For the Least of Our Brothers: On the Murder of Jim Pouillon

When Dr. George Tiller was murdered in cold-blood earlier this year, pro-abortion political partisans and the left in general wasted no time in condemning the act as one of “domestic terrorism.” Leftist blogs and news magazines declared that “words matter” – the words of the pro-life movement are what ultimately cause people who would not have otherwise done so to pick up a weapon and take a life. The entire pro-life movement, therefore, was to blame for the actions of individuals.

There is little doubt in my mind that no one in the media is going to hold the “pro-choice” movement to account for the murder of Jim Pouillon, a 63 year-old man on an oxygen tank and crutches who renounced violence, and, so far as we know, never harmed a living soul. His great and terrible crime was to simply display, in images more than words, the truth of abortion – that it almost always ends with a butchered, bloody human being. For the record, only cowards and liars fear the truth.

But let us return to the topic of words. They still matter, don’t they? Let us take the words, for instance, of the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Collier County, Florida, not long ago:

“I think the people that demonstrate outside of our building are terrorists because they’re trying to deny women access to what a woman is choosing for herself”

So, to be clear: American citizens exercising their first amendment rights, who certainly cannot and do not attempt to physically prevent anyone from entering a facility, are “terrorists”. Before addressing the hypocrisy of this charge, let us look at what people such as Jim Pouillon actually do.

There are unquestionably thousands, perhaps even millions of Americans alive today because of the efforts of these “terrorists”, who provide alternatives and counseling to women who have been abandoned by society and never informed that there are people willing to help them through their pregnancies.

Because abortion, even the consideration of it, to say nothing of the actual obtainment, is so shameful to many women, most people may never know how closely the Angel of Death hovered over them during their years in what ought to have been the safest place in the world. The point here, though, is that Jim Pouillon, and others who do exactly what he did, save lives, every day.

Of course they will never be remembered in the same way as, for instance, the firefighters many of us remember today on the anniversary of 9/11. That is because the firefighters rushed into collapsing buildings to save lives that were valued across the political consensus. No one has a political problem with the average, living, breathing adult.

Jim Pouillon spent his days attempting to save lives that were considered a burden, lives that were “unwanted”, that were not powerful enough to declare explicitly what all living organisms express through every thing they do in every moment of their existence – their desire to live. The lives Jim Pouillon wanted to save are considered politically inconvenient, for every child that is born because his or her mother decided against abortion at the last moment is a defeat for the abortion industry. They were marked for death by a culture that considers human life itself to be a disposable commodity and yet they were spared; they are living testaments against the materialism and selfishness that give rise to and define a pro-abortion movement.

And yet the men and women responsible for saving these lives are described as “terrorists”. Was it not a rash generalization of Muslims as terrorists that led to a wave of violence against Muslims and even non-Muslims who looked like they might be Muslims right after 9/11? Was it not then that we were told by the same academic and media establishments that we must be very careful not to judge all Muslims for what a handful did on that day? Why did they tell us these things? Because they knew then what they forget as soon as they are confronted with people courageous enough to say “NO” to their desire to kill their children to make life easier: they knew that people would unfairly target Muslims, and single them out for acts of violence.

It sure is great to be considered just valuable enough to be valued by the left. Why, you’ll have legions of really intelligent sounding people with long lists of credentials after their names writing ethical treatises on why your existence matters and why it is wrong to treat you differently. But fall just outside of the materialist-hedonist rubric – for instance, threaten their unlimited sexual freedom – and watch out! Then you’ll only have Jim Pouillon to protect you.

Jim Pouillon may well be the victim of “pro-choice”, anti-abortion rhetoric, not only of the kind one would find in a street protest but by in the outrageous public statements made by supposed professionals and leaders in the abortion industry. A vigilante, obsessed with the idea of ridding America of a pro-life “terrorist”, inspired by the hateful rhetoric of the abortionists, decided to strike a pre-emptive blow against domestic terrorism.

