The Education of Shelby Knox

Yesterday, the Kansas City Star published an article about a letter Scott Roeder, who stands accused of killing Dr. George Tiller, sent to the president of the anti-choice organization Operation Rescue, Troy Newman. The piece focused on the split in the "pro-life" movement caused by Tiller's murder and Roeder's continued indignation at being condemnded by those he feels should be hailing him a hero.

That Roeder is penning psychotic vitriol in his cell and sending it off via U.S. mail may or may not be news, although most people who stand accused of murder aren't offered a platform to so publicly gloat about their gruesome deeds. What's more disturbing is how the reporter breaks down the anti-choice factions, into "those that advocate violence against abortion providers" and those that don't.

Rev. Donald Spitz, who is identified as the leader of the Army of God, a group whose "web site supports violence against abortion providers," is quoted as feeling "more of a kindred spirit" with Roeder. He proudly served as the editor of the jailhouse letter, forwarding it along to Newman after reviewing it, on Roeder's request.

Wait. Since when is advocating physical harm to another human being , which is illegal, a valid political position? Since when is riling up others to do harm to other human beings not "inciting violence", another prosecutable offense?

I get fairness in journalism, two sides to every story, etc., etc. But what I fail to understand is how giving equal voice to the most extreme factions of any movement, especially those that advocate violence, is a mark of journalistic ethics. On the contrary, it lends credibility to "leaders" of movements who should be on police watch lists, not in the local paper. And it silences and disappears those whose messages are far more coherent - and valid.

The thing is, no matter how much I disagree with them on the right to abortion, the huge majority of those who consider themselves "pro-life" find Scott Roeder and Donald Spitz's tactics abhorrent. Many of these same people see Newman's Operation Rescue as radical and extreme. Most will never engage with anyone else about their views on abortion - to them, it's just a private, personal belief, not a point of political activism.

To characterize the anti-choice movement as split between those who advocate murder and those who do not is irresponsible, dangerous, and facutally inaccurate. It also accomplishes nothing at all.

An alternative conversation, appropriately called Common Ground, has popped up over at RH Reality Check to bring into the fold people whose voices are rarely heard in the hyped up "abortion debate" played out in the mainstream media. Far less dramatic and much more nuanced than the oft-quoted voices, it's worth checking out no matter which side you fall on.