Broadway and sound. Broadway helped “(institute) a tradition of gayness in musical film” (Barrios 41). The effeminacy of song and dance in the musical plays were adopted into the movies, and have a similar effect as the flamboyance of previous silent films in the portrayal of homosexuals as comical. Sound, however, offered a different influence. By adding an element to characterization, the vocal, the actor casted can offer a “more vivid (representation) than the simple mockery of silent films” (Barrios 42). Instead we have the development of a gay character, with specific traits such as a lisp; and the door is also opened for the vocalizations to be the vessel of communicated thoughts of gays.

Next is the coming of “The Code” in 1930. This is the Production Code of the MPDDA which advised the content of movies in adhering to moral standards as determined by its officials. This coincided with the Depression, and can be seen as an attempt to maintain structure and value in a time of its rapid decrease. “Homosexuality (in movies)—termed ‘sex perversion’ in the Production Code guidelines,” adapted by forming a “more expansive and varied” array of depictions to be viewed as the Code was installed (Barrios 52, 80). The purpose of the Code, however, was barely a ghost in its actual execution. Instead during the Depression, in order “to lure cash-poor spectators into movie houses, the movies became rawer and racier, sometimes more adult.” With this we can observe not a desperate obedience to the Code but a “nose-thumbing defiance of it” (Barrios 55). The 30s found the Code “having the exact opposite effect of its original intent…and alternative sexuality had become commonplace and accepted by audiences” (Barrios 122). It is important to note, though, the difference and the connection between “acceptance” and “acknowledgement” (Barrios 59). Yet movies continued to contain gays, thus acknowledging their presence in America, and the more this was seen on screen, the more it is believed to be accepted more readily.

With World War II came even more diverse changes. “The war gave (homosexuals) an opportunity to escape, to meet, to find themselves and be themselves” (Barrios 167). Recruiting companies even performed drag acts, sending the message that gays were allowed to “serve while being themselves.” With the war progressing, America entered an escapist mindset, yielding a “delirious and mostly gay-friendly” attitude (Barrios 175). This attitude was reflected in films of the time, with 40s films such as Star-Spangled Banner, and This is the Army. Homosexuality had become almost expected in the lives of servicemen and servicewomen. The time of escapism, though, opened another door to the negative side of gay portrayal in film. Film noir had begun to put homosexuals in a much darker light. They were no longer the non-threatening “pansies” of the past, but with more visibility onscreen came representations full of “corruption, weakness, and in some cases genuine evil.” Homosexuals were playing larger roles, but at a higher price, as the “true demonization of gays by film” had just begun (Barrios 212). With Hitchcock producing another version of Rope, real-life homosexual villainy was resurrected and put on screen in movies that reflected past cases such as Loeb and Leopold, the thrill-killing gay couple. Here the end of the forties marks a time when “gay ceases to be good” (Barrios 212).

In 1969 came a different breed of historical force—one with homosexuals behind it. The Stonewall riots in New York set the wheels in motion for a social revolution. Though progress was slow, homosexuals were finally altering their own image. “Groups started forming, discussions opened up, and existences were rethought” (Barrios 347). In a century where the driving forces behind changing views on homosexuals were typically social and political, the later years brought power to homosexuals in the portrayal of their own image.

2.) “How to Look at Television” offers Adorno’s insights on the messages delivered by the media. His work identifies the overt messages advocating the adherence to the status quo that characterizes successful media. According to Adorno, though, “the hidden message may be more important than the overt since this hidden message will escape the controls of consciousness, will not be ‘looked through’” (Adorno 221). This is to say that the overt message can be merely a vessel through which the work is distributed to the consuming public. The purpose of the underlying subtext, however, is to be absorbed; yet it still “aims at reinforcing conventionally rigid and ‘pseudorealistic’ attitudes similar to the accepted ideas of more rationalistically propagated by the surface message” (Adorno 222). Throughout history, these surface and hidden messages can be seen to provide audiences with certain views on gays in homosexually-oriented films.

In the 1912 film Algie, the Miner, the overt text shows viewers the passage to manhood that must be completed in order to earn a woman. The main character Algie, possessing suggestively effeminate characteristics, must achieve a level of masculinity before he is worthy to marry his girlfriend. Through his successful journey we see the change to another message—one holding much more weight than the simple audience-pleasing plot. The subtext presents the view that homosexuality or homosexually-inclined behavior can and should be “cured.” As recognized by Barrios, this becomes a common theme in films all the way to the present day. In this case Algie’s feminine nature is unacceptable if he is to follow a normal and what is deemed successful path. He must quit his flamboyant character in order to assume the masculinity of a true heterosexual man. It is like he is putting on a costume, and Algie’s transformation is meant to be believed by the audience, regardless of the absurdly unrealistic point of a homosexual man being “cured” of his gayness. Nonetheless, this film satisfies Adorno’s analyses on the media’s depiction and influence to maintain the accepted standards of society.

