Kansas City Star Tuesday editorial
One of the great tragedies of the murder of Wichita doctor George Tiller is that it enables public policy to be shaped by a bullet.
This is a horrible notion, and must be rejected by all.
Tiller was known throughout the United States, worldwide even, as one of the few remaining U.S. doctors willing to perform late-term abortions.
How few? Back in 1990, doctors in at least seven clinics would terminate late-term pregnancies. After a rash of abortion-related murders and other violence, the number had dwindled to three, with clinics in Kansas, Colorado and Nebraska.
If no physician steps forward to replace Tiller, there will now be two clinics, both run by aging doctors.
“If you’re a woman who needed the care he provided, there are few options,” said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. “It’s a devastating loss.”
Criminals and extremists cannot be allowed to shut down a legal medical practice. The federal government must do a better job of enforcing laws and policies put in place to protect abortion providers.
The U.S. Justice Department should revive a task force that was created in 1998, after the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian. The task force coordinated information on extremist groups, helped train local police agencies and funded clinic safety measures.
Protecting abortion providers faded as a priority during the Bush administration, and the task force went largely dormant. Barack Obama’s justice department should get the effort back on track.
Tiller had survived assassination attempts in 1986 and in 1993. He spent years under guard, and always knew he was at risk.
The physician also fended off repeated legal challenges. But despite repeated investigations, grand jury inquiries and one trial, he was always found to have followed Kansas law.
Tiller’s history of threats, harassment and legal challenges does a lot to explain why his is a lonely profession. But as long as abortion is legal, Tiller told associates, women should be able to have the procedure done safely, even in the late stages of pregnancy.
Late-term abortions provoke the strongest reactions in an arena fraught with emotional debate.
Proponents note the desperate circumstances of women who seek them. The vast majority of Tiller’s patients were carrying fetuses with severe abnormalities, those familiar with the business said.
“It’s heartbreaking,” said Peggy Bowman, one of Tiller’s former employees. “Almost all of these families have set up the nursery. They’re ecstatic about being pregnant and then they get that awful news.”
Opponents note how infant-like a fetus appears as it nears full term.
With little common ground and the debate showing no signs of subsiding, it’s understandable that few physicians are volunteering to enter the field.
But the last thing this country needs in the abortion debate is for a radical with a gun to be able to create de-facto public policy.
After the killing, President Barack Obama said, “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”
That’s absolutely correct. But Obama must do more than talk. His administration must offer more protections for physicians to carry out the legal practice of abortion.









Delicious
Digg
For the uninformed
Educate yourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLD672WvydE
No actually I don't know if it will happen
Want to bet on when that will happen? I'm guessing never. Because elections have consequences, don't they?
I also fail to see the connection between rappers condoning violence and elections having consequences. Or anyone being outed. Apples and oranges.
are you dense?
kenm asked:
"And the difference between this and our president slamming bond holders in a public forum, or the media publishing the names of AIG executives so that ACORN and other could sit outside their homes, or Gibbs attacks on Santelli and people who came out for the tea parties. What is the difference, besides the obvious that the government made the calls above and the news widely reported the events while a private citizen did the same in CT that no one outside of a few would even know about."
The difference, Einstein, is that neither the president nor Gibbs publicly advocated violence against the bond holders or Santelli.
The names of AIG executives are a matter of public record. Anyone with access to a public library can find that information. Peaceful protests at AIG headquarters would appear to be constitutionally protected (in other words, the "right to peaceably assemble" in the First Amendment). If there were actions at AIG execs homes, that may cross the line into intimidation.
Today's Pot-Kettle Award
darroby wrote this:
"Generally they [liberals] think that the first ammendment reads: Should any liberal dislike or disagree with ANYTHING that anyone who is not liberal says, the non-liberal must be silenced."
And this:
"This is how people like APOP, Interpuck, Hendircks, and others justify making vile comments about entire groups of people, with whom they disagree."
Won't happen and you know it.
Want to bet on when that will happen? I'm guessing never. Because elections have consequences, don't they?
So? Hmmmmm.
I don't disagree. And Erica Jong wasn't the only one--on TV, in interviews, in newspapers. But hey, furthering that storyline was okay then, now, not so much.
Today, I would say the left is rather hypocritical--but then that seems to be the norm now.
So?
On the other hand, one person posted here, threatening a "civil war" over abortion. The term "war" connotes a broad, violent conflict over the issue, and also implies that others should join in the "war." That is several degrees past calling Tiller a "murderer." Calling for war goes too far.
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/erica-jong-tells-italians-obama-loss-will-spark-second-american-civil-war-blood-will-r
"If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets."
Yeah, frightening.
Well, two wrongs don't make it right. It's not a left-right issue. Calling for violence is wrong no matter who does it. Erica Jong needs to shut up, too. Do you disagree with that?
Difference
And the difference between this and our president slamming bond holders in a public forum, or the media publishing the names of AIG executives so that ACORN and other could sit outside their homes, or Gibbs attacks on Santelli and people who came out for the tea parties. What is the difference, besides the obvious that the government made the calls above and the news widely reported the events while a private citizen did the same in CT that no one outside of a few would even know about.
Inciting violence is wrong, regardless of political ideology
"No. No. No. Like the post below--what about the rappers?"
I agree they should also be charged with inciting violence.
"How about those that "out" people on the Internet? Do they "incite" people?"
Do they encourage folks to be violent against those they "out"? If so, yes they should be charged with a crime.
Turn em in
And good luck with that plan since Roeder was reported to the FBI for vandalizing a clinic in KC less than 24 hours before he assassinated Dr. Tiller. Remember how quickly the FBI moved to go after him?
Yeah, me neither.
I was actually kind of surprised they picked up this guy in New Jersey. I guess threatening elected officials is what caught law enforcement's attention?