Loaded Language and Political Gain: The Exploitation of George Tiller’s Murder By Abortion Supporters

Whenever there are incidents of crime against abortion providers or supporters, the pro-abortion lobby gears up its propaganda machine to blame the whole pro-life movement for those crimes, such as the murder of abortionist Dr George Tiller or Eric Rudolph’s bombing of an Atlanta abortion clinic. According to the pro-abortion lobby, founded on a philosophy that champions hate, violence and other bad/criminal things against abortion supporters and providers, the pro-life campaign naturally produces followers who endorse and execute criminal, terrorist and militant acts against the latter. However, this characterization of the pro-life movement is wrong and unfounded and is simply an attempt by the pro-abortion lobby to defame and discredit the movement, paving the way for its persecution, oppression and ultimate destruction.

There is a very vocal and visible aspect of the pro-abortion lobby that exploits crimes allegedly committed by those claiming affiliation with the pro-life movement, like Tiller’s murder, in an attempt to garner political and moral advantage over the movement by spinning such crimes as indicative of the entire movement. A movement which, therefore, must be stopped, or at least weakened, in all respects, politically, morally, philosophically, legally and so forth. (for example, check here, here and here. However, those who would put forth such assertions about the pro-life movement have never been able to substantiate them with hard evidence. As proof, therefore, such individuals offer nothing more than a mishmash of unsubstantiated, untenable, obscure, irrational, illogical arguments and statements but which are carefully worded, tactfully employing emotive or loaded language (like hate, violent, terrorist, and so forth). The famous liberal, pro-abortion and icon of the Left site The Huffington Post, for instance, is rife with such characterizations, like from Jeffrey Feldman, Shannon Moore and Mary Mapes. Notice how they also try and connect Christians with abortion violence; even though abortion is not exclusively a Christian issue but is, rather, one which cuts across many political, religious and irreligious lines.

The aim of emotive or loaded language is to extract the conditioned, negative, irrational, paranoid response and perspectives from people that it tends to incite towards their subject, like disgust, fear, loathing, condemnation and discrediting of the entire pro-life movement. Information about loaded language may be found here, here and here. For example, the National Organization for Women stated the day after Tiller’s murder that “the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security must root out and prosecute as domestic terrorists and violent racketeers the criminal enterprise that has organized and funded (anti-abortion) criminal acts for decades.” Who or what is the “criminal enterprise?” Who are the “domestic terrorists and violent racketeers?” The vagueness of these concepts is deliberate for they are meant, of course, to generalize the entire pro-life movement, from the most pacifist to the most violent elements, both words and actions as some kind of terrorist organization and/or a type of organized crime that is an imminent threat not only to the safety of the individual, community and/or society but also to national security, the American way of life, the Constitution and so forth. Similar sentiments, as we have seen, have been expressed by many others in the mainstream pro-abortion movement and media.

When such pejorative perceptions of the pro-life movement is successfully rooted in the mind of the public and especially those with political and judicial power, the social, political and legal opposition to and persecution and oppression of the movement becomes easier to foment, justify and normalize. In other words, attacking and ultimately denying the Constitutional rights of pro-life individuals and organizations not only becomes possible but also legitimate. At this point, the longstandng objective of many in the pro-abortion movement of silencing, marginalizing and rendering irrelevant the pro-life movement, thereby enabling abortion to thrive uncontested, unquestioned and uncriticized becomes evermore possible. Nothing endangers Constitutional rights more than irrationality and paranoia. As Father Frank Pavone states, “I wouldn’t put it past abortion advocates in Congress to use this tragedy to put more protections in place for the so-called right to choose.” We have witnessed the political persecuation of the pro-life movement in recent history. During the Clinton presidency, for example, even the most pacifist pro-life campaigners were targetted by the State, such as labelling nuns praying on the sidewalk by abortion clinics as terrorists and subsequentally targetted by police and many pro-life organizations, like Life Dynamics, who were in no way linked to violent activity being spied upon, including having their mail opened. You can check here, here.

With a pro-abortion President Obama in office combined, with Tiller’s death, the resulting paranoia and the recently released report “Rightwing Extremism” in which the pro-life movement is given special attention, the attacks on the Constitutional rights and freedoms of the latter from the highest offices in America may have been reinvigorated. We already know that Attorney General Eric Holder has directed U.S. Marshals to protect “approprite people and facilities around the nation”…in order to “help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.” What this means is unclear. It could mean that any person, group, activity, speech, expression can be arbitrarily targetted on the basis of preventing “any related acts of violence from occurring” or under the guise of “Homeland security.” How this current wave of hysteria against the pro-life movement plays out, if it has any longterm force and what its eventual consequences will be obviously remains to be seen. What is clear, though, is the pro-life movement is facing stiff opposition from the public, the mainstream media and political and legal forces in Amerca’s highest offices reinforced, perhaps even encouraged, by the propaganda of the pro-abortion lobby. The pro-life movement must, however, continue its message against abortion while making it clear that violence of any kind against abortion providers and/or supporters is unnacceptable, counter-productive and hypocritical to the whole idea of pro-life.

 

Anti Abortion, Pro Life Violence is Rare

Regardless of how the pro-abortion lobby wants to spin it, incidents of crime, especially violent crime, including murder, against abortion providers and clinic workers is very rare. Consider this, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries reports that on average there are about 800 work-related homicides per year, most of which are committed during robberies. From the legalization of abortion in 1973 to 2009, there have been 8 murders of abortionists, 5 of which occurred between 1993 and 1994. During those latter 2 years, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reports that 2,154 work-related murders occurred in the US of which one occupation, garage/service station attendant, had 5 times and two occupations, auto mechanic and janitor, had almost 3 times the deaths suffered by abortionists in almost 36 years at 40, 23 and 21 deaths, respectively. Tiller was the first abortionist murdered in 11 years, the last being Dr. Barnett Slepian in October, 1998.

As a workplace, abortion clinics are not prone to crime. Violent crime has been particularly rare, having victimized abortion clinics 6 times from 1993 to 2009, including 5 shootings and 1 bombing, resulting in 6 deaths and 2 injuries. Compare this, for instance, to the over 59 school shootings resulting in some 142 deaths in the US during that same period of time. To put things in even more perspective, from 1993-2007 there were 559 on the job murders of taxicab and livery drivers; of these, 103 occurred during the peak years for murder of abortionists from 1993-94.

Violence against abortion providers and support staff is so rare that when major organizations like the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health compile studies, lists and/or statistics of work-related violence or occupations most susceptible to it, abortion, whether as provider or support staff, is not even listed. Rather, workers most at risk for violent crime, like homicide, include taxicab drivers and chauffeurs, those providing protective services, such as bailiffs, detectives, police, sheriffs and security guards, gas station and garage workers, jewelry store workers, bank workers, grocery store workers and teachers.

People have complained that this is a false analogy because it compares occupations where workers are interacting daily with the public, whereas abortionists and their staff are not, and therefore more at risk for crime. This is not true. Abortionists and their staff, like others in the medical profession, are also in daily contact with the public, their contact information, both business and private, attainable and their clinics, usually, readily accessible. Once off the job, most abortionists and their staff do what most people do – go out in public places, such as shopping malls, movies, games, church, etc. Therefore, at some time and place, to someone truly intent and prepared in committing a crime, the opportunity to do so will present itself. The real reason why these “doctors” and their staff don’t suffer more violence is because the pro lifer desiring and/or willing to commit crime is extremely rare.

However, to appease these complaints we may compare abortion to other careers in the medical profession, which is one of the most dangerous for work-related violence in the US. Even here, though, the instances of violent crime against abortion providers or their support staff is very rare, with those working outside of the abortion field being the most victimized, the primary perpetrators being patients in psychiatric wards, emergency and waiting rooms, geriatric units or in-home care. Among the highest risk factors for such violence include mental disorders of patients, long wait times for patients and overcrowding. Therefore, even compared with other medical careers, abortion is among the safest.

Crime against abortionists, then, is simply something sensationalized and hyped up by the pro-abortion lobby and the media. The former does it to make the problem appear bigger than it is in an attempt to defame and discredit, gaining political/moral advantage over the pro-life movement while the media typically does it for ratings and sales; as the old saying goes “if it bleeds, it leads.” It is somewhat similar to the fixation with homicide in the postal services industry during the 1980s and 1990s when the media made it appear that it was an epidemic. The fact has always been that work-related violence in postal service work is rare. Creating the perception that abortionists are under constant threat of violent crime is an attempt by the pro-abortion lobby to exploit crimes against abortionists to garner political, legal and societal support for the persecution and oppression of the pro-life movement. This is an issue which I will address in my next blog.

(NOTE: I will make this very clear; this is not about trivializing or denying the existence of violence against abortion providers or supporters nor am I saying they do not deserve protection by the law. What we are presented with by the pro-abortion lobby and the media, however, is a message suggesting abortionists and abortion clinics are constant scenes of crime, and particularly violent crimes at that. This is not true, and all I am saying is we need get away from sensationalism, paranoia and hysteria and logically and rationally evaluate the situation, putting things in proper perspective because when we do that it becomes clear that abortionists or their workplaces are not more prone to violence than anybody else. )

 

Anti Abortion, Pro Life Movement Not to Blame for Dr George Tiller’s Murder

The liberal media, bloggers and pro-abortion lobby have attempted to link the entire pro-life movement to the death of abortionist Dr George Tiller ever since his May 31, 2009 slaying, spinning the latter, the act of one individual, supposedly a pro-life supporter, as indicative, exemplary and normal of the entire pro-life movement. Many have exploited this crime to argue that it is time to legally and politically clamp down on the hate, violence, terrorism and harassment, in deed and in word, of which the whole pro-life movement is guilty, directly and indirectly. For example, NOW’s statement. However, to accuse and convict the whole pro-life movement of Tiller’s murder and of hate, violence, terrorism, harassment, and related concepts, whether in word or deed, whether directly or indirectly, is wrong, untenable and simply obscures reality. In this time where irrationality, hysteria and paranoia are easy to incite and pander to, we need to take a step back and objectively analyze the situation and the abortion debate for there is nothing tangible, concrete and direct anyone can legitimately use as evidence to objectively accuse, prosecute, convict and condemn the entire, or even a majority of, the pro-life movement of direct or indirect involvement in Tiller’ s murder or of hate, violence, terrorism or harassment and other criminal things in any sense.

Those who would charge the whole pro-life movement with involvement in Tiller’s murder have not proven any causal link between the two but rather have assumed it according to their own prejudices, and thus the charge is void in every sense and must be dismissed until concrete and direct evidence can be provided. Such an accusation is premised on the assumption that the pro-life movement is founded on hate, violence, terrorism, harassment and related concepts which organically foments and fuels criminal and extremist pro-life activities. A Houston Chronicle editorial exemplifies this, stating the pro-life movement has “indulged” in “hate-filled rhetoric…for decades…establishing a climate that accepts and even condones violence against abortion providers.” Similar sentiments have been echoed by Mike Hendricks and Yael T. Abouhalkah, at the Kansas City Star, Satchel Robinson at Daily Kos, Adele Stan at The Huffington Post, Susan J. Demas at Capitol Chronicle, among many others. Again, there is no objective and concrete proof that this is what the pro-life movement is based on, especially as it pertains to the entire pro-life movement, and thus must be dismissed as a false generalization.

The pro-life movement involves many different organizations and individuals from all walks of life, cutting across religious, political and economic backgrounds and beliefs. These include atheists, agnostics, conservatives, feminists, liberals, medical practitioners, people and organizations of various religious faiths and so forth. According to a Gallup poll released in May, 2009, a majority of Americans are pro-life. With the exception of a fringe minority of extremists, pro-life supporters have never promoted, encouraged, supported or partaken in what would legally be considered criminal or militant activity like violence, murder, hate, terrorism, harassment and so forth. The unequivocal public denunciation by the majority, mainstream of the pro-life movement of such words and deeds by individuals claiming to be part of the pro-life movement should be proof enough. Every mainstream pro-life organization has condemned, for example, Tiller’s murder. Many pro-life opponents may question or deny the sincerity of such disapproval, but such people most likely do not know us in the pro-life movement, what we truly feel in our hearts and minds and are judging us through their own prejudices. Some may even be exploiting such criminal actions to attain political advantage over the pro-life movement. Mary Kay Culp, Executive Director of Kansans for Life sums it up well saying “the actions of militants do not represent the agenda of the anti-abortion movement and are a setback to its goals.” We in the pro-life movement do use sharp criticisms, critiques and explicit visuals (like pictures and videos) and make use of political and legal avenues to denounce and stop what we see as a wrong. This should not be spun or considered as anything other than what it is – civilized opposition to abortion. The majority, mainstream pro-life movement is peaceful and pacifist, in word and in deed.

Secondly, what do these individuals mean by hate, violence, terrorism or harassment and other pejorative labels they attach to the pro-life movement? These terms are used so loosely and subjectively that anything with which they disagree may be labeled as such, and thus such terms merely reflect and express the biases and prejudices of those who use them rather than the truth of those upon whom they are placed. Therefore it is important to carefully discern what is really being targeted when opponents and critics of the pro-life movement use such terms as any disagreement, opposition or criticism to their beliefs, ideology, perspective can be spun as “hate,” “terrorism,” violence,” “harassment,” and related concepts. Tiller, for instance, called the whole campaign against him “terrorism,” and not just the criminal acts against him, which were, again, vilified by the mainstream pro-life movement.

Criminal and/or militant activity is not what the mainstream, majority of the pro-life movement wants or needs. On the one hand, the pro-life movement realizes such activity would be political, moral and social suicide as its adversaries would exploit them to condemn the movement and its goals and advance calls for its political and legal persecution, which is what is happening now. On the other hand, the pro-life movement understands that such activity is not only illegal but also inherently wrong and immoral regardless of the responses it would incite from the movement’s adversaries or the type of media coverage it would garner. If the pro-life movement is to maintain its moral advantage over the pro-abortion campaign, the former must respect the law and all life regardless; anything less is hypocrisy. Murder is murder whether it is by the abortionist or by someone against abortion, whether it is the unborn child or the abortion doctor, and thus must be condemned as such. If we are to arbitrarily decide who lives and who dies, we will become a nation in chaos, a lawless nation in which nobody can be safe and in which anybody can be targeted by anyone, at anytime, for any reason. As Princeton law professor Robert P. George in National Review says “let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.” Anyone, then, linking violent acts of extremists with the mainstream, majority of the pro-life movement either does so out of ignorance, prejudice and/or as an attempt to garner political and/or moral advantage over their adversaries and must be dismissed as such unless direct proof can be used to substantiate their claims.

 

Hello, a brief introduction to me

Hello, my name is Christian and, yes, I am a Christian, conservative, many would say old fashioned, gentleman, and very happily married. I am not on here to berate, denigrate, demean anyone or anything. My presence here is an extension of my off line activities through which I strive to proselytize and defend God’s Word and offer a Christian perspective on current events. When able, I also try and help people better themselves and overcome problems and difficulties in their lives. My supreme goal is to better my community, country and world, which I contend can only be fully achieved through the widespread adoption of Christianity. Producing disciples of Christianity is thus one of my major goals. Many of you nonbelievers may claim that this sounds like I want to force my beliefs on people but this is far from the truth. I do not want to force anything on anyone, and neither do most Christians. The hypocrisy of many nonbelievers is they charge us religious people with trying to “force” our beliefs on people, on society yet they are the ones guilty of this very thing. Sam Harris, for example, a major intellectual leader in the anti-religion movement, says religion should not be tolerated as that is dangerous and equates religious belief with mental illness (see his book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason). Have a nice day and God Bless you, and check out my youtube channel.