So, “Paul Hill Days” has* come and gone. I’m pleased, though not a bit surprised, to learn that turnout was poor: the murder cheerleaders were able to scrape up sixty people for their parade only by dragging along their children. The re-enactment of Hill’s crime was even more sparsely attended. I’ve seen video online, and there appeared to be about twenty-five people there. Maybe a few more if you count the gawkers in the background.

I’ve discussed this subject with many very reasonable, absolutely anti-violence people who argue that Hill’s admirers should be given as little attention or acknowledgment as possible. The people behind this event are a tiny fringe, they say. They have a martyr complex that we probably feed by speaking out against them. They have a desire for publicity that we definitely feed by speaking out against them.

All that is true, and if these were just people spouting off ugly opinions on the Internet, I might agree that the best thing to do is ignore them. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here. The organizers of “Paul Hill Days” celebrate and associate with people who have proven their willingness to kill. It would only take one of them being inspired to action by this rally for more murders to take place.

Wisconsin Right to Life (the Wisconsin affiliate of National Right to Life) issued a press release denouncing “Paul Hill Days”. (You can thank them here.) Pro-Life Wisconsin (an associate of American Life League) did not:

When asked why Pro-Life Wisconsin did not denounce the event, Hamill said her organization did not want to get involved.

“We only speak on what our organization is doing,” Hamill said. “We’re not about to comment on what other organizations are doing.”

That’s just wrong. As I mentioned above, there are perfectly good reasons why not every pro-life organization issues a statement every time some marginal figure says something crazy enough to make the news. But this was a celebration of the murder of two people that was taking place in PLW’s own backyard, in the name of their cause. To refuse to speak against it even when asked point-blank goes beyond merely “not commenting on other groups” and comes dangerously close to tacit approval.

To Pro-Life Wisconsin: your representatives could have refused to comment on any specific activities while emphasizing your own group’s stand against violence. They could have gone further and stated that since using violence against abortion providers is contrary to the goals of your organization, people who support it should neither join nor donate money to Pro-Life Wisconsin. All this, without once mentioning any other group.

[Planned Parenthood spokesperson Lisa] Boyce also noted that while WRTL condemned Paul Hill Days, its press release provided enough information about the event and its organizers to allow supporters to seek out more information and attend it.

That’s also just wrong. Wisconsin Right to Life’s statement may not have been as strong as I might have liked. (Personally, I think an in-person protest would have been appropriate.) But, well, National Right to Life has a pretty stodgy institutional personality, and WRTL’s statement is actually more strongly worded than I’d expect from one of their affiliates. They’re just not fire-breathers, you know? There’s absolutely no reason to believe that the statement was anything but sincere. For Boyce to hint otherwise is just a cheap attempt to score political points by implying that the pro-violence forces actually have a lot of secret support among regular pro-lifers — a falsehood which some of the pro-violence forces believe as well, and which gives them aid and comfort.

The danger of condemning something loudly and publicly is that by doing so, we bring more attention to it. I’ve long been opposed to the disproportionate press coverage given to certain figures who are famous for promoting the “justifiable homicide” theory. I feel that interviewing these people and treating them as though they’re a major force in the pro-life movement just gives them more of a platform for spreading their views.

So, for WRTL to provide specific information about “Paul Hill Days” in their press release (and really, they didn’t provide very much), or for me to link to their web site, may have been a tactical error. Maybe it would be better to follow the example of many anti-racists, who refuse to link to sites such as Stormfront when discussing them. I’m not convinced, though. I believe it’s vital for pro-lifers to denounce violence, and to do it not just in general terms but to confront promoters of violence with our opposition, so that they know they don’t have our unspoken support. That might be worth giving them a little more attention in the process.

* Grammarians, please advise: “have” or “has”? “Days” is, of course, plural, but the overall event is singular**.

** And thank goodness it is.

From the mindful mission: information about saving Troy Davis, who is scheduled to be executed in Atlanta on July 17th despite serious doubt about his guilt.

From Nonviolent Choice Blog: a chance for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to work together to assist a woman in Poland, and others like her.

