Sometimes the Chronicle throws us skeptics a bone. More often than not, though, the Chronicle lectures us. Tuesday we got both, and the lecture is a doozy, basically saying pro-life advocates are wrong to try to stop the construction of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Austin.
It never ceases to amaze me that liberals want to save whales and spotted owls, yet have no problem killing babies. We must punish cigarette makers and ban smoking for the sake of the children, yet it is ok to make big profits by killing defenseless little children in the womb. It’s obscene and absurd, at the same time.
The editorial ends with some advice, no doubt heartfelt, for pro-lifers:
Anti-abortion activists, meanwhile, deserve some credit for seeking a legal method in making their case. Unfortunately, too many members of their loose-knit movement have already used violence — including murder — in the cause’s name.
Last year, an abortion rights opponent drove a delivery van through the entrance of the Houston Planned Parenthood clinic. The driver had a long history of harassing Houston clinics and had served a year in federal prison for breaking a visiting doctor’s windshield and threatening to kill him.
It is incumbent on the law-abiding protestors, therefore, to make sure their boycott tactics are devoid of bullying, harassment and even veiled threats.
We can turn that around and argue that pro-abortion groups have their own instances of bullying, harassment and even threats.
For more thoughts on the Chronicle editorial, Owen Courreges has written a good rebuttal over at Chronically Biased.
Here is the full Chronicle editorial:
Conducted properly, boycotts are a powerful way for ordinary people to act on conscience. Unlike other forms of protest, boycotts respect the engine of society: the market. In the process, they give a stirring view of individuals uniting to change institutions. That’s why the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott, when black consumers refused to patronize city buses until they could sit where they wished, was more than a material triumph. The boycotters’ dignity and sacrifice attracted sympathizers to their cause.
In the past year, members of the anti-abortion movement in Texas have attempted to use boycotts for their own ends. But they’ve gotten some key tactics wrong. Rather than exemplifying peaceful resolve, they appear to be harassing, threatening, even lying about people they want to persuade. Even the movement’s target — Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit organization dedicated to women’s health — differs from the for-profit businesses targeted by boycotts in the past.
The first episode occurred last year in Austin, where Planned Parenthood launched construction of a clinic to meet new state regulations for abortion providers. In conjunction with the local Coalition for Life group, a concrete supplier named Chris Danze mobilized a campaign to pressure other firms to leave the project. The activists called and e-mailed subcontractors as often as 1,200 times in one week. Some of these firms agreed with the activists; others reported that they were simply afraid for their businesses and even their safety. Finally, main contractor Browning Construction of San Antonio backed out of the project altogether, tersely stating that it could not retain the needed subcontractors. Soon after, however, the Austin Planned Parenthood was deluged by offers from other subcontractors — moved both by economics and by indignation, spokeswoman Danielle Tierney said. Construction went ahead, and Planned Parenthood inaugurated the project’s second phase last week.
This month in Houston, anti-abortion activists attempted another high-pressure approach. The Houston Coalition for Life targeted Gensler Architecture, Design and Planning Worldwide for advising Houston’s Planned Parenthood affiliate on a new clinic. Posting Gensler’s name on its Web site, the coalition claimed Gensler had pledged not to pursue any more work with the nonprofit. Unlike the firms in Austin, however, Gensler spoke out publicly against the tactic. “No company policy exists that would preclude Gensler from working with Planned Parenthood in the future,” the firm’s chief operating officer said. Added a spokeswoman, “The fact that this contract concludes Sept. 29 in no way reflects our decision to work or not work with Planned Parenthood in the future.”
For these simple statements, Gensler should be applauded. Gensler’s principled stand should give other firms, even more vulnerable ones, courage to resist being pulled into the war on Roe v. Wade.
Anti-abortion activists, meanwhile, deserve some credit for seeking a legal method in making their case. Unfortunately, too many members of their loose-knit movement have already used violence — including murder — in the cause’s name.
Last year, an abortion rights opponent drove a delivery van through the entrance of the Houston Planned Parenthood clinic. The driver had a long history of harassing Houston clinics and had served a year in federal prison for breaking a visiting doctor’s windshield and threatening to kill him.
It is incumbent on the law-abiding protestors, therefore, to make sure their boycott tactics are devoid of bullying, harassment and even veiled threats.
