Pro-lifers Need to Re-think their Decisions

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) could be used in suits against anti-abortion activists who engaged in criminal acts. Why? Because the U.S. government recognized that the actions of many protestors were simply unacceptable.

North of the border, protesters are no different, and, now, more than 15 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, we witness the arrest and potential university expulsion of five Carleton students in our nation’s capital. Canadian authorities, too, have recognized that some actions simply cannot be tolerated.

Bearing graphic images of aborted fetuses juxtaposed against pictures of the holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, five students at Carleton decided to protest in the busiest spot on campus rather than accept the University’s offer to let them protest in a quieter, less public space.

The students' decision to protest in a busy area, and their subsequent arrest and possible expulsion from the University raise not only moral issues but also questions about the effectiveness of their chosen campaigning method.

A former anti-abortion activist Wendy Wright was once quoted in the New York Times as saying, “We’re accountable to God, not to the government.” Unfortunately, Wright’s mindset represents a widespread belief held by many misguided but genuine pro-lifers.

Columnist Jack Chambers has pointed out that pro-lifers who break laws often quote Acts 5:29 where the apostle Peter says “We must obey God rather than men!” This, however, does not justify criminal actions. Both Peter and Paul clearly urged early Christians to obey the authorities in spite of the fact that the emperor who reigned over them was evil.

The founder of the “Institutes in Basic Life Principles”, Bill Gothard, teaches that “obeying God rather than man” is relevant only when one is personally ordered to: 1) do something immoral, 2) bow down to false gods, or 3) stop practicing his/her faith. Those students who infringe upon policies set in place by the authorities of their Universities, therefore, are clearly out of line.

Anti-abortion activists have been known to use analogies such as this: If you were walking in your backyard and noticed an infant drowning in your neighbor’s pool, you would be justified in trespassing on their property in order to save the infant.

Although this analogy seems convincing, one must understand that you would only be justified in trespassing because you are carrying out the will of your neighbor. However, those committing criminal acts such as trespassing in the name of unborn children are not carrying out the will of any mother wishing to have an abortion.

In light of the tension over the Carleton students' arrest, a Calgary lawyer, Mr. Carpay, points out that “in a society that respects and permits freedom of speech, no one has a right to go through life and never see things that are offensive.” Many people want the best of both worlds, but in such a world as ours, you cannot always have your cake and eat it too.

Although Carpay’s words are true, they do not justify the criminal actions of the students in violation of school policy. Ruth Lobo, one of the students arrested, claims that “you can’t argue with an image of abortion.”  However, John Haas, president of the U.S. National Catholic Bioethics Center and an anti-abortion activist for 30 years, disagrees with Lobo.

Haas compares the Carleton incident and the 1931 German movie M, which revolves around a child murderer and rapist, but which never features any scene of abuse. Haas argues that presenting an idea or concept to a person and then allowing their imagination to run with the issue and develop further thoughts about it is the most powerful method to influence or persuade an audience.

What Haas has failed to realize in the case of the Carlton incident, however, is that in order for a person’s imagination to engage with a concept or theme, they must first lend their attention to the subject matter.

Viewers of the movie M were willingly engaged in the film for a substantial, set period of time; they were exposed to the content of the film in a way that was conducive to imagining possibilities.  Those passing by abortion protesters, however, generally give their attention to the activists for only a few seconds at most. Without an investment of time and an interest from their audience, how can anti-abortion activists grip the imaginations of those they wish to reach?

In order for protestors to be effective, they must gain the attention of their intended audience, but even if they ignore Haas’s suggestion to drop the display photos, one ought to consider the question Charles Lewis poses in his article about the Carleton arrests: "can such a campaign actually be effective or does it merely cause a reaction, rather than the desired compassion or rethinking?"

The incident at Carleton suggests that these images simply cause a reaction. Rather than looking for a reaction, anti-abortion protestors should seek a thoughtful response from their intended audience. If getting a response means dropping the photos, maybe they should. If keeping the photos means breaking the law, they should definitely be dropped. Pro-lifers must realize that there are many ways to fight abortion without breaking the law, and they must show others that we are law-abiding, obedient citizens. And, we must not forget that our God has the ability and power to alter the minds and hearts of our leaders and fellow citizens in order to stop the senseless murder of many unborn children.