Our Culture of Senseless Violence
"It is with a heavy heart that I write to you about the senseless violence in Tucson today," EMILY's List president Stephanie Schriock wrote as so many of us turned to Arizona and prayed for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' survival. We prayed for Giffords, her family, and those who were tragically affected by the civic gathering that ended in bloodshed. We gave thanks to God for brave men and women who kept the attack from being even bloodier.
When Giffords was shot in Tucson, it was a jarring confrontation with evil. A child, Christina Green, who was born on 9/11 and was interested in government at a young age, was murdered, as was a federal judge, John Roll, coming from Saturday-morning Mass.
You know their stories by now.
There were prayers. But there was also a lot of noise. Fingers pointed. Accusations made.
More reflection may be in order. More reflection is in order.
It got ugly. I was watching as supposed protectors of civility were at their most uncivil. And I was watching, too, who most of their incivility was aimed at Sarah Palin, who, in no small way, is a person who really shouldn't have been part of the story. The National Organization for Women's president was among those who lead the angry rhetorical attacks on the right, presuming if a Democrat had been shot, the bullets must have come from the right. But there was no evidence of this at the time and the evidence suggests this really wasn't a story about politics but about mental illness.
And then I received EMILY's List's press release, which exists to support female candidates who support legal abortion. Giffords is one of their women. And there was Planned Parenthood's, too.
It was completely coincidental, but when I went back to Planned Parenthood's website later in the week, "Accidents Happen" were the words that jumped out at me.
They jumped out at me and brought me back to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the House floor, after the attack. The former Speaker of the House said: " a tragic accident took lives, wounded people in the free expression of ideas."
But it wasn't an accident.
As Schriock wrote and we all know, "a gunman attacked Cong. Gabby Giffords, her staff, and constituents at a public event ... Congresswoman Giffords is fighting for her life, following a bullet entering her brain at close range."
Schriock went on to explain: "I have read your e-mails and letters about her, how inspired you all have been by Gabby. She blazed into our lives as the youngest woman ever elected to the Arizona State Senate, and we all rejoiced with her when she won a congressional seat that had been held by Republicans for 20 years."
I couldn't help but think of other letters. Letters I've been reading for years from mothers who have aborted their babies, often having felt they had little or no support in their struggle to fight for their child's life. Women who know that they did, in fact, end a life. And with all the justifications in the world, there is often a sense of senselessness about it. If only they had the support. If only they didn't have the talking points of a feminist movement intent on telling them the choice to end their child's life is fine, just don't think about him as one. If only they didn't have the moral cover provided by a culture of death -- which includes, in no small way, the law of our land, and the feminist movement.
Schriock also wrote, "Today, I'm reminded of our responsibility to love our neighbors, and to take care of each other."
Gabby Giffords was shot days after a press conference was held by the Chiaroscuro Foundation in New York City to highlight the outrageously high abortion rates in New York City (41 percent). NARAL Pro-Choice NY, a branch of another one of the abortion-rights groups that issued loving statements in support of Rep. Giffords, blasted the press conference and the religious leaders: "these men continue to meddle in women's lives and preach a gospel of shame and stigma while seeking to ban or otherwise limit access to abortion." But really, the news of the press conference was that Catholic archbishop Timothy Dolan was enthusiastically renewing a pledge that the Catholic Church in New York would help any and every mom who sought its aide in having a child. He is taking his responsibility as a shepherd, as a father, as a leader taking responsibility, loving his neighbors, taking care.
Back to EMILY, Schriock wrote, "In the face of violence, we at EMILY's List stand committed to continued service, and to a country that decries violence and embraces steadfast leadership like that of Cong. Giffords."
God bless Rep. Giffords and her family. Her survival is an inspirational marvel and the prayers of EMILY and everyone else are great, uplifting gifts.
These groups I've quoted, and others, fundamentally disagree with me and believe abortion should be legal. But in the face of violence, it's hard to get beyond the fact that we're actually not a country that decries violence against our most innocent. EMILY's List does not. Schriock's statement begs further reflection.
A sick man perpetrated the Tucson tragedy. But all this talk of civility we've been hearing wouldn't be honest if we didn't reflect upon our culture of "senseless violence." If you truly believe in "choice," make sure women know how to make the choice to have their child as an unplanned joy -- for her or an adoptive family open and able to love that human life.
Abortion is a violence we should open our eyes to see and stop rather than suppress and accept. It's one that a civil society can work to stop. Peacefully, with love and support.
Kathryn Lopez is the editor of National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com). She can be contacted at klopez@nationalreview.com.
- Kathryn Jean Lopez's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
38 Years, 50,000,000
Submitted by kilrod on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 12:34pm.
38 years and 50,000,000 dead babies, and some want to lecture about "Civility"???
kilrod
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
All you can say is
Submitted by sam12663 on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 1:24pm.
AMEN!!
Jinkies
Submitted by One on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 5:12pm.
Normally I'd be disgusted by an attempt to bring attention to abortion in the wake of an assassination attempt on one of our lawmakers, but today I'll just throw up in my mouth a little.
While we're at it, any other positions Giffords held that we should now exploit?
OK. screw it.
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 7:33pm.
The fact that her party is obsessed with destroying the medical system which has, indeed, done much to keep what happened to her an assassination attempt?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Destroying a [broken] system
Submitted by One on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 7:42pm.
We already know the congresswoman is covered quite well by the government's health program. Does it really make her a bad person for wanting similar coverage for everyone?
