Janet Napolitano’s Grim Vindication
One recalls the outrage of right-wing talking heads like Michael Savage following the release in April of a Department of Homeland Security memo warning of an increased threat of domestic terrorism from far-right extremists. They complained that the memo abridged the political rights of conservatives by encouraging police authorities to target members of right-wing groups as potential domestic terrorists, accuracy of the memo be damned. After all, unlike groups like NARAL and EMILY’s List, right-wing causes in the United States, such as the anti-abortion movement, tend to have “lone wolves” associated with them that are able and willing to commit acts of terror, as the memo points out. When viewed against the recent murder of abortion clinic doctor George Tiller in his house of worship by a far-right extremist, the earlier objections of conservative pundits to the DHS memo seem at best to represent a denial. That is to say, pundits like Savage and O’Reilly tend to portray those on the opposite side of the culture divide from themselves as dangerous criminals worthy of such retribution, then condemn those who actually act on this inflammatory rhetoric in such ways. This does not establish a causation between the disingenuous scaremongering of right-wing pundits and such acts of terrorism, but it does speak to their hypocrisy for purporting to advocate a “pro-life” platform while at the same time tacitly encouraging acts of violence.
Furthermore, the fact that the “pro-life,” or more accurately, the anti-abortion movement has associated with it such “lone wolves” that act on the inflammatory rhetoric speaks to the contradiction contained in the leadership structure of the movement. While there are sincere individuals who oppose abortion, capital punishment, war, etc. (i.e. there are those who are philosophically consistent), the larger anti-abortion advocacy groups, in their unwillingness to condemn Tiller’s murder in a full and genuine way, demonstrate their shallow subservience to the Republican line as opposed to their legitimacy as an organized movement. Case in point, Randall Terry, the founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, refused to condemn the murder in anything more than a halfhearted way, stating that, rather than regret that his “pro-life” movement was directly responsible for a murder of its own, he was “more concerned that the Obama administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions.” What are these actions, exactly? The gunning down of doctors? The bombing of abortion clinics? Acts of domestic terrorism, like in that DHS memo? Terry’s lack of specificity expatiates in volumes over his discomfort in engaging the “pro-life” movement’s particular violent streak in any honest way. Furthermore, it demonstrates the fact that some within said movement will resort to acts of violent coercion because the means to political coercion on the issue have been largely taken away from them with Obama’s election. This was also touched on in the DHS memo.
In demonstrating its willingness to tolerate acts of terrorism on the part of extremists, the organized anti-abortion movement also demonstrates its unwillingness to follow Obama’s characteristically sane message of cooperation to reduce the number of abortions through genuinely compassionate—rather than violently coercive—means. This once again calls into question the legitimacy of groups like Operation Rescue as facets of an honest and well-meaning movement. Once again, while there are those who genuinely oppose abortion on deeply moral rather than shallow political grounds, the observed reactions of anti-abortion advocacy organizations has shown that their motivation is based more on the latter. The reactions show that, rather than act as a facet of an honest and well-meaning campaign to prevent abortion, Operation Rescue and the like act first and foremost as a facet of a strictly conservative, staunchly anti-Obama Republican line. They show that they are concerned less with preventing abortion and more with retaining the political relevance of their divisive message in an age of increasing sanity and reason.
Murdering someone to show that murder is wrong is utter nonsense.