Note—Some of my earliest
pontificating came in the Letters
to the Editor of my local newspapers
going back to a missive in support
of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in
the Wyoming Tribune back in 1963 in
when I was fourteen years old. For many
years I regularly contributed my wit and wisdom to the Northwest Herald, the local daily paper serving McHenry County, Illinois, sometimes as
often as the one-letter-every-six-week
would allow. I got a well-earned reputation as one of the reliable local cranks, if one of the
few left leaning ones. Many letters were spurred by bone headed editorials, op-ed pieces by the paper’s never ending supply of conservative commentators, or
particularly wacked out letters from
a reliable cadre of right wing cranks. It was emotionally satisfying. But ever shrinking word limits have made it difficult for a blow hard like me to make a complete,
rational, and brilliantly stinging
rebuttal. Then the emergence of on-line comments in the paper’s web
page opened up a whole cesspool of
vitriol and abuse that took the fun out
of it. Besides, I developed other forums in which to bloviate, this blog
being the principle one. But once in
while something in the paper will re-ignite
the old fire in the belly. This response to an op-ed column is way too
long for the Herald to print, but I
thought I would give you the experience of the old longer form. Perhaps I will then hack it down to the now permissible 250 words and submit it. Or maybe not.
To the Editor:
In
your Thursday, December 3 edition, you printed a commentary by Ramesh Ponnuru titled Who’s
to Blame for Planned Parenthood Murders? in which he offered a no-not-us
defense of the anti-abortion
movement, or as they prefer to style it, the Pro-Life movement so that anyone who disagrees with them can
automatically be cast as diabolically
pro-death.
Ponnuru
cut right to the chase with his very
best gotcha—the 2009 murder of Jim Pouillon who was distributing graphic anti-abortion tracts
at an Oswego, Michigan high
school. Pouillon was an elderly
local activist confined to a wheelchair and
dependent on oxygen. His shooting by Harlan James Drake, who also shot and killed a local businessman who
had no connection the anti-abortion cause, was indeed despicable and cowardly. In fact I said as much—as did virtually
everyone of note in the pro-choice
movement—in a post titled The Death of Mine
“Enemy”—Sharing Grief, Outrage, and Humanity in my blog Heretic, Rebel, a Thing to Flout.
Jim Poulilion, the one and only victim of murder of anyone connected with the anti-abortion movement. |
In
his article Ponnuru first goes into the time
honored conservative snivel that
the murder was not covered by the allegedly liberal media. Not
true. It was a sensational story which generated front page coverage from coast-to-coast
and was featured on all of the TV network
and cable news programs, as was
Ponnuru’s funeral and Drake’s
subsequent trial. Look it up.
Of course the coverage may have been spurred by the man-bites-dog rarity of violence
against anti-abortion protesters.
Ponnuru
then congratulates the Pro-Life Movement for refraining, “from suggesting
pro-abortion rights groups bore responsibility for the murder,” for which he
claims “I’m not aware of any exceptions to this generalization.”
Having
claimed this high moral ground, he then
levels his fire at the Pro-choice movement still reeling from three murders and
multiple injuries in the Colorado
Springs Planned Parenthood attack. “They
intend to turn the killings ‘into a political moment they say will put abortion
opponents on the defensive.’” This is
one of the most reliable tools in
the bag of tricks of conservative writers—Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute—immediately
turning themselves into the “real victims” of horrific episodes of senseless violence. This kind of pitiful whining is also the bread
and butter of the National Rifle
Association and gun lobby machine
every time public outrage threatens
to turn against them.
Of
course, the dastardly proponents of the so called baby killing industry are abetted once again by that terrible
liberal media, who ask tough questions
of Republican politicians at inconvenient times because “most
journalists are themselves on this side and inclined to see anti-abortion
supporters as extremists.” As always
Ponnuru pretends that the powerful right
wing media machine of which he is a part—the
leading national cable news network which
is little more than a partisan
propaganda machine; complete domination of influential radio talk shows; ownership
through Rupert Murdoch and others of
a vast empire of newspapers, magazines,
and publishers; an array of popular web sites and blogs; think tanks with impressive sounding names which feed cooked-up statistics and pseudo-science which the allegedly
liberal media obligingly publicizes;
and, of course the legions of conservative pundits
and commentators featured in the
main stream media and available for “balance”
to counter every statement from a liberal politician or activist group.
Then
Ponnuru pulls out his cleverest rhetorical
trick—a claim that is narrowly true
but completely deceptive, anti-abortion
violence “is only slightly more common than pro-abortion rights violence
against adults, which is to say not very common at all.” It is absolutely statistically true that
deaths due to terrorism of all
ideological types are extremely rare
when stacked against all causes of death,
despite the public attention they generate.
Millions of Americans die every year, only a relative handful to any
type of terrorism. The difference
between the numbers of deaths and injuries on either side of the abortion
debate are thus statistically
insignificant.
Although anti-abortion violence peaked in the '90's, it is on the rise again. |
But
a direct comparison of real numbers tells a different, much more lop-sided story. Since 1993 there have been 11 murders and
26 attempted murders due to anti-abortion violence including the deaths of four doctors—one
shot by sniper in his own home and
another gunned down in his church where he was serving as an usher—in addition to two clinic employees, a volunteer escort, a security guard, and now two non-patients accompanying others and a responding
police officer. Ponnuru has already run out of examples on
the other side.
In
addition there have been over 200 bomb and
arson attacks on clinics, support facilities, and
pro-choice offices since 1977, and100 chemical
attacks mostly employing the vomit inducing and long lasting poison butyric acid. Against this record there are a handful of
cases of simple assault—mostly pushing
and shoving incidents as clients and their supporters tried to gain access to
clinics being physically blocked by anti-abortion protesters.
So
in actual numbers—and in seriousness—anti-abortion violence far outstrips that
from the opposing side. And we are not counting the tens of thousands of threats of violence made annually against providers, their supporters, and women
who have used clinic services for any
reason.
Ponnuru
acknowledges that all political rhetoric
can inspire violence. That’s big of him. But he claims that the anti-abortion movement
has condemned and sought to root out violence in its ranks. Certainly the leaders of the mainstream
anti-abortion movement and most—but not all—politicians have rushed to issue
condemnations of violence while disclaiming any responsibility. They
also add a big but, as Ponnuru did when he understood that, “Many on this side
say abortion is an evil on par with
slavery. Some deranged people
may try to play the part of John Brown in
that analogy.” That’s an exceedingly popular comparison, and
also something of a wink and nod to
violence.
Given
the absolute view that all abortion
is murder and that a sort of genocide of
the unborn on the scale of Nazi
death camps—another popular analogy—Ponnuru sees little reason for
anti-abortion activists to temper their rhetoric beyond “anything more inflammatory than needed to make their case against the injustice
that moves them.” Than needed leaves a
lot of elbow room for inflammatory speech.
His
immediate example, however, is not one of the hundreds of quotes that can
easily be found from radical anti-abortion leaders, but a misquote of Hillary Clinton
who he claims, “should stop saying that peaceful, run-of-the-mill anti-abortion supporters are like terrorists.” Of
course Clinton never suggested that. She
did suggest that the overheated rhetoric of some anti-abortion leaders and
Republican politicians have de-facto encouraged terrorism. With good reason.
Take
presidential hopeful Jim Pouillon he has
recently basked in the endorsement of Troy
Newman, head of the leading radical Christian pro-life organization Operation Rescue, which has a long
history of inspiring and winking at anti-abortion violence. Newman is noted for claiming that the
execution of abortion providers is justified.
Cruz has used some pretty heated rhetoric himself and has refused to
distance himself from Newman or his supporters in the wake of the Colorado
Springs killing.
Ponnuru
insists that any restraint of rhetoric urged by Pro-Choice activist is proof
that, “aren’t objecting to the anti-abortion movement’s rhetoric; they’re
objecting to its existence.” Another
flat out poor-me lie. Neither is the
Pro-choice movement arguing that the vast majority of abortion opponents and
activists are violent or condone violence.
But the movement has long tolerated, and sometimes encouraged a growing fringe.
There
has been no call to suppress pro-choice rhetoric by state action or censorship,
just an appeal for less hyper-hysterical rhetoric and a more sincere
effort to clean up the movement from its most violent prone fringe.
Meanwhile
Ponnuru and others like him can unsuccessfully search high and low for any
advocates of violence and terrorism against the anti-abortion movement.
Mr.
Ponnuru, you claims of phony equivalence
are patently absurd.
Patrick
Murfin,
Crystal
Lake
No comments:
Post a Comment