The assassination of Dr. George Tiller, an undeniably political act, has been roundly condemned by the mainstream groups associated with the abortion debate, and within the mainstream of abortion lobbying/activism, the political significance of Tiller's death has not yet become manifest. With Randall Terry as a notable exception, the major pro-life and pro-choice figures have issued statements almost entirely devoid of politics. Pro-lifers, especially, have said their movement is about the sanctity of life, and thus cannot support an act of murder.
But in opinion circles, a debate is raging about speech. Pro-choice
commentators have condemned Bill O'Reilly, for instance, for labeling
Tiller as "Tiller the Baby Killer"--a Salon article by Gabriel Winant outlines O'Reilly's use of such phrases. At Kansas City Star blog PrimeBuzz, columnist Mike Hendricks
indicts vociferous pro-lifers as Tiller's real murderers, for
demonizing him in similar language over the years. In other words, the
topic of Tiller's death has become about whether it's appropriate to
talk about a person in those ways, and whether language like "Tiller
the Baby Killer" constitutes inciteful speech--whether the speech of
passionate pro-lifers has been hateful, whether they constitute a
fanaticism that promulgated the fanaticism of Tiller's shooter, and
whether it effectively sentenced Tiller to death.
Tucker Carlson, in a Washington Post chat, was faced
with a charge that O'Reilly was "playing with fire" in his
condemnations against Tiller. His response: "Every one of those
descriptions of Tiller is objectively true. I sincerely think it's
appalling that he was murdered. But Tiller was a monster, no doubt."
Will Tiller's shooting have an impact on the national debate about
abortion? We can't know yet. But if Carlson's response is an indicator,
even Tiller's harshest critics will likely denounce his shooting,
seeking to draw an undeniable line between speaking against him and
supporting his murder. Perhaps Tiller's shooting will make everyone
more cognizant of "fanaticism"--and perhaps, even, it will lead a few to
reconsider criticism of the Department of Homeland Security's recent
and widely panned report on right wing extremism. But as Tiller's death
is discussed today, the debate is less about abortion itself, and more
about how it is debated.
O'Reilly's comments over time are undoubtedly dangerous. Though he clearly has the right to say what he pleases, he must take some (at least ethical) responsibility for Tiller's death. When you see his statements all compiled in one place, it's shocking:
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/06/bill-oreillys-role-in-george-tillers.html
The caricature of Tiller that Tucker Carlson, many members of Congress (evidence by the Sebelius confirmation hearings), and many in the press have bought into is absurd. That essentially one tiny, extremist pro-life group, Operation Rescue, assisted by only a few vocal supporters are able to succeed there is ridiculous. There is simply no proof that Tiller is a monster, and numerous criminal proceedings have borne this out. Even here, you're missing the elephant in the room by pointing at O'Reilly's statements... those are disgusting, but not the type of speech that's genuinely dangerous. Operation Rescue routinely photographs women getting abortions (well, apparently pregnant women walking into clinics that perform abortions along with other services) and posts them online; they publish the addresses of doctors, lawyers, judges, people in the media, witnesses, and everyone else who opposes them. Not for the purpose of organizing a protest, but strictly for intimidation, and the right has long accepted that sort of behavior within its coalition and Carlson is now defending it. What he's saying here is that everything short of violence; everything that's been done to Tiller up until this point (aside from getting shot, bombed, and having his clinic torched) is OK.
The appropriate question isn't whether O'Reilly should be allowed to say this crap (he should, and he should be held to account now), but whether we're going to allow people to be intimidated out of performing legal medical procedures and seeking independent medical advice without the implicit threat of violence.
o'Reilly has blood on his hands. Nothing will become of it of course. Oh well.
What have Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld been called? If they are shot at would people that have demonized them be responsible?
Also, what of those who blame the US for genocide, etc and demonize US actions? Are they responsible for 9/11?
Please reply honestly.
In Newsweek, Robert Samuelson again advances the myth of a liberal media bias in making a light on facts argument that the Obama administration is receiving a free pass from the media. Yet, there never really is an analysis of whether the media displays an overly conservative bias where extreme right wing media makes the conservative mainstream media look moderate or liberal by comparison. Where is the examination of the impact of right wing propaganda in formenting dissent and violence?
For example, will any mainstream media outlet have the guts to examine how right wing/pro-gun media may have helped provoke attacks by Tim McVeigh, and more recently by Jim Adkinsson, Richard Poplawski, and now the killing of Dr. Tiller.
Yet, as Secretary Napolitano found out, the subject of right wing terrorism appears to be verboten. It is okay for the media to question whether it is too liberal, but it is taboo to ask if it is too conservative.
Its has been proven to us once again that “Pro-life” is a misnomer. These right wing jihadists are rabid anti-abortionists. Like it or not abortion is legal.
These un-American radical groups should be viewed for what they truly are; domestic terrorists. They should not be allowed to spew their brand of hatred and disorder.
When someone is charged with murder, like Scott Roeder, don't forget the government foots the bill on many occasions for a public defender to speak out in his defense. This government funded speech may sound something like:
"Today abortion doctors engage in the state-sponsored extermination of millions of human beings, widespread inhumane atrocities, and barbaric crimes against humanity. These abortionists are murderers, as the Nazi doctors, even though the law may once again try to falsely vindicate them.
It was against the law to help save Jews from Nazi butchers, but those who did were courageous heroes and not criminals. Abortion is murder; therefore using deadly force to stop George Tiller from his murderous rampage is morally justified."
To many this speech is shocking, but it's just routine procedure that happens everyday in our legal system and society.