Daily Kos: A Grandma Handing Out Pro-Life Pamphlets Is a Terrorist

There are times you read blog posts at the Daily Kos and genuinely think the writers are secret saboteurs trying to make the left look ridiculous. Take the blogger "Angry Mouse" on Sunday morning, who insists a grandma handing out pamphlets outside an abortion clinic is a terrorist, a regular al-Qaeda equivalent:

A distinction is often made between the violent and non-violent members of this "movement." The government, the media, and the activists are careful to point out that the Scott Roeders and Paul Hills of the world are rare. Most of the activists just want to "inform" women about their options. Most of the activists care about preserving all life, including the lives of the providers and women.

The little old lady who sits outside an abortion clinic, handing out fliers to young frightened women, full of deliberately misleading or outright fabricated information -- she's not doing any harm, is she? She's not like the Army of God, which advocates murdering abortion providers, calls these murderers "American Heroes," and has even circulated a how-to manual.

But grandma, with her pamphlets and her signs? Certainly she's not a terrorist...

The Mouse then lists the legal definition of domestic terrorism, which somehow doesn't match an old lady in a lawn chair saying "choose life."

The law doesn't consider grandma a terrorist. Because even though she is trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, her method of intimidation is legal. She has a First Amendment right to stand outside a health clinic and try to persuade patients not to enter. She has a right to hand out brochures filled with lies so patients will be "informed." She has a right to carry graphic signs, to call the patients "baby killers," to tell them they will burn in hell. Freedom of speech, after all.

And if her words and deeds and false information succeed in their purpose of intimidation and coercion? What will become of the woman grandma has "counseled"? Will she choose to take her chances in the privacy of her own home by drinking bleach? Will she throw herself down the stairs? Will she become another nameless statistic?

Is grandma's "free speech" really all that harmless after all? Because she is part of this same movement. She shares the same goal. She uses the same language. The same talking points. The same pamphlets. She gives her money to the same organizations and helps to elect the same extremist candidates who want to pass law after law after law that results in more dead women.

If this movement is successful, more women will die. That’s not hyperbole. That's a fact. And while even the supposedly non-violent activists claim they are concerned with preserving life, they cannot justify those deaths.

Despite the casualties, despite the threats, despite the clearly stated intentions of those in this movement, the federal government is reluctant to label such groups and individuals as terrorists. Instead, the violence is condemned, but always with the qualification that these are "difficult issues."

What's so difficult? What makes this kind of terrorism different from the terrorism some think we can't talk about enough? When discussing international terrorism or "Islamic" terrorism, there is no equivocation. There is no acknowledgment of the "difficulty" of the issue. There is no consideration for the different "sides" and "feelings" in this "debate." You want to affect policy by killing and terrorizing people? You're a terrorist.

But if you want to affect abortion policy by killing and terrorizing people? Well, then, the most blatant acts of violence are to be condemned, of course, but always with the caveat that it's complicated.

Every law that is passed, every restriction imposed, every "roadblock" further endangers women’s lives and forces them to seek illegal, unsafe, life-threatening methods of controlling their reproduction. These laws are not merely hypothetical, and neither are the consequences. These laws -- laws that their proponents always claim are intended to preserve "life" -- instead lead to death. To Rosie Jimenez. To Becky Bell. To Spring Adams. To others.

What they do is terrorism. They bully, they berate, they taunt, they lie, they threaten -- all for the purpose of terrorizing women. Not all of them kill doctors. But that’s not the point. If there are no more clinics, there will be dead women. If there are no more doctors, there will be dead women. If there is no Roe v. Wade, there will be dead women.

"Angry Mouse" is upset that anyone would make a fine distinction between a man who shoots a gun and a woman with a pamphlet. So why do liberals think they're smarter?

[Hat tip: Dominating Dentist]

Tim Graham
Tim Graham
Tim Graham is Executive Editor of NewsBusters and is the Media Research Center’s Director of Media Analysis