The Culture of “Life” Strikes Again: The Murder of Dr. George Tiller
31 May, 2009Back in April, the Department of Homeland Security warned that right wing extremist and terrorist groups may take advantage of the worsening economy and the election of an African-American President would increase both the number of hate groups and increase the number of people involved in such groups. Of course, the reaction of the media right was measured and moderate. Well, not really — many accused the Obama Administration of orchestrating a hit job on real Americans. After all, no Christian American would ever become a terrorist, right? No politically conservative veteran would ever become involved in an extremist act, right? Conservatives and Christians value life (even if it means the death of a mother).
Today, the sick neo-conservative Christian culture of ‘life’ struck again. George Tiller, a medical doctor in Wichita, Kansas, was
. . . shot just after 10 a.m. at Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th, where he was a member of the congregation. Witnesses and a police source confirmed Tiller was the victim.[snip]
Tiller has long been a focal point of protest by abortion opponents because his clinic, Women’s Health Care Services at 5701 E. Kellogg, is one of the few in the country where late-term abortions are performed. (quote cribbed from The Washington Monthly)
From KansasCity.com
A suspect in this morning’s fatal shooting of abortion doctor George Tiller is in custody and on his way back to Wichita, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said this afternoon at a news conference.
The 51-year-old male suspect was arrested about three hours after the shooting without incident on Interstate 35 in Johnson County, Stolz said.
Police did not release the suspect’s name.
The investigation is in its “infancy stages,” Stolz said. He said the shooting appeared to be an isolated act.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. It was not an isolated act. It is part of the Christian radical right ‘culture of life.’ And when a Democrat is elected President of the United States of America, the right wing terrorists start shooting.
In 1993, Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Florida and Dr. George Tiller was wounded in Kansas. In 1994, Dr. John Britton and his escort, James Barrett, were killed in Florida; Dr. Garson Romalis was wounded in British Columbia; and Sannon Lowney and Leane Nichols were murdered at two women’s heatlh clinics in Massachusetts. In 1995, Dr. Hugh Short was wounded in Ontario. In 1997, an unnamed physician in New York and Dr. Jack Fainman were both wounded during attempted murders. In 1998, Dr. Bernard Slepian was shot and killed in New York; and Officer Robert Sanderson was killed during a clinic bombing in Alabama. (data form the National Abortion Federation) And this is an ‘isolated act’?
Back in the summer of 2008, with the prospect of a liberal President, Bill O’Reilly started inciting:
Now, a guy in Kansas, George Tiller, OK, can kill a baby — kill a baby — a half-hour before the baby’s supposed to be birthed for no reason whatsoever other than the mother has a pain in her foot. OK? Mother’s health: pain in the foot, migraine headache, whatever it may be.
And, more recently, Ann Coulter slammed him in a drive by column:
Being such a prestigious institution, Notre Dame could probably get famed partial-birth abortion practitioner George Tiller to do the demonstration at next year’s graduation. Obama could help — inasmuch as Tiller the abortionist is a close friend of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. (from her May 21st column)
(Both quotes from Media Matters (and are direct quotes from the column/television show))
There is even a website, dr-tiller.com, which calls him “. . . America’s most notorious abortionist. And calls him “Tiller the Killer”. Others have called him a murderer. He has been shot before. He has been assaulted. His health clinic has been vandalized. And the police have the gall to call this an ‘isolated act’?
What they do not tell you is that he provides a legal and necessary medical procedure for women who want to have children (From Pandagon.net):
. . . Dr. George Tiller . . . is one of the two doctors in the country that specializes in the very small percentage of abortions performed late in pregnancy (but before viability) done for health reasons, usually because the pregnancy is a danger to a woman’s health or life, or because the fetus is dead or dying. Dr. Tiller obeys the law. . .
PZ Myers points out the obvious link here:
These are the people who fuel the kind of self-righteous ignorance that encourages people to picket reproductive health clinics, treat ob-gyns as public criminals, and incite murder. The heroes are the doctors who sacrifice so much — privacy, security, and in this case, their life — to provide essential services to women, the women in whom Reaganites find so little value, unless they are pregnant. One of the tragedies of this recent killing and the conservative tradition is that it will be increasingly difficult to find heroes brave enough to step into this role…exactly as these narrow-minded, puritanical enemies of human liberty want.
Will the media right call this attack what it is, terrorism? Will the radical political and religious right admit that there are right-wing terrorists? Will O’Reilly and Coulter admit that they have been fanning the flames of right-wing radicals? Possibly inciting to murder? Or, will they blame the victim? blame liberals? blame Obama? blame anyone other than themselves?
Will the right finally admit that they are harboring and inciting terrorists?
=================
From PZ Myers:
Feministe has an excellent list of pro-choice charities. Want to do something to infuriate the women-hating anti-choicers and do something positive in honor of Tiller’s work? Donate!
(((Billy))) The Atheist 
I don’t think O’Reilly, let alone Coulter, will ever admit to being wrong, or that their rhetoric is responsible for all sorts of despicable acts, from this murder, to gay bashings, to all sorts of other hate-crimes. They may have the right to their speech, but it oughtn’t be others who have to live (or die) with the consequences of their ignorance and hate.
Craig: I don’t either, but I can dream, can’t I?
It would be great if we could somehow hold O’Reilly (etc) responsible, maybe doing some reruns of all his hate speech directed at Dr Tiller, frying his ass in the media.
I’ll be interested to know if the shooter was an O’Reilly fan.
Daisy: Modern conservatives tend to divorce cause and effect relationships from dogma. He/they will insist, just as in the Tennessee Unitarian Church shootings, that there is no relationship between the eliminationist talk and writings, and what happens in the real world. O’Reilly would, most likely, try to turn it into a censorship/free speech issue. O’Reilly and Coulter have no problem at all shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. If people get trampled, it is someone elses fault.
Sorry. I am angry. I really shouldn’t respond to comments while angry (I tend to rant). This whole thing, including the fact that Coulter, O’Reilly, the ministers, etc., will get a pass on this.
I would defend O’Reilly and Coulter and any of these jackasses to say the things they say, despite what I think of them, their comments, or what actions they might inspire. To hold them accountable in any way sets us all on a slippery slope.
Philly: No question they can, legally, say these things. However, though the hate speech is protected, the actions directly inspired by those actions are not. I don’t think they can be held legally liable, but they can, without doubt, be held morally responsible. I agree, though, that banning such speech is not acceptable, no matter how unacceptable the words may be.
I wouldn’t even grant “morally responsible”. Are we going to entirely abandon personal responsibility? Will it be impossible to ever convict a murderer since his act is due to genetic disposition, crappy parents, exposure to “immoral” materials such as music, video games, and blathering talking heads? Please. This is not yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
Hate speech is bullshit, and a shameful liberal example of the road to hell paved with good intentions. If I make a racial or gay joke, that might make me an asshole, but that should never make me a criminal. That’s absurd. I thought we were against blasphemy laws.
Absolutely the person committing the crime needs to be held accountable, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Many times, the people who commit these kinds of crimes are unstable, brainwashed individuals (whether religiously brainwashed, politically, or often a combination of the two) and aren’t completely able to judge rationally. People like Limbaugh and Coulter (two of the worst and most grievous offenders) create an atmosphere and culture where this can happen. They incite and inflame prejudices and ignorance. If they were to give these people correct, rational, unbiased information I do think there would be fewer instances of this kind of ideological violence. I think that while it is ambiguous at best, those who promulgate hate speech are in some small fashion morally responsible for crimes they incite.
I think the situation is similar to the moral responsibility leaders of churches have for the emotional, psychological and sexual abuse that happen in the environment they’ve create and/or done nothing to ameliorate. Personally, I hold Mormon leaders responsible for a great many things, including the thousands of people who have committed suicide because of the extreme homophobia and lies about sexuality they promulgate. Or for the women who are raped by their husbands because men are taught that they are better than women, and have spiritual authority over them. Yes, most of the responsibility for such a crime is with the man who rapes the woman, but a part of the blame is with the religious leaders who brainwash and create a culture where that kind of behaviour is acceptable. They do nothing to change it, and ignore the consequences that result from institutionalised racism, sexism & homophobia.
In the same way, Limbaugh and his ilk feed into the institutionalised right-wing’s myopic racist, sexist, homophobic worldview, and therefore bares some of the blame for the consequences of those actions. I certainly think there should never be legal ramifications for any expression of speech, no matter how distasteful, but just as we can give social consequences to a beauty queen who states her opposition to gay rights, so can we too make sure that there are social consequences to people who are far more hateful and dangerous than a dumb beauty pageant contestant.
The fact that a listener is mentally unstable does not, in any way, have any bearing on the judgement of another’s speech. There’s nothing ambiguous here, and there’s nothing, NOTHING which warrants a comparison to pedophile priests.
(((Billy))) I agree with you and will avoid the rant I am gnawing on right now by simply saying that Mr. Coulter, Mr. O’Really, and Mr. Savage(the Weiner himself), are skirting the line of free speech so tightly so as to almost yelling fire in a theatre. I hope the day comes that people will just turn a deaf ear to the ravings of such ilk.
I hope the day comes when people stop watching Oprah and American Idol.
Philly: In no way am I excusing or mitigating the responsibility of the murderer. And, thinking about it, I agree. This is not shouting fire in a crowded theater. This was wrong on my part. Rather, it is similar to a demagogue telling an ignorant mob just who they should go after. Although that would be rather clear.
Coulter, O’Reilly, et al, are within their rights under the law (as near as I can make out). However, without mitigating the responsibility of the one committing the crime, such hate speech, elimationist speech, is a contributing factor.
The shooter in Tennessee may have opened fire in the Unintarian Church without the right-wing publications excoriating the liberals for all that is wrong with America. This Kansas asshat my have murdered someone without the calling out of Dr. Tiller. Do you admit that the eliminationist rhetoric of the media right may have contributed to the choice of target?
Craig: As I just said to Philly, those in the media right who use this tactic really (in my opinion) cannot be held responsible for the crime. They may have helped to choose the victim(s), but the crime is on the shoulders of the accused.
As for the Catholic Church child abuse comparison? Bullshit. That was a series of crimes covered up through denial of the problem and the moving of the troublesome priests by the church heirarchy. It had nothing to do with either hate speech or eliminationist rhetoric and had everything to do with protecting money and privilege.
Philly: Again, I ask, could the eliminationist rhetoric have helped to refine the possible target? Also, I noticed that this type of talk was quite common during the Clinton administration and there were, as listed above, quite a few shootings at women’s health clinics. During Bush II, the rhetoric was toned down and the shootings seem to have stopped (violence against the clinics did not; vandalism was still common). Now that there is, once again, a Democratic President, the rhetoric has heated up again, and the attacks have begun again (yes, O’Reilly’s quote above was from August, ’08, but by that time the writing was on the wall that the Republicans would (probably) lose the White House). I do not know if there is a causal link. The circumstantial evidence says it might be there.
Tau: I have decided I was wrong about shouting fire in the theater. This is more shouting, “There is the enemy,” to a group of scared people with weapons. I don’t think anyone will stop watching or listening. Perhaps letters to advertisers?
Philly: Agreed. Though that older woman from England (England’s Got Talent(?)) has one hell of a stage voice. One or two real talents are discovered through the trash, but I pride myself on never having watched even one minute of any of that dreck.
A slight digression, inspired by your last comment, (((Billy))). A number of large corporations have pulled their ads from some of the more extreme right wing programs. Unfortunately, I can’t recall the site now where I saw it, but ads have been pulled from the Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and a number of other programs due to the intolerant atmosphere the programs were seemingly promoting. Maybe if enough advertisers back away and the blowhards start to feel it in the wallet, they’ll tone down the rhetoric. (And, yep, pigs will no doubt learn to fly, too, but one can dream.)
And, of course, some in the radical right media are claiming that it is censorship. Yet these are the same people who claim that the innability of progressive talk radio to gain sponsorship is the free market of ideas. So if a company pulls out of Limbaugh’s show, it is censorship, if a company pulls out of, say, Maddow’s show, it is the free market at work. Weird.
And better flying pigs than giant flying porcupines coming out of one’s arse backwards.
Also don’t forget that the social conservatives have a long tradition of threatening to boycott companies who advertise on shows they don’t like. Again, if that’s the free market at work, what is it if social progressives threatened to boycott companies who advertise with Rush, Savage, etc? No doubt THAT would be censorship.