Neither she nor the
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/17/2011 - 8:11pm.
Neither she nor the Democratic party want similar medical coverage for everyone. They will not rest until our medical system is completely destroyed. Congress want great medical coverage for themselves and their families while everyone else gets complete crap. If you don't believe me, I'd pay attention to the Governmen Babying Law which exempts them. Now, time for me to turn a page back to the past, and present to you this:
Universal health care (which we already have in the United States by various means; Leftists want to deny this at every turn) violates a very simple principle: "There is no such thing as a free lunch." It will merely delude people into thinking there is one. To illustrate: why are we all striving to drive less right about now? Because the price of gasoline is rather high right now. If the government subsidized the price so that it always cost, say, 25 cents a gallon, would you be so keen on restricting your driving? No, because there would be no incentive to. But in the meantime, the cost to the government of the subsidy would continually shoot through the roof, causing them to spend more and more money to keep the price at 25 cents.
The same thing will happen when you remove the price mechanism from health care, which universal health care plans seek to do. Right now people don't visit the doctor nearly as often for things they can easily treat at home, because who wants to spend the money on something they can easily take care of themselves? Once the price mechanism is removed, because health care is "free" at that point, people will hit the emergency room for paper cuts. This is human nature, and indeed happened (and is happening) in nations with "universal health coverage".
The idea of universal health care is indeed a good idea - on paper only. In practice it is a raging disaster that governments are loathe to get rid of because the electorate willscream at the proposal to re-introduce economic realities (i.e., prices) to the system. (And if you think the debt is bad now, just wait until the government nationalizes health care. France and Germany cannot meet the strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact they signed to join the euro; in fact, I don't think they've done it a single time! This due to the deficits they run to fund their nanny states, to include health care.) Take a look at the history of Britain's NHS for an example.
Another thing to bear in mind is that one of the biggest motivating factors to a Canadian is to be different from the Americans, for their biggest fear is being like their neighbors to the south. Canada owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence as much as we do, for they represent the reaction against it.
I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons they love their health care system so much is that Americans do not have such a program. (And if we adopt such a system, they will say with much snootiness that they inspired the Americans into getting such a system.) But in reality, their socialistic approaches to many problems is only hurting them. While the Canadian economy has expanded, it has not expanded NEARLY as fast as the U.S. economy. And the Canadian economy has expanded due to their blessings of natural resources, not due to what even the governments prefer the driving engine to be - namely, manufacturing and industrial activity. The gap between the U.S. and Canada continues to grow and expand, in the U.S.'s favor. The Economist reports in their survey of Canada published in December 2005 that Americans made C$1800 more per person than Canadians back in 1981; but in 2003, this gap widened to C$7200. The British publication further reports that Canadians are happy to be poorer if it means keeping their social model, for they see it is better than the heartless version of capitalism to the south. I contend again that this points to the issue of national identity that Canadians continually struggle with.
Here's an admittedly unscientific measure of progression in health care: a listing of the nationalities of those who won the Nobel Prizes in Medicine from 1977 to 2004 in reverse order.
2004: U.S.
2003: U.S. /U.K.
2002: U.S. /U.K.
2001: U.K.
2000: Sweden/U.S.
1999: U.S.
1998: U.S.
1997: U.S.
1996: Australia/Switzerland (no socialized health care in Switzerland)
1995: U.S./Germany
1994: U.S.
1993: U.S./U.K.
1992: U.S.
1991: Germany
1990: U.S.
1989: U.S.
1988: U.S./U.K.
1987: Japan
1986: Italy/U.S.
1985: U.S.
1984: U.K./Argentina/Denmark
1983: U.S.
1982: Sweden/U.K.
1981: U.S.
1980: France/U.S.
1979: U.S./U.K.
1978: U.S/ Switzerland
1977: U.S.
Between 1977 and 2004, U.S. doctors won 22 Nobel Prizes in Medicine - more than the other countries shown combined. To save server space I did not list ALL the recipients, but I noticed that the Nobel prize winners in the early going were from many assorted European countries. This began to change in the 1960s, when the listing of winners trended sharply American.
I wonder what motivated all of these doctors. Pure altruism? The commitment to doing work for free? Did any of these doctors give away their prize money or refuse it?
And why are all of these Nobel prize winners hailing from the United States? Could it be that the system of health care here favors innovation and different approaches, due to the market-oriented system that exists here? (And rewards such innovation?) Why do I not see any Canadians listed here? Why did the last French recipient get his or her prize in 1980?
Yet more evidence that gives me pause to wonder why there are so many in the United States dedicated to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The fact that you are naive enough to believe that this party wants you to have great medical care shows me how lost you truly are. Besides, medical care is not a right. Why should it be? I need to eat every single day. I do not have a right to free food. I need to drink every single day. I don't have a right to free water. I need clothing every single day. I do not have a right to free clothing. I need shelter every single day. I still must pay rent or a mortgage.
If you want people to have medical care, get off of you ass and start a charity to help those who truly cannot afford the doc. Help establish "free clinics" and programs where docs assist the poor and desititute when they can. Quit running, crying to the government, to help you. The government is only good, when you really sit and think about it, at killing people.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh Look.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 01/18/2011 - 2:25am.
Dead Kennedy aka nwahs aka arkansas zippers aka balboa used to inject himself in abortion arguments and claimed everyone should get the same benefits as members of Congress too.