The clinic is run by a doctor named George Tiller, a lightning-rod figure in the abortion wars. Tiller's reputation for performing late-term abortions draws women from all over the world to his clinic -- women whose unborn children have been diagnosed with genetic deformities or whose health makes childbearing dangerous. It also makes Tiller's clinic the perfect target for Newman's campaign of intimidation.
Such intimidation had a long history, as a previous bombing (1986) and shooting (shot in arms, 1993), suggested. Use of selective morality, damned by a vast number of those that truly honor life (including those who believe abortion is the wrong choice in most cases), has been promoted even if the result is violence against doctors, nurses, or even clinical staff. Or, if the "murder" is in promotion of woman's health, including cases where the fetus or "unborn child" will not survive. For instance:
After that, everything happened very quickly. I was put on medication (magnesium sulfate) in an attempt to treat the preeclampsia and save the remaining twin until he reached outside-the-womb viability--a mere two weeks away (I was just over 22 weeks pregnant). But I got much worse overnight; my blood pressure couldn't be controlled, I had a massive headache and was vomiting uncontrollably. My kidneys shut down. I was moments away from seizures, coma, and death when the doctors came and told us the bad news: my remaining twin could not be saved. My pregnancy had to be terminated or both the baby and I would die.
Dr. Tiller's friend Dr. Carhart said Tiller's clinic will resume operations shortly. If that name sounds familiar, it might be because he challenged the federal ban on "partial birth abortion," the ruling of which Pamela Karlan ridiculed in part for its "self-evident" suggestion that those who performed such a procedure will cause women [or in the opinion's terms, the "mother"] "regret," since the doctor will be loathe to fully inform her about its nature, which she might discover later on and be crushed.
Justice Ginsburg's dissent had a different perspective, noting "Eliminating or reducing women’s reproductive choices is manifestly not a means of protecting them." She also explained how the ruling would threaten women, in part by hindering doctors -- particularly in specific cases -- from using a procedure that would best protect their health. Abortions more likely than not done on unviable fetuses, but even if viable, if there was a serious health reason to do it, abortions that still could be done ... just by use of a more dangerous procedure. Supporters of the legislation often tried to elide past this reality. The procedure might be safer, for those cases where the woman's health or life is at stake, for instance, for many reasons:
First, intact D&E minimizes the number of times a physician must insert instruments through the cervix and into the uterus, and thereby reduces the risk of trauma to, and perforation of, the cervix and uterus—the most serious complication associated with nonintact D&E. Second,removing the fetus intact, instead of dismembering it in utero, decreases the likelihood that fetal tissue will be retained in the uterus, a condition that can cause infection, hemorrhage, and infertility. Third, intact D&E diminishes the chances of exposing the patient’s tissues to sharp bony fragments sometimes resulting from dismemberment of the fetus. Fourth, intact D&E takes less operating time than D&E by dismemberment, and thus may reduce bleeding, the risk of infection, and complications relating to anesthesia.
But, a federal law, allegedly mainly under the Congress' commerce power (!), was used to selectively make it more difficult for women to get needed health care. This is usually left to the states [including for Tiller personally], which in a multitude of cases have a myriad of regulations that target abortion in particular, making it more complicated and costly. This is truly troubling when the state might have but one clinic to perform the abortion (three states). Selective funding is another case, including the "Hyde Amendment," that limits funding to rape or life of the mother. Item:
Calling its own decision “callous and unfeeling,” a federal appeals court ruled Thursday against a Navy sailor’s wife from Everett who aborted a horribly deformed fetus that was destined to die. The woman wanted her military health insurance plan to pay for the procedure, but the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that its hands were tied: U.S. armed forces medical benefits don’t cover abortions unless the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. The court ruled that it must defer to a congressional mandate, saying it could not “judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices.”
This is one example of the sort of "late term" abortion that Dr. Tiller performed. Tiller was killed in a church. Federal law has partially addressed threats to clinics, including when it passed FACE, which also protects religious institutions from intimidation and obstructive conduct that inhibits carrying out constitutional rights. An earlier attempt to use a federal civil rights law to guard against national conspiracies to block clinics that overwhelm local law enforcement failed, giving a victory to the advocate for the U.S., the current Chief Justice.* In dissent, Justice O'Connor argued that gender discrimination was taking place, and there were other means of protest:
Petitioners assert that, even if their activities are class based, they are not motivated by any discriminatory animus but only by their profound opposition to the practice of abortion. I do not doubt the sincerity of that opposition. But in assessing the motivation behind petitioners' actions, the sincerity of their opposition cannot surmount the manner in which they have chosen to express it. Petitioners are free to express their views in a variety of ways, including lobbying, counseling, and disseminating information. Instead, they have chosen to target women seeking abortions and to prevent them from exercising their equal rights under law.
Many cases dealt with the line between protest and illegal action, including of a violent nature. There has been some controversy over Bill O'Reilly repeatedly saying things like:
Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted—acquitted today of murdering babies. I wanted George Tiller, Tiller the baby killer, going—hey, I can‘t make more money killing babies now. Tiller the baby killer. As “The Factor” has been reporting, this man will terminate fetuses at anytime for $5,000.
He denies complicity, something another extremist voice rejects:
And when you look at what happened to Dr. Tiller, there‘s a direct line connecting the rhetoric that I was part of as a young man and this murder. And so, people, like me, are responsible for what we said and what we did and the way we raised the temperature on this debate out of all bounds. And so, when O‘Reilly talks about the fact that these people of the far left are against FOX or against him or trying to muzzle the debate, he‘s telling a lie.
But, this is a question of moral complicity, not illegality as such. Hateful speech that in some fashion promotes illegal action (not imminent legal action) is protected by the First Amendment. For instance, "want ads" by the extremists might be legal in many aspects. Speech has consequences. As does freedom as a whole. Octomom does not mean women should not use artificial means to have children. Targeting the murderer in question here with the full extent of the law also does not necessarily mean the use of overbroad "anti-terrorist" laws that can be used against any number of protesters in no way comparable to this sort of character.
OTOH, the DHA report against rightwing extremist violence, including its "lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States," using abortion among other things as fuel, does seem a bit prescient. One answer might be to re-enforce the right in question, one threatened enough already, even without the violence.
[Update: I know that it could be difficult given the personal nature of the question, but since women involved in late term abortions have spoken out in the past -- including when Congress was in midst of arbitrarily outlawing one abortion procedure -- it would have be nice if Rachel or Keith found such a woman to give a personal touch from the patient's side. They interviewed doctors and abortion rights people, all good, but I think that might have been an oversight. When Hilzoy, e.g., cited personal accounts, there was special force. Imagine a face next to them, or even a voice on the phone.]
A right not only for the woman, but for everyone involved, including children she has afterwards via a procedure that does not threaten her ability to have them when a late term abortion is needed to protect her health.
---
* Rachel Maddow pointed out that the sixth person on this list later was executed for killing two clinic workers. The first name is the spouse of the named litigant in the Bray case.