Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Mainstreaming feminist punk didn’t really do us any favors Previous entry: Tim Tebow ad thought

Roeder found guilty; now what?

Very good news that Scott Roeder was hit about as hard as you can under the circumstances. The jury probably didn’t have to ding him for assault, but did, and that helps make it likely he’ll never see freedom again.  While part of me wants that to be true for justice, part of it is just the fear that anti-choice nuts are highly likely to recommit, so Roeder needs to be locked away for the safety of other doctors and clinic workers.  As anti-choicers are generally cowards—-this includes Roeder, who spent 10 years fantasizing about this, mainly because he wanted to get away, and who assaulted two men in his desperation to escape justice—-the fact that they will go to jail for their crimes will probably cool down the inclinations of the would-be copycats that activists like Jill Stanek have helpfully pointed in the direction of other doctors.  The harsh reality of jail isn’t something that people who live fantasy lives really want to deal with. 

That said, there will always be someone who is willing to commit violence in the anti-choice ranks, a lot of someones.  The movement attracts losers like Roeder like flies to honey, because the anti-choice movement is, contrary to their self-identification, deeply hostile to life and their message sounds good to the deeply bitter.  All the infrastructure that made it possible for Roeder to murder is still in place—-anti-choice activists tracking doctors’ movements and feeding that information to deeply unstable people, the wink-wink attitude towards violence, the highly charged lies about why pro-choice activists and doctors do what they do.  Somehow, I got on one of Randall Terry’s mailing lists, and he saw the writing on the wall during the trial—-it was pretty obvious that there was only one possible verdict—-and sent out an alarming email to his followers.  It’s really long, but I’ll quote some of the pertinent parts.  After a disingenuous claim that he’s not condoning Roeder’s actions, Terry goes on to do just that.

“We will be present to be a voice for the babies who perished at George Tiller’s hand, and to raise a series of ‘academic questions’ such as the following:

“Was John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry completely right, completely wrong, or a mix of both? Was Brown a hero or a villain?”

“Was Nat Turner’s slave rebellion completely just, completely unjust, or a mixture of both? Was Turner a hero or a villain?”

It was pointed out to me that Terry might actually, since he is such a massive racist, think the right of slaves to rebel is more ambiguous than most of would think.  It’s certainly possible, since Pat Robertson only recently suggested that god has it out for Haiti because they successfully threw off the shackles of slavery.  Even though the person who suggested Terry might be pro-slavery was mostly kidding, it’s something to remember—-every time they compare abortion to slavery or the Holocaust, they’re suggesting that neither of those was that horrible, and implying that Jewish or black people are the equivalent of mindless fetuses. 

But I do think Terry is trying to suggest that someone who kills abortion providers will go down in history as a hero, because he basically comes out and makes himself very clear.

The vast majority of the pro-life movement is committed to the rule of law, with a firm commitment to end child-killing by peaceful, legal means. 37 years of tireless political efforts to defend unborn babies proves this. In this trial, that commitment remains.


But there is another law – the Law of Blood – written by our Maker. It is etched in the heart of man and the laws of nature, and we cannot escape its reality or consequences.

When the rule of law and the Law of Blood clash, such as in George Tiller’s death, we must not pretend that there is no connection between Mr. Tiller’s shedding of innocent blood and Scott Roeder’s act of violence against him. There is sowing; there is reaping.

Which is a way of saying that their god’s work was done through Scott Roeder, that Roeder is an angel of death. 

These kinds of appeals are perfectly pitched to attract hostile losers who crave some sort of escape from themselves.  Their life is boring, they are mediocre, and they will never be anyone of note.  But they could shoot a doctor and here!  Randall Terry is telling you that you’ll be a hero in the history books, that your name will always be known.  That we only have the fear of jail to counter that is alarming; for someone like Roeder who appears to have given up any attachments to the world, there isn’t much to lose. 

Terry founded Operation Rescue, and now they claim to reject him as an extremist.  But is Operation Rescue really anti-violence?  Their #2 person is Cheryl Sullenger, who has done time for conspiring to bomb a clinic.  Roeder had her phone number on his dashboard when he was caught.  As you can see at that link, Sullenger and the president of Operation Rescue stalked and harassed the Tillers constantly—-they didn’t just stalk them, but they stalked and harassed everyone who knew the Tillers, it seems, including the dry cleaners. 

With this sort of obvious circumstantial evidence on hand, it’s really not too much to suggest there’s a possibility of a criminal conspiracy.  (And isn’t stalking itself a crime?)  What I want to know is, why isn’t the federal government doing more to investigate this possibility? Shooting clinic workers is straight up terrorism; if there was a conspiracy, it was a terrorist conspiracy.  You hear soooooo much about terrorism and conspiracies in our culture, and much of it doesn’t amount to much.  But you have people behaving in these brazen ways and creating these relationships, and nothing seems to be done about it. 

Hey, it might not amount to much.  It’s possible they’re so good at the nudging and winking that solid evidence of a conspiracy will never produce itself.  But that they aren’t even investigated when there’s such a whiff of fishiness is scary, and surely will embolden them to push a little harder with the nudging and winking and posting of home addresses and church-going hours and dry cleaning preferences.  If we want to put a chill on misogynist violence like this, the federal government needs to at least open a serious investigation.  After all, most of them are cowards.  Even as they wink-wink encourage each other to commit violence, most of them are pretty unwilling to risk their own freedom to do so.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 04:41 PM • (80) Comments

After all, most of them are cowards.  Even as they wink-wink encourage each other to commit violence, most of them are pretty unwilling to risk their own freedom to do so.

Even the anti-choice comment trolls on liberal sites are cowards. Abortion is the main issue that compels them to post on Pandagon and other pro-choice sites, and yet watch how studiously they’ll avoid addressing the Roeder verdict today. It’s very amusing.