Unlike those who called for restrictions on speech and guns in the wake of George Tiller’s death, however, my call is simply for those who engage in the same sort of work that Pouillon did to not give up or give in to this cowardly act of domestic political terrorism. Pray for his soul, pray for the soul of his murderer, pray that the daily and wide-scale violence of abortion one day comes to an end.

30 Responses to For the Least of Our Brothers: On the Murder of Jim Pouillon

  • e. says:

    As much as I detest the personal opinions of the author herein on other matters (particularly concerning matters of economics), this is by far the best rebuttal I’ve heard thus far with respect to the reprehensible silence of such people and the disgustingly liberal-dominated mass media.

    Not surprising though given a twisted logic that would confuse the very murder of innocent babies as being a matter of personal right.

  • M.Z. says:

    Perhaps his murder was insignificant in the grand scheme. If we must talk about numbers, rather than crediting him with the lives of countless thousands that demonstrators have supposedly saved, we could go to a per capita calculation, which would say his actions haven’t saved a single life, assuming of course that the number of demonstrators in Washington is remotely accurate. Of course this is somewhat offensive, but it doesn’t take an idiot to figure out why the media cares less about 1 guy out of a hundred million than 1 guy out of 100.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    I see the editors of Vox Nova deleted my question as to why the murder of Jim Pouillon is a non-topic at that blog. I thought my apology to the poster might prevent that from happening – where else, precisely, am I supposed to ask?

    And now MZ regales us with this fine contribution. I don’t know precisely what “demonstrators in Washington” have to do at all with Jim Pouillon and pro-life activism, or with the silence of Vox Nova on this topic. That the mainstream media is ignoring this issue is no reason for a Catholic blog to; presumably your Catholic readership would be interested in the political assassination of a pro-life activist.

    Of course I absolutely did not credit this single man with saving the lives of countless thousands, but him and those who do the same sort of work that he does. According to his friends, quoted by the press, Pouillon’s efforts – like those of so many other activists – actually did save lives, as women on their way to the clinics changed their minds about their abortion.

    Is this not worthy of at least a brief comment? Even if you wished to express some criticism of his posters, of the graphic images – I know how much that bothers some people, being exposed to truth, especially when it is ugly – was not his murder a terrible crime, an act of violence against a man who, unlike George Tiller, for whom we were all to pray ceaselessly, never actually harmed anyone?

    I hate to speculate on your reasons for ignoring this matter, or for this ill-conceived and evasive explanation. All I can say is that this silence and this absurd post unfortunately confirm my concern about the direction of VN. Perhaps you will be moved in the future to take an act of domestic terrorism against the pro-life movement seriously.

  • M.Z. says:

    Since it was off topic, it was moved to a moderation queue. The author can decide on his own time if he wants to allow it.

    Please do speculate on the reasons for ignoring the story and proceed to make an ass of yourself. “Domestic terrorism,” what kind of tribalistic bullshit is that?

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Oh yes, I’m sure I’ll be the ass by the time we’re done fleshing out your unique and enlightened re-definitions of the words “domestic” and “terrorism”, or ascertaining what, exactly, “tribalism” has to do with any of this.

  • Joe Hargrave says:

    Do you imagine that by blending in a statement of fact with what is clearly a personal opinion that you will somehow conflate the two for the rest of us?

    Whether or not you regard the concept of ideological terrorism as a “cheap tactic” is entirely irrelevant. The question is, does this particular incident meet the conditions for terrorism?

    Regardless of the intent of the killer, the effect will certainly be to intimidate and scare – or, to use another word, ‘terrorize’ – pro-life activists into silence and withdrawal. We do know that the killer targeted Pouillon because he hated his visual displays of the truth (of which you are none to fond yourself), and I seriously doubt he was unaware of the potential consequences his actions would have beyond settling his grievance with Pouillon.

    What we have here is a murder that was mostly likely intended to, and most certainly has, terrorized a group of people who are united in political belief alone. This was an act of terrorism. At least George Tiller’s murderer can plausibly claim that his aim was to save the lives of Tiller’s victims; what can Pouillon’s murderer claim? Only that he disliked his politics and sought to use violence and terror to prevent him from practicing them in public.

