RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Anti-Choice Activist Shot, Killed in Owosso, Michigan

By Todd Heywood, New Journalist Fellow

September 11, 2009 - 11:45am

Published under: | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Heywood's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Todd Heywood's picture

Editor's note: Update as of 3:11pm EST: According to the New York Times, the suspect in custody cited displeasure with Pouillon's protests in front of children at the school where he was shot and killed. Still, however, investigators have not cited a reason for the murder of the second victim, the owner of a local gravel-pit.

The Flint Journal is reporting that well known Owosso-based anti-abortion activist James Pouillion, 63, has been shot to death in front of Owosso High School. The shooting happened at approximately 7:30 a.m.

Police have said they do not know if Pouillion’s murder was connected to his activism, reports the Lansing State Journal.

Susan Wooden, interim superintendent of the Owosso schools, told the State Journal that Pouillion was a regular off and on protestor at the school. She said the district has long worried about the potential for violence as a result of his protests.

“We had spoken to the gentleman before and insisted that he be off the school property with his message,” Wooden said. She said the victim had been picketing this morning just off school property before the incident.

In addition, a second homicide was discovered shortly after the Pouillion murder. WLNS, the Lansing CBS affiliate, reports police have confirmed the two homicides are connected and that they have a suspect in custody.

The shooting in this rural Shiawassee county town resulted in a lock down of the school, which has since been lifted.

The Flint Journal reports that the activist has had several incidents with police and city officials.

Pouillon was arrested in 1994 for disorderly conduct, in a case where he allegedly harassed parents as they took their children to day care at First Congregational Church in Owosso.

In a 2003 Flint Journal report of the case, Pouillon said that he targeted the church because it had hosted a 25th anniversary celebration for the local Planned Parenthood office.

At the time, Pouillon said he urged parents escorting children, “Don’t take your kids to that church. They kill babies in there. They support abortion.”

The 1994 police report indicated Pouillon was screaming at pre-school children and their mothers but Pouillon said he and a church member were shouting only because they stood hundreds of feet apart.

The state Supreme Court ordered the state Court of Appeals to rule on the case, which overturned Pouillon’s conviction in 2003.

He is said to have traveled to both Flint and Saginaw to pray outside abortion clinics and was supposed to be present at a clinic in Flint today.


Todd Heywood's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
182 comments
Please login or register to post comments...
Someone tell Rachel Maddow!

It's possible that this is a case of pro-choice terrorism!

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 12:13pm.
unlikely

It's too soon to speculate, and let's--please--take a moment to remember that two lives were lost here in the mindless pursuit of turning women into chattel. It's a tragedy from every angle. Since I am sure the loss of life will be given short shrift by the so-called pro-life advocates (showing once again that they care nothing for life), those who truly value life--those who are pro-choice--will take up the torch.

Submitted by gabbyhayes on September 11, 2009 - 1:06pm.
Yadda yadda

Yadda yadda yadda.

 

"those who truly value life--those who are pro-choice"

 

Like the motorist who (according to court documents from 2000) swerved onto the sidewalk and drove at him while he was protesting?  Mind you, this is a man who needs to carry an oxygen tank, wears braces on his legs and uses a walker.  It's not like he could jump out of the way of an oncoming car!

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 1:35pm.
Parse your statement

you seem to be implying that the morons in the car were pro-choice. Unlikely. I've had cars come up on the sidewalk at me because I was wearing a Navy uniform. It's something kids do to scare people. Obviously he couldn't jump out of the way, so the car swerved back to the street, demonstrating that the driver never intended to hit the crippled old man any more than they intended to hit the young sailor. Pro-choice people value life. Anti-choice people kill people. It's a difficult fact to own up to, but your recovery will begin that moment.

Submitted by gabbyhayes on September 11, 2009 - 2:20pm.
Anti-choice people take 1.2

Anti-choice people take 1.2 million human lives every year in the United States alone.  Furthermore, the driver attempted to run him down because he was protesting abortion, so I doubt that he was pro-life.

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 2:51pm.
"Anti-choice people take 1.2

"Anti-choice people take 1.2 million human lives every year in the United States alone"

 

Hmm. I'm sure that was an innocent little slip...

Submitted by dltbhs on September 11, 2009 - 4:46pm.
Not likely, if one believes Obama's a US citizen

Christopher F. Vota, on troll patrol

 

I've just read a sister-in-law of the gravel pit owner killed in this crime spree said the victim had employed the suspect's mother ten years ago. By now, the info is readily available the suspect had at least one other person on his agenda and the cops got there first. Every person this definitely suicidal but still alleged perpetrator wanted dead MAY have had a pro-life stance, but I doubt the reason for this spree was what the trolls would have the world believe: pro-choice push-back to the Tiller assassination. This truck driver had multiple scores to settle, possibly assisted by some Mexi-meth. Has Roeder's attorneys said they'll use a Twinkie defense? Don't be too surprised if you see Glenn Beck link Van Jones and Barack Obama to this one. The more one believes the contortionist logic from the Right, the more likely one will craft this would-be mass-murderer into some pro-choice monster that exists only within their collective psychosis.

Submitted by Christopher F. Vota on September 13, 2009 - 1:26pm.
Regardless of Mr. Pouillon's

political perspectives, activism or police record there is no excuse for his murder. However, as the previous commenter noted, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that his killing - or the killing of the other man - was politically motivated.

RH Reality Check, as Jodi notes,  condemns the use of violence and this is certainly a tragedy. We will monitor the story as information and facts are uncovered. 

Amie Newman

Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

Submitted by Amie Newman, Managing Editor on September 11, 2009 - 1:22pm.
The hypocrisy never ceases

The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. It is a tragedy every single time someone dies. But the fact that all we heard post-Tiller was about how savage and terrible of a person his shooter was (and what he did to Tiller was absolutely terrible), why isn't the same being said of the killer here? Instead, the story outlines the victim's history as if to legitimize this crime, as a way to say he had it coming.

It has already become evident that pro-choicers are more concerned with about the death of any abortionist (good fundraising tool, isn't it Planned Parenthood?) and ensuring the death of unborn babies more than they care about anyone else having to die. Because if they did, they would be just as red-faced over this heinous crime, denouncing the actions of killer.

So, why aren't they?

Submitted by kw114 on September 11, 2009 - 1:40pm.
It goes without saying

That a murderer is savage.  The only reason that it had to be emphasized in the Tiller situation is that anti-choice activists were celebrating the murder, even as they were pulling phony faces and pretending to condemn it.

 

I'm curious to find out who did this.

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on September 11, 2009 - 1:47pm.
Vitriol

Amanda, 

Frankly, you are a prime example of the kind of intolerant, biased pro choice faction that I am talking about. You label the very  pro life activists who spoke out against Tiller's murder as "celebrating" Tiller's murder. No pro life activist did that, and you KNOW IT.  Or, maybe you don't: maybe your worldview is such that you do think that pro life activists are really happy about someone being murdered when we were not.  You have said here that the pro life side must bear some responsibility for Tiller's murder. Well, if that's true, then isn't your characterization of pro life activists/people as mysogynistic, stupid and violent part the same vitriot that you say could incite a person to kill someone else? That's just as plausible as pro life rhetoric inciting Tiller's murder. I, personally, am sick and tired of being called anti choice, mysogynistic, etc, etc, no matter what I say or do, because of my stance on abortion. Perhaps you should work on that as you try to lecture others on the evils of incendiary language.

 

 

Submitted by Progo35 on September 11, 2009 - 4:36pm.
Of course they did

And Operation Rescue is still using the murder as a success story in shutting down a clinic. See: This week's podcast. The only people here who are full of vitriol are the ones who call 40% of American women and their health care providers "Nazis", "murderers", etc. I saw a few anti-choicers regret Dr. Tiller's murder, but the general tone was suggesting he had it coming.  

 

 

Submitted by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on September 11, 2009 - 5:53pm.
Again, calling it murder is

Again, calling it murder is what it is if you believe that it is equivalent to infanticide. You don't, therefore you don't see it as murder, but that's just a judgment on your part.  You people accuse us of enslaving women.  I don't agree with that judgment either.

 

As far as 'Nazi' goes- I've said on this very site that I object when pro-lifers say that just as I object when you guys say that we're no different than the Taliban. 

 

Your rhetoric is hardly more civil.

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 6:20pm.
Using the murder as a success story?

"And Operation Rescue is still using the murder as a success story in shutting down a clinic. See: This week's podcast."

 

Can you show me evidence that Operation Rescue sees the murder of Tiller as a good thing, as opposed to the closing of his clinic as a good thing?  (Sorry for the poor grammer).  You offer no evidence for this in the podcast.  One can be both opposed to the killing of Tiller and glad that his clinic is closed. Killing Tiller is not an acceptable means to reach the end of closing the clinic, the man had a right to his life, and a right to just treatment, not vigilantism.

 

As an aside, I completely agree that the media is doing a terrible job covering the health care reform bill and the need for reform of our system.  

Submitted by Paul on September 12, 2009 - 12:31am.
<blockquote> No pro life

<blockquote>

No pro life activist did that, and you KNOW IT. </blockquote>

 

Well,
I wouldn't go that far.  Some did.  Randall Terry springs to mind, for instance. 
Nonetheless, the general point that Amanda lumps all abortion opponents
together and automatically thinks the worst of all of them still
stands.

Submitted by Jen R on September 11, 2009 - 9:27pm.
Intellectual honesty

"...anti-choice activists were celebrating the murder, even as they were pulling phony faces and pretending to condemn it."

 

Of course, it is also true that you are putting on a phony face, and are secretly celebrating tonight.  How do I know that?  Well, because I said so.

 

In all seriousness, let's at least have an honest debate.  This kind of talk gets us nowhere.   

Submitted by Paul on September 11, 2009 - 11:13pm.
Actually, Paul, there were

Actually, Paul, there were anti-choicers here who were positively thrilled about George Tiller being murdered. I recall the commenter who calls hirself 'Truth' saying as much in one of the comment threads shortly after the murder. Another commenter made some comment to the effect of 'well, I wouldn't murder someone, but I wouldn't want to take away anyone's else's choice to murder'...you know, like haha, so funny!

 

And seriously...rejoicing at GT's clinic being closed is much the same thing as rejoicing at his being murdered, given that the former was a direct result of the latter. If there are any women who've died due to pregnancy complications as a result of the clinic's closure, well, you're celebrating that, too.
Anti-choicers are pro-murder, and wishing that fact away won't change it. You're also in favour of laws that kill women, but then protest that oh no, you're not really pathologically misogynistic. You just don't mind seeing a few women die from unsafe abortion in the Greater Quest to Save the Foetuses.

 

Larry J's freudian slip upthread was made of win. Nice to see an anti-choicer acknowledge their fantasies.

 

In any case, the subject of this article is awful. It is just horrible and tragic that people think shooting each other is a fabulous way of resolving their political differences. I hate this. There is enough death in this world.

Submitted by Emma on September 12, 2009 - 5:31am.
I recall the commenter who

I recall the commenter who calls hirself 'Truth' saying as much in one of the comment threads shortly after the murder.

Quite so Emma. 'Truth' waxed lyrical about the deep upwelling of joy he felt upon news of Tiller's death. Others were attacking Tiller's character before his body had even cooled and, of course, not one would admit that the abortions Tiller performed were medically necessary and that the whole disgusting lot of them would far rather see women and little girls die than be allowed a late term, medically necessary abortion. Indeed NOT ONE would admit that these abortions were medically necessary. Apparently the notion that women (and raped little girls) never die as a result of their pregnancies is some sort of article of faith.
It was an revolting display but fairly predictable coming, as it did, from people who believe that running around with enormous photographs of dismembered (miscarried) fetuses is acceptable to most people and insisting that zygotes are 'very young persons'is a compelling and moral arguments.
One thing that my time reading these people has taught me: fundamentalist religions create followers who are willing and eager to justify any behavior and deny any reality in pursuit of their fatally flawed morality.

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 September 12, 2009 - 9:51pm.
Emma,

I would certainly concede that there are some crazy folks on BOTH sides of the issue, as the murders of Dr. Tiller and Jim Pouillon tragically illustrate.  My grievance is with those who would paint the entire movement of EITHER side with such a wide brush.  The reality is that, besides a small number of exceptions, neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers want to see the dead bodies of their opponents stacked up in heaps, they want to see their opponents see the error of their ways and change their minds.

