A Note to Judy Thomas Following Roeder’s Deed
Michael Bray
10 August 20
Re: your 10 August, “Militants Contact Roeder in Jail” in the Wichita Eagle
http://www.kansas.com/news/story/924426.html?storylink=pd?storylink=pd
Dear Judy,
I have rarely, if ever, responded to an article such as yours in which you featured something regarding my person. But I have a moment and the inspiration, so, hoping it serves some good, I proceed.
Smeal’s comments (naked accusations, actually) were left without the opportunity of a reply. She insinuated that all activists (whom you have opted fairly to call “militants” in reference, I shall presume, to their consistent advocacy for the full humanity of persons in the womb) whether they formerly and personally wielded force or not, if they are communicating with Roeder, are themselves presently engaged in the use of force to stop abortion. The fact is that there are millions of people (I assert this literally on the basis of polls taken over the years) who are doctrinal “militants” indicates that the potential for an increase in such lethal action as was taken against Tiller is great and the likeliness high as the nation tarries in its correction of this national tragedy.
I appreciated your fair representation of Tony Leake and Eugene Frye. You represented them accurately and I think the point they made is an important one. They argue simply that a man ought to be able to put on his defense and not be denied to right to argue the defense of Necessity – that Roeder found it necessary to kill a man who continued to kill tens of thousands of children Their comments point to the defense which, in this national abortion-rights-crazed country, is regularly denied. The defense of Necessity is denied because courts and social engineers in support of abortion rights do not wish that this argument be made even when an ex-utero-man’s life and freedom are at stake. The very right to a fair trial is denied in the effort to suppress this defense.
Why? Is there a fear of truth? If a man is on trial for shooting someone and determines to present his reasons which he deems just and right and worthy to present to his fellow citizen judges to consider, what right in the name of justice does a court have to deny this? And on what principle of justice would the prosecution oppose this defense which a man in his “day in court” would choose to use? Where is “choice” here? Where is the principle of a trial by jury?
I would have thought it appropriate for you to mention the fact that Shelley Shannon has already been jailed for 16 years. The inordinate amount of punishment meted out against anti-abortionist would be newsworthy if there were not a true bias at play in the media generally. Consider Paul Evans in USP McCreary who is doing 40 years for attempting to blow up a Texas abortuary. No bomb went off, but the abortion-rights-crazed courts slapped him with “weapons of mass destruction” charges, capitalizing on the 9-11 wake. (Who are the “capitalist” pigs now?)
I think my most poignant point of criticism is your reference to Jennifer McCoy. You say she, “used to go by the name Jennifer Patterson Sperle,” as if she changed her name for a reason other than the one for which most women change their names. They get married? And they usually give a new non-hyphenated name to their children other than the one they had before they married! Mrs. McCoy was until her first marriage, Jennifer Patterson until which time she became Jennifer Sperle. Following divorce and remarriage, she became Jennifer McCoy. She has nine children. Most of them live at home and are the product of her second marriage – to John McCoy. Nothing nefarious or suspicious or covert going on here.
I would finally speak of what you called the “1993 declaration advocating the use of force against abortion providers” along with my book, A Time to Kill.
Do you think it strange that Roeder’s defense attorney felt it necessary to deny him such reading material? (I have no doubt about the good intentions of the PD, but what is it in the social and political atmosphere which makes such book suppression seem reasonable or good?) The book, with its poorly financed beginnings was used by professors at UCLA and at the University of South Florida (I had regular orders from these schools) before (upon discover of this by plaintiff attorneys in the PP v. ACLA case) the book was suppressed, no doubt, by some kind of intimidation from PP. Are the arguments of the book too strong?
Well, yes, if I may answer. They are, indeed, unrefuted. But it is not for lack of logical and legal argument that people do not act upon the principles; it is not for lack of knowledge that citizens fail to labor for justice. It is for the lack of will and love.
And yet it is not a book of advocacy; rather it is an apology. It is simply an ethical treatise on the use of force in general and for the protection of womb children in particular. It examines the general principles and their particular applications including, specifically, the case of the threatened pre-natal child. The use of the word advocacy suggests that the book encourages the reader take up his weapons after finishing the book and used them against the foe, the abortionist. (Indeed, though he be one who “commits” – not “provides” – abortions, he makes himself by his deeds one who is vulnerable to attack by the one makes the choice to provide for the life of the innocent. It is a book about ethics and about choice – both philanthropic and compassionate.
Neither was the Defensive Action statement circulated by Paul Hill “advocating the use of force against abortion providers.” Paul did indeed circulate that statement and he did so at my own prompting. The purpose of that statement, like the book which followed it, was to declare the humanity of the child. He whose humanity we proclaim is worthy of the same protection that our nation believes all human beings deserve. Because they are created in the image of God, they are worthy of protection. This was the basis of both the Commandment prohibiting murder and the call for the lawful execution of murderers (Genesis 9:6), which was sustained in the Law of Moses and maintained throughout the history of Christendom and Western Civilization.
Well, I don’t expect to be lobbying and lecturing you again in the near future. I hope I haven’t presumed too much upon your time with these comments.
See you soon, I suppose [at trial],
Michael Bray
Comments are currently closed.