Hello again, and a happy 2010 to everyone!

I’d love to kick off the new year with some good news, but, if you hadn’t yet noticed, that’s not really my modus operandi. So,  let’s turn to the impending trial of Scott Roeder, the pro-”life” activist who murdered Dr. George Tiller last year. Jury selection begins next week, meaning that press coverage will most likely explode over the coming days and weeks.

Until the media circus begins, however, those of us interested in the case must content ourselves with small nuggets of information. Like, for instance, this article, which explains what kind of defense the judge will allow Roeder to utilize. Or this one, which reveals that Roeder’s attorney has subpoenaed former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline in an attempt to get him to testify for the defense. I mention these two developments together because, as we’ll see, they are somewhat related.

The first article describes the presiding judge’s decision to prohibit Roeder and his attorneys from using a “necessity defense.” Basically, this type of defense is used to try and persuade a jury that a defendant broke the law to prevent a greater harm. The greater harm in this case being, in Roeder’s view, the continued access to abortion services provided by Dr. Tiller. Now, to his credit, the judge ruled that Roeder could not use the necessity defense, mostly because precedent only shows it being allowable when the victim is breaking the law (something Dr. Tiller was not doing, since, of course, he was a) providing a legal medical procedure and b) going to church at the time of his death). However,the judge did leave the door open for the defense to argue that, in Roeder’s mind, “circumstances existed that justified deadly force.”

Which is where Phill Kline comes in. In case you’e not familiar with him, Kline spent four years investigating the practices of Dr. Tiller, attempting to find evidence of Dr. Tiller breaking the law. It is speculated that Roeder’s attorney hopes to use Kline’s testimony to convince the jury that Tiller’s death was perhaps justified.

Because Roeder has already publicly admitted to the murder, it appears that he’s hoping for one of two results: a) convince the jury to convict him of a lesser charge, such as manslaughter (in which case he could be freed in less than 10 years) or b) convince one or two members of the jury that he did, in fact, act with “the greater good” in mind and force a hung jury. (This, of course, also presupposes that if Dr. Tiller did in fact break a law, something which was never proven, it suddenly became perfectly acceptable for Roeder to take it upon himself to act as executioner… a worldview, as you might expect, I have problems with.)

The fact that this is the tact the defense is choosing to take is utterly reprehensible to me, but there’s little about this situation that isn’t, really. What amazes me, however, is that a man who claims to be pro-life is so willing to completely abandon that opinion… first, of course, by the brutal slaying of Dr. Tiller, and now by inferring that Roeder himself gets to decide who’s worthy of living or dying. How is it that Roeder can be so vehemently against letting a woman decide what to do with her own body, yet believe that it’s ok to choose to murder someone? Can he really reconcile the hypocrisy in his own mind? Or is he so desperate to save himself that he’ll now embrace a twisted and despicable variant on the idea of choice?

One of the mantras of the anti-choicers is that “every life is precious.” Except, it seems, when one of them is in a bind.

Comments are closed.