 

"And seriously...rejoicing at GT's clinic being closed is much the same thing as rejoicing at his being murdered, given that the former was a direct result of the latter."

 

There are ends that people wish to achieve, and then there is the means taken to get that end.  People may agree on a given end but disagree sharply about the means taken to get to that end.  Pro-lifers agree that closing Tiller's clinic is a good end, but the vast majority recognize that killing him is not a justifiable means to achieve that end.  I would guess that most pro-choicers would say the same thing about Pouillan; they agree that stopping him from showing the disturbing signs outside a high school is a good thing, but killing him is not a justifiable means to that end.

 

"If there are any women who've died due to pregnancy complications as a result of the clinic's closure, well, you're celebrating that, too."

 

How does that follow, exaclty?  Many innocent people died during the slave revolt led by Nat Turner.  Does that mean I celebrate the killing of those innocent people whenever I celebrate the abolition of slavery? 

 

"Anti-choicers are pro-murder, and wishing that fact away won't change it."

 

If this is the obvious and irrefutable fact that you claim it is, I would like to see evidence.  Show me what study, scientific poll, or whatever else you may have that shows that all pro-lifers would like to see abortion doctors murdered.  

 

"You're also in favour of laws that kill women, but then protest that oh no, you're not really pathologically misogynistic. You just don't mind seeing a few women die from unsafe abortion in the Greater Quest to Save the Foetuses."

 

Explain which law I am in favor of that kills women. 

Submitted by Paul on September 12, 2009 - 11:39pm.
Explain which law I am in

Explain which law I am in favor of that kills women.

The thing about the late term abortions Dr Tiller performed is that they were all MEDICALLY NECESSARY. The religious right might not like to admit it it but it is a fact that each and every late term abortion Dr Tiller performed was medically necessary and that two Doctors had to concur in that opinion.
When you folks refuse to accept this or, as I believe you and most certainly your Church are doing, hope to reach the point where the lives of a certain number of women and little girls are a legal sacrifice to your twisted priorities then you support laws that kill women.
Dr Tiller's work saved the lives of women and girls. That's why he performed abortions. When you would legally deny women and girls that life saving service you, the Catholic hierarchy and the anti-abortion movement are absolutely complicit in their unnecessary deaths.

See the 'pro-life' paradise of Nicaragua as an example of the less than compassionate results of the anti-abortion ideology.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/09/10/nicaragua-the-reality-abor...

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 September 13, 2009 - 11:50am.
To Colleen: Medical Necessity

"...it is a fact that each and every late term abortion Dr Tiller performed was medically necessary and that two Doctors had to concur in that opinion."

 

It's my understanding that the method George Tiller used most frequently in late term abortions was as follows:  inject digoxin into the fetus to stop its heart and kill it, induce labor (which can take as long as a few days) and deliver.  

 

Why not just skip the digoxin, induce labor and deliver a living baby?  What is it about the beating heart of the child that is so threatening to the mother?  Am I missing something here?  If so, I am completely open to hearing it.

 

"When you folks refuse to accept this or, as I believe you and most certainly your Church are doing, hope to reach the point where the lives of a certain number of women and little girls are a legal sacrifice to your twisted priorities then you support laws that kill women."

 

I'll be blunt; if you honestly believe that I want to ban abortion so that I can enjoy the sacrifice of women and little girls, you need to inform yourself.  Read opposing views with from an objective standpoint and employ some critical thinking.  It is your right to voice your opinions on the abortion issue and have those opinions heard; but if you want people to take you seriously and especially if you want to try and change the mind of your opponents, you might want to try something other than calling them names.  

 

I support a ban on abortion because it unjustly takes the life of a distinct, living human being.  I support laws that would include exceptions for the life of the mother, as does the rest of the pro-life movement.  I am not looking to pile up bodies of women and little girls, no matter what you may think.

 

"Dr Tiller's work saved the lives of women and girls. That's why he performed abortions."

 

Yes, back to Dr. Tillers abortion procedure.  If the woman undergoing a late term abortion at his office had to go through labor anyway, what medical necessity of hers did stopping the heart of the fetus meet?  I honestly want to know if I am missing something, here.

 

"See the 'pro-life' paradise of Nicaragua as an example of the less than compassionate results of the anti-abortion ideology.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/09/10/nicaragua-the-reality-abor..."

 

Interesting.  I read the single source cited in that article, which says: "It is impossible to ascertain how many women the blanket ban has prevented from accessing safe therapeutic abortion services and with what effect".  In other words, we have no idea what effect this ban has had on the lives women.  Got anything else?

 

 

Submitted by Paul on September 14, 2009 - 10:17pm.
Am I missing something here?

Am I missing something here?

I am not a doctor or a nurse. I tend to always disbelieve medical claims and descriptions from the anti-abortion/contraception faction due to their decades of blatant lies, distortions and exaggerations.
Why not ask your question in an appropriate thread?
If you're reluctant to do that I would suggest that there have many, many discussions on this excellent blog about what 'medically necessary' meant in practical terms, particularly after Dr Tiller's murder. Perhaps reading them would be a good place to start and the answer to your question would become clear.

I support a ban on abortion because it unjustly takes the life of a distinct, living human being.

Thank you for finally admitting that you support a ban. Fortunately only 18% or so of the American people agree with you and want to see abortion recriminalized.

I support laws that would include exceptions for the life of the mother, as does the rest of the pro-life movement.

Much of the anti-choice movement does not support exceptions for the life much less the health of the woman and I believe you're fully aware of this.

Got anything else?

I'm a bit puzzled about which article you read. The one I provided a link to provided all sorts of evidence of the results of what happens when 'pro-life' notions about the disposability of women are codified and enforced. It provided links to a 52 page report from Amnesty International and another 20 page report from Human Rights Watch. Both reports are extensively and meticulously sourced.
I can see why you would not wish to admit or think about what really happens when the Vatican controls the reproductive lives of women because, of course, it's as indefensible as when they tried to kill an 11 year old child by forcing her to carry twins to term. But cherry picking one paragraph and pretending it was a conclusion is rather silly and using that as an excuse to ignore and dismiss mountains of real evidence is as silly as pretending that abortion has nothing to do with women's rights, dignity and survival.
here is the link again: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/09/10/nicaragua-the-reality-abor....

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 September 15, 2009 - 12:08pm.
Plus by the time "save the life of the women" can be proved

she's at great risk of dying anyway. This is why, when pressed, I will support abortion to the last moment. Any* medical facility that has ability to handle late abortions has medical standards that guard against frivilous late abortions. It much more important for the public good (& lives of pregnant women) that doctors have flexibility to take medically necessary actions.

*there might, theoretically, be some that don't, but they wouldn't add up to enough instances worth writing laws about instead of prosecuting individually ... unless the law is a sham, and the real reason is TRAP.

Submitted by Julie Watkins on September 15, 2009 - 12:24pm.
Colleen: Missed one, causality not shown in the other

"I am not a doctor or a nurse."

 

Fair enough Colleen, I'll ask elsewhere.  Anyone else care to chime in on that subject?

 

"I tend to always disbelieve medical claims and descriptions from the anti-abortion/contraception faction due to their decades of blatant lies, distortions and exaggerations."

 

I can understand where you are coming from, as I am inclined to be suspicious of abortion advocates for the same reason.  However, I think it is more productive to look at evidence objectively, and not just dismiss it because someone you disagree with presented it to you.  If its bogus, you have just strengthened your position when you point out the flaw, and if it isn't bogus, well then honesty and integrity demands that we explore the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence.


Why not ask your question in an appropriate thread?
If you're reluctant to do that I would suggest that there have many, many discussions on this excellent blog about what 'medically necessary' meant in practical terms, particularly after Dr Tiller's murder. Perhaps reading them would be a good place to start and the answer to your question would become clear."

 

Good suggestions, I will certainly explore them. 

 

"Thank you for finally admitting that you support a ban. Fortunately only 18% or so of the American people agree with you and want to see abortion recriminalized."

 

You're welcome, I never intended to hide it.  Whether or not the rest of the public agrees with me has no bearing on the validity of my viewpoint, although it certainly does mean we have a lot educating to do.   

 

"I'm a bit puzzled about which article you read. The one I provided a link to provided all sorts of evidence of the results of what happens when 'pro-life' notions about the disposability of women are codified and enforced. It provided links to a 52 page report from Amnesty International and another 20 page report from Human Rights Watch. Both reports are extensively and meticulously sourced."

 

Yes, I read the Human Rights Watch report, but I missed the Amnesty International report.  I have finished an initial perusal but due to the length of the report and I am going to go through it again.  I'll share my thoughts on this on a later post, feel free to hold my feet to the fire if I haven't addressed the evidence you presented.  

 

I did read the "Impact of the Ban on Therapeutic Abortion" section of the Human Rights Watch report.  You offered the report as evidence that the laws that I support kill women.  The report lists several pieces of anecdotal stories, and a list of arguments on why the ban may potentially affect pregnant women.  When it comes to actual evidence that the ban itself caused harm to women, the article can only state "It is impossible to ascertain how many women the blanket ban has prevented from accessing safe therapeutic abortion services and with what effect".  

 

Proposals on why the ban might have affected the treatment received by these women is not evidence, nor does it prove causality.

 

"But cherry picking one paragraph and pretending it was a conclusion is rather silly and using that as an excuse to ignore and dismiss mountains of real evidence is as silly as pretending that abortion has nothing to do with women's rights, dignity and survival." 

 

Did they lie when they wrote that sentence?  They explicitly stated that they don't know what effect a lack of legal abortion had on women seeking abortions in Nicaragua.   They have no evidence that "laws I support kill women". 

 

As I said earlier, I will go over the Amnesty International Report and post my thoughts in the future, hopefully by tomorrow.   

Submitted by Paul on September 15, 2009 - 11:16pm.
I'll share my thoughts on

I'll share my thoughts on this on a later post,

Please don't bother Paul. If you're able to dismiss what you've read thus far with an inane comment on causality there really is no point in continuing this conversation. It's a waste of my time.

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 September 16, 2009 - 10:22am.
Causality inane???

Colleen, it wasn't me who brought up causality.  You are the one who argued that laws that I support cause the death of women.  The Human Rights report offers no evidence that this law caused the death of women, and, after reading through it more closely, I found the same to be true of the Amnesty repot.

 

If you'd like to point to the specific points in the reports that I have mis-interpreted, I'll be happy to look at them again and consider your counter-points.  If I am being so obtuse, it should be relatively easy to point out where I am wrong.

Submitted by Paul on September 17, 2009 - 9:19am.
Paul, If that's what you

Paul,

If that's what you 'found' than I'm not going to argue with you. Indeed it was clear to me that this would be your 'finding' after your first reply.

I normally have a limited amount of time to read or write on blogs and, as I said,  would prefer to not waste my time. 

 

 

 

 

 

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 September 17, 2009 - 11:24am.
Colleen: Time

You took the time to repeat what you have already said, but you couldn't take 2 minutes to copy and paste even one example from the "mountains of real evidence" to refute my claim?

 

It's frustrating.  I am trying to have an honest, productive debate about this topic (arguably the most important topic of our times), and you keep dismissing my arguments instead of refuting them. 

Submitted by Paul on September 17, 2009 - 9:24pm.
Maternal mortality

"A new Spanish-language Ipas publication, La muerte maternal en Nicaragua: La vida de cada mujer cuenta (Maternal death in Nicaragua: The life of every woman counts), outlines the deadly consequences of the ban. The 17-page article, by Ipas Senior Program Associate Karen Padilla, analyzes trends in Nicaragua’s maternal mortality (pregnancy-related deaths). Using statistics from the Nicaraguan Ministry of Health, the article examines the incidence, cause, time, location and other factors in the deaths of pregnant women.
...
In 2007, there were 115 maternal deaths recorded in Nicaragua, almost the same number of deaths as were recorded over the previous two years. Padilla’s analysis found that at least 12 of these women died from serious medical conditions aggravated by pregnancy. Access to safe abortion services — which would have been legal before the 2006 ban — would likely have saved these women’s lives, according to Padilla."
http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News_Items/Analyzing_maternal_deaths_in...

