Killing is Pro-Life

31 May

An abortion doctor was murdered in Wichita, KS today while on his way in to church.

This isn’t just murder, and most likely a hypocritical one, at that. This is terrorism. The cops have a plate and are searching for the suspect.

23 Responses to “Killing is Pro-Life”

  1. The Humanist May 31, 2009 at 4:23 pm #

    Update: suspect in custody

    That this courageous man provided needed health services to women in the face of countless acts of religious terrorism against him and his clinic is nothing short of amazing. May he rest in peace and may his assassin receive swift and rightful justice.

  2. Larry Castellani May 31, 2009 at 6:15 pm #

    If we don’t treat this as terrorism, then we are as guilty as all the Muslims who sit back for whatever reason, and do nothing about the jihadists who defile their religion. The weak objection to this horrendous act on the part of the pro-lifers (a title which they deserve less and less) seems to be to betray a secret satisfaction that this doctor is now dead, no matter what the means. This Christianist hypocrisy serves to pound one more nail into the coffin of Chistian credibility with respect to any claim to moral leadership in the world.

  3. Brian May 31, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    Enough with this country being held hostage by the religious right.

    They have had their day and their say, and most people I know have had it with them and their typically hypocritical view of life…not to mention their insisting that everybody live their lives according to *their* God’s rules—which they often don’t follow themselves.

    Let this be the shot heard round the country. The day of being held hostage by Christian conservatives IS OVER.

  4. LC Scotty May 31, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    Doesn’t it depend on the motive?

    I agree-if this killing was religiously motivated based on Dr. Tillman’s professional practices then this is terrorism and should be prosecuted as such.

    However, people kill other people for all manner of reasons, and to jump to ascribing a motive before a suspect is even identified is a bit premature.

  5. Jon Splett May 31, 2009 at 10:58 pm #

    Thank Bill O’Reilly and the Christianist right wing fear mongers for this one.

    Someone tell me again why we still have religion?

  6. Brian June 1, 2009 at 12:18 am #

    LC Scotty–

    You really have to “wait and see” whether or not THIS is about a religious bent?


  7. Pauldub June 1, 2009 at 4:54 am #

    @Brian- LC is simply stating a requests for facts. And stranger things have happened. Although I did make the same assumption as many did.

  8. The Humanist June 1, 2009 at 7:00 am #

    So much for jumping to conclusions.

    I wonder how the “detain them at the border/racially profile them at the airport/invade their mosques/wiretap their calls/waterboard them first, ask questions later” crowd will feel about this.

  9. Russell June 1, 2009 at 7:30 am #

    If anything, this man represents the lunatic fringe, not the religous right, or the conservative movement. He was way out. There was nothing mainstream about his views. Any attempts to paint him as anything more are erroneous. He was clearly a misguided, disturbed individual acting alone.

    Yes, this was an act of terror and should be dealt with accordingly. And I have no doubt he will be.

    However, keep in mind there is a distinction between domestic terrorism and international terrorism. This is an act of domestic terror and is being dealt with accordingly. This is not an act of international terror and statements about borders and airports are completely irrelevant.

    Attempting to throw in the politics of waterboarding to this tragedy is vile and disgusting.

  10. The Humanist June 1, 2009 at 7:51 am #

    @ Russell The Torture Apologist – that’s such a pre-9/11 mindset.

  11. The Humanist June 1, 2009 at 9:12 am #

    Also….this physician was terrorized for three decades by anti-abortion nutjobs who hate freedom and the law. For Christ’s sake, he was shot in both arms 16 years ago. Let’s not pretend this was some random crime. This guy had a target on his back because he helped women and the infantile religious right couldn’t handle that.

  12. Russell June 1, 2009 at 9:44 am #

    If this suspected murderer did not act alone and he had information about future threats on any of our citizens, I would support the use of any legal extradorinary interrogation techniques to get that information and prevent those attacks. Even techniques who legality is still being debated. I am an equal opportunity waterboarder.

    Since you kids insist on turning this into a discussion on something completely irrelevant to the issue, I’ll say it once again. The type of waterboarding used in Gitmo has not been declared illegal by any legal authority in the US. Even people in Obama’s own adminstration, those most closely associated with the issue and most qualified to speak on this, refuse to call it torture. It’s not as cut and dry as you people claim, so please stop misrepresenting the facts, BP.

    Obviously our government failed this citizen as Humanist pointed out. I would support allowing the government measures to better protect people like Dr. Tiller. Too bad you guys wouldn’t.

  13. Ike June 1, 2009 at 10:02 am #

    not all religiously motivated crimes are terrorism, you fool

  14. Russell June 1, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    Terrorism is not defined by terrorizing an individual. The definition is more complex than that, even if the words sound similar.

    Are you sure it was organized “groups” and not just radical individuals that went after this man?

    If there are domestic terror groups involved in this, where is Obama’s Justice Department?

  15. Russell June 1, 2009 at 10:45 am #

    None of that says that any groups were involved in this or that the Justice Department or DHS are investigating that. Sure, it shows that DHS has been investigating right-wing extremist groups and also that this murderer was known to authorities prior to this event. None of that is news at this point. It still waits to be seen if they will investigate beyond the murderer. But, if this guy was known to authorities prior to this murder, we still need to ask where was the Justice Department? That question is further compounded by the fact that this doctor was attacked prior to this murder.

  16. Brian June 1, 2009 at 10:50 am #

    I think most would agree Tim McVeigh was a terrorist.

    He had only one co-conspirator. Not a big group. Not a group at all. A terrorist just the same. And the far right wing does NOT have mainstream views. They are decidedly in the minority.

    Events like this highlight the biggest reason why conservatives are losing ground in this country: They’re often the most unforgiving, short-sighted, reactionary and hypocritical yahoos. The party of anti-intellectualism’s better days are behind them.

  17. The Humanist June 1, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    This is most certainly terrorism….Operation Rescue may not have plotted Dr. Tiller’s assassination, but they will certainly reap the benefits of it, namely that abortion providers in the US who are providing a LEGAL health service to women are being terrorized out of providing this care. Three decades of clinic bombings, harassment, threats, intimidation and the assassinations of 8 physicians (including our own Dr. Barnett Slepian) have been quite successful in limiting women (especially poor women)’s access to reproductive health services.

    Operation Rescue has learned a little PR in the years since Dr. Slepian’s death and know that blaming the victim for his own murder and continuing the parade of harassment and intimidation won’t fly in a 2009 America that has had it with Christian extremism.

  18. hank June 1, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    Legal means lawful.
    @Humanist—can you tell me which part of the United States Code makes abortion legal? I can’t find it and I don’t believe it exists.

    An opinion of the Supreme Court is not law. Laws can only be enacted by the Legislature.

  19. The Humanist June 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    @ Hank – Let’s review the powers given to the Judiciary in Section 2, Article 3 of the US Constitution:

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    The power of the SCOTUS to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional, while not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, is a well-established precedent. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

    A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute

    Now, to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 majority decision held that most laws against abortion in the US violated a constitution right to privacy – specifically, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, as was and is precedent, the Court overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting access to reproductive health care for women. It also held that a fetus cannot be defined as a legal person.

    There have been successive SCOTUS decisions that have restored some of the restrictions, but have always upheld the central holding of Roe – abortion is legal in the US.

  20. Pete at BS June 2, 2009 at 8:18 am #

    “Someone tell me again why we still have religion?”

    @Jon Splett – Your disdain for organized religion is duly noted AGAIN. Quite frankly, it borders on an obsession of yours. I was born and raised Catholic and NO WHERE in the Catholic doctrine does it advocate for this kind of behavior. There are tens of millions of christians in this country, and such a small fraction of them resort to any type of extreme behavior regarding any issue, not just abortion.

    Why does it concern you one bit if people chose to believe in something bigger than themselves, because for the vast majority of us, that is what religion is about…….believing that life is a gift and should be lived with a set of principles that are timeless and inarguable. Certainly, not every person follows everyone of those principles/rules, but a vast majority of Christians are better people because they believe that there is a final judgement.

    To judge us all based on the actions of a very, very small percentage is illogical and selfish. The vast majority of us are peaceful, rational people. I would venture that lunatics don’t need religion to be crazy.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: