Sean Kosofsky

Abortion Dr. Killer (Roeder) Convicted

Filed By Sean Kosofsky | January 29, 2010 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: The Movement
Tags: pro-life, Roeder, Tiller

Scott Roeder has been convicted of first degree murder after just 40 minutes of deliberation by a jury in KS.

Roeder murdered Dr. Tiller in cold blood last year at Tiller's church because he provided late term abortions to women. Most late term abortions are "wanted" pregnancies but are prescribed by doctors to ensure the health of the mother or because of likely death of the fetus.

This judgment is a victory. But women and abortion providers should be on guard because the political climate is such that more violence at clinics or against providers is certainly possible.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

The verdict is welcome because it rejects the notion that violence is an acceptable solution to philosophical differences.

On the other hand I'm a bit uncomfortable with the characterization of certain pregnancies as wanted vs. unwanted. It sets up a moral hierarchy that isn't very helpful.

Regan DuCasse | January 29, 2010 8:22 PM

Just as in the case of the assassination of law enforcement officers carry special circumstances, the executions of health care providers should carry enhancements too.
Because law enforcement officers and health care workers are a special class of people who have the potential to save lives. Their skills are unique and complicated to acquire.

Because of people like Roeder, and aggressive anti abortion attacks on providers like Tiller, the specialty of ob/gyn is becoming less popular, therefore with less and less skilled physicians available.
Doctors like Tiller have a myriad of services, but also must be prepared for any medical intervention a woman might require.
If there are ob/gyn med students who don't want to learn late term or whatever procedures, they shouldn't BE ob/gyns or bring a political agenda into a medical crisis.
Especially one they don't have the skills for.
You better not have a complication my religious values can't handle?
See what I mean?

Roeder just put MANY woman and babies in jeopardy ANYWAY.
He didn't SAVE any whatsoever.

It's people like him that simply make doctors harder to come by.
I'm sure that Duggar crazy who just had her 19th baby and suffered life threatening complications might not be so touched by Roeder's actions if an ob/gyn hadn't been around to help HER.

Oh, and it's NOT just abortions the self righteous want to come after.
But tubal litigation if you don't want to have ANY children, or want to limit how many you have.
And don't get me started on pharmacists who pull gender politics when you're there to get a legal prescription for birth control or RU486.

And even if say, a 15 or 16 year old IS there to get prescription birth control pills. HIS dirty mind is assuming something that has nothing to do with why the girl needs them.
Such as relief for cramps, reduction of fibroids, or other tumors, symptoms of endometriosis and acne.

And any MAN, that gets between a female and her medical practitioner, and thinks HE knows or should be the judge about dealing with the problems, health consequences and impact of female reproductive issues, deserves a beat down.

Roeder's tiny little mind thinks he's a hero and a martyr.
It was TILLER who was.

Michael Crawford Michael Crawford | January 29, 2010 10:34 PM

The violent rhetoric from the anti-choice forces is likely to lead to more violence. Roeder may think of himself as a heroic figure, but that's definitely not the case.

Yes, Michael, you allude to my worst fear: that the pro-life extremists will make a martyr out of Roeder, claiming gloriously that "he sacrificed his freedom to save the lives of unborn children" ... thus encouraging others in their group to do the same, and setting up a sub-culture of glorifying violent but "righteous" self-sacrifice --- not unlike the way that some mothers in the Middle East are proud that they have lost sons (or daughters) because said child chose to be a suicide bomber.

Hello, first comment here.

As to A. J. Lopp's comment I've thought the exact same things, espcially since I've heard rumors that the "pro-life" side was hoping for a hung jury. But after hearing the it only took the jury 37 minutes to come out with a gulity verdict on the 1st degree murder charge sends very different message: most people don't approve of Roeder's actions, and these kinds of tactics could cause a backlash a against the pro-lifers.

With all due respect, I don't see how a guilty verdict can be described as a victory. Scott Roeder willingly, proudly and remorselessly stated that he was guilty on the stand during the trial. The fact that a judge and the bible thumpers on the jury were barely able to put aside their prejudices for a few seconds to BELIEVE Mr. Roeder when he freely admitted his guilt doesn't fill me with confidence. It makes me shudder at how very fragile our whole legal system is when it's okay in a court of law to supplant science with dogma, facts with ideology and and brutality with heroism. It's not a victory, it was the only SANE decision possible.

Marg, I respect your opinion ... but it was a victory, a very minimal one, for the exact reason you point out: at least the judicial system did what it was supposed to do, it convicted a defendant who took a situation into his own hands regardless of what the law said about it.

The judicial system doesn't always do what it is supposed to do --- look at all the southern lynchers that went unpunished, the O.J. trial (if you think he is guilty, and I do ...), the Rodney King policemen, and conversely, countless times that innocent black men have been falsely convicted by white juries.

Had the defense been successful at packing the jury with rabid pro-lifers, it is imaginable that the jury might have acquitted him regardless of what the law says. That is called "jury nullification" --- and is a very problematic situation that occurs when the jury disagrees with both the letter and the spirit of the law. At least we didn't have that here, and in that sense it is a victory for justice.

Regan DuCasse | January 30, 2010 4:40 PM

Note that Roeder nor the anti abortion crowd are interested in reliable, accessible and cheap CONTRACEPTION.
Especially FOR MEN.

Proctologists who perform vasectomies aren't catching this kind of crap.
After all, what DOESN'T make a baby is creating a whole OTHER class of NON and UNBORNS, right?

And just how twisted is this whole issue of stigma against those who 'don't naturally procreate'?

NOT having children seems to be as much of a problem to these people worthy of mentioning it in the context of anti marriage equality.

I know from personal experience they can and will get between a woman, especially, who doesn't want to be a mother, WAY before the fact.

They don't want to say it anymore, but the real agenda is an issue with people who have sex, but just without the consequences of pregnancy.
Gay OR straight.

Meaning, you shouldn't or get to enjoy it outside of a proscribed set of styles and rules.

In many ways these folks and their thinking reveal a lot they wouldn't want thrown in their faces.

1. They have BORING, ROTE and utilitarian sex.

2. More of #1.

3. Sex isn't for fun, or to be creative with, it's for ONE purpose, and if others aren't on board with that, the resentment is palpable, politically AND socially.

I seem to remember a study that was done over 30 years ago.
The sex lives of post menopausal women, who were also beneficiaries of the post feminist movement had the most robust and happiest sex lives in recorded history. Making it the most egalitarian and gender equal aspect ever.

And in the same research, those married couples, who had chosen not to have children and didn't have children, were the happiest and most satisfied of all married couples.

I've noticed that the anti marriage equality crowd (always so loaded up on statistics and research) hasn't mentioned those inconvenient facts either as part of the 'evidence' put forth on marriage and it's societal impact during all these court and legislative sessions.

It's a victory that I'd rather no have had to see. But it is a victory nonetheless.