A later film depicts a similar surface message of naivety, but with a hidden message containing aspects of lesbianism and the way femininity was defined during the time. The naivety of Doris Day in the 1953 musical Calamity Jane is like that of the character Algie just discussed. Almost as a mirror of Algie’s effeminacy, Jane’s personality embodies the term “masculine”—from the physical traits of her clothes, gestures, manners, and slang, to the emotional and sexual curiosity she possesses towards actress Allyn McLerie. The overt message of Calamity Jane is one of amusement through the humorous comparisons illustrated between “butch” Jane and the fragile Katie. The musical seems to merely be poking fun at a naïve tomboy—quite successfully, too, since Jane is a buckskin-wearing, hunting country person while Kate is a dress-up, lipstick-wearing girl from the city. The surface message is not taken too seriously because Jane’s homosexual behavior is made light of as something that she learns to suppress in the end of the movie. While her homosexual nature is being made comedic, the message can be seen to take a deeper meaning in its hidden agenda. The insinuation that Jane’s “tom-boyness” is out of ignorance and something that one must be taught to be free of results in implications that fit into the same view on homosexuals present 40 years earlier in Algie, the Miner. The latent message still purports to “cure” the possibly homosexual girl of her queer ways by imposing the traditional status quo of femininity upon her ruggedness. This is exactly what Adorno addresses in “How to Look at Television” as he discusses the purpose of the message to direct the audience that “one has to adjust oneself at any price” to the standards accepted by society (Adorno 220).

The 1943 musical This is the Army was meant to boost public morale for America during World War II. It contained performances “done all in fun and all in drag” (Barrios 175). Where the obvious message is exhibited in order to show the excitement, cheerfulness, and carefree experiences that can be had in the army as a distraction to the depressing and morbid aspects, the message takes on a new form when viewed at through a homosexually-aware lens. The musical subconsciously—or consciously (depending on the audience member’s position as a consumer or an analyst of the film)—depicts the presence of homosexuality in the armed services. The social position on the issue is one of feigned ignorance—the notion that it is ok if kept behind closed doors. And so the army has become a safe haven for homosexuals to exist as long as the relationships are confined within the time they serve. The implications of this stance are that those in the armed forces transcend the requirements of the status quo. The status quo of the army becomes the detachment from the status quo back home. Homosexuality thus remains something that can be added or taken away from a person, much like the depictions of homosexual characters in the earlier Algie, the Miner and later Calamity Jane. Homosexuality is also portrayed as something that is still not acceptable if taken on as a true lifestyle, but only if it is something to resort to in desperate times like war.

The messages of a movie change when transitioning from the overt to the hidden as a result of their purposes to the audience. Where one may be simply to entertain, the other provides commentary and instruction from the social perspectives of the particular time.

3.)

Source

This image is meant to depict the physical and emotional connection between two homosexual men in a positive light. The placement of the hands suggests fondness of one another as the couple displays a loving relationship. Though being naked is the obvious indication that their embrace is sexual, the position of their bodies is not one of homosexual intercourse, and so we can see the men are embracing out of emotional motivation as well as sexual desire. In culmination, the aspects of this image send the message that homosexual relationships possess elements of connection beyond the person’s sexual preference, but deeper into the emotional realm.

Although this is an artistic and near-perfect representation of the male body, the blunt homosexual nature would deem it a degenerative piece of work by the Nazis. It can also be used as a “culture industry product.” The site mentioned uses it as visual decoration in its advertisement of the gay haven Costa del Sol. Thus it can still be viewed as a work of art, but it is employed here to appeal to the gay audience as a cultural product. In this way its message is also changed, not as one showing the deep connection between these two males, but as more of a surface message that means to appeal its audience into realizing their own sexual desire will be catered to in that location.

Source

This picture is a negative representation of the judgments made on people simply based on sexual orientation. The point is that people do not choose to be gay, and a baby already being gay illustrates this point. But the negativity comes from the way people view homosexuality. Many parents find it hard to accept their children as gay, often trying to “cure” them. This baby is thus less desirable simply because of its alleged sexual orientation. It is important to note, however, that the picture can be used in a positive manner as a “culture industry product” in order to raise awareness and combat homophobia. Used in this way, the negative image is used in way that exceeds the standards of visibility from the Celluloid Closet, making a point in support for homosexuals.