Are you implying that the media right might be hypocritical?
Would stopping a auschwitz guard at the gas chamber be any different? Would stopping Polpot with a bullet be any different? Dr. Killer performed illegal murders and stopped the beating hearts of over 120,000 pre born babies. Murder is always wrong. Always. But sometimes?
Of course yes, if you buy into the rhetoric that abortion is murder, that doctors, nurses, and even women getting the procedures are murderers on par with Nazis, then I can see how killing these people would make sense to you. Then again, there are things to counterbalance that like, well, THE FUCKING LAW, oh, and of course the tenets of your religion. You know, the supposed source of morality? Yeah, that.
Btw – legal procedures. The good doc performed LEGAL procedures.
Have a stupendous day
How is murdering a baby 3 days before the due date ethical or moral by any stretch of your limited magination? Legal does not mean moral. Slavery was legal. Lynchings were legal. That doesnt mean that they are right, or moral, or ethical.
Why women would carry a baby almost to birth only to kill it I will never understand.
And guess what? They’re under no obligation to explain it to you.
According to Kansas law, Tiller required a 2nd opinion before performing the procedures. He only performed procedures recommended by another doctor based on the threat of harm to the women should she not receive the procedure.
If you don’t like the law, work to change it. No one was shooting slave owners to save slaves. Nearly 100 years of abolitionist efforts in the US and how many of them shot slave owners? I’d say if you’re employing your wild imagination to justify killing doctors, perhaps you should consult with one of the psychiatric variety.
“And guess what? They’re under no obligation to explain it to you.”
No. They will have to explain it to God and Jesus. And to the souls of the children they murdered.
You keep talking about what is legal. In NAZI Germany, killing Jews, Gypsies and Christians was legal under THAT atheist regime. Would you complain if someone had preempted the problem?
Rational Christian: Though I agree wholeheardetly with you, do you have any idea how stupid it makes moral Christians look when you use argumetns involving the NAZIS?
So killing people is ok, but invoking Nazis is crossing the line? I have to admit, I’m fascinated by watching two residents of Crazytown dispute where the borders are. I think I’ll go pop some popcorn.
Please, continue.
No, killing people is always wrong. Sometimes, as in war it is necessary. I merely pointed out that raising any of the atheist hersoes like Stalin or Hitler is a garanteed way to derail a calm rational debate about murderers and sent it inot crazy land. And looking at comments like yors we are in crazy liberal land.
Stalin is no more my hero because he was an atheist than I’ll bet Hitler is yours for being a Christian.
Btw, if invoking Nazis is stupid, what is it when you invoke Hitler?
Wrong: Read your history. Hitler prosecuted Christians though not as much as Jews because they were a threat to his atheist socialist government philosophy.
Perhaps you should do some reading, Sport. If he killed other Christians, they probably weren’t true Christians in his eyes, just like Tiller wasn’t in Roeder’s, and many other Christians’ eyes.
He started out as a catholic not a Christian and then became a NAZI. He worshipped pre-Christian mythological gods. He prosecuted Christians and sent more of them to the gas chambers than he sent Jews but the Jews run the newspapsers and publishing houses so only their story gets told.
And Billy, I hate this comment system where the margins get smaller on replies. ARe you trying to discourage discourse? Silly me, your an atheist of course you are.
Oh this is good stuff. Nazis, Hitler, and now finally the ‘real Christian’ argument.
Going off the rails on a crazy train…
Catholics are not Christians. They follow the Pope not the Bible. If you are going to insult us at least get the termilonogy right.
RC: This is what I was talking about when I said that bringing up NAZIs will just derail your moral point.
Rational Christian: Interesting moniker. Of course, I was in Military Intelligence, I like jumbo shrimp, and I work for a government organization, so I do appreciate oxymorons. That said, you really might want to do some research regarding just why women would have a late term abortion. This legal medical procedure is not done on a whim. These are foetus’s which the women hoped to carry to term but, because of severe abnormalities, the death of the foetus, or the risk of sterility or death on the part of the mother, she, her doctors, her family, and Dr. Tiller made the decision to terminate the pregnancy. I doubt you will do the research, but I invite it.
