When I heard the initial news teaser on the radio that an abortion provider had been shot at a church, I knew both the abortionist and the church before either were named. Few abortionists were as outspoken about the abortion services they provided as George Tiller. No other abortionist was as outspoken about his involvement in a church as George Tiller. The sickening part about waiting for the actual story was to see if I would recognize the name of the alleged gunman from my time as a college pro-life leader. The remainder of my drive home was made worse by the familiarity of his name. (Fortunately, as I checked my old records, and the directory of my old group this morning – his name does not come up. I think that the name Roeder was in my mind because I had just finished reading a book on Delta Force and the Iran Hostage Crisis – a David Roeder was one of the hostages).

This whole tragedy sickens me, because it embodies everything that is wrong with the climate surrounding abortion today.

George Tiller honestly believed that he was helping women. Of that I have no doubt based on my conversations with his pastor over a decade ago. He was not the same as another abortionist I got to know who was on the record as saying that he set up his clinics in the inner city because there were “too many poor black children,” although I suppose he too thought he was being helpful, even if he didn’t recognize the overt and abhorrent racism of his position. The failure of the pro-life movement, and by extension, the church, was that it did not find an effective way of convincing George Tiller that what he was doing was wrong. Indeed, the actions of not-a-few pro-lifers probably convinced him of precisely the opposite. Here on the one hand you have grateful women who have been helped out of “a difficult situation” and people who praise him as a “hero.” On the other side you have those who drove him to wear a bullet-proof vest (this was not the first time he had been shot). Perhaps, I am a poor Lutheran theologian, but I have always believed that “a law that is not heard is not effective law.” The impetus on the pro-life movement was to do better. To make the “for me” of the law as much a part of George Tiller’s life as the “for me” of the gospel. We did not. His church failed him. We failed.

The great challenge today surrounding abortion is how to move beyond the accurate descriptions of what each side believes. Pro-life people believe abortion is killing. It is not wrong to say that, and yet such language, and its ancillary positions is polarizing. Pro-choice people believe abortion helps women and its corollary position that to forbid abortion hurts women, is likewise polarizing.

The problem arises when these polarizing statements of belief become a means of demonizing opponents: “People who support abortion must be anti-Christian” or “they are only in it for the money.” It is one thing to believe that abortion is killing and abortionists are killers, it is another to believe that abortionists are knowingly murdering children. I do not believe that for men like George Tiller that was the case. He honestly believed he was helping women via a medical procedure. Abortionists like Beverly McMillan and Bernard Nathanson, who come to the conclusion that the medical procedure of abortion results in the taking of a human life, generally stop performing abortions. As pro-lifers the obviousness of the human life of a “fetus” may be beyond dispute. