Scott Roeder, No Connection With Pro-Life Groups

I’m glad to hear that you want no connection with a man who just shot someone in their church. I wish you would go a step further and declare the man’s action an act of terror.

Commenting will temporarily close for the evening until we return in the morning so we can continue monitoring comments.

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/05/killers-own-words.html

He most certainly had anti-abortion connections, though I would agree that doesn’t make him pro-life.

Do you know what the word “connection” means, Matt? Did you read his words? It’s clearly he had anti-abortion connections (I didn’t say he was pro-life, since he is not; but many who are anti-abortion are not pro-life). Nonetheless his words show his concern with abortion and thanked the prayer work against Tiller (for Tiller’s abortion work). So yes, within Scott’s mind, abortion was an issue. Was it the only one? No. But it doesn’t have to be for it to be a piece of the puzzle.

Dan,

oh, so showing up at a rally is a “anti-abortion connection”? So if I show up at an Obama rally that gives me “Obama connections”???

riggght…

That should be “supporter.” See how much you have upset me!

From the Kansas Fox network:

“Court records and Internet postings show that a man named Scott Roeder has a criminal record and a background of anti-abortion postings on sympathetic Web sites.

Witnesses at the Wichita church where Dr. Tiller was shot got a good look at the gunman and the car taking off moment later.

Police stopped that car Sunday afternoon just outside the metro traveling north on I-35 near the Gardner exit. FOX 4 was there and got exclusive video of Roeder in the backseat of a patrol car. Later in the day, Roeder was taken by Wichita Police from the adult detention facility in Gardner.

Wichita Police are also towing the blue Taurus back to Wichita.

Neighbors said they’ve seen a similar car at the house in Merriam. They describe the ongoings at the house as strange. They said it’s a revolving door of men coming and staying there and describe what appear to be religious gatherings.

There were a number of agents and officers at the home for several hours Sunday afternoon. The FBI say the investigation could go on for several days.”

Foxfier: This from the Washington Post:

“As news of Roeder’s arrest traveled, Kansas City activist Regina Dinwiddie remembered the day a dozen years ago when Roeder hugged her in glee after trying to frighten an abortion provider by staring him down inside a Planned Parenthood clinic.

“He grabbed me and said, ‘I’ve read the Defensive Action Statement and I love what you’re doing,’ ” Dinwiddie said in a telephone interview. She was a signer of the 1990s statement, which declares that the use of force is justified.”

You might want to disassociate yourself Roeder, and perhaps you can personally, but there is no question that he is part of the radical anti-abortion movement.

You know some rotten spy is probably reporting everything said here with glee too.

Guess I’ll expect to find myself on the “no fly” list because I didn’t express immediate anguish yesterday.

I hear Uruguay is nice this time of year….

“No connection with pro-life groups?” Are you KIDDING me?
Have you heard of Operation Rescue? (By the way, their website is off-line — GUESS WHY!!!)
Go ahead and espouse your beliefs all you want — but don’t tell lies. It just makes you look more pathetic than you already do.

Costa Rica.

No doubt Roeder would define himself as conservative, not a radical. Recently conservative leaders have been making calls for violent action. Michelle Bachmann called for people to be “armed and dangerous” and called for revolution. She only toned down her rhetoric after being criticized. Also, there are a lot of preachers out their who define themselves as conservative and say God is going to judge us for allowing abortion. Put the rhetoric together and is it any wonder people like Roeder come to violent conclusions?

…if he’s animated about anything its that he is an anarchist who hates the government.

…extreme anti-government. As in the Montana Freemen Militia.

Just about every issue-oriented movement uses heated rhetoric at times. It is hardly exclusive to the pro-life movement.

Environmentalists paint apocalyptic pictures of the future (rising sea levels, mass starvation, widespread desertification, etc.) almost or just as frightening as anything in the Book of Revelation, and say this is what will happen if global warming, population growth, deforestation, etc. is not stopped.

Gun rights groups AND gun control groups both paint pictures of the violent, lawless, Wild West-type societies that will result if their policies are not adopted, or that already exist because they have not been adopted. (I’m sure that somewhere on the blogs, Tiller’s murder has also turned into a debate about gun control.)

So if some nut “comes to violent conclusions” because of THEIR rhetoric, are they to blame?

rationalpsychic,

How about if we all address the fact that those of us who blog are guilty at some time or another of reducing those who disagree with us to objects or the enemy. I try not to do it but can think of times when I let my anger get the better of me. Then there’s the whole polarization of conservative and liberal in this country. Limbaugh says Sotomayor is a racist because she would dare to muse that her experiences as an outsider in American society give her a different perspective than white males. When reduce others to being less than human, we take a step towards sanctioning violence toward others. Whether it’s ourselves or the cause we sometimes see these as a good worth hurting or killing for.

you might have a valid point if your statement here was true. Because what you’re saying is false, you are actually doing precisely what you accuse Limbaugh and others of doing. What Sotomayor ACTUALLY said was:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Now, as a judge she is supposed to make decisions not based on her race or her experiences but based on the FACTS of the case and the LAW as written. Period.