Every once in awhile something happens in the United States that reminds me I’m not from here. Yesterday, it was Dr. George Tiller’s death. It’s funny, I am a feminist, and now a pseudonymous feminist blogger, but abortion rights has always seemed somewhat at a remove to me, likely because I grew up in a society where they were more or less taken for granted. Oh sure, there are people in Canada who don’t like the free access to abortions that we have come to simply accept. They protest outside of clinics too. We’ve had our share of physical attacks on doctors, though nothing so distressingly recent.
But it’s the reaction here that confuses me. It is downright shocking that President Obama has to backwash his condemnation with, “[h]owever profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion…” as though it could possibly mitigate walking into a Sunday church service and firing a gun, on anyone, for any reason. It is mindblowing that someone who describes themselves as an acquaintance of the killer would give their name and this statement to the New York goddamn Times and not be the subject of immediate arrest:
Commenting on Dr. Tiller’s death, Mr. Leach said, “To call this a crime is too simplistic.” He added, “There is Christian scripture that would support this.”
But what is most appalling to me that most pro-life reaction followed a single priority: deny responsibility.
From Troy Newman, head of Operation RESCUE:
“Operation Rescue has worked tirelessly on peaceful, nonviolent measures to bring him to justice through the legal system, the legislative system,” Mr. Newman said, adding, “We are pro-life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe.”
From Randall Terry, the famed anti-abortion activist:
“The pro-life movement must not be browbeaten by Obama or the child-killers into surrendering our best rhetoric, actions and images. We hold absolutely no responsibility for his death,” Terry said in a written statement.
From Missourians United In Life:
Today, MUL offers a prayer for George Tiller even as it condemns his action in life as an abortionist. MUL also condemns the murder of Tiller as an inappropriate and deplorable response to the terrible injustice of abortion. His acts are deplorable and should have been stopped but not by murder.
And so on, and so on. Horrifying.
What I saw on the message boards and comment sections that I was looking through while mulling over what I wanted to say was mostly people who would call themselves “moderate pro-lifers” wringing their hands about how they’ll be blamed for this. Apparently the nuts over at FreeRepublic believe that this murder is some kind of Machivellian plan to discredit them – and why shouldn’t they? Even the head of the Christian Defense Coalition admits the Tiller murder will set pro-life advocacy back in a far more lasting fashion than any pro-choice protest could.
Funnily enough, in other circumstances the pro-life movement seems to be all about taking responsibility, by which is meant women taking responsibility for their murderous whorishness. (I prefer to blame the cat for my licentiousness, myself. I tell people she needs a daddy.) You wanna have sex? You deal with the consequences, missy, up to and including compulsory pregnancy. (Note that dudes never seem to have to pay compulsory child support.)
They just don’t like the idea when it applies to, you know, them.
And before someone gets all up in arms and says I’m accusing pro-lifers of having sex with Randall Terry and birthing Scott Roeder, let me be clear on the one thing that is obvious: responsibility isn’t a zero-sum game. You can, indeed, be a little bit or a lot or anything at all short of being wholly responsible and still be responsible. Maybe not criminally responsible, maybe not even civilly liable. But responsible nonetheless.
This point seems to have been lost on the pro-lifers generally. Because the truth is, moderate pro-lifers, whether you like it or not, you are responsible for an atmosphere in which God’s law is believed to be unequivocally superior to the law of the land in all circumstances. You are responsible for the hysteria with which you frequently frame your argument. You are responsible for the fact that your condemnations are always weak, and more concerned with extricating yourselves from the mess than making sure it never happens again. You are responsible for the fact that for going on twenty years now, it has been clear, in comments left on your blogs, in letters you receive, in conversations you have with the people who attend your meetings, that people are out there who want to take your message to the next level. (And don’t tell me madmen pick arbitrary causes to pursue until you can find me a string of podiatrist killings.) You are responsible for the fact that you don’t report them to the police immediately upon suspicion of such activity. You are responsible for the fact that you regularly publish the home addresses and clinic addresses on the internet for the world to see under the faulty guise of “facilitating peaceful protest.” You are responsible for the fact that you let children be indoctrinated on this incredibly difficult issue at an early age.
