Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Bob Trivializes Violence Against Abortion Providers

Bob went on the offensive at the beginning of his Monday (6/1) discussion of the heinous murder of Dr. George Tiller. Specifically, Bob trivialized the violence against abortion providers as some sort of fringe problem. Dutko said:
I am not going to just sit back and let pro-life voices be weakened, or silenced, or intimidated into silence, by some sort of false association with these nut-case murderers. There have been, since Roe v. Wade, over 30 years ago, there have been now four, a total of four abortion doctors killed. ... But the bottom line it's only four.
"It's only four." How sickening. Ask the families and friends of Dr. David Gunn, Dr. John Britton, Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Dr. George Tiller if they would agree that these people are "only four."

But Bob's "it's only four" figure is ridiculously deceptive. First, Bob has conveniently chosen to omit the non-physician murders attributable to "pro-life" violence. These include James Barrett, a clinic escort, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, who were clinic receptionists, and Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard. So now, we're up to eight deaths.

Still not a big enough number for Bob? Well, let's add in the 17 attempted murders since 1977. Now we're up to 21 acts of violence by "pro-life" forces. Still not enough violence for Bob? Let's add in the 41 instances of bombing, 175 instances of arson, and 96 instances of attempted bombing/arson. Now we're up to 333 acts of violence. I could go on like this all day, but when you add in all the other categories of violent crimes, you get a grand total of at least 6,143 acts of violence since Roe v. Wade was decided.

6,143 acts of violence by vs. "it's only four." That's more than a few "nut-jobs" like Bob suggests. If Bob can't see the association between the "pro-life" community and these acts of violence, then there truly is no hope for him.


audioguy64 said...

Bob is very fond of justifying the profiling of muslims in the "war on terror" by claiming that if certain crimes were mainly perpetrated by redheads then as a redhead he would have no problem with the government profiling him. Since murdering pro-choice doctors, bombing abortion clinics, and assaulting the clinics staff are mainly committed by pro-life advocates then Bob should have no problem with the government profiling people who are known pro-life sympathizers. But as would be expected, Bob does a 180 and claims that there is no such connection and only "fringe nutcases" who happen to be anti-abortion perpetrate such acts. He is consisently intellectually dishonest. There is no hope for him and having read posts on this blog for a while now I don't think there is much hope for his cult of followers. No matter how much indisputable evidence is presented to highlight his dishonest, self-serving rhetoric I have yet to see a Dutko dittohead admit that Bob is wrong in anything he says.

djtyg said...

Maybe Bob should take responsibility for his role in all this. All the airtime and support he's given to Operation Rescue didn't help things any.

audioguy64 said...

From his jail cell, Scott Roeder has now said that "similar violence is planned around the nation for as long as the procedure (abortion) remains legal." So now that we have the "ticking timebomb" scenario that Bob loves so much, I'm sure that he would support such harmless enhanced interrogation methods like waterboarding to extract critical life saving informatiton from the prisoner. Don't ya think?

Irl Hudnutt said...


Bob won't discuss Roeder's threats because he would have to deal with the fact that anti-choicers are conspiring to violence.

Bob might have to withdraw his claim that anti-choicers are peaceful, prayerful protesters.

David said...

I get the moral outrage of the seeming dismissal of the murders of these "People." The stridency of most talk show hosts regardless of their strips is by its nature vitriolic. However, should we not make sure the outrage goes both ways? Can someone be outraged by abortions as see them as killings? Is this a possible response a person might have who is not associated with the radical right? This is not to downplay any diminishment of death at the hands of anyone. But neither side here can claim the moral high ground.

djtyg said...

Sure we can. Because a fetus isn't a human being. It's a fetus.