Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Poll | 06/15/2009 11:00 pm

Should violence against medical doctors who perform abortions be viewed and prosecuted as domestic terrorism?

The recent murder of Dr. George Tiller has revived the conversation about anti-abortion violence. Click here to read more about the topic on PBS.org/Now.

136 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Andrea Brandon

Absolutely. Laws are laws. One deranged person is never exempt from obeying the law and s/he can certainly never speak for all of us anyway.

By Andrea Brandon on 06/16/2009 12:55 am
Kelly In Texas

Domestic terrorist? No. Murderer yes.

 

By Kelly In Texas on 06/16/2009 1:47 pm
Andrea Brandon

I know, KIT, I ruminated on that one for a while. In the end I decided to go the way of how the US Government defines "domestic terrorist."

US Code: Title 18.2331 defines it as:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—     (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;     (B) appear to be intended—         (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;         (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or         (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and    (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
By Andrea Brandon on 06/16/2009 4:41 pm
Kelly In Texas

Andrea….thanks for the clarification. I am not aware of any manifesto that was written concerning the Tiller murder, or of any note left that referred to either (i),(ii)or (iii). There may have been, I do not know.

I do agree that (c) is relevant. It seemed to me that Tiller was targeted as an individual, that his own personal actions were the trigger.

Were the other two late term abortionist attacked by this same assailant?

 

 

By Kelly In Texas on 06/17/2009 11:10 am
Andrea Brandon

Hi, Kelly,

I don’t know who attacked the other late-term abortionists but it does not appear that Scott Roeder was the attacker. Roeder had a history of aberrant thinking, though  [read the brief Time article linked below].

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1902189,00.html

By Andrea Brandon on 06/17/2009 2:29 pm
Andrea Brandon

Kelly,

I believe there is evidence on all counts of domestic terrorism.

the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—    

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;    

(B) appear to be intended—        

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;        

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or  

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and    

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The way I see it:

B(i): Roeder intended his actions to be a deterrant to other abortionists.

B(ii):  Roeder MAY have been trying to make a statement to the USG.

B(iii):  I’m not sure what the intent of this section was when they built this federal code, but I’m guessing that Roeder’s actions were his attempt to affect how the government handles such a crime. [I could be way off base here.]

 
By Andrea Brandon on 06/17/2009 2:39 pm
Nancy Pea
a murderer is a murderer no matter whom they kill and shouldn’t be exempt from the law.
By Nancy Pea on 06/16/2009 1:04 am
Laura Ward
Why does it have to be labeled? It’s still first degree murder even if you don’t agree with what the abortionist doctor was doing.
By Laura Ward on 06/16/2009 1:37 am
DeBúrca obj
Why did we label the terrorists guilty of 9/11 ‘terrorists’ instead of murderers? A terrorist act is a violent act against civilians in order to make a political statement. That describes the 9/11 terrorists and it describes the terrorist who killed Dr. Tiller. It also describes the terrorist who killed the security guard at the Holocaust Museum.
By DeBúrca obj on 06/16/2009 9:11 pm
Chris Broersma
Despite the feeling of many evengelicals, it still is murder and as commandments say, "Thou shal not murder."  
By Chris Broersma on 06/16/2009 1:40 am
Kelly In Texas

Chris, please cite where any "evengelicals" have supported the killing of Tiller, or do not agree with you that "Thou shall not murder"?

In every report that I have seen, the murder of Tiller was called a "murder" by the religious right.

By Kelly In Texas on 06/16/2009 2:02 pm
canuck canuck
Murder is murder no matter who does it and we are a nation of laws that must be upheld.
By canuck canuck on 06/16/2009 2:10 am
Steve R

When the murder of one puts others in fear, it is unarguably an act of terrorism.

As long as there is such a national movement against such legal procedures; as long as there are people who demonize, stalk, harass, intimidate, and threaten those who perform them; such a murder is an act of terrorism.

By Steve R on 06/16/2009 2:16 am
Murphy Mac
I can’t say it better than you, so I’ll just say, I totally agree.
By Murphy Mac on 06/16/2009 7:31 am
Mommy Dearest
Well said, my dear Steve.
By Mommy Dearest on 06/16/2009 1:20 pm