Now, I could lecture pro-lifers on speech-act theory and cite Hammurabi’s code. But we are not going to end this business of being shot in church on Sunday morning over political disagreements – remember that whole civil rights business you natter on about when defending your right to protest? – by citing ancient texts at each other, because we have done that since Roe v. Wade and I’d be willing to bet not a living soul has been convinced by it. What we need to do to get the pro-lifers to stop is to point out specific actions they need to stop doing. We need to be pointing out to Operation Rescue, again and again, that they need to be on the lookout for these guys. We need to be taking down the names of the people who give quotes on how this was a deserved murder and forwarding them to the FBI. We need to be connecting those dots for them.
Don’t get me wrong. We need to spoonfeed these groups not because we are morally obligated to do so, but because in an imperfect world, they’re the best chance we’ve got at nipping these assholes in the bud. Personally, and maybe I’m the only one, I’d be happy to swallow my ego for a day or a month or a year and potentially waste some time convincing these pro-lifers that they are the ones who can make this stop, entirely. In a world of scarce resources and scarcer in the bravery required to do abortion work, we can’t afford to lose another Dr. Tiller.
We can’t afford to lose another Dr. Tiller because there is only one. His name is Dr. Hern and he practices in Boulder, and he’s the only person left to perform third-trimester abortions now.
I’m so angry at Obama’s weak-ass comment.
“Because the truth is, moderate pro-lifers, whether you like it or not, you are responsible for an atmosphere in which God’s law is believed to be unequivocally superior to the law of the land in all circumstances.”
I struggle to not condemn ALL “moderate” Christians in the same way as well. Even if religious fundamentalists are not a majority in the US population-wise, they have gained serious and devastating power in government over the past 30 years. I don’t understand how liberal, moderate Christians can continue to want to apply that label to themselves, considering all the damage done in their name.
Of course they’re denying responsibility. Responsibility is meaningless to them. I don’t see them helping to take responsibility for all the children who are already born and need help via adoption or foster care. It’s just easier to feel responsible for the “preborn”.
I especially “liked” how in the released statements that they were reading on CNN yesterday they kept saying “we don’t support vigilantism.” Talk about a wink wink, nudge, nudge, say no more, say no more way of trying to justify it without owning it. Our pop culture loves vigilantism, we romanticize, make movies about it, and bombard children with it in the forms of super hero comics/cartoons/movies! Why the hell would you dignify such an act by calling it vigilantism if you weren’t secretly thinking “Woot!”
Oh certainly no they don’t support vigilantism. They just post photos of women in clinic parking lots, license plates, and doctors’ home addresses out of boredom.
I found your post very interesting. At the beginning of your post I didn’t agree with you but by the end I see where you’re coming from. I’m a Canadian and as you know, here in Canada we just don’t frame the debate the same way. I’m sure there are people who would like too, and occasionally try but the general population just doesn’t accept that kind of religious, ideological argument. I’m pro-choice and I can only imagine how scary it would be to not have these kinds of basic health care services available. No one wants to have an abortion; it’s not something any woman sets out to have to deal with. I have always found it most frustrating when men are against these health care services since there is no chance a man will ever have to make that decision.
HistoricUpstart: oh don’t worry, we ‘moderate Christians’ struggle with this already. I tend to say “Follower of Jesus,” because so much has been done in the name of “Christianity” and so much baggage goes along with the term that I fear it doesn’t belong much to me.
“this incredibly difficult issue”
Is abortion “incredibly difficult” to understand? Even if there is an ethical quandary about “is an embryo human life blah blah blah” the only issue–and I must repeat myself, THE ONLY ISSUE–is whether or not women have the right to bodily autonomy. Either we/they do or we/they don’t. Neither the JudeoChristian god nor Hammurabi needs to enter into it. Women are sentient human beings. Full stop.
PhDork, I get your point, but while I do think only one law can govern here – i.e. women’s bodily autonomy – that law does not always lead to the same result – i.e. an abortion. And yeah, that makes it a difficult issue. It isn’t difficult to make laws about. But it is difficult as a lived experience.
