Anti-Abortionist Confesses to Killing Abortion Provider
In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court recognized the right of a woman to abort a fetus. Whether you are morally opposed to abortion or not, the fact is that a woman’s right to get an abortion has been the law of the land for over 35 years, despite numerous challenges, some in court, some in the legislature.
On May 31, 2009, anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder shot and killed in cold-blood Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of the doctor’s church. The reason for the killing: Dr. Tiller provided abortions to women who wanted them, whether it was a matter of pure choice or the pregnancy posed a threat of harm to the woman. Dr. Tiller was a specialist in late-term abortions.
On Monday, November 9, 2009, Roeder confessed to an Associate Press reporter that he killed Dr. Tiller, stating that he killed Tiller “to protect unborn children.” Roeder said he had no regrets because “pre-born children were in imminent danger.” Scott Roeder chose to be a vigilante and take the law into his own hands when he killed Dr. Tiller. Now Roeder is charged with first-degree murder, with his trial set for January 2010. In the jail interview with AP, Roeder said that he didn’t consider his actions murder and that he had no intention of changing his plea of not guilty to guilty. Roeder apparently plans to use a “necessity” defense at his trial, arguing that he killed Dr. Tiller to prevent a greater harm.
Roeder’s confession came on the same day that several fervently opposed anti-abortionists released their “Defensive Action Statement 3rd Edition,” that proclaims any force that can be used to defend the life of a “born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child.” The statement was signed by 21 anti-abortionists, and demands that Roeder’s jurors be allowed to consider the question of when life begins in deciding whether lethal force was justified.
We cannot choose which laws we will obey and which laws we will ignore without regard for the consequences. If you want to drive 95 mph on the freeway, fine—but don’t be surprised when you see the flashing red and blue lights in your rear-view mirror. The fact that you’re a professional NASCAR driver used to traveling 200 mph in a group of cars mere feet from each other does not give you the right to ignore the speed limit. Likewise, if you don’t agree with a woman’s right to an abortion, you cannot kill abortion providers and expect to get away Scot-free.
If you do not agree with a law, the proper thing to do is to contact your state and federal representatives and senators and urge them to support a bill to change it. Another method to change a law is to go to court and challenge its constitutionality, irregularities in its enactment, or other reason that negates the law. If you don’t agree with the lower court’s decision, you have the right to appeal the case. But when the United States Supreme Court rules against you and no further appeals are possible, you cannot take the law into your hands, regardless of your beliefs, religious or otherwise.
If people were allowed to pick and choose which laws they feel are reasonable and should be followed, and which laws are repugnant to their beliefs and don’t need to be followed, America would be in a constant state of anarchy. Even if you don’t agree with a law, you must follow it or be prepared to face the consequences.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.