Submitted by crowepps on September 17, 2009 - 2:41pm.
Crowepps: thanks for the link

Is there an English translation of Padilla's article?  The only one I could find is in Spanish, and I never got farther than: El hombre gordo dice, "Mas spaghettis por favor." in high school. 

 

This report states that in 2007, 12 of the 115 maternal deaths resulted from medical problems compounded by pregnancy.  The problem is, it doesn't say how that compares to similar pregnancies before the ban.  Maybe there were only 3 deaths due to similar problems, maybe there were 20.  If there were significantly lower deaths from year to year before the ban than after the ban, than we'd see some correlation, which is getting closer to causality.

 

Furthermore, we don't know what medical problems these were, whether there were any other procedures other than abortion that could have saved the mothers life, and whether or not those alternatives were attempted.  If there were alternatives to abortion, than the problem is not with the ban, but with getting women access to these alternatives.

 

If Padilla's article covers these kind of things, than you have got something that would be strong evidence that laws like Nicaragua's result in higher rates of maternal mortality.  This would be very helpful when considering how to draft laws that protect both the mother and the child.  The mother's life is worth every bit as much as the child's, and is worth equal consideration when writing legislation.

 

*edit: I just emailed the contact listed at the bottom of your article to see if she had an English copy, I couldn't find it on the website.  I'll let you know if I hear back soon.

Submitted by Paul on September 17, 2009 - 9:26pm.
I would certainly concede

I would certainly concede that there are some crazy folks on BOTH sides
of the issue, as the murders of Dr. Tiller and Jim Pouillon tragically
illustrate.

 

Uhm, you are not suggesting that pro-choicers inspire radical fringe groups that directly and indirectly support violence against abortion providers, are you? Not yet, anyway.

 

 

Submitted by ahunt on September 13, 2009 - 8:48pm.
Hello again, ahunt

"Uhm, you are not suggesting that pro-choicers inspire radical fringe groups that directly and indirectly support violence against abortion providers, are you?" 

 

I am not suggesting anything other than what I said: there are crazies on both sides.  Arguing whether the right wing fringe is crazier than the left wing is like arguing about who provides a more painful listening experience, Kenny G or Andrew W. K., they both suck and everybody knows it.  

 

I will say that certainly this Army of God group that Roeder was involved with looks pretty crazy, and it would be a good thing for them to be subject to a full investigation and subject to punishment for whatever crimes that might be revealed.

 

Your implication that the greater pro-life movement directly supports violent individuals is, I believe, unfounded.  Sure, there have been individuals and small fringe groups that have bombed clinics and shot abortion providers, and these folks and those that cooperated with them deserve to have the full force of the law brought to bear upon them.  To lay blame at the feet of the entire movement, as many pro-choicers I've interacted with do, is baseless and inflammatory.  If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

 

"Not yet, anyway."

 

I would agree, and hopefully it never happens. 

Submitted by Paul on September 14, 2009 - 10:41pm.
Not unfounded, Paul.....

Paul,

there is so much evidence of the spewing of violent rhetoric in the pro-life movement that not seeing it is like saying you don't see the sun in the sky.  I hate to be so blunt but....

Just one example from just one article we are publishing tomorrow:

Tucci is most notorious as Terry's hand-picked successor to lead Operation Rescue after his own inner-circle attempted to oust him. Under Tucci's command, the group staged a six week long intimidation campaign targeting Dr. George Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kan., in the summer of 1991 that resulted in more than 1,700 arrests. In a 1993 letter to the group's supporters, Tucci reportedly wrote, "It is your God-given right to destroy any man or woman calling themselves doctors who willingly slaughter innocent children."

and another:

When Tiller was assassinated on May 31 by Scott Roeder, an associate of Troy Newman's rival Wichita-based group Operation Rescue West, McEwen wrote a vicious press release for Operation Save America blaming Tiller for his own death.

[http://rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/pat-mcewen]

 

Like I said....just a couple small examples of institutional, organized calls for violence from the leaders of the anti-choice movement.

There are and have been many others.

I would love to hear whom you describe as "crazies" on the pro-choice side because quite frankly no pro-choice person that i know of and certainly no organization i know of has ever acted to instigate any restrictions on your basic human or constitutional rights as a born human being.  

Please advise as to where examples of pro-choice organizations are "crazy."

Thanks, Jodi

 

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on September 15, 2009 - 12:28pm.
Crazies, hmmm:   Well, how

Crazies, hmmm:

 

Well, how about your "friend" Operation Counterstrike, who, while banned, obviously likes the site as much as Roeder liked Operation Rescue, since he's posted here twice, exactly as many times as Roeder posted on OR. He advocates the murder of pro life leaders: he would like to see at least some of them die in retribution for Dr. Tiller's murder.

 

How about Colleen and Amanda Marcotte, who, while not calling for violence, repeatedly call pro lifers mysogynstic freaks who want to enslave women and promote violence against women? How about your other "friend" who wrote on this blog that they would like to see the legaization of infanticide against disabled infants, whose comment you refused to remove, even though it clearly violated your own guidelines regarding hate speech? Moreover, I want to see this letter that supposedly was sent out by a pro life organization urging followers to hurt abortion doctors or blaming Tiller for his death while exonerating Roeder. I don't just want some random quote taken out of context. For all we know, "destroy" might have meant "destroy Tiller's reputation" or "destroy Tiller's career," and not, "destroy/kill Tiller himself." I think that that kind of rhetoric is incendiary and wrong as it appears out of context, but how are we to know what the rest of the letter said? 

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on September 15, 2009 - 4:30pm.
Jodi: institutional, organized calls for violence

Hi Jodi,

 

If Tucci wrote that than he or she should be condemned and punished by whatever legal measures are appropriate.  I suppose it is possible that by destroy Tucci meant ruin financially or socially, context would be needed in a legal setting.  My first impression from just that individual quote seems more like a call to violence, and if so this should be condemned and punished.

 

Regarding the second link you provided, not one of the statements on that page from pro-life groups called for violence.  Not one.  Certainly, McEwen's statement spent more time condemning Tillers actions in life (regrettable and insensitive to Tillers family, to be sure), but it did condemn the murder and in fact reinforced the notion that violence against abortion providers/advocates is antithetical to the pro-life position.