I don’t know, I feel really conflicted about this point of view. I can easily put myself in the shoes of someone who feels so strongly about an issue that the taking of human life is acceptable, or as someone in a movement whose members engaged in violence even if I didn’t. Of course that it is the natural consequence of a political rhetoric from a movement that calls itself PRO LIFE is ironic, but isn’t that always the Orwellian way? I’m thinking about if these were left wing terrorists whose aims I believed in. If I were a member of the SDS conference would I be responsible morally for the deaths that resulted from bombs placed by offshoot groups? I think abortion rights kind of are a zero sum game; I’m not sure I agree with PhD that it all comes down to womens right to bodily autonomy and there is no legitimacy in the belief that “life” begins at conception. I think both positions are legitimate and I frankly think the pro life position just needs to yield to ours, but I don’t have any information that would change the mind of someone who thinks that.
Not sure if I am making sense. Your point about the “culture of responsibility” — absolutely right on, their view of humans is one of radical, radical individualism. The fetus is seen not in context INSIDE THE WOMAN”S BODY but as a willing, active rights holder. There is no context, there is no social construction, there is no such thing as SOCIETY (thanks Maggie Thatcher!), just Howard Roark-type monads living lives in which it appears they were never birthed out of a woman’s body at all, but spit out of the heads of god and their father fully formed, like Athena.
Upon reflection I see that you are really saying (I think) how disingenuous it is for these groups to disclaim responsibility. In a way I suppose I agree then; they should say yes, this is war, it’s the fetuses or the abortionists, and admit their ideology is a violent one.
Please, everyone, let’s stop playing their game and using their terminology. Today, of all days, it should be painfully clear that these people are not “pro-life”. They are anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-freedom. Take your pick.
Ugh, you can point out specific actions they should stop doing over and over again, call me a cynical nihilist if you must, but I just don’t think that’ll work.
I sort of can’t believe I am posting this, I totally loathe William Saletan and find him slimy and repugnant, as he is in this article, but he is sort of right about a lot of things and basically articulates the point I was failing to make above. If it is murder, killing Dr. Till is a potentially heroic — if violent and revolutionary — act. If killing Dr. Till wasn’t heroic, than abortion isn’t murder. http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/?from=rss
I realize I may attract some approbation for even countenancing the argument framed in anti-choice terms. But I sort of think it is a legitimate thing to have to think through, especially for people who WILL NEVER BE AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PREGNANT. Ahem. Sorry. Knee jerk male antichoicer rage.
@JD: no, I totally think that that is how this act will be (is being) received by more pro-life groups/supporters then is comforting to think about. i.e. as an act of heroism.
It’s fucking weak that they won’t just own up to their vigilantism. It’s interesting to note how Dr. Till’s accused killer started out as a general anti tax, anti government “activist” and then sort of latched onto abortion full time according to his ex wife (who left him in 1996 and was clearly not surprised by this turn of events); there is a kind of migration of all kinds of anti-government malcontents to attach themselves to the anti-choice community because its perceived as based in morality and they get a lot more community support than say a Timothy McVeigh would. Not too many priests and school children belong to organizations affiliated with any other domestic terror org. So I think there are a lot of volatile elements who are maybe less motivated by the precious babies and more motivated by a generalized and ill-defined revolutionary/paramilitary/vigilante (really, which one are they???) spirit.
“Responsibility” is a funny thing in the US. The way it makes sense to comfort someone is to say “you aren’t responsible for it” or “there was nothing you could do” or something similar. That’s just what seems to make sense. It’s as if the myth of “individual responsibility” is this enormous beast impossible to slay, because it is so pervasive, not because it’s empowering, but because it lets you free of your responsibilities to other human beings. I wish I could make a more coherent point about this, but I still haven’t fully come to terms with it myself.
Its like they are part anti government militia part religious theochrist (word?). Women are just the vessels for the future Christian soldiers. Shit, I’m depressing myself.
Yes, aspiring expat. There is some feminist legal theory (I’m forgetting who now, maybe Robin West?) that talks about how the whole classical Anglo-American legal superstructure is based on the experience of white landowning men who experienced the world responding to their will, and exhibited fear of responsibilities to others (managed and limited at every turn by contract and tort law). Women’s experience of life, it is posited, is marked by unchosen links to others, our autonomy mediated on an even physical level by sexual penetration (coerced, chosen or forced), pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding, child care. What’s interesting is that I think the legal tools necessary to secure the right to abortion are found embedded right in that old, classical liberal, afraid of our connection to others worldview — I have no duty to be a good samaritan to this alien fetus, I did not invite this fetus into my body, I have a proprietary right in my reproductive processes, I have a right to kill in self defense when another threatens my life or my property, etc. Why are they allowed to be terrified of responsibility to others but we are expected to give over our bodies and our very lives at any turn?
