Dr. Tiller was not the first doctor to be assassinated for performing abortions, nor will he be the last. All but a radical few anti-abortion activists decry his murder, as well they should. In most, I am sure, the sentiment is genuine, an honest expression that killing is wrong, whether of fetuses or of physicians. All too many, however, give every impression that their reproval is not at all genuine, but merely trying to distance themselves and their cause from an unpopular attitude…and often, not trying very hard. These are the spokespeople for anti-abortion politics who agree that oh, my yes, shooting abortionists is wrong, but we shouldn’t be so hard on killers who are, after all, only executing “mass murderers.” These are the spokespeople who will declare for the microphones that while they would never, ever advocate murder, maybe those “mass murderers” ought to be more careful, because—heh, heh—you just never know…
There’s a word for this kind of politics. It’s called “terrorism.”
Some people may not recognize it as terrorism. As it has with so many things, the right wing has corrupted our language so that humanitarian aid and criticizing the national leaders are considered terrorism, while indiscriminate bombing and kidnapping are not. But by any definition not offered by right wing extremists, assassinating doctors in the hopes of stamping out abortion through fear where due legal process has failed is terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation to affect, or even effect, political policy.
And it works, too. Not universally; doctors still offer abortions—but then, rock music didn’t disappear entirely under the Taliban, either. But it does work. Physicians are on record stating that they have stopped offering abortions for fear of murder.
Stamping out this form of domestic terrorism may be impossible, but it could be curtailed through heavy public censure, not just of these few nut-jobs with guns, but of the barest expression of sympathy for them. Applying a tiny fraction of the apparatus we’ve put in place to harass terrorists, or people who know terrorists, or people who vaguely resemble terrorists, or people the state just doesn’t like very much, to the very real terrorists and terrorist sympathizers we have on American soil fighting legal abortions would put a real crimp in the abusive, predatory behavior we see in the anti-abortion movement: vandalism, shock tactics on women already traumatized by a difficult decision, death threats…and those who go beyond mere threats to murder.
I don’t advocate turning a police state apparatus on the anti-abortion movement. While I disagree with their position, I find moderate anti-abortionists reasonable in their beliefs; we don’t differ on how to treat humans, but only on whether a microscopic fleck of tissue is a human. Treating anti-abortionists as de facto terrorists, apart from being wrong in itself, would also make it easier to turn the same tactics on others practicing open political discourse. But fair is fair. If we’re really serious about fighting terrorism, no matter who gets hurt, shouldn’t we be hammering away at terrorists of the right wing, too, especially since they’re right here in our own jurisdiction?
Or, if we’re not really all that serious about fighting terrorism, if we’re only in it because fear tactics win votes, or if this is simply another case of “our terrorists are freedom fighters,” then maybe we should just dismantle the whole Ashcroft edifice. If the only terrorists we pursue are those the right wing likes to demonize, maybe we shouldn’t be pursuing terrorists at all.