 

"I would love to hear whom you describe as "crazies" on the pro-choice side because quite frankly no pro-choice person that i know of and certainly no organization i know of has ever acted to instigate any restrictions on your basic human or constitutional rights as a born human being."

 

As I conceded to ahunt earlier, I am not aware of an organization that advocates for abortion rights and also advocates violence against pro-lifers, and for that I am thankful.  Certainly the same cannot be said for a group like the Army of God.  However, I still have not seen evidence that this is representative of the greater pro-life movement.  In fact, the very article you linked to lends support to my critique as it states "The most common response has been to decry the murder and say that violence is never the answer".

 

You asked for "crazies" that "instigate any restrictions on your basic human or constitutional rights as a born human being."

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University

"Nevertheless the main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." http://tinyurl.com/6ro9bl (last sentence before 'Other Non-voluntary Life and Death Decisions' section)

 

People that shoot abortion providers act on an ill-formed idea that the ends they seek justify the means of their actions.  They perform an evil, unjust act (killing the abortion doctor) in order to seek some good end (stopping abortions).  

 

Ironically, the parallel on the pro-choice side is not some pro-choicer that shoots a pro-lifer, rather it is a doctor that performs an evil, unjust act (killing a distinct, living human being) to seek some good end (helping the mother).  

 

*edited to include Singer reference 

 

Submitted by Paul on September 16, 2009 - 12:17am.
Public statements

Paul, the reason that people came to the conclusion that some member of the Pro-Life groups were gloating was because of their public pronouncements -- 'murder is terrible but --'  and the history of similar comments when the OTHER doctors were killed and when OTHER people were killed in clinic bombings.  Having an honest debate should include the fact that some people have ignoble motives and secretly gloat over misfortunes suffered by the other 'camp'.  

Antiabortion activist Randall Terry today added fuel to the debate over the killing yesterday of a prominent Kansas late-term abortion provider, saying George R. Tiller "was a mass murderer and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/01/AR2009060102058.html

Drew Griffin: When you heard the news over the weekend about the abortion doctor -- that I'm sure you are well aware of -- was shot and killed, what was your reaction?

Dan Holman: I was cheered by it because I knew that he wouldn't be killing any more babies. And I expect that would happen when all legal and moral -- legal ways of trying to stop it has been exhausted, as they have tried to prosecute him for giving abortions to people in violation of Kansas law.

Drew Griffin: When you say you were cheered by it, is there any inconsistency in your thought in that you are trying to protect life and at the same time here's this doctor who was shot and killed and in your own words you are cheered by that?

Dan Holman: No, because I'm protecting innocent life. I'm not -- and the doctor or the abortionist is guilty of murder as far as I'm concerned. It's no different for him to be killing a preborn child or a post-born child. The preborn child is entitled to the same rights, privileges and protections as a post-born child.

Drew Griffin: So, you support this killing?

Dan Holman: I don't advocate it, I don't support it. But I don't condemn it, and I believe that what he did was justifiable.

Drew Griffin: You told me earlier that he -- meaning the shooter -- he did what the law should have done?

Dan Holman: Right, exactly. The law should have protected the preborn child; and the law is supposed to execute vengeance, you know, in protecting the child. But what the man did was not execute vengeance, as far as I'm concerned. He was protecting preborn children, ones that are slated for abortion today and the future. I don't feel that what he did is vengeance.

Drew Griffin: Do you seek this fate on all doctors performing abortions out there?

Dan Holman: I believe that all abortionists are deserving of death, and they are not the only ones. There are politicians and judges and others who support this murder that are also deserving of death.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4710-Milwaukee-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m6d2-Prolifer-cheered-by-Dr-George-Tillers-murder

 

Murder is murder, and it is something that we pro-lifers inherently deplore.  But I can't help but note - and my history is rusty so pardon me here - I'm trying to remember, did anyone mourn Lee Harvey Oswald when Jack Ruby gunned him down?  Or better yet, did anyone mourn the deaths of Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer, or any other mass murderer for that matter?  Even according to the harebrained pro-choice life-at-viability reckoning, Tiller was indisputably a mass murderer who was executed in a fashion far more humane than the tens of thousands of children that he mutilated and left to die in cuddle session bassinets.
http://www.gingiedmonds.com/June12009.html

 

 

Submitted by crowepps on September 12, 2009 - 2:45pm.
crowepps:

"Paul, the reason that people came to the conclusion that some member of the Pro-Life groups were gloating was because of their public pronouncements -- 'murder is terrible but --'  and the history of similar comments when the OTHER doctors were killed and when OTHER people were killed in clinic bombings."

 

Let me ask you this: if there was someone out there publicly doing acts that you thought were gravely evil, and that person was murdered by vigilantes, but other people continued to do those same acts publicly, what would you say about the murder victim?  Would you condemn the murder and then say that this guy/gal and did a lot of wonderful things in his or her lifetime? 

 

Let's say you found out that a prison guard at Guantanamo who brutally tortured prisoners was murdered by vigilantes, and you had good reason to believe that there were other guards who were still torturing prisoners.  What would you say in a press release about this guard?  The honest thing to say would be something like "look, this guard should not have been murdered, we offer our condolences to his family but we cannot condone the actions he took in life against prisoners, and the torture of prisoners needs to stop."  

 

What is wrong with that? 

 

Regarding Randall Terry, well, from what I remember from his statement, I thought it was pretty awful too.  However, setting up Terry as the poster boy for the entire pro-life movement is off-base, as his arguments, tactics, and press releases are often criticized by the rest of the pro-life movement.  Gingi Edmonds doesn't sound much better.

 

I'm glad you brought up Dan Holman, because he basically refutes the whole argument that 'all pro-lifers are pro-murder' when he admits that he isn't accepted by the greater pro-life movement because of his views on the use of violent force here: http://www.armyofgod.com/danholman.html (sorry, hyperlink button isn't working for me).

 

"Having an honest debate should include the fact that some people have ignoble motives and secretly gloat over misfortunes suffered by the other 'camp'." 

 

It should also include the facts that these people are on both sides of the issue and are not representative of the majority of their respective movements. 

Submitted by Paul on September 13, 2009 - 12:23am.
For foetus' sake...

Paul, 70 000 women globally die each year from unsafe abortions. The vast majority of these deaths occur in places where abortion is illegal. When abortion is illegal, abortion rates don't go down, but rates of unsafe abortion increase. Rates of death from unsafe abortion increase. Unsafe abortion kills women. Laws that ban abortion kill women. I would say that laws that result in the deaths of women are bad for women. Your lot won't acknowledge that an increased risk of dying is a bad thing, though, because you don't think it is a bad thing if the women dying are doing so as a result of having unsafe abortions. You think they deserve it. Sacrificing a few Slutty McSlut-Sluts is worth it to you.

 

Why won't you admit that the third trimester abortions George Tiller performed were medically indicated? Do you not think pregnancy is ever life threatening to women? Do you not think foetuses ever have abnormalities that are incompatible with life? Do you think women should be forced to die when they have life threatening pregnancy complications? Do you think women should be forced to continue pregnancies when the foetus has no chance of surviving? Apparently you do, since you've said you consider terminating these pregnancies to be a 'grave evil'. You want women to suffer. You want us to die from life threatening pregnancy complications, and you want us to be forced to suffer the trauma of being forced to gestate foetuses that have no chances of survival. You consider preventing or alleviating these situations to be a grave evil. Only someone who utterly despises women would hold such beliefs. You want us to suffer and die. For foetus' sake, admit it.

 

If you don't want us to die from life-threatening pregnancy complications and be forced to carry foetuses that have no chance of survival, why do you think George Tiller's work was a grave evil?

 

I am so fed up with fascistic, misogynistic, murderous lunatics who sleep with stuffed foetuses and worship at the Church of the Exalted Foetus inflicting their ridiculousness on the rest of us. And why is it that the most virulent of you on this site are men? Do you really not understand the utter freakishness and creepiness of your obsession with sniffing around our uteri? Seriously...just go away. Get out of my damned underwear, get out of my medical treatment, and for your god's sake, stop whimpering about your sacred foetus-godlets. At the very least, do it somewhere else.

 

Colleen is worth more than a foetus. Crowepps is worth more than a foetus. Jodi is worth more than a foetus. TheRealistMom is worth more than a foetus. Ahunt is worth more than a foetus. I am worth more than a foetus. Our lives matter more. Our health matters more. We matter more.
You are misogynists. Anti-choicers are misogynists. You hate women. You support laws that are bad for women. You hate doctors who save women's lives. Stop pretending this isn't the case. Misogyny is a core element of your foetus-worshipping belief system. You may as well embrace it.

Submitted by Emma on September 14, 2009 - 10:19pm.
Now we are getting to the heart of the matter...

"Laws that ban abortion kill women." 

 

I haven't seen any evidence of this yet, but I would be more than willing to look at any evidence you have.   

 

"Why won't you admit that the third trimester abortions George Tiller performed were medically indicated?"

 

Medically indicated for what reason?  I don't understand how delivering a dead baby vs. a live one makes the delivery safer for the mother.  I will would honestly like to get an explanation for this.  

 

"You want us to suffer and die. For foetus' sake, admit it."

 

I have repeatedly said I support exceptions for the life of the mother. 

 

"Seriously...just go away. ... and for your god's sake, stop whimpering about your sacred foetus-godlets. At the very least, do it somewhere else."

 

Aren't you comfortable enough with your own views to be challenged on them and confronted with them?  Shouldn't we try to have an objective debate on this so that we can discern the truth of the matter?  I am willing to listen to your arguments and consider your evidence.  I have been wrong about many things in my life, it is possible that I am wrong about abortion, too.  Maybe you can say something to me that will get me to start seeing things in a new light.  

 

"Colleen is worth more than a foetus. Crowepps is worth more than a foetus. Jodi is worth more than a foetus. TheRealistMom is worth more than a foetus. Ahunt is worth more than a foetus. I am worth more than a foetus. Our lives matter more. Our health matters more. We matter more."

 

Why?  Why are you worth more than the unborn?  Why am I worth more than the unborn?  To me, this seems to be the heart of the matter, and the crux of our disagreement. 

 

"You are misogynists. Anti-choicers are misogynists. You hate women. You support laws that are bad for women. You hate doctors who save women's lives. Stop pretending this isn't the case. Misogyny is a core element of your foetus-worshipping belief system. You may as well embrace it."

 

If you start refuting my arguments instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, I might.  

 

Submitted by Paul on September 14, 2009 - 11:20pm.
This particular story simply

This particular story simply reported straight facts as they were known as of the writing of the story.

All that was known was a) Mr. Pouillon had been killed, b) no one had as yet been apprehended in the killing, c) no other link had yet been made to another killing.

Having spoken directly with the reporter myself, I know that he was working hard to get the evidence and facts down as they came out and NOT to report rumor--i.e. that there were "bodies all over Michigan killed by the same person," (one such rumor found to be false), that this was a killing motivated by a political agenda (it was not), and so on.

To have characterized anyone at the time would have been making it up out of whole cloth cause there was no killer identified at the time.

As soon as we knew--and could verify--who the suspect was, we reported it, and we further condemned the violence and killing of both men.

 

Thanks, Jodi

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on September 12, 2009 - 2:20pm.
Man Killed Over Anti-Abortion Stance

New York Times headline:

Man Killed Over Anti-Abortion Stance

Prosecutors said the suspect, who is 33, targeted Mr. Pouillon because he disapproved of the victim’s protests in front of children at the school. “There was some displeasur...e with how open he was,” said Sara Edwards, the chief assistant prosecutor for Shiawassee County. “He tended to carry big signs with very graphic pictures of fetuses.”

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 1:51pm.
Can you tell me where you got that headline?

Cause the one I find on the NYT site is this:

Anti-Abortion Protester Shot to Death

Very different.

The Times further says:

Officials are investigating whether Mr. Pouillon, who had been involved in anti-abortion efforts for decades, was singled out because of those views. Local newspapers reported that he had been carrying photographs of fetuses outside the school shortly before the shooting.

We know he was an anti-choice advocate. We also know that the suspect is thought to have killed another man the same day whose relatives say had nothing to do with the anti-choice movement.

I have been on the phone with reporters working in Michigan and they are telling me there is not as yet enough evidence to even charge the guy they have in custody much less confirm a motive.

We have condemned the shooting of Mr. Pouillon, irrespective of his views, as we condone any such violence.  But at this moment there is no evidence this is part of a larger movement or even what the motive was of his killer.  

Let's keep our fact straight as we know them, Larry, and not anticipate facts until they are confirmed.

 

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on September 11, 2009 - 2:22pm.
Don't get cute with me

Don't get cute with me Jodi.  You know exactly where that headline came from.  Talk to the ombudsman at NYT, and don't be so sure of yourself next time.

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 2:48pm.
Really, Larry?

I provided a link to the story.

 

Where is yours?

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on September 11, 2009 - 2:53pm.
It's the same story JODI. 

It's the same story JODI.  It's the same link JODI.  That's why I suggested you talk to the ombudsman about it and not jump to conclusions that you'll regret later.

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 2:58pm.
Really, cause that is not what the headline says on my computer.
so you must have your own special system.
Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on September 11, 2009 - 3:00pm.
Larry J,

the reason we inquired is because the New York Times article is titled, in fact, "Anti-Abortion Protestor Shot to Death". When you google the headline you provide, however, it does pop up. But when you click on the link, the headline in fact changes on the New York Times web site. It was an honest question and, as well, an attempt to get to a place where, instead of using this man's murder as an opportunity to point fingers and start screaming about pro-choice violence, we collect all of the facts and information first. 

If this is a case of a man being murdered because of his choice to engage in political activism - something he has every right to do in this country - we will cover it from that angle. Again, RH Reality Check 100% condemns and deplores violence of any kind in the name of political action around women's health and rights. This is a terrible tragedy and will do all we can to cover this story in the best way we can - with facts and information and truth. 

Amie Newman

Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

Submitted by Amie Newman, Managing Editor on September 11, 2009 - 3:07pm.
The NYT article originally

The NYT article originally did have the headline which I stated.  Obviously, someone changed it.  Jodi seemed to be suggesting that I had claimed that the headline was something that it was not.  Now, she could have checked just like you did rather than suggest that I was somehow up to no good, but she didn't.  I half suspected that she knew what had happened and was capitalizing on it. 

 

It can hardly come as a shock that she and I distrust one another.  In fact, the only reason that I originally came to this site was to look at your coverage of the personhood movement (which I believe does not satisfy your own journalistic standards).  Looking at the rest of what is here, it seems as if much of it is merely propaganda (which I find very disappointing considering that RHRC seems to have a relationship with the UN).

 

On the other hand, I don't know who it is that you think is 'screaming about pro-choice' violence, unless you too are misunderstanding the Rachel Maddow comment (which I've already explained).  The reason that I made that comment was that after the Tiller murder there were cries of domestic terrorism- despite the fact that it was a killing committed by a lone nutjob.  I didn't seriously suggest that this was terrorism.  I was suggesting that it was NOT terrorism any more than the Tiller murder was.  (Perhaps readers of RHRC are so invested in the idea that it WAS terrorism that they did not see that that was my point.) 

 

Even within the context of what I thought was an obviously facetious commennt, I did write that it is "possible"- so even if one did think that I was serious, then I still wouldn't have been screaming that it WAS pro-choice terrorism.

 

LJ

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 3:59pm.
Two Points....

One is that all news organizations make mistakes, as it appears the NYT reporter on the ground in Michigan did and as did some commentors to that reporter who appear to have been over-reaching before there was sufficient evidence.

 

You nonetheless did not provide a link to whatever you saw at whatever point in time.

 

At that moment, however, you cited the NYT headline as proof that this was politically motivated by someone out to get anti-choice activists.  My take and my understanding from talking to people on the ground is that the police had no clue exactly what was going on, some were told there were "bodies in 5 other cities in Michigan waiting to be found," which turned out to be false, and so on.  Very fast-moving story, very little information, lots of blogs. 

 

We reported the actual facts as we knew them and did not extrapolate further, create new "facts" or assign motives to the killer.  You did based on the NYT blog which, as you have noted, subsequently changed, as these things do in the heat of a developing story.

 

I was not capitalizing on anything; I was asking for proof of your claim.

 

Second point: The killing of Dr. Tiller fits every definition of domestic terrorism and even the FBI has (finally) agree to investigate it as such.

 

No such criteria exist here.

 

Whether or not you were claiming this was domestic terrorism, you were using the point to undermine the evidence that the murder of Dr. Tiller was.

 

Again....you were using the facts to suit your own case and story and not as they exist.

Jodi

 

 

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on September 11, 2009 - 4:14pm.
Poppycock!  (That's not the

Poppycock!  (That's not the word that I want to use.) 

 

All I did was copy and past from the NYT!  Nothing more and nothing less.  Would you like a screen cap of how the page looked earlier?  Frankly, I half expected that even though it was based on the statement of a prosecutor, that they might try to walk it back- so I saved it.  If you'd gone to the NYT site at the time that I made my comment, then you would have seen it.

 

How is it that copying the NYT amounts to  an effort to "create new 'facts' or assign motives to the killer"?  If anyone was guilty of such a thing then it was the headline writer at the Times, not I.  You are AGAIN accusing me of manipulating the facts, when as far as I'm concerned is rather ironic.

 

You didn't trust me not to twist things for an agenda.  I didn't trust that you had not already seen that my comment accurately reflected what had been there, and I suspected that you were taking advantage of   the fact that anyone who clicked on the link would see the amended version as a basis for making your claim that I  would not hesitate to "create new 'facts' or assign motives to the killer".

 

Dr. Tiller's murder was not terrorism- it was either a murder or perhaps an assassination.  For it to have been terrorism, the motivation would have had to have been part of a campaign to intimidate or coerce through fear.  That was not the intent.  Roeder was just trying to stop Tiller.  Tiller was seen as somehow especially heinous becuase of the late term abortions (which frankly is not in keeping with the pro-life philosophy at all) and Roeder had become obsessed with him.  Do you consider either of the Kennedy assassinations to have been acts of terrorism?

 

The whole Tiller/terrorism meme is merely an attempt by the pro-choicers to capitalize on the last eight years of history and the conservative obsession with fighting terrorism.

Submitted by Larry J on September 11, 2009 - 4:36pm.
1234next ›last »