In particular, Operation Rescue appears to be protesting too much — http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2009/06/inside_the_car_of_the.php
Senior Policy advisor’s name and phone # on a piece of paper inside Roeder’s car, when asked about it said he hadn’t called her “lately.” But we still totally denounce him!
I’m with soalg. The entire conservative worldview is ultimately about avoiding the responsibility to engage in the real world as well as a fear of change. Social conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they don’t want to the responsibility of educating their children about differences. They oppose feminism and other liberation movements partially because they don’t want the responsibility of treating women, PoC, GLBT, etc. people as *people* and not as stereotypes or statistics. Their social schema is aimed towards recreating a myth when we didn’t have the responsibility of forging our own paths, deciding what lives we wanted — in Leave it to Beaver land, your life is exactly like everyone else’s, no need to think. Of course they’re not taking responsibility. They spend all of their time trying to avoid exactly that.
@funnyface: I live in Boulder now. I will check into how I can support Dr. Hern’s efforts to provide women with a CHOICE.
That Saletan article is outrageous and incendiary.
The 9/11 hijackers genuinely believed they were in the right when they attacked the U.S. They really, truly thought we were the great Satan!
But most folks recognize that their actions were deplorable, no matter how deeply felt their fanatacism.
[...] That’s Quite the Glass House You’ve Got There [...]
George Tiller’s work makes William Saletan want to puke. William Saletan’s work makes me want to puke. But. William Saletan recognizes the good that George Tiller did. I think Saletan’s point is that in condemning Tiller’s murder, anti-choice spokespeople are showing that they don’t REALLY believe “abortion is murder.”
I don’t know about that argument, though, Spark. I still think one can perfectly consistently think all murder is murder and be dedicated to peaceful solutions. I don’t talk about it much on this blog but I would generally identify as a pacifist – I need to get working on my vegetarian angle to that, because I’m inconsistent there – and so I don’t think that one automatically cedes ground when one makes a particular condemnation of one instance of murder.
I should add that I don’t agree murder occurs in an abortion situation, though.
@PhDork – YES, yes, yes. It’s ONLY about bodily autonomy. I wish more people were comfortable couching the “debate” in those terms. Because in my opinion, there is no debate with those terms. The discussion gets mired in all this other crap; it’s a clever diversionary tactic. We’re too busy defending against religious, scientific, moral arguments that we forget to bring it back to autonomy.
@mischiefmanager – YES. Anti-choice, anti-woman. That’s it. I’d like to see pro-life eliminated.
What’s it going to take to get the government to target Operation Rescue, and their ilk as domestic terrorists? Figure it out – there is NO OTHER civilian profession that is as targeted as abortion providers. None. Step it up, and create a culture of intolerance for this type of behavior. Not JUST the senseless murder of providers, but the systematic harassment of clinics, clinic workers, and clinic patients. Find the courage, and the resources to make a profession, that is not inherently dangerous, safe again.
Ugh. I’m really still very pissed off about this.
“Because the truth is, moderate pro-lifers, whether you like it or not, you are responsible for an atmosphere in which God’s law is believed to be unequivocally superior to the law of the land in all circumstances”
just thought i’d point out :
pro-life ≠ christian
ok?
I’ve been reduced to a ragey monster who only spews expletives after this but I just wanted to say that this was awesome – well-written and so perfectly on point. I know you guys don’t want an echo chamber here but I really just wanted to say this. Thank you, thank you for writing this!
Smileydragon, was not making that equivalency nor did I mean to imply it, no worries.
P.Soul, I understand that some people are pacifist, but I don’t think that one can hold up social movements to that ideal necessarily unless they purport to non violence exclusively themselves. With the anti-choice movement, they’re obviously trying to have it both ways. I’d respect them for being non violent and I might even respect them if they embraced the occasional use of violence (but I don’t in this case bc I disagree with the ideology obvs) but what I don’t respect is the cloying insistence on moral superiority, the supposed abhorrence of the violence of abortion when obviously they understand very well that violence can serve any cause, including their own.
Oh sure, JD. Actually I hold all social movements to a pacifist standard myself for lots of reasons I won’t get into here, but otherwise I agree with your statement. I don’t see the anti-choicers standing between Iraqis and bombs, for example. Their objection to what they deem violence is wholly local and specific. But I am just saying I don’t know enough about some of these people to say what Saletan says, that their condemnation of the murder betrays a bias WITHIN that local and specific context.
ANTI-choice is about denying women the basic right and responsibility to think of themselves as PEOPLE, and not just vessels for future possible human life. POSSIBLE, because not every pregnancy is viable, not every embryo is going to develop into a fully healthy human being, thus it’s statistically impossible to view every embryo as a ‘preborn’ human. It’s this twisted logic that makes me want to scream. It makes no sense to defend so fiercely the ‘preborn’’s rights, but deny society’s responsibility to care for the women and children that result in denying the right and responsibility to choose or not to choose motherhood from women. The outcry denying responsibility for Dr. Tiller’s murder is right on par with the anti-choice outcry denying responsibility for caring for any child after it’s born. It’s disgusting.
yeah that makes sense, PS.
Miss Pinot, it just makes it so clear to me that the hard line anti choice attitude is all about (broken record time) control of women’s bodies. I think that those weeks or months of pregnancy drive the patriarchy insane — the life of “their” offspring is completely within the woman, subject only to her will (except when she gets abused or murdered as pregnant women are wont to do). They can’t control it! It’s hidden from them! It has nothing to do with them! They just can’t stand it.
This was really well written, and the comments are really thought-provoking as well. I was at Dr Tiller’s vigil in Union Squ last night, and I felt like I was back in college again, lighting a Take Back the Night candle or something. One of the speakers mentioned how, when the news broke on Sunday, she heard it on her tv and thought “Oh, I didn’t know there was a retrospective on the choice movement on tv tonight!” because it didn’t occur to her that this was still a danger. That in 2009 people were still being gunned down for performing legal medical procedures.
I am very disheartened by Obama’s weak response (but that’s no surprise, I’m not a big fan of his) and the anti choice response has been, almost ironically, just as I predicted it would be. “We’re not responsible…but we agree with what happened…but don’t blame us…but he did what we all think should happen anyway…” etc etc etc.
It’s just all so tiring.
The thing I’ve been thinking about the last couple of days is how the anti-abortion rights (as AP style calls them) people don’t seem to get that these women are not whores who decided at 25 weeks that they didn’t want a kid. If Bill O’Reilly is really saying women get late-term abortions out of “depression,” then I will slap him personally.
Of course, some people don’t care if the kid has a 10 percent chance of living more than five minutes after birth, to be followed by countless surgeries. They’ll say “Oh but doctors are wrong sometimes! God can work miracles!” Yes, I have actually seen something very similar to that on a local message board. Sorry, person, but I’m going with medical probabilities over your God’s miracles.
J.D.Regent:
I have actually had a conversation with a nominally pro-choice man who told me that he would want a woman pregnant with HIS child to not have an abortion, but have the baby and give the child to him. To him, abortion of HIS child was not an option, but anyone else’s possible child–pfft, go right ahead! I pointed out the fact that the months of pregnancy had nothing to do with him, he wasn’t the one to go through being an incubator and the pain and indignity of a baby being born, or the social stigma of ‘abandoning’ your child; so the ultimate choice rests with the woman, always. His voice should have some weight, but it will not and never should be the deciding factor.
He didn’t get it. The right wing anti-choicers don’t get the fact that abortion has NOTHING to do with the males spouting the hate-filled retoric, but the females left with the decision to be or not to be pregnant, and possibly a mother.
It CONFOUNDS me – how they cannot see the BLATANT hypocrisy of their actions & words….
isnt it true that the bible more or less says..
“ONLY GOD CAN JUDGE”
it is NOT up to ANY human to judge – or play “god”
also what about the bible passage – and i’m paraphrasing here – …
“don’t point out the tiny splinter in your neighbors eye – when there is a full 4×4 plank in your own eye homie!”
so what if you think these people are “sinning” – let god sort em out…
mind your own soul.
*God must REEEALY like DUMB PEOPLE – Cause he made SO MANY of them!!!*