    My questions for you:

    Why are you so adamantly opposed to public displays of visual images of the reality of abortion?

    Why are you incapable of acknowledging that in addition to displaying these images, Pouillon, according to his friends, is personally responsible for saving lives? We’re all pro-life, right? Doesn’t that count for something?

    Are, indeed, the wounded sensibilities of a few passers-by truly a greater concern to you than the potential of saving human lives on their way to the butcher’s table?

    If you could answer these questions without an attitude, a temper, a sneer, or a put-down, it would be greatly appreciated.

  • The media has NEVER given fair coverage to the pro-life activists since the beginning of the movement. In the early days of the movement when the sit-ins and protests were organized by former anti-war radicals who saw the inconsistency in the Left with supporting human rights and failing to protect unborn children. The press ignored them. Later as Operation Rescue came on the scene, leaders believed that coverage of the tens of thousands of peaceful Americans sitting in passive resistance to stop the killing, would galvanize public opinion. The press did not cover the rescues objectively and when ever they did write about the rescuers, it was inthe context of extremism in connection with the random acts of violence that occurred in those years. And just as the press played up for weeks the death of Tiller, so they will ignore the murder of a 63 year old peaceful pro-life activist. One must always remember that the media is a willing accomplice in the abortion holocaust. They have a self interest in keeping abortion legal. If the culture ever realized how evil abortion is, then the press would be held responsible in part for the genocide of 50,000,000 babies. Those pro-abortion members of the media and the press would be shown to be the racist elitist cowards that they are.

    So do not expect anything from them. That is why the new media, the alternative media, the blogs, and video logs and Youtube will eventually undercut their power and influence. Indeed it will be the people, a free people who end this

  • Dale Price says:

    If settling political disputes with lethal violence isn’t terrorism, then what is it?

    If we keep sewing this–letting murder and threats of the same determine political behavior–we are going to reap one Hell of a whirlwind.

    As to why some progressive Catholics have deemed this unworthy of attention, that seems fairly obvious–they hate the pro-life movement more than abortion. At least, the weight of their rhetoric–who and what they castigate–suggests as much.

  • Matt McDonald says:

    ps. I am not one to make virtues out of the lowbrow opinions and habits of the ‘working man’;

    I’d agree with that. Those folks on VN obviously don’t read a lot of your postings…

  • e. says:

    Matt:

    “Please get back to posting on economoic issues, these points of agreement are starting to worry me.”

    Now, why did you have to submit a request like that?

    Just when Joe was finally demonstrating some heroic virtue in a valiant effort on behalf of millions of massacred children against the hideous elements of the Culture of Death — to give even those purportedly Catholic what’s for!

    Now, because of you, we shall hear of the specter haunting America once again! *wink*

  • TomSVDP says:

    “John Jakubczyk Says:
    Sunday, September 13, 2009 A.D. at 8:24 pm ”

    Good posting. I wonder what you or anyone else thinks of Father Pavone’s optimism that we are close to seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned? Oh well, I’ve decided to adopt his optimism. It can not hurt.

  • TomSVDP says:

    From http://www.operationrescue.org/

    Related Story, I don’t know if Lifesite or anyone else published this:

    “Flagstaff, AZ – Just a week after Jim Pouillon was shot and killed for his public stand against abortion, 69-year old Johnny Wallace was attacked by two women as he held two non-graphic, text-only signs protesting abortion in Flagstaff, Arizona, on Saturday.

    Wallace was alone in front of City Hall on the busiest street in town at the time of the attack with signs that read, “Abortion kills more black Americans in four days than the Klan killed in 150 years,” and “Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood.” Wallace was known to protest at that location every day.

    Wallace was approached from behind by two women, both 48, who began by yelling profanities at him. One then attempted to take way and destroy his sign. After Wallace was wrestled to the ground, the other woman joined the attack.

    Paramedics were called and Wallace was treated for minor injuries. He suffered an elbow injury that has required additional treatment.

    Both women were cited and released on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and criminal damage.”

    Read more at the website.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .