RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Operation Rescue, Jill Stanek: Only Too Happy to Aid and Abet

Emily Douglas's picture

Anti-choice groups across the nation are busy insisting that since they didn't personally pull the trigger, their protests, harassment, and hate speech are not to blame for the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.  Yet some anti-choice activists -- even now -- seem only too happy to aid and abet the crazy ones who will resort to violence.   Or else why, three days after the assassination of a medical doctor who provides late-term abortions, did Jill Stanek post on her blog photographs of the clinic of Dr. LeRoy Carhart, another physician who provides late-term abortions and who has said he is willing to take over providing services at Dr. Tiller's clinic?

By way of introduction, Stanek writes, "Let's take a station break to view photos of Carhart's "nondescript building," taken in March 2009 on the day it reopened following refurbishment after a fire (NOT blamed on pro-lifers). It was almost immediately shut down because Carhart reopened without getting an occupancy permit, as I previously reported, and was running his electricity off a generator..."  She and her readers just want "to take a look."  Why?  She wants to prove her point that it's a dingy building?  Over Carhart's safety, and the safety of his staff and patients?

Combine that with Operation Rescue senior policy advisor Cheryl Sullenger's admission, just reported by McClatchey, that she provided information to suspect Scott Roeder about Tiller's planned court appearances when Tiller was tried for performing illegal abortions.  (Sullenger's name and the Operation Rescue phone number were found on a note in the dashboard of Roeder's car.)  "[Sullenberger] said Roeder’s interest was in court hearings involving Tiller.  'He would call and say, "When does court start? When’s the next hearing?" ' Sullenger said. 'I was polite enough to give him the information. I had no reason not to. Who knew? Who knew, you know what I mean?'” 

Who knew?  When Tiller was on trial in mid-March of this year, local police had -- thirteen years ago -- found materials to make a bomb in Roeder's vehicle.  On Operation Rescue's own website, in a page dating back to 2007, a person identifying as Scott Roeder had posted a comment saying, "Bleass [sic] everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller."

In other words, Roeder had a clear history of intention to commit violence and an avowed commitment to "bring[ing] justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp."  And Sullenger was still "politely" handing him information about Tiller's whereabouts?  Just as Jill Stanek is now still posting photographs of Dr. Carhart's clinic?  As if they needed reminding, the antis now know exactly how low their brethren can stoop.  Should they really be giving them more ammunition? What does the so-called pro-life community say about the posting of these pictures now? 

If another act of violence is committed, will they disavow that?

UPDATE 6/04/2009 4:00pm ET: Rachel Maddow discussed Roeder's connection to Operation Rescue on her show last night.


. . . . .
78 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

... a good attorney and a flush bank account. You've just put RH Reality Check in the path of a libel lawsuit. I'm just disappointed you didn't go after LifeNews.com. We could use the money, too, from a defamation suit victory. I guess this kind of personal smear attack is what we can expect from those frustrated with the fact that five recent abortion polls show you and your fellow abortion proponents are becoming increasingly out of touch with the mainstream of America on abortion. And, now, out of touch with reality. Go Jill!

Submitted by Steven Ertelt on June 3, 2009 - 3:33pm.

There are no grounds for a libel suit. If it's true, it's not libel in the U.S.A. What did you read up there that was untrue? Take your stupid threats elsewhere, thug.

Submitted by W. Kiernan on June 3, 2009 - 5:15pm.

Even the truth, when employed in a malicious manner to cause damage to a reputation, can be suitable grounds. So you want to blame Jill for this? So she exposes the "unsafe" in what the abortion industry calls "safe" a safe environment -- shouldn't that do your cause good by fixing a problem? Get real -- you keep making enemies by pretending that all criticism causes violence. Makes you look like a nut.

So you want to accuse Jill Stanek of *knowingly* providing information that would lead to a murder? That appears to be clear in your statement, that "Jill Stanek" was "Only Too Happy to Aid and Abet," and that is false. That is accusing her of criminal activity. I hope Jill calls her lawyer.

Submitted by Collinb on June 4, 2009 - 8:58am.

A small minority think abortion should be illegal, and that has not changed. Almost no one thinks heinous crimes like assassinating physicians is warranted. Using a murder to promote your website is pathetic.

I have one minor correction to the original post. He was accused of performing alleged illegal abortions, but was acquitted on all charges.

Submitted by MomTFH on June 3, 2009 - 6:10pm.

1) Polling Company survey of 800 adults from May 17-18, 3.5 percent margin of error:

The poll found 55 percent take one of three pro-life positions saying that all abortions should be prohibited (10%), abortion should be legal only in cases to save the life of the mother (16%), or abortions should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother (29%).

Just 41 percent took one of three pro-abortion positions, with 26 percent saying abortion should be legal for any reason within the first three months of pregnancy, 8 percent saying abortions should be legal within the first six months of pregnancy for any reason, and just 7 percent agreeing with President Obama that abortions should be legal for any reason throughout pregnancy.

2) Rasmussen Reports Survey released on May 5: found 58 percent of Americans say abortion is morally wrong most of the time. Just twenty-five percent disagree and the rest had no opinion. The survey found women are more strongly pro-life than men as 64 percent of women believe most abortions are morally wrong, a view shared by just 51% of men.

3) May Gallup poll finds 51% of Americans calling themselves pro-life and just 42 percent saying they are "pro-choice" and supporting legal abortions. The poll finds a plurality of women say they are pro-life -- with 49 percent saying so and just 44 percent saying they are "pro-choice."

4) May 12-13 Opinion Dynamics survey: It found 49 percent of Americans say they are pro-life while just 43 percent say they are "pro-choice."

5) Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll conducted March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults:

The Pew poll found 46 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in most cases (28%) or all cases (18%) and 44 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%). That two point margin in favor of abortion is the lowest margin since 1995 as Pew, and other polling firms, have been asking the same polling question of Americans across the country every year.

I know you're upset that you are in the minority, but the facts are the facts.

Submitted by Steven Ertelt on June 3, 2009 - 6:23pm.

I'd be interested in knowing a lot more about those reports and how the various terms were identified. I say this because "pro-life" doesn't always mean "anti-abortion." I consider myself to be pro-life AND pro-choice, because I don't agree with abortion and I would prefer to see the number of abortions performed every year drop to the lowest number possible (because, let's face it, there will ALWAYS be some, legal or not.)

I also believe, however, that it is imperative that because there will be women who will choose to have an abortion, that we ensure abortion is legal and regulated so that it is as safe as possible for the women who choose that route. I wouldn't object to certain reasonable limitations on it (such as restricting late-term abortions to only those cases where the woman's health or well-being is endangered)

So, depending on how the questions were asked and what operating definitions the people being polled were asked, some who think abortion should be legal even though they personally disagree with having an abortion could show up in the "pro-life" column. I suspect there are a lot more of us in the kind of "middle" column here than you might imagine.

Submitted by AlexL on June 4, 2009 - 8:02am.

10% of those polled believe abortion should still be illegal even when the mother is going to die and an abortion would save her life. That is an absolutely appalling finding.

If a little under half of the total of those polled are 'pro-life' that means of five pro-life activists, 20%, one out of five would rather see a woman die than see action taken to terminate the pregnancy EVEN WHEN THE FETUS WILL DIE ANYWAY together with its mother. There is an appalling indifference to the value of the woman there - particularly when you consider that approximately 3% of pregnancies are ectopic. There are 6,000,000 pregnancies a year - that's 180,000 women who would die annually for no sensible reason whatsoever.

Submitted by crowepps on June 4, 2009 - 4:58pm.

As values of a modern society include professional self-realisation and independence, such woman is successful in work, is ambitious and even is arrogant, the woman is persevering, persistent, aspires to growth and development in all.

After all look, the western civilisation defines value of the woman to that the woman is means of satisfaction of low requirements of the person. Value of the woman is measured in Islam by spiritual beauty and perfection.

Submitted by Yogi Nurito on July 19, 2009 - 7:45pm.

n/t

Submitted by independentminded on July 29, 2009 - 9:15am.

That Pew studies that anti-choicers love to cite does not say that the majority of Americans identify as Pro-life. If you read the study (though I doubt right-wing extremist can read)it says that more Americans believe that abortion should be legal, but limited. There is a big difference.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 3, 2009 - 9:06pm.

 

We could use the money, too, from a defamation suit victory.


Oh Steve, you big bully, those lawyers from Liberty University couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.

 

 

 

 

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on June 3, 2009 - 9:35pm.

You put out a press release the other day saying that Scott Roeder was not a member of any pro-life groups. He may not have been a member, but, as we both know, groups and members are both a rather fluid thing in the radical pro-life movement since the Operation Rescue RICO case. I sent you an e-mail with links to news articles demonstrating that Operation Rescue fellow-travelers knew who Roeder was. Now, come to find out, not only did they know who he was, they'd been talking about him recently. I came very close to sending you another e-mail tonight, but decided not to waste my time since you hadn't answered my first e-mail.

So, Steve, do you answer your e-mail? Would you care to respond to the fact that your press release was nowhere near the truth as far as Roeder's connections to the radical pro-life community? I'd really like to know.

P.S. I'm not intimidated by you and yours. I've been harassed by pros aka the "cult of greed and power." You guys are pipsqueaks by comparison.

Submitted by Deana Holmes on June 3, 2009 - 11:21pm.

for you to post some of those links? I'd be very interested in seeing whatever new information there is about Roeder - I'm trying to put some information together for a newsletter-type thing.

Thanks!

Submitted by AlexL on June 4, 2009 - 8:08am.

Steve, did you say something about defecation of character?

Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2009 - 11:52pm.

The next time there's violence in the name of "pro-life" causes, keep an eye on the suspects list. "Steven Ertelt" might just be on it, and we can all say, "told you so".

Submitted by Nunuv Yerbizness on June 7, 2009 - 4:29pm.

Shame on those who are exploiting the death of George Tiller and using it as an attack on the majority of Americans who are pro-life and also peaceful, law-abiding people. One vigilante extremist doesn't represent the millions and millions of people who support women and children and abhor abortion. But I guess it's easier for some to just paint half of America with a broad brush than to actually defend their position without personal and baseless attacks. How sad. Those who are using this fallacy of composition argument against pro-life people owe millions of Americans an apology for their shameless exploitation of this tragedy that everyone is condemning, including pro-life people.

Submitted by EmilyD on June 3, 2009 - 3:47pm.

This is the eighth reproductive rights worker assassinated and you are pretending that the anti choicers are the victims here?

Blindly, selfishly pathetic. When someone sets fire to where you meet, when you have to wear a bullet proof vest, get back to me.

Jill Stanek is trying to aid and abet the next assassination. Which side are you on? The side of life or death?

Submitted by MomTFH on June 3, 2009 - 6:14pm.

Can you provide visual or audio evidence of hateful speech and actions of the Defenders of Life, the Pro Life groups? For example, you list the Pro Life Group, Priests for Life, as being to the far right of extremism when protesting the Pro Abortion groups. Could your problem with this group be the fact it sticks to the truth, doesn't change it's beliefs, or rhetoric and its members belong to one of the most impressive, dignified of the Pro Life Groups? You are bashing a religious group when you do this. You would in no way, do this to another faith. You also include as one of the far right groups, The Right to Life group. Somehow I can't see either of these groups as the "getting in your face" kind. Again, can you provide visual/auditory proof of actions you claim they are guilty of?

I am surprised you haven't included as another group you fear, the 40 Days March for Life which has become so well known. These people are so proud and happy if they save 2 or three lives of babies at abortion clinics.

I find it sad that we Pro Lifers are limited to celebrating the success of saving two or three lives of babies while the Pro Abortion groups celebrate the millions they have allowed to be killed in the name of health care and women's rights. What does this say for us, for our civilization, for our nation?

Those of us who believe in Life from conception to natural death say it is a sad commentary on one of the richest nations in the world.

Unmarried, or single mothers have never been supported throughout history. And now all our "so called" ADVANCED society can offer as help is the brutalization of a woman's body and the killing of her child.

What would it be like, I wonder, if the GOVERNMENTAL money used to support "women's rights" to abortion was spent for real emotional support, health care, economical support for those women and children that need it instead of encouraging women to think that abusing their bodies and killing their children is the only way to solve an unwanted child?

Perhaps we would have a society and civilization of LIFE and not the ones of PRO DEATH we now have. Think about it.

Submitted by Elaine S. on June 3, 2009 - 9:53pm.

As Dr. Tiller just proved to his great cost, pro-choice activists tend to be rather fearless.

Submitted by Mary O'Grady on June 4, 2009 - 9:49am.

Why do you people have to twist polls and words to make your point? No one "celebrates" abortions. There are a lot of people who believe in a woman's right to choose, and they defend that LEGAL right; but it's disingenuous (yeah, just another day in the office for you folks) to equate that with "celebrating" abortions.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2009 - 8:48pm.

What it would be is very, very, expensive. And the minute we would actually try to do so - your side, the conservative right wing - would be screaming about welfare queens having more babies to keep getting their government checks.

Submitted by phylosopher on June 12, 2009 - 10:07pm.

RH Reality Check has done nothing wrong. They are not libeling anyone. If anything, they are reporting the facts as they come in.

Jill Stanek should be arrested and prosecuted for terrorism. And if convicted, she should be executed for it!

Submitted by Jovan Byars on June 3, 2009 - 4:57pm.

Take a look at your comment. Does it promote terrorism, or peace?

Submitted by Anonymous on June 3, 2009 - 10:09pm.

If you honestly believe that Jill Stanek is responsible for causing people to kill others, then what about the anti-military recruiting orgs? Should they be held libel for the murder of the dude down in Arkansas? I hope not - I was involved with one such group years ago.




From your blog: Folks, Troy Newman and his ilk are telling a bold-faced lie about Mr. Roeder and his ties to the group. Mr. Newman knew that Mr. Roeder was part of his group. And Mr. Newman, like every other anti-abortion activist in America, blatantly aided and abetted Mr. Roeder in his terrorist crime spree.




First off, while even one homicide is tragic, it doesn't make a crime spree. And if the investigation determines that Troy Newman "and his ilk" weren't lying and Roeder wasn't tied to them, then your statement could be considered as somewhat libelous, could it not? I mean, you're basically accusing people of helping to murder someone...




From your blog: The anti-abortion movement is a movement that engages in acts of terrorism on a strikingly similar scale to that of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.




While each death committed by both fringe extremist anti-abortion activists and fringe extremist Muslims, the scale of attacks and breadth of support is undeniably much larger for the radicalized Muslims than what the Army of God and its lot have done. To say its on a similar scale is statistically ludicrous.




On a side note, I want to ask you if you see any conflict between your supposed strong feminist leanings and the statement on your blog that your favorite TV show is the "Victoria Secret Fashion Show." I've never watched it (no TV), nor would I care to. There is plenty written about it online though and from what I read, its basically a contest to judge female bodies on a false construct of what is beautiful or sexy. "Sex positive" feminism does not mean "feminism that still supports the sexual objectification of womens' bodies."




Also, if this is your MySpace profile - http://www.myspace.com/pantysniffer2002, then I want to ask you: what do you mean by "looking up girls' skirts"? I agree with Amanda Marcotte when she wrote this, and you should really take a look at it - http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/creative_misogynists_still_u...

Submitted by pro-life atheist is making a point to jovan on June 4, 2009 - 4:10am.

Was not demonized by name night after night on a major liberal news program. There were not websites devoted to demonizing him. His address and picture were not posted online for anti-military lunatics to know where he lived, got his dry cleaning and worshipped at church. His murderer was not part of an organization that obsessed about him night and day. There is not a long list of murders of military recruiters by leftwing organization members, or anyone.

It is most certainly NOT the same. It is also interesting that for a couple of days the rightwing gets all indignant about bearing any responsibility for Tiller's murder and then once this happens, turns right around and tries to blame the leftwing, destroying the original argument that FOX News and Operation Rescue cannot be held responsible. You can't have it both ways.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2009 - 1:41pm.

I wasn't blaming TV news. I was saying that certain anti-military recruiting organizations have gotten pretty vicious in their portrayal of members of the military, ignoring the fact that many are in the services because they had little alternative choice to go to college. That (and the increasing scrutiny by federal investigators into anti-recruiting orgs nationwide) is what led me to leave the one I was involved in.

Submitted by pro-life atheist on June 28, 2009 - 3:00pm.

Jill Stanek should not be prosecuted.

She should be shot in the face in her church.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 7, 2009 - 8:01pm.

Jill Stanek should not be prosecuted. She should be shot in the face in her church.

 

As much as I despise Jill Stanek and other people like her and her colleagues/friends in Operation Rescue and other anti-choice movements, that's going too far, imho.   Cool it, OK?  This coming from a pro-choicer who's also one of the biggest free speech advocates on Planet Earth. 

Submitted by independentminded on July 29, 2009 - 9:22am.

The politics of personal destruction is alive and well. What has our nation come to when good people who have nothing to do with, and have condemned, a crime are now accused of assisting it and the person making the false accusations is defended? This is sick.

Submitted by AndrewT on June 3, 2009 - 6:16pm.

What exactly are the false accusations you are accusing Ms. Douglas of making? As stated above, she is merely reporting fact. Or are you just upset that someone has called Jill out for the hate-inspiring rhetoric she frequently spews. I also find it interesting that you find this article sick. What is really sick are the people defending Dr. Tiller's assassin.

Submitted by darla on June 3, 2009 - 7:02pm.

Where in any of the comments made can you infer that those of us who are Pro Life are defending the murder/er of George Tiller? You are making up your own dark reality out of your own dark mind.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 3, 2009 - 10:01pm.

And providing cover. You really need to distance yourself from this. When you're discussing it and find yourself coming to the "BUT..." in your argument, that's how you know you're defending it.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2009 - 1:44pm.

Mr Ertelt's comments are resounding but hollow. There is no libel without malice there is no malice without intent to defame re libel. Ms Douglas was bright enough to pose her explanation of the Carhart Clinic photo as an interrogatory not as a definitive and leaving choice to the reader absolves her of malice. Your case dissolves in a puff of smoke.

A well done post Ms Douglas, two marks for style and two more for being on the right side of women's reproductive rights in America.

Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!

Submitted by Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. on June 3, 2009 - 7:02pm.

Yet some anti-choice activists -- even now -- seem only too happy to aid and abet the crazy ones who will resort to violence.
That is not an interrogative. While "seem" may communicate an opinion when taken alone, it does not when it is taken in context. At that point it becomes an assertion.

Submitted by Collinb on June 4, 2009 - 11:16am.

Operation Rescue is a domestic terrorist organization that should be treated as such. Those of us who work in clinic defense are going to start recording how they punch, shove, kick, slap and hit women as they try to enter clinics. They are pro-violence and pro-death.

Submitted by Ines on June 3, 2009 - 9:08pm.

Why haven't you already been doing it? Claims of this have been made for years, and all it would take is video to sway throngs of people to view pro-life activists as vicious people. Pro-lifers have uploaded numerous videos to youtube of harassment of activists (psychological, mental and physical). Quite a large number of clinics (if not the majority) have security cameras in place already. Regardless, if you are able to video record assaults by pro-life activists outside of clinics, then you'll have proof, rather than just hearsay. Get proof and those people can be prosecuted.

Submitted by pro-life atheist on June 4, 2009 - 4:17am.

By history. If a half dozen or so people have been shot by "fringe" elements of the movement it gives the "peaceful" demonstrators a harassing and menacing threat.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2009 - 1:46pm.

All the evidence needed is supplied by anti-choicers own videos, such as the bragging about harassment of individuals at their homes - like that of the construction contractor who is only peripherally related to your causes opposition.
Such as the gruesome pictures flown around South Bend Indiana.

Submitted by phylosopher on June 12, 2009 - 10:14pm.


 Not only is all this true:,     


Those of us who work in clinic defense are going to start recording how they punch, shove, kick, slap and hit women as they try to enter clinics. They are pro-violence and pro-death.
 


    but it would  also be an excellent idea to record how members of Operation Rescue and other anti-choice movements have also sprayed  toxic chemicals into reproductive clinics and murdered doctors who perform abortions, and clinic workers in cold blood.    

Submitted by independentminded on July 29, 2009 - 9:32am.

So, could one of the whining anti-choicers with a persecution complex explain to me why Jill Stanek is posting pictures of Carhart's clinic shortly after George Tiller's murder?

 

Just unbelievable. One of your lot shoots a doctor, and you have the nerve to whine about how terribly mean everyone is to you.

Submitted by Emma on June 3, 2009 - 9:25pm.

Stanek lied about
Obama; he won and now
she lies even more

Submitted by hku on June 4, 2009 - 9:41am.

they took my line breaks
now it's not five seven five,
it's just seventeen

Submitted by hku on June 4, 2009 - 9:49am.

that predicted that while the Republicans and anti-choicers are small in number, that they would become angrier and  more dangerous due to being relegated to the sidelines.  That prediction has come true--with a vengeance.

Submitted by independentminded on July 29, 2009 - 9:36am.

Posting photos of Carhart's "non-descript building" (AP's words) incites murder?

Are you people insane?

Lumping the majority of Americans who are pro-life in with schizophrenic maniacs who murder will not allow you to regain lost ground in the war over abortion.

No wonder Roe vs Wade will be overturned within a generation. Their primary supporters are all lunatics!

Submitted by John on June 4, 2009 - 10:34am.

This is a false accusation. No one is lumping anything. We're concerned about the most radical edges of a movement which uses violent rhetoric and provides the extremists all the tools they need to kill the political opposition. These organizations and media provide the rhetorical justification and they provide the logistical support.

Accusing the rest of us of painting the movement with a broad brush is PROVIDING COVER for the very serious problem of violent extremists carrying out acts that smack of domestic political terrorism.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2009 - 12:18pm.

Except we don't go assassinating people we disagree with. We don't lead the deranged and mentally unstable killers right up to the doorstep of those who we would not mourn the loss of.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2009 - 12:21pm.

That's what Randall Terry said . . . a generation ago.

Submitted by Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, D.S.V.J. on June 4, 2009 - 1:50pm.

We will not allow for misogynists to win the culture war. Allowing misogynist anti-choicers to overturne Roe is like us allowing our servicepeople to lose the war against the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Submitted by Jovan Byars on June 4, 2009 - 11:11am.

Roe vs Wade is based on....absolutely nothing. There isn’t a single word in the Constitution that supports the right to abortion (or, for those on the right, that would oppose abortion either).

The kind of twisting that it takes the left to make that a “constitutional” right – would make any pretzel proud.

Doesn’t matter anyways – like I said, abortion will be outlawed sooner rather than later. Abortion (the termination of babies, by now scientifically proven) is the slavery issue of the 21st century.

It’s even following the same pattern of early the 19th century. It won’t last this century, and we’ll be scratching our head by then on how did anyone ever support it.

Submitted by John on June 4, 2009 - 1:03pm.

Roe v Wade was never about abortion. It was about privacy. Don't comment on Constitutional cases until you understand them.

Submitted by Anonymous on June 4, 2009 - 1:55pm.