From Consistent Life: an opportunity to let Amnesty International know what you think about their recent policy change on abortion.

In which I piggyback on the brilliance of others.

The first post in this series was written over two years ago, but I just found it, so as NBC used to say, it’s new to me: The AmbivAbortion Rant (part 1, part 2, and part 3).

Amba writes about the humanity of the unborn, the humanity of women, the precariousness of women’s lives, and her own abortion in powerful, passionate language. She’s pro-choice, but reluctantly so, and believes that the culture must change to acknowledge what’s at stake in every abortion — the death of an individual human being. I’ve seen the ideas she discusses here before, but I have rarely seen them expressed with such grace. Some passages will be uncomfortable for pro-lifers, others for pro-choicers, and that’s good. Whatever conclusion you ultimately reach, I think that if you haven’t grappled with the issues Amba raises, you haven’t thought your position through as fully as you could.

Just a bit more recently, Fred at Slacktivist compared U.S. society’s acceptance of prison rape with the despicable practice of “extraordinary rendition”.

One thing that both posts have in common is the idea that we should avoid violent acts not only because they harm their victims, but also because they degrade those who engage in or tolerate them.

Amba writes:

In a way I think we do more harm to ourselves, and to the fabric of reality, than we do to the individual who will never be. How desensitized do we have to be to destroy this astounding, tiny thing, a complete human being rapidly spinning itself out of next to nothing? If you’re not ready to keel over in awe of that, for Godsake get yourself a shot of Depo-Provera.

[…]
Accepting abortion as no big deal requires regressing rather than advancing in our higher qualities, awareness and gratitude. It is definitely a part of the Darwinist culture that takes pride in our being nothing more than fancy animals driven by brute self-interest.

Fred, meanwhile, quotes Hilzoy:

But sympathy is not our only reason for not torturing and raping people. There’s also self-respect: the thought that whatever someone else might choose to be like, and even if that person has chosen to be Jeffrey Dahmer, there are certain things that I will not choose to do, because I do not want to be the sort of person who does them.

So, great posts. Go read ‘em.

From Frederick Clarkson comes word of Paul Hill Days:

Planned events include:

Activities at our two remaining killing centers

Literature distribution

Ministry at the Federal Courthouse

Reenactment of 7-29-1994

Paul Hill March

Ministry at other public forums

This needs to be protested. Vigorously. By pro-lifers.

EDIT: I realized not everyone necessarily knows who Paul Hill was. On July 29, 1994, he shot and killed two people, and wounded another, at an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida.

This rally in Milwaukee is cheerleading for murder.

Following up on the previous post: Women for Women International responded to my query.

Dear Jen,

Thank you for your email and interest in our organization. Women for Women International does not advocate for or against abortion. During our rights awareness training session on women’s reproductive health, we focus on educating women about standard health practices for themselves and their children. We discuss prenatal care, infant and child care, nutrition during pregnancy, natural family planning methods and other topics designed to reduce the maternal and infant mortality rates in the communities where we work. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

I’m very glad to hear that. WWI seems like a great organization. Their stated purpose is “Supporting women in war-torn regions with financial and emotional aid, job-skills training, rights education and small business assistance so they can rebuild their lives.” You can become a “sister” and sponsor another woman, or just donate to WWI, who will use the funds for their educational programs and administrative costs. There are also other, non-monetary ways to get involved.

They are highly rated by Charity Navigator and the American Institute of Philanthropy.

Marysia asked for links to human rights organizations people can support if they feel compelled to leave Amnesty International due to Amnesty’s new abortion policy. I commented over there, but thought I would post them here as well.

Consistent Life are suggesting the following:

Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC)

National Religious Campaign Against Torture

Human Rights First

Friends Committee on National Legislation

I sent a donation to FCNL, with a note explaining that I was coming over from Amnesty and why. I also let AI know that I would be supporting other organizations and why.

Additionally, I have been looking into Women for Women International, for people who want to offer women in war zones such as Darfur life-affirming, nonviolent assistance.* I don’t think that WWI is involved with abortion advocacy, but I have written to them for a clarification.

* I was particularly infuriated this week by the Amnesty spokesperson who cited a World Health Organization estimate that 68,000 women die annually as a result of abortions, and said, “Once we looked at that figure, neutrality would have meant essentially saying it’s okay that 68,000 women a year die because of criminalization of abortion.” That is a monstrous claim, and the exact equivalent of warmongers accusing those of us who opposed the Iraq invasion of saying it was okay for Saddam Hussein to murder his own people.

“…and we respond with legalized abortion.”

–Graciela Olivarez, separate statement to the Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth And The American Future, 1972. (Some things never change. Unfortunately.)

I was working on a post about this, then JivinJehosaphat went and beat me to it: Katha Pollitt’s first blog post is soliciting funds for a pregnant Tennessee woman.

She’s a single mom with a 19 month old; co-conceiver skipped town; no child support because that dude skipped town; she is clinically very depressed and extremely desperate.

Naturally, the funds are being collected not for legal aid or mental health care, but for an abortion. To Jivin J’s points, I would add this: although there is much debate over the exact incidence of post-abortion emotional health sequelae, one thing on which virtually everyone agrees is that certain factors make it more likely that a woman will have problems. Those factors include pre-existing mental health issues, and feeling pressured into having an abortion. So, not only is this woman impoverished, abandoned, and depressed; but the abortion that Pollitt and her readers are buying her will leave her impoverished, abandoned, depressed, and at risk for further mental health problems.

But hey, at least she won’t have her son or daughter.

I’ve said it before — the reason we still have abortion is not because our society isn’t conservative enough. It’s because we’re not progressive enough. Not progressive enough to ensure social and economic justice, especially for women. Not progressive enough to embrace all human beings as members of the human family for whom we are responsible. And not progressive enough to renounce violence as a means of solving problems.

When it comes to war, torture, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and other matters of life and death and human dignity, the dominant U.S. media can be counted upon to portray those advocating for the violent option as serious, realistic, and willing to make the hard decisions. Meanwhile, their opponents who favor nonviolent (or even just less violent) solutions are extreme, out of touch with the mainstream, and unwilling to face the facts.

Case in point: David Broder’s latest column, “Candidates Lacking A Real-World Clue”.

After praising both parties for having an abundance of appealing presidential candidates — an assessment with which I would take issue for a variety of reasons, but nevermind that now — Broder cautions:

But the dynamic on both sides is trending toward extreme positions that would open the door to an independent or third-party challenge in 2008 aimed at the millions of voters in the center.

The danger may be greatest for the Democrats, even though President Bush’s failings have put them in a favored position to win the next election. Prodded by four long shots for the nomination and threatened by the rhetoric of former senator John Edwards, a serious contender, the two front-runners, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have abandoned their cautious advocacy of a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces and now are defending votes to cut off support for troops fighting insurgents in Iraq. [emphasis added]

Those Democrats are crazy! They’re for Congress using its Constitutional power over appropriations to end a war the American public has turned against — and they’d only give us ten months to safely withdraw our troops! (Why, that’s not even two whole Friedmans!) I’ve never heard of anything so extreme!

And what are the Republicans advocating? You know, the ones who aren’t as extreme as the Democrats?

Meantime, they see nothing wrong with raising the possibility of using a nuclear weapon — for the first time in more than six decades — as a bargaining tool in dealing with the ticklish situation in Iran.

It’s nice, I guess, that nukes still make David Broder a little uneasy. But anyone who finds nuclear threats less disturbing than ending a failed war doesn’t get to lecture anyone else about “lacking a real-world clue”.

I’m very excited to see that Marysia has started the Nonviolent Choice Blog. She will be posting on pro-life feminism, a subject which she has studied extensively.

Marysia is also developing the Nonviolent Choice Directory, with the aim of providing “wide spectrum of resources necessary to alleviate the root causes of abortion–from comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education to support for the women and children of crisis pregnancies before, during, and ever after birth, at all levels of society from the individual to the global.” This is an ambitious project, but one that is sorely needed. I encourage everyone to visit and give her feedback.

Consistent Life has more on Amnesty International’s recent decision to add advocacy for abortion rights to its mission.

Although AI keeps claiming that the decision was made in consultation with its membership, this move is in fact being made without the knowledge or input of most members and against the wishes of many who have made their opinions known. As recently as May 2006, callers to AIUSA’s office were being told that AI took no position on abortion and that there was no movement to change that — yet AI claims that it has been consulting the membership for two years. The membership of the UK branch voted against adopting the new policy, but the branch adopted it anyway; similarly, AIUSA conducted a little-publicized online survey about the new policy in the members-only section of its website, but has never announced the results. I’d like to think that even supporters of this policy change would be disturbed by the high-handed and sneaky way in which it was imposed.

AI is being disingenuous in another way. The organization claims that it takes no position on when life begins or whether the unborn have human rights. However, nowhere in all of the explanatory material about the new policy is there any indication that anyone other than the mother might have anything at stake in abortion. Effectively, then, AI’s position is either that unborn human beings have no human rights, or that their rights don’t matter.

For an organization which so prizes freedom of conscience, AI is showing remarkable contempt for the consciences of many of its members. Its FAQ answer to the question “My neighbor says that AI is violating human rights by adopting this policy. How can I respond to this?” is patronizing and dismissive: “While some religions believe that life begins at conception and that, therefore, abortion represents a violation of the right to life of a fetus, international law is silent on the point when life begins.”

Of course, that’s no answer at all. It doesn’t even take the question seriously.

Members who believe that Amnesty’s new position condones human rights violations (and contrary to AI’s apparent belief, not all of them are religious) are being patted on the head and told that they can simply work on other issues. Anybody still believe AI’s assertion that they listened to people on all sides of the issue before making their decision?

No, the baby still hasn’t been born yet — I just haven’t been posting because I’m too tired to think of anything. Also, trying to get last-minute work done, and nesting like mad. (My house has never been this clean!)

There is a bit of bad news for consistent-life-ethic proponents: nothing official yet, but a report from Amnesty International USA’s Annual General Meeting in Chicago this weekend indicates that their move toward supporting abortion is all but a done deal. More details should be available soon.

In an impassioned speech against the Iraq War escalation last night (video), Representative Tim Ryan (D-OH17), had the following to say

And my friend from Indiana also mentioned something about the issue of consistency; and I find it funny that the pro-life– the self-proclaimed pro-life party is the party that wants to keep extending the war.

It’s nice to see a high-profile pro-lifer making this point for a change. Ryan has received high ratings from Peace Action, PeacePAC, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, National Right to Life, and Democrats for Life during his time in Congress, so he has some credibility when talking about consistently opposing the taking of human life.

(Unfortunately, I don’t think that the rest of Ryan’s speech is going to win him a lot of Republican good will when it comes to voting for the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act when/if he reintroduces it. On the other hand, he’s right.)

Consistent life ethic supporters who are planning to be in DC for the March for Life may want to think about sticking around for the March on Washington sponsored by United for Peace and Justice. It would be great to see people at both events who are for the protection of all human lives.

Amnesty International USA members: remember today is the last day to fill out AIUSA’s survey about their proposal to abandon their current neutrality on abortion. It is vitally important for people who value the human rights of both unborn children and their mothers to communicate their views to AIUSA.

I noticed the other day that AIUSA finally issued a public statement, a mere eleven days before the deadline for member input (and including no mention of the member survey). The statement claims that “The organization’s policies are determined by AI members worldwide through a democratic process.” This comes after months of apparently trying to stifle any notice or debate among members on the proposed policy change — even going so far as to tell callers to the national office that no change of policy on abortion was being considered! That’s the kind of “democratic process” I expect from the Bush administration, not Amnesty International.

From Consistent Life:

Friends –

Please remember to send any supporters of Amnesty International who are upset at their move to view abortion as a human right to register their disapproval at this site:

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/consistentlife

(more…)