Posts Tagged ‘Dr. Tiller’

If you’re an occasional reader of this blog, you’ll know that I had a bit of a fascination with the Scott Roeder murder trial. Convicted in late January of murdering abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, Roeder was sentenced recently to life in prison, with his earliest opportunity for parole being in fifty years… the harshest possible sentence he could have received. Since Roeder is 52, it’s entirely probable that he will spend the rest of his life in jail.

My interest in the case existed on several levels. One, as someone who worked in an abortion clinic for several years, the stark reality that someone could be murdered for providing this service hit close to home. Two, the particular type of defense that Roeder’s attorney’s attempted was so offensive and dangerous that, if it had worked, could have meant that it was “open season” on abortion providers.

Thankfully, Roeder was convicted and sentenced severely, though I guess it remains to be seen whether his punishment will act as a deterrent for other like-minded individuals… or if these people are so far gone that there’s not really anything that anyone can do that would act as a deterrent for them.

Several days before Roeder’s sentencing, there was an interesting article on Huffington Post, stating that, no matter what punishment Roeder received, he, along with the anti-choicers, “won.” The rationale behind this argument was that Roeder set out to do two things: stop Dr. Tiller and cease the performing of later-term abortions in the state. In both of his missions, he succeeded.

In the wake of Dr. Tiller’s death, a few abortion providers spoke up, saying that they’d seek to continue the work that Tiller did and open a new clinic in Kansas. As of this writing, none of these plans have come to fruition. And the Kansas legislature is in the process of attempting to tighten restrictions on later-term abortions in the state, which could make it almost impossible for another provider to open a clinic like the one Dr. Tiller operated. The result, of course, is that women who used to have access to a legal medical procedure now must travel a great distance (and, in many of these cases, this is a distance they can’t afford to travel) in order to get the procedure they need.

So, now that this ordeal has mostly come to a close, we can and should cheer the fact that Scott Roeder will spend the rest of his life behind bars (and hope that he will, one day, come to feel some remorse for his senseless and despicable crime)… but I also think it’s necessary to reflect on what the loss of Dr. Tiller has meant. Obviously, to his family, the loss is a pain that they must deal with every day, in deep and powerful ways that can never be matched by those who only know of the doctor and didn’t actually know him. But it’s not just his family that feels his loss. Countless women, is desperate need of help, do too. And as it seems less and less likely that Tiller’s clinic will ever be replaced in Kansas, well… it means that there’s one less place for women to turn to. Which, I would guess, is not something Dr. Tiller would have wanted.

Julie Burkhart, who worked with George Tiller for eight years, recently wrote a powerful blog reflecting on his life and legacy in the wake of Roeder’s sentencing. I highly recommend checking it out here.

Do you have any thoughts on Roeder’s sentencing or what will happen to Dr. Tiller’s legacy? Post them in the comments!

There have been some new, offensive developments in the Scott Roeder case.  As I recently wrote, Roeder wants to argue a “necessity defense,” implying that murdering Dr. Tiller was “for the greater good.” The presiding judge just heard new arguments around this issue, causing jury selection (which was to begin earlier this week) to be delayed. Now, it seems, the judge will allow Roeder and his attorneys to argue the “necessity defense,” but has not yet decided whether or not he’ll allow the jury to consider it as an option during deliberations.

I’m no legal scholar, but this seems extremely counterproductive. Even if the judge eventually decides that the jury shouldn’t have the option of considering a “necessity defense” argument and, therefore, convicting Roeder of a lesser charge, surely the information the jury members hear will influence and taint their eventual decision. More strikingly, should the judge allow this defense to be considered, it may lead to a dangerous precedent. From the link above: “Abortion-rights advocates also say giving juries the option of applying a lesser charge to the killers of abortion providers would encourage more violence against the providers.”

While some may see this is an overreaction, I don’t. What this decision really says is that individuals and groups may be justified in committing acts of violence against abortion providers. Keep in mind: Dr. Tiller was murdered for doing something completely legal. And if this defense works, the judge and jury will be implying that murdering an abortion provider is somehow less of a crime than murdering someone of any other profession. An implication, I fear, that some may take all too seriously.

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.

As someone who spends a good deal of my spare time on far right-wing and evangelical websites, it can be pretty difficult to offend or shock me. Continually reading the comments of some of the most mean-spirited and judgmental people around has, in general, inured me to a certain level of discourse that a lot of people would probably be horrified by.

But every now and again, something pops up that gets to me. Take, for example, this incredible pinnacle in bad taste: An Iowa abortion opponent is gathering items from his fellow anti-choicers for an eBay charity auction. What are they raising money for? The legal defense of Scott Roeder, the man who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller in church this past May.

I’m not going to go through the laundry list of items that the group has already collected, but one item in particular jumped out at me. It’s a drawing done by one of Roeder’s fellow inmates, autographed by Roeder himself. What’s the drawing of? Straight from one of the organizer’s mouth: “It has David with a slingshot in one hand and the head of Goliath in his other hand and the name ‘Tiller’ on Goliath’s forehead,” she said. “On the corpse on the ground, it says ‘child-murdering industry.’”

Yep. You read that correctly.

As I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, I returned to Planned Parenthood part-time over the summer while I searched for full-time employment. It was a few weeks after I came back that Dr. Tiller was murdered.

Walking into the clinic the day after Dr. Tiller’s death was an eerie experience. I felt uncomfortable; other staff members felt uncomfortable. There was a definite air of shock about the building, and an atmosphere of “what next?” I can’t speak for other employees, but I know that, in the back of my mind, I was wondering if the violence against abortion providers was just beginning.

Working at Planned Parenthood, one assumes a certain level of risk. Let’s face it: abortion is controversial, and it’s plainly obvious that there are individuals out there who are more than willing to commit violence against those who provide these services. And I’m not going to lie. There are times when it can be kind of scary. Driving to work past protesters, spending your day behind bulletproof glass… there are moments in which these things really hit home. So why do it? Well, for me, the reasons were simple… because of the mission, because of the patients, because I wanted to help those who needed it.

Which brings me back to the auction. The fact that these individuals are so glib about the murder of another human being… the fact that they’re auctioning off handbooks that instruct people on how to bomb clinics… well, that offends me to an extent that I’m not sure I can verbalize. And, as is normal for these individuals, the hypocrisy is astounding. That they can scream that abortion equals murder in one moment and sell off grotesque pictures making light of the slaughter of a human being in another is incomprehensible to me. That they can so cavalierly publicize their true intentions and strike fear in the countless employees who already put their safety at risk disgusts me.

It can be difficult sometimes for me to take people like these seriously, because so often they seem like cartoon characters: so over-the-top, so beyond the reaches of sanity and common sense that they don’t pose a real threat. But these people out there on the fringe are a threat, and quite possibly, the most dangerous kind. They show no compassion, no understanding, no decency. With this auction, they’ve proven themselves so devoid of any semblance of humanity that one could imagine that they’re capable of almost anything. They’re willing to make light of tragedy, of death… and to destroy people’s lives… all in the name of “life.”

I would laugh at the irony, if it wasn’t so frightening.