Also, your comparison to Jews in NAZI Germany is interesting. The NAZI propaganda demonized Jews using some of the same imagery, phrasing, and invitationally eliminationist rhetoric which is now directed against women’s health care providers by the media right and Christian groups. Interesting.
Philly: Couldn’t say it better myself. And if Abe and RC get into a shouting match with each other, this could be entertaining.
Rational Christian
I have read 20,30,and even 40,thousand abortions but never 120,000. That would mean approx 3 abortions each and every day for 109 years.
The rest of your reply is equally as absurd. You really should do a little fact checking before you start parroting your heroes. They get paid for looking foolish.Do you?
[…] wrote a post in which he detailed several acts of violence against those who have provided abortion services. This is what he recorded: In 1993, Dr. David […]
Abe: I think the comparisson is apt after all the liberal NAZIs today are already doing ot Christians what the German NAZIS did to the Jews they are putting down the belief, making bvelief illegal and even stopping Christians from working in some jobs such as pharmacists and doctors because their beliefs are illegal. The liberal NAZIS are forcing churches to marry gays. They are undremining our beliefs, makeing our beliefs illegal. Do not, ever, tell me not to compare apples to apples. Liberal NAZIS and German NAZIS are the same people who hate God and are going to put real Christians inot concentration camps if we do not stop them using the law. Killing is wrong I agree. But considering the 120,000 this one doctor killed, maybe? And the 120000 is accurate. 20 to 30 women a day went into his clinic so that is 100 murders a week 5000 a year and over his 25 year career 120,000 is a low estimate.
I agree that the comparrison is a good one but it takes the conversation away form what we should be debating with the evil ones about whether one life to save a thousand is a good deal or not. Of course they are truying to marginalize Christians so that they can remake America into a Godless hellhole of moral and environment pollution, free love of the 60’s and an anything goes attitude. We should be debating them and bringing them to Christ not arguing. I agree with you I just think your tactics are poor chosen.
So you are telling me to lie by ommission? Lying is a sin, Abe. I would expect that from atheists and they’re enablers such as Billy and PhillyChief. We or at least I am a Christian and will not lie even by omission. If I see a halocast, I call it what it is. And what is done to babies in America. I will not lie to avoid hurting the feelings of atheists and other devil worshippers.
No. I am saying that when you are arguing with nonbeleivers anythiing you say will be twisted out of all recoginition and that referring to NAZIS or Hitler and other atheists will only allow the God haters to go off on a tangent and ignore the real point of your morally correct argument.
• Christians exclude themselves from jobs for choosing not to perform the required duties of those jobs. Jews were excluded from jobs because they were Jews, regardless of whether they were willing or able to perform the duties of their jobs.
• No state is forcing any church to marry any couple they don’t want to marry.
• Hitler and other Nazis loved your god, too. So does the Pope and even Osama bin Laden. 😉
• Funny you equate godless with environmental pollution since religion is at the heart of global warming denial
• You know what should be a sin? No using a spellchecker. I bvelief I’m winessing a spelling halocost
Fact: Over 20,000 doctors and pharmacists have lost there jobs because they are Christian. Why do you think there are so many dothead doctors?
Fact: By legalizing the sin of gay marriage the state is forcing churches to change who and what they are. It is part of a plot to destroy the one true religion by the liberal NAZIS.
Fact: Hitler was not a Christian. He was raised Catholic and then became a pagan.
Fact: Pollution of the soul is the gole of atheism. Christians understand that we have no power over the earth but we are also commanded to care for the earth. This means not dirtying our mess. The free market deals very well with pollutiion. Liberal socialist NAZI programs just add to the problem.
I am sorry my spelling is not up to your perfection. How will that perfection help you when you stand naked before God to answer for your sins?
I’ll tell you what, if you can provide proof of any of your “facts”, I won’t comment on your spelling anymore.
I thought Philly was where all thoese great public libraries paid for by robbing the middle class were. I guess you can’t be bothered to go to a library and actually, you know, read a book. Sad.
So now you’re against public libraries. No surprise there.
Alright, so assume atheists are lazy, evil people who can’t be bothered to go find a book to read. Enlighten us all and point to a source for any one of your “facts”. You are here to set us straight, right? So go on, Cupcake, show us how we’re wrong and you’re right.
No. I love libraries. I just disagree with the excessive taxes on the middle class while the immigrants get off tax-free for ten years and soak up all the dollars.
This just keeps getting better. I want a big coke with my popcorn and candy.
So you rather nitpick about someones spelling, and I refer to your commetns about Rational Christian, than focus on the truth of his comment? Wow. Talk about strawman argumetns. You liberals not only lie but won’t deal with substance at all.
That was not a strawman argument. Please stop trying to help me.
So you’d rather nitpick about one of my points rather than focus on either its truth or the rest of the points? What was that you said about being concerned about twisting someone’s words and tangential arguments?
Btw – a strawman argument is where you misrepresent another’s argument and attack that misrepresentation instead of the actual argument. Your label of my point as a strawman is incorrect since RC really can’t spell for shit. Furthermore, as you conveniently ignored, I did address his assertions. Addressing his spelling was just a bonus. Try again, Sport.
Hey, Philly! I hope you’ve got some more popcorn. This thread is the most entertaining stuff I’ve read in days. You predicted it, man!
No way am I going to go through this one comment by comment. I do, however, find it interesting that two right-wing godbots are on an atheist blog arguing about the appropriate tactics to use when arguing in favour of murder. Like watching a tennis match with no net. Or a game of pong-pong.
Screw the popcorn. I want some of those little chocolate covered caramel thingies.
Other than that, I really can’t add much.
I reduced the number of levels of commenting which, of course, threw everything out of order. Which means this comment thread now makes even less sense than it did before (if that is even possible).
And this comment showed up out of order. Weird.
Better fire up the grill and throw a couple of hot dogs on there too; this could turn into an epic-length feature.
Damn, (((Billy)) – my last comment ended up way the hell up there!
I dropped the number of allowable levels and the threading has gone the way of RC and Abe.
So you deleted most of my comments. Real grown up of you. Well, since Im being deleted I might as well rip yuou one. Since you God haters think that human brains trump all, I will use logic to prove you are wrong.
Fact: God exists and takes a personal interest in all humans. Atheists – who are actually God haters since it is impossible to not believe in God – are humans so God loves atheists who just refuse to return the love and return it with hate instead.
Fact: God exists and takes a personal interest in all humans. He knows every human through all eternity. Therefore God loves unborn babies even the ones who are wontonly murdered by God haters.
Fact: God exists and takes a personal interest in all humans. This is stated clearly in the Bible the one uncoruptable Book in all of history. The Bible was written by God. Therefore, since it is impossible to not believe in reality, atheists hate God or are in rebellion against God, and know that God exists.
Fact: God exists and takes a personal interest in all humans. He sent his only Son to die a horrible death to give all humans an opportunity to accept God and erase the sin present in every single human. Therefore, Jesus died for the sins of all humans, including atheists who can still be saved if they accept the love of God and Jesus.
Fact: God exists and takes a personal interest in all humans. Dr. Tiller was a human. The babies he murdered were also humans. God must protect the innocent those who have not chosen their fate. The death of Dr. Tiller was God’s way of protecting innocent life. Therefore Mr. Roeder was following the will of God.
Go ahead, Billy. Delete this like the teenage God hater you are.
I did not delete any comments. I reduced the levels of reply commenting which scrambled the order.
Fact: None of the ‘logical proofs’ you provided make any sense at all.
Fact: I am an atheist (look up the definition). How can I hate something which does not exist?
RC: You really are going out of your way to make us look silly, aren’t you? Your comments are well thought out, but the way you argue just opens the door to ad homonum attacks by the ignorant, undeducated, angry and confused. You should be attacking the flaws in their thinking process — easy, right? Don’t try to convert them with facts. They don’t deal with facts only fantasy which is why they hate the fact of God.
Apparently I am being moderated and censored. Can’t handle the truth, asshole? Well, go ahead and destroy civilization. Or try to. God won’t let you.
God loves you, but I think your and asshole!
Way to allow free speech.
No moderation. No censorship. You are free to make a complete ass of yourself. Congratulations. You are succeeding.
Fact: Those “facts” about god are incredibly hilarious.
Your basic premise that god exists is flawed. You’ve yet to prove that, so it’s illogical to build any argument on an unproven premise.
Good Job.. good Work.. thanx for sharing…