Comment #1: Gracchus.  on  01/29  at  05:51 PM

I’m really glad that Roeder will be kept out of society for a long time.  However, I still wish he could be tried for the lives of the women who will surely die because they have life-threatening pregnancies and no access to a safe abortion.  I don’t necessarily wish more punishment, because he’ll probably spend his life in prison as it is, but I just wish he would realize the true consequences of his actions.  Maybe he already realizes that women will die because of him, and that’s just icing on the cake for him.

Comment #2: bananacat  on  01/29  at  05:53 PM

catgirl, I don’t think he has a very happy relationship with reality, so it wouldn’t really matter much, I hate to say. 

This whole thing is just incredibly sad.  The more I think about how much anti-choice leaders really spin their arguments to help angry, bitter people like Roeder feel justified in their actions, the madder I get.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/29  at  05:57 PM

From post

Pat Robertson only recently suggested that god has it out for Haiti because they successfully threw off the shackles of slavery.  Even though that was said in jest, it’s something to remember—-every time they compare abortion to slavery or the Holocaust, they’re suggesting that neither of those was that horrible, and implying that Jewish or black people are the equivalent of mindless fetuses.

1. How do you know Pat Robertson was kidding? I never got that impression, I thought he was seriously stating God hates Haitians because they made a “deal with Satan” a.k.a. worshipped Voodoo. It seems in comfortably line with his beliefs.
2. The comparison of abortion to Holocaust is certainly insane. It does cheapen the Holocaust & slavery to compare abortion to ‘em. But I’m not sure B really follows A here.

Comment #4: atheist  on  01/29  at  05:59 PM

Ack, I need to fix that.  Bad grammar misled you.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/29  at  06:07 PM

If we want to put a chill on misogynist violence like this, the federal government needs to at least open a serious investigation.  After all, most of them are cowards.  Even as they wink-wink encourage each other to commit violence, most of them are pretty unwilling to risk their own freedom to do so.

They’re rich, connected, and basically untouchable.  Terry Randall isn’t operating in a vacuum.  He has friends in the police.  He has friends in the DA’s office.  I’m sure he knows a guy or two on the FBI.  He and his “ministry” may be cowards, but all the more reason that they know how to defend themselves.

And given that this entire event takes place on the political land mine that is abortion, Democrats simply don’t want to engage it.  For one, it’s a given that the opposition will play the bloodied martyr card.  This will be a great fund raising tool and rallying cry.  For another, the other side of the fight has a fair number of cowards too.  Lots of people who see the death threats and the harassment and the eventual murder, and think to themselves, “Heck no, not me!”  If Terry apparently has the clout and the following powerful enough to have people killed, it’s no small wonder he’s got local police and state officials choosing sides very carefully.

Comment #6: Zifnab  on  01/29  at  06:19 PM

Does anyone know if anti choice groups are classified as terriorist organizations? Are they being watched by the FBI or do they get a pass because they’re Godfearing White Christians(tm)?
I’m more afraid of them then a follower of Islam.

Comment #7: pitbullgirl65  on  01/29  at  06:21 PM

Randall Terry is telling you that you’ll be a hero in the history books, that your name will always be known.

And that’s the saddest part of all:  Terry is lying about that, and he knows he’s lying.  Ask people to name a famous abolitionist other than John Brown and 90 percent of them will draw a blank.  Heck, I’ve already started drawing a blank on Roeder’s name—I saw it and went, “Oh, yeah, that asshole who killed Dr. Tiller.”  I will remember Dr. Tiller’s name far longer than I will that of his murderer.

What’s really obvious here is Terry’s enormous ego.  As far as he’s concerned, he is a modern John Brown and all of his minions should do his bidding so he can be (in)famous like Brown.

Comment #8: Mnemosyne  on  01/29  at  06:33 PM

It’s comforting that the judge did not allow the jury to consider a manslaughter charge which the terrorists would just consider as a sign that it is open season on doctors and clinic workers.  Bravo for the guilty verdict on the murder charge—in less than 40 minutes, too.  The whole “Roeder was only acting on his deeply-felt convictions” argument his lawyer gave turned into a giant FAIL.  There is some justice in the world, I guess.

Comment #9: Cat Ion  on  01/29  at  06:37 PM

What’s really obvious here is Terry’s enormous ego.  As far as he’s concerned, he is a modern John Brown and all of his minions should do his bidding so he can be (in)famous like Brown.

The difference being that John Brown actually had the courage of his convictions, while Terry is content to lead from the rear, inciting others to acts that he is too chickenshit to perform himself.

Comment #10: Captain Bathrobe  on  01/29  at  06:40 PM

I just wish he would realize the true consequences of his actions.

I’m sure he does realize the true consequences of his actions.  He just could give a shit.  In his warped mind he thinks he’s a martyr to a higher cause, exactly like Mohammed Atta and the rest of the 9/11 bunch.  His going to prison for the rest of his life is a small price to pay in exchange for stopping the “murderer” Dr. Tiller, who apparently wasn’t going to be stopped any other way.  This is how these fruitloops think, and why I expect more of this kind of thing in the future.  Roeder is probably just the first of many, now that violence is seemingly legitimized.

Comment #11: liberalrob  on  01/29  at  06:41 PM

Ask people to name a famous abolitionist other than John Brown and 90 percent of them will draw a blank.
Comment #8: Mnemosyne on 01/29 at 04:33 PM

The ten percent that are African-American could probably give you a list.  Even I thought of Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe and Harriet Tubman.  And, um, Abraham Lincoln.

Not everyone who was an abolitionist is famous for being so, but there’s a list on Wikipedia and I bet you’d know who a lot of these people are.

Comment #12: oldfeminist  on  01/29  at  07:10 PM

Wasn’t John Brown something of a murderous lunatic who just happened to have picked the side of the angels re: slavery?

Comment #13: preying mantis  on  01/29  at  07:18 PM

I say we honor Mr. Roeder’s oh-so-brave, brave martyrdom by donating to Planned Parenthood every year, in his name.

http://johnnykaje.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/a-way-to-dampen-roeders-martyrdom-pro-choice-holiday/

Comment #14: kaje  on  01/29  at  07:34 PM

No…and maybe yes a little, on John Brown.  He was an interesting, heroic guy who is famous for a bad plan.

Comment #15: lonespark  on  01/29  at  07:47 PM

I say this without the slightest bit of sarcasm: Enjoy dying in prison, asshole.  Enjoy the flouridated water and make sure to take pride in the license plates you’ll be making until you die of old age.

I’m glad he isn’t getting the death penalty so the terrorists don’t get another martyr to worship.

Comment #16: bouj  on  01/29  at  07:49 PM

“The difference being that John Brown actually had the courage of his convictions, while Terry is content to lead from the rear, inciting others to acts that he is too chickenshit to perform himself.”

...yeah.  Randall Terry has a lot more in common with Charles Manson than he does with John Brown.

Roeder doesn’t compare well with John Brown either: Brown was concerned with actual, unquestionably living, human beings who were subject to the cruelest treatment by their fellow human beings — not some fantasy theoretical lives centered on clumps of cells and totally ignoring the women carrying them…

Comment #17: MikeEss  on  01/29  at  07:51 PM

Wasn’t John Brown something of a murderous lunatic who just happened to have picked the side of the angels re: slavery?

No, not unless you can show that he was a murderous lunatic before he became an abolitionist.

Comment #18: asdf  on  01/29  at  07:57 PM

“There is sowing; there is reaping.”

Nice use of the passive voice there.  They don’t murder doctors; doctors just kind of get murdered somehow.  There is sowing, there is reaping, mistakes were made.

Comment #19: Shaenon  on  01/29  at  07:58 PM

Wasn’t John Brown something of a murderous lunatic who just happened to have picked the side of the angels re: slavery?

John Brown’s participation in the Pottawatomie Massacre, in which he and his band killed five pro-slavery men, is a pretty clear case of murder, given that Brown’s party sought them out, forcibly removed them from their homes and killed them.  Brown saw it as justified retaliation for the sacking of Lawrence, Kansas by pro-slavery forces specifically and more generally as part of a war to keep pro-slavery forces from making Kansas into a slave state.  Bleeding Kansas was in a lot of ways a proxy war.

Comment #20: Linnaeus  on  01/29  at  08:12 PM

Take it down to the simplest level.

Very commonly, anti-abortion activists (and even non-actives) refer to abortion as murder. I don’t think that anybody could disagree that they call it that. So you have thousands upon thousands of “murders” going on every year, and the government won’t stop it.

Quite frankly, that’s just asking for someone to take them literally and actually act on what they’re saying. This is actually a problem for a lot of conservative elements in our society, as they use rhetoric that’s supposed to be thought of as a wink wink nudge nudge type thing, then complain when people take them at their word.

Comment #21: Karmakin  on  01/29  at  08:27 PM

Scott Whatsisname will grow old in prison, and will probably be released when he is a frail old man, so he can be moved to a nursing home to spend his last months overhearing his caregivers whispering,

“Isn’t he some kind of old-time gangster or something?”

“Nah, just a guy who killed a doctor for performing abortions.”

“For…what??”

Ah, fame.  Ah, vindication.

Comment #22: Dr. Psycho  on  01/29  at  08:33 PM

Here’s the ad I just saw at the bottom of this page:

<u>Democrat Death Party</u>
Vatican: Democrats - Death Party Read this story!

What happened to Catholics being pissed off about war and the accompanying killing?  Or is it only bad when Democrats can somehow be blamed?...

Comment #23: MikeEss  on  01/29  at  08:42 PM

I feel that Brown is a complicated case, and a fascinating one, but also that I personally could not argue that regarding slavery, violence was called for.

The problem is that fetuses are cells and not people who are being held in chains, whipped, raped and forced to labor to death.

Comment #24: JennyLI  on  01/29  at  08:55 PM

Seriously, the defense almost seemed to be trying to piss off the jury.  Like saying they should not convict a man because of his strong convictions because “Martin Luther King’s strong convictions changed society.”

*ahem* Actually, Roeder wasn’t being tried because of his “convictions”; he was being tried for first degree murder. 

But yeah, I can see the similarities; Dr. King was a famous leader who was murdered for his convictions, while Roeder is an obscure loser who murdered because of his convictions.  Bit of a difference, as the British say.

Comment #25: Blue Jean  on  01/29  at  08:56 PM

Badly worded on my part - regarding slavery there is no way that I could argue that violence was NOT called for.  I feel that it was.

Comment #26: JennyLI  on  01/29  at  08:56 PM

Pat Robertson did not say that God punished Haiti for successfully overcoming slavery. He said that it was because they threw out their oppressors by using Satanic magic. Pat Robertson is stupid, but he’s a different sort of stupid then you accuse him of being.

Comment #27: TheJimmy  on  01/29  at  09:06 PM

From what I remember @ Brown, and this is what would set him apart from someone like Roeder, is that Brown’s family (adult sons) feared for their own safety in Kansas, because the pro-slavery forces were physically attacking abolitionists. 

If Roeder were to be compared to Brown, Roeder or anti-choicers would have to be violently attacked by pro-choicers - and that hasn’t and isn’t happening.  Analogy FAIL.

Comment #28: phylosopher  on  01/29  at  10:14 PM

Grachass…...I think Roeder is a nut and deserves to never see the light of day.  Killing an abortionist is wrong.  I am not a coward at all for thinking it is wrong to a murder an innocent baby. Perhaps you need to look at your definition of a coward.  To me someone that kills an innocent baby it a true coward!

Comment #29: cookie  on  01/29  at  10:35 PM

When people like Terry equate abortion with the Holocaust or slavery, they are committing projection cause it’s the conservative Christians who are responsible for those crimes and they want to blame the pro-choice side for them.  Because we don’t do a good enough of a job equating them with the Nazis and the slave owners, they will fill the void and blame us.

Comment #30: Albert Cirrus  on  01/29  at  10:48 PM

Well, and let’s consider that the WHOLE REASON there were pro slavery forces in Kansas is because they moved in at the last minute, in direct violation of federal law, to force the election re Kansas statehood and force slavery where it really wasn’t wanted. And then, when they LOST they lied and tried to send a “state constitution” to Congress making slavery legal ANYWAY. THEN they started attacking the angry anti slavery folks, THEN John Brown led the attack party. Just saying, I’d be angry too if my election got hijacked and then some fake government tried to take over anyway. Those kind of groups are dangerous even before they get into attacking persons directly.

Comment #31: wreckerofplans  on  01/29  at  10:56 PM

<blockquote>I am not a coward at all for thinking it is wrong to a murder an innocent baby. Perhaps you need to look at your definition of a coward.  To me someone that kills an innocent baby it a true coward!
Comment #29: cookie on 01/29 at 08:35 PM <‘blockquote>

Well, Cookiecrap, the day you find someone killing a baby, I suggest you call the cops.  But abortion is the removal of a fetus from an unwilling to gestate person, so WTF are you babbling about?.

Comment #32: phylosopher  on  01/29  at  11:09 PM

“To me someone that kills an innocent baby it a true coward!”

...then you must agree that George Bush Jr., Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and the military people who decided to invade Iraq are all cowards, right?  Or don’t you consider formerly living Iraqi babies (and their parents and fellow countrymen) to be fully human and deserving of the rights you would grant to a clump of cells?

On the other hand, I suppose one sperm and one egg are fully human in your version of reality and must be protected under all circumstances and at any cost, right?...

Comment #33: MikeEss  on  01/29  at  11:12 PM

Here’s the ad I just saw at the bottom of this page:

Democrat Death Party
Vatican: Democrats - Death Party Read this story!

What happened to Catholics being pissed off about war and the accompanying killing?  Or is it only bad when Democrats can somehow be blamed?…
Comment #23: MikeEss on 01/29 at 06:42 PM

Searching on

Vatican: Democrats - Death Party

led me to

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804933.htm

which states that Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, not the Pope, made this claim in 2008, and he’s been moved from being the Archbishop in St. Louis to some position in the Vatican.  *He* says it’s not to hide him away for being a slavering lunatic even by Catholic church standards, but obviously if he’s denying that, someone’s saying it.

In other words, this isn’t all Catholics speaking, or even the Pope.  I know many pro-peace Catholics.  Personally I think they’re nuts to stay in the church, but they live different lives, and have different ideas, from mine.

Comment #34: oldfeminist  on  01/29  at  11:30 PM

Oh, and plenty of Catholics are Democrats.

Comment #35: oldfeminist  on  01/29  at  11:30 PM

What a shame that this murderer didn’t receive the death penalty.

Comment #36: Arakiba  on  01/30  at  12:47 AM

Yes, of course, abortion is just like slavery.

Or it would be if people commonly became slave owners by just waking up one morning to find out that they’d not only been forced to buy a slave they never wanted, but were expected to carry that slave around bodily for nine months.

Other than that, it’s a fucking great analogy.

Comment #37: Molly, NYC  on  01/30  at  01:54 AM

Comment #28: phylosopher on 01/29 at 08:14 PM
Grachass…...I think Roeder is a nut and deserves to never see the light of day.  Killing an abortionist is wrong.  I am not a coward at all for thinking it is wrong to a murder an innocent baby. Perhaps you need to look at your definition of a coward.  To me someone that kills an innocent baby it a true coward!

Are you anti-choice, cookie?  I’m more anti-abortion than most here, but I’m not anti-choice.  I got my hackles up a little at gracchus’ comment (I come here because every other blog I read frequently quotes Pandagon, not to troll on abortion), but then I realized it’s not really about me.  I’m not anti-choice.

But George Tiller was a pretty brave guy.  There’s nothing truly cowardly about what he did.  That guy had nuts the size of cantaloupes.

Comment #38: Wallace  on  01/30  at  02:06 AM

To me someone that kills an innocent baby it a true coward!

Well, then we’re all in agreement on that. How nice. Do you plan on being on topic anytime soon?

Comment #39: kristin  on  01/30  at  02:37 AM

Pat Robertson did not say that God punished Haiti for successfully overcoming slavery. He said that it was because they threw out their oppressors by using Satanic magic. Pat Robertson is stupid, but he’s a different sort of stupid then you accuse him of being.

TheJimmy,

Robertson, like Jerry Falwell, got his start preaching in favor of segregation as the natural order of things, so don’t assume that race isn’t part of the equation.  He’s smart enough to not say so on the air, tho.

Comment #40: Sour Kraut  on  01/30  at  02:39 AM

Dr. Tiller was not an abortionist.  He was a doctor who performed abortions among other procedures and treatments. First and foremost he was a doctor who worked to help people.  He was murdered at his church. Roeder was a coward who very definitely deserves to live a long time in the restrictive environment of a prison.

Comment #41: PurpleGirl  on  01/30  at  02:59 AM

A response from Sweden:

Grachass…...I think Roeder is a nut and deserves to never see the light of day.  Killing an abortionist is wrong.

It sounds as if we are on the same page.

I am not a coward at all for thinking it is wrong to a murder an innocent baby.

We seem to be in agreement. The murder of living, breathing babies is indeed a despicable act. We march in lockstep.

Perhaps you need to look at your definition of a coward.  To me someone that kills an innocent baby it a true coward!

Well yes, but what does this have to do with abortion? A foetus is not by any definition a baby. And though it is certainly killed when aborted, years of jurisprudence states clearly that this is not murder, even in the etiolated abortion law found in the United States.

I want to ask, though, whether you think that saving women’s lives is worthwhile? Because although the word ‘choice’ is one that comes up a lot in feminist circles it is easy to forget that one of the driving forces behind the liberalisation of abortion is that before legalisation, illegal abortion killed many women every year. Reliable studies show that abortion rates do not decline by stopping abortion and putting men like Tiller out of business. All that happens is that women go to back-street abortionists and some of them die as a consequence. Others are damaged irreparably.

The best ‘pro-life’ policy, at least as regards living, breathing adult women, is to allow abortion for those that choose it. Because the other option might well kill them.

Comment #42: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood  on  01/30  at  05:33 AM

From what I remember @ Brown, and this is what would set him apart from someone like Roeder, is that Brown’s family (adult sons) feared for their own safety in Kansas, because the pro-slavery forces were physically attacking abolitionists.

This is true.  I’m not saying the Missouri border ruffians were by any means innocent.  That said, John Brown’s band forced seven people from their homes and killed five of them.  I can’t say that’s not murder.

Comment #43: Linnaeus  on  01/30  at  05:36 AM

To me someone that kills an innocent baby it a true coward!

At what point does a child become not innocent? Poor innocent babies, are they still innocent at 18 when they join the Army? Or has original sin taken them to hell already?

The problem with having a stupid opinion, is, all judgments you make after the stupid, are also stupid.

Comment #44: banisteriopsis  on  01/30  at  06:26 AM

The problem with having a stupid opinion, is, all judgments you make after the stupid, are also stupid.—banisteriopsis

QFT. That is all.

Comment #45: Princess Rot  on  01/30  at  09:30 AM

Pat Robertson did not say that God punished Haiti for successfully overcoming slavery. He said that it was because they threw out their oppressors by using Satanic magic. Pat Robertson is stupid, but he’s a different sort of stupid then you accuse him of being.

Yep.  Because the only successful black slavery uprising could only happen with the devil’s help.

God hates black people and wants his followers to hold them in contempt.  Earthquakes and hurricanes are their just rewards.

More on topic, is it an innocent baby when it doesn’t have a brain?  When its internal organs haven’t formed?  When its gestation causes toxemia?  When it has severe brittle bone disease and couldn’t even survive a c-section?  When its already dead and just floating in the uterus?

Because Tiller performed late-term abortions.  These abortions are already restricted by law and are medically necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

But, the health and future reproductive ability of the slutty woman who wanted that baby is irrelevant, isn’t it?  If she just prayed really really hard, maybe there would be a miracle and the baby would spontaneously develop a liver, stomach, intestines and a second kidney?  If she prayed really really hard, maybe her blood pressure would go down or her septic condition would vanish.

All things are possible with God, you know!  So actually considering the mental, physical, and emotional needs of the walking womb is crazy talk.  Cowardice even.  It’s quite evident that the walking womb should be willing to risk its life to produce a stillbirth because anything less is cowardice.

Comment #46: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  01/30  at  11:05 AM

To: Wallace @38 (and AManda)

You’ve wrongly associated my name with a post I was responding to - please fix.

Comment #47: phylosopher  on  01/30  at  11:47 AM

I’m not mad at the public defender for running a defense.  He did what he could with what he had.  It’s his job.  In the 90s, major conservative organizations would offer pro bono defense teams for doctor shooters, a clear indication of support.  They aren’t doing that anymore, which we should be grateful for.  It’s because of their disingenuous turn towards pretending to care about women as human beings, and again, this is largely good, because they’re arguing on our turf.

Comment #48: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/30  at  12:45 PM

Pat Robertson did not say that God punished Haiti for successfully overcoming slavery. He said that it was because they threw out their oppressors by using Satanic magic.

If you don’t learn to listen for implications, you’ll never understand wingnuts.  He didn’t have to come out in support of slavery.  His audience got it..

Comment #49: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/30  at  12:47 PM

@Amanda #49 I don’t think anyone doubts that Pat Robertson is racist and that that motivated his comment. However, ‘Pat Robertson said’ and ‘Pat Robertson’s history suggests his thinking was’ are not the same thing, and saying one when you mean the other doesn’t accurately depict events.

Comment #50: jalmondale  on  01/30  at  01:22 PM

At what point does a child become not innocent?

When it touches a vagina.  So, unless you’re born by C-section, you’re broken the second you’re born.

Comment #51: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/30  at  01:29 PM

Way to split hairs, jalmon.  Pat Robertson came out in support of slavery, albeit in a convulted way.  The larger point was that it’s therefore not out of the question to consider fundamentalist arguments about slavery in light of lingering pro-slavery sentiment in their subculture.

Comment #52: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/30  at  01:32 PM

Lee @ #42, while the fact that women die from botched illegal abortions is an important part of why abortion must be legal, it bothers me when pro-choice people hang their line of argument upon this problem. It essentially acknowledges that, “well, anti-choicers are right about abortion being bad, but those women are going to do it anyway, so we need it to be safe.” That’s not a very compelling argument, for one thing (it doesn’t work when arguing against the War on Drugs, either), and it does nothing to advance the moral case for legal abortion, which is that women are people, too, with the right to make their own choices about when and how they will reproduce, and the right to expect that they will be trusted to make the a good decision about their own lives. Illegal abortion could be perfectly safe; it would still be wrong.

Comment #53: grolby  on  01/30  at  01:48 PM

John Brown is a saint. The killer of Dr. Tiller is an evil fuck who should die slowly. Pat Robertson is, as the illustrious commentators have pointed out, an evil fuck who leads from the rear. Charles Manson, as little as I know about him save for the sad death he gave to a guy from a Sam Kinison bit, was at least not as powerful a figure so that more than one President had to genuflect to him.

Amanda, your point about the anti-life movement attracting losers is so true that I wish you would do some kinda podcast talking about it in detail. Jay Ackroyd has his Virtually Speaking show, please do that, or anything. I love your other podcast, but it’s too short.

The eXiled writer, Mark Ames, wrote a book about slave rebellions - it was called Going Postal, and one of the first things he talked about was John Brown and Nat Turner as, well, first adopters. Overton Window stuff. I highly recommend it.

Comment #54: DupinTM  on  01/30  at  01:51 PM

Gracchus wrote:

Even the anti-choice comment trolls on liberal sites are cowards. Abortion is the main issue that compels them to post on Pandagon and other pro-choice sites, and yet watch how studiously they’ll avoid addressing the Roeder verdict today. It’s very amusing.

Have you looked at our sites?  On my site, John Hitchcock, one of my co-bloggers, beat me to it, but concluded, For the record, Roeder got the verdict he earned.  And Mr Hitchcock writes on pro-life issues far more than I do.

DRJ has this on Patterico’s Pontifications, and if the lead article is simply bland, the comments, mostly from conservatives, are not.

Comment #55: Dana  on  01/30  at  02:15 PM

I may be wrong here, but I believe that he is going to PRISON for a while, not jail.
Jail is pretty easy; prison is a whole different game - and one he deserves to play.

I only wish they would execute him as he did Tiller.

Comment #56: Zora  on  01/30  at  02:16 PM

Again, BS (again) Dana, you bring up 2 sites with which you are familiar - on the anti-choice site I keep occasional watch on, it garnered nothing more than a “just the facts” post, with not even a typical convoluted analysis by the blogowner.  And the comments section had only one poster saying it was a good verdict, the rest defended Roeder.

Comment #57: phylosopher  on  01/30  at  02:26 PM

@ Zora 56

No. As Amanda said, martyrs are made of this. And plus, past the first few months, he’ll get no love from the lifers, so the hate that he’s built up from w/e his issues are will boil. Care packages from Randall Terry of jolly ranchers won’t matter as much as the serious people he’s in jail with.

Comment #58: DupinTM  on  01/30  at  02:29 PM

A local newstation here in KCMO interviewed Roeder’s ex-wife this morning.  It was amazing.  She basically said she did not know this guy anymore.  He wouldn’t let there toddler son step on ants on the sidewalk.  She was disgusted that he professed so much love of unborn babies, but hasn’t had much to do with their son for about 10 years.  It was either KSHB or KCMO tv channels if you want to watch.

As much as he disgusts me, I cannot advocate the death penalty for him.  1. I think it’s wrong; 2. too much money from taxpayers to pay for required appeals; 3. gives him hope.  I want him to suffer knowing he will never be free again.  Besides Dr. Tiller, how many women’s lives has he harmed?  What about Dr. Carhart (sp?) in Nebraska and his family?  Now the crazy spotlight is targeting them.  Love me some christians.

Comment #59: Michelle the Red  on  01/30  at  02:45 PM

On my site, John Hitchcock, one of my co-bloggers, beat me to it, but concluded, For the record, Roeder got the verdict he earned.

That’s what makes you cowards. If you really truly believed someone was making a career of butchering hundreds of innocent babies, and no one—no one!—was stopping him, you would endorse the kind of action Roeder took, and you would wish it had happened earlier so that fewer children would have had to die for no reason at all.

Either you’re contemptible cowards not willing to protect children, or you’re slimy liars using baybeeeez as a smokescreen for your galling belief that women aren’t human beings. Pick one.

Comment #60: kristin  on  01/30  at  02:55 PM

Pat Robertson did not say that God punished Haiti for successfully overcoming slavery. He said that it was because they threw out their oppressors by using Satanic magic. Pat Robertson is stupid, but he’s a different sort of stupid then you accuse him of being.

Except in non-fantasy terms that’s what it means. It means that the Haitians’ victory over their oppressors is the reason why they were hit by an earthquake.

Yes, of course, abortion is just like slavery.

Or it would be if people commonly became slave owners by just waking up one morning to find out that they’d not only been forced to buy a slave they never wanted, but were expected to carry that slave around bodily for nine months.

Other than that, it’s a fucking great analogy.

Also that the fetus isn’t doing any work for its “owner” or, in fact, providing any benefit whatsoever.

I want to ask, though, whether you think that saving women’s lives is worthwhile? Because although the word ‘choice’ is one that comes up a lot in feminist circles it is easy to forget that one of the driving forces behind the liberalisation of abortion is that before legalisation, illegal abortion killed many women every year. Reliable studies show that abortion rates do not decline by stopping abortion and putting men like Tiller out of business. All that happens is that women go to back-street abortionists and some of them die as a consequence. Others are damaged irreparably.

More to the point, does cookie think that saving women’s lives is worthwhile when their pregnancies will kill them and produce no children? Because those are the cases Dr. Tiller dealt with.

Comment #61: Rebecca  on  01/30  at  02:57 PM

IMO, Roeder wanted to be caught. 

If he really wanted to get away to keep repeating the exercise, he would have sniped Tiller from hundreds of feet away and kept a low profile in the months prior to the hit.  He may have thought about the act for a long time, but its pretty clear not a lot of thought went into planning an effective escape after the hit.

Comment #62: Ploofy  on  01/30  at  03:47 PM

When you evaluate the claim that Pat Robertson “only” said the Haitians deserved to die by the hundreds of thousands in an earthquake because their distant ancestors threw out their oppressors using satanic magic, you have to recognize that he’s lying. The speech that’s quoted in support of that position is no more about satanism than is Samuel Clemens’s “War Prayer”. It’s about the twisted evil and deep-down sickness of people who claim that their deity gives them ownership of people of another color, and approves of working people to death, raping women, and killing anyone who doesn’t have the good grace to die at work. Robertson is upholding that deity.

Comment #63: paul  on  01/30  at  04:16 PM

With this sort of obvious circumstantial evidence on hand…

There’s even more circumstantial evidence than you mention in that post.  I wonder if anything will come of the Federal investigation now that Roeder’s been convicted, or whether they’ll let the case drop.

Comment #64: L33tminion  on  01/30  at  04:31 PM

Cloudsplitter by Russell Banks is a very good novelization of John Brown’s life as told from the perspective of Owen Brown, his eldest son. It is immaculately researched and engaging to read.
I was struck by how well Banks paints the times and how people lived. Brown was a religious fanatic
(totally deluded in his vision of freeing slaves; created his own reality) who truly believed what he was doing would cause a general uprising of slaves all through the south. He failed at Harper’s Ferry and was executed.

Comment #65: Therealhellkitty  on  01/30  at  08:32 PM

“Pam Tebow’s choice not to have an abortion which was recommended for health reasons would still not be taken away were wholly elective abortion outlawed.”

Hi, Dana.  Other posters have pointed out how this is completely incorrect—not only is the Right against any abortion at all but many/most of these organized movements are also against BIRTH CONTROL, which really gives the game away (i.e. it’s about controlling women, not about saving babies.) 

Just in case you think they are quoting extremists, however, please remember:

~~ McCain in the presidential debate last year, mocking “women’s health” (in air quotes) as an EXTREME LEFT WING POSITION.

That terrified me, seriously.  My health—and that of all women—is some kind of a joke to these people.

Comment #66: maribelle  on  01/30  at  09:08 PM

maribelle wrote:

Hi, Dana.  Other posters have pointed out how this is completely incorrect—not only is the Right against any abortion at all but many/most of these organized movements are also against BIRTH CONTROL, which really gives the game away (i.e. it’s about controlling women, not about saving babies.)

You know, that’s a charge made frequently, but it simply isn’t true.  The Catholic Church is the only large organization which opposes artificial contraception that’s even remotely involved.  An anti-contraception law would simply never work in the United States, and there’s no sense pretending that pro-life forces take such a possibility seriously.

Amanda tried to make such a case in her book, It’s a Jungle Out There, but about all she could actually come up with was an organization called Quiverfull.  As Wikipedia put it, citing Kathryn Joyce in the Nation, “Currently several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement.”

Several thousand worldwide?  Uh huh.

Comment #67: Dana  on  01/30  at  10:21 PM

“An anti-contraception law would simply never work in the United States, and there’s no sense pretending that pro-life forces take such a possibility seriously.”

Dana, ever heard of a little thing called Griswold v. Connecticut?  Given that this ruling was only handed down in 1965, and given that the anti-abortion forces have already stated they they will go after Griswold after Roe is eliminated/circumvented, and given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, which features several justices who are just itching to toss Griswold, and given the Reichwing “judicial activism” the Roberts court has been more than happy to engage in, do you honestly think those of us who are not under the sway of religious extremists have nothing to worry about when it comes regulating our private behavior, including the use of birth control?

Dana, you need to get out and interact more with the world at large, instead of sitting under your rock and assuming you have reality nailed…

(Not that it does any good, but I need to remind you, Mr. Pico, that the vast majority of radical religious people in this country are happy to have your support.  But don’t think for a second that will stop them from hating and fearing you — and neutralizing you — simply because you are a Catholic.  They are not your friends…)

Comment #68: MikeEss  on  01/30  at  11:24 PM

and there’s no sense pretending that pro-life forces take such a possibility seriously.

Jesus Christ, Dana, try not to lie so fucking much for once.

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=11425
http://www.thepillkills.com/promotetheday.php
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1046952&page=1

No, no large group takes anti-contraception seriously except the Catholic Church. No siree bob. Couldn’t possibly find another group advocating against contraception, not with all the Googling in the world. Or like, five minutes of googling.

Do they not have the Google up there in Lake Wobegon or wherever your folksy ass lives?

Comment #69: Well, what?  on  01/31  at  03:22 AM

Amanda tried to make such a case in her book, It’s a Jungle Out There, but about all she could actually come up with was an organization called Quiverfull. As Wikipedia put it, citing Kathryn Joyce in the Nation, “Currently several thousand Christians worldwide identify with this movement.”

Several thousand worldwide?  Uh huh.

My God you are an ignorant troll, Dana.  There is a certain wingnut non-RCC blogger who visits realitycheck, and who has frequently sparred with AManda, possibly even here (I think that’s how I found pandagon.)  She’s now a commenter on wingnutdelusional, too.  And it looks like you heven’t received the memo, they are indeed anti-contraception, claiming that separating conception frm sex in a “culture of death” is what causes abortions - the wicked witch of Orland Park even paid to set up signs in some African country claiming condoms didn’t protect one from AIDS - seriously Dana,  your protests just highlight what an ostrich you are about how evil your side really is.

Comment #70: phylosopher  on  01/31  at  04:12 AM

A single anti-contraception nut can be a big deal—when it’s the fucking Pope. Seriously, you don’t need that many of them when they’re ridiculously powerful. That’s like saying that Iraq didn’t have anything to worry about when “only” a few people wanted to invade it—when those few people were Bush and Cheney. Overpowered assholes aren’t dosage-dependent, and only a “few thousand” (or a few dozen million if we’re talking Catholics) can really fuck up a loooot of people in very serious ways.

Comment #71: Bagelsan  on  01/31  at  06:39 AM

Strawman, Dana.  Quiverfull is simply the most outrageous version of a larger anti-contraception agenda.  Interesting how you write of the largest church in the world, which is officially against contraception, as a minor thing not worth paying attention to.

But religious dogma, while it informs and motivates the anti-choice movement, isn’t exactly the issue.  The issue is the organized anti-choice movement.  Major anti-choice organizations like the American Life League officially oppose legal contraception and organize anti-contraception protests every year.  Anti-choicers are beginning to picket women’s clinics that don’t provide abortion, simply because they provide contraception.  Even anti-choice organizations that aren’t officially against legal contraception refuse to support contraception, and send out misinformation about how it works.  Most crisis pregnancy centers pass out pamphlets with lies about contraception alongside their lies about abortion, such as that condoms spread HIV, and that the birth control pill is abortion. 

The Bush administration was anti-contraception, as far as they could take it.  When a new form of contraception was developed—-the morning after pill—-they blocked it for years, even though they knew it could prevent abortion.  They also promoted the anti-contraception agenda in school, misnamed “abstinence-only education”.  Abstinence-only really should be called “anti-contraception”, since they promote the idea that contraception doesn’t work, and you shouldn’t bother using it.

Comment #72: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/31  at  12:35 PM

Oh, and anti-choice groups are getting contraception bans on the ballot, like in Colorado, calling them “personhood” amendments that they hope can be interpreted broadly enough to ban the birth control pill.

Comment #73: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/31  at  12:40 PM

Mr Ess wrote:

Dana, ever heard of a little thing called Griswold v. Connecticut?  Given that this ruling was only handed down in 1965, and given that the anti-abortion forces have already stated they they will go after Griswold after Roe is eliminated/circumvented, and given the current makeup of the SCOTUS, which features several justices who are just itching to toss Griswold, and given the Reichwing “judicial activism” the Roberts court has been more than happy to engage in, do you honestly think those of us who are not under the sway of religious extremists have nothing to worry about when it comes regulating our private behavior, including the use of birth control?

Yeah, I’ve heard of Griswold, and, like you, I knew in which year it was handed down.  I also know that 1965 was 45 years ago and every woman in the United States who could be expected to need or want artificial contraception was born after that decision was handed down.  There are some who’d like to see Griswold reversed, but even if it were reversed, no state in the union would actually pass a law prohibiting contraception.  You know that, I know that, and everyone here knows that.  (Even before Griswold, few states had or enforced contraception bans.)

Comment #74: Dana  on  01/31  at  02:18 PM

I like how dodgy you are with “there are some”.  In fact, contraception is where abortion was in the 70s—-with more moderate conservatives willing to embrace the idea that contraception is an evil that needs to be curtailed, though of course folks like yourself are wary of a ban because it would impede your own desires.  But contraception became a funding controversy during the economic stimulus like abortion was in the 70s, with even mainstream conservatives and pandering Democrats suggesting that we shouldn’t be kicking more money over to those naughty women with the sex.  Bill O’Reilly slammed the birth control pill, asking if he had to buy women dinner, too—-implication being that sexual activity in women is shameful and should be discouraged with the fear of pregnancy.

So there you have it—-the mainstream conservative agenda: Slash funding for contraception (John McCain has a long history of voting against Title X funding for contraception programs), assault the people who do the best work in preventing abortion with the assaults on Planned Parenthood, promote lies about contraception in the classroom, discourage young people from using contraception, and attacking any technological innovation that improves women’s ability not to get pregnant in the first place.

That’s the conservative agenda outside the anti-choice movement. That’s the more moderate view, and it’s anti-contraception.  The anti-choice movement itself is even more radical, with most anti-choice activists believing that hormonal birth control should be banned alongside abortion, and even more sneering at condoms are arguing that access to them should be restricted and probably banned.

Comment #75: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/31  at  03:32 PM

Contrast Bush Sr. with the Shrub, as well.  In the 70s, Bush Sr. was a big time proponent of contraception programs that aided family planning, at home and abroad.  So much so that his nickname in Congress was “Rubbers”. 

Bush Jr. slashed all federal funding of the UNFPA, an organization that explicitly avoids the topic of abortion and simply aids with contraception.  But not simply because he’s anti-foreign aid for health care.  On the contrary, Bush Jr. was big on fighting AIDS abroad, but because he owed allegiance to the anti-contraceptive right, he funneled quite a bit of the PEPFAR funds to groups that discourage the use of condoms, even though condoms do protect people from contracting HIV.  He’s so hostile to contraception, he was willing to undermine his only decent legacy to assault it.  And that’s on top of the pressure on the FDA to not approve emergency contraception, and the continued practice of appointing anti-contraception activists to positions of power in health care agencies.

Comment #76: Amanda Marcotte  on  01/31  at  03:36 PM

There are some who’d like to see Griswold reversed, but even if it were reversed, no state in the union would actually pass a law prohibiting contraception.

Be nice to think so, wouldn’t it?  Reminds me of one of my dozen times great greats who said “Nobody would ever hang Mom just because some deluded Salem girls say she’s a witch.”*

Unfortunately, reality is a bit different.  Do I think there would be house to house anti-contraception searches if Griswold were overturned, as the Gang of Five would probably love to do?  No, but there would certainly be a black market, and reliable methods of birth control (like IUDs and birth control pills) would quickly be priced out of range of the women who need them most, thus it would be a de facto ban, even if not a de jure one.

Still, Denial is a nice place to visit, isn’t it?  Let us know when you get back.

*The authorities quickly proved him wrong, BTW.

Comment #77: Blue Jean  on  01/31  at  04:13 PM

I still don’t like guilt by association or guilt by past.

People can change, and shouldn’t be defined by who they keep company with.

They should be defined by the words and acts attributable to themselves, and current.

Comment #78: Crissa  on  01/31  at  05:19 PM

but even if it were reversed, no state in the union would actually pass a law prohibiting contraception

Please. No state in the Union would limit ‘abortifacient contraception’ like the Pill? No state in the Union would try to overturn Eisenstadt v Baird? No state in the union would require contraceptives to be kept behind the counter so that minors couldn’t get their hands on them? I realize you think we’re all idiots, Dana, but you can’t believe we’re that stupid.

Here’s what I don’t understand: if the stalking, phone-number-posting and public shaming the anti-choicers engage in is really legal, moral and not at all terrorism, then why isn’t turnabout fair play? I’m not talking about death threats - leave those to the folks who insist that “only God can take a life” and then cheer on Roeder - but posting photographs, home numbers and addresses, peaceful picketing, and shunning are “free speech”, and surely the anti-choicers would be gracious about having these same tactics used against them.

Comment #79: mythago  on  02/01  at  02:20 AM

I’m not surprised that so many trolls are defending Roeder.  All this time they pretend that anti-choicers really just care about the precious little embryos and they hate violence, but we’ve always known they were arguing in bad faith.  Anti-choicers love to murder, and most of them only wish they could do it themselves.  It doesn’t matter to them that performing abortions actually saved lives, because they don’t care about women at all.  They want women to be punished with death for the sin of having sex.  Let’s always remember these trolls whenever some anti-choicer pretends to care about life.  They don’t care about life; they want death.  They want women to die from dangerous pregnancies, and they want to murder doctors who save women’s lives.  Never forget the true motives of the anti-choice crowd.  The only thing that surprises me is that some of them are so open about supporting a murderer.  I thought most of them had enough sense to at least attempt to keep up their facade.

Comment #80: bananacat  on  02/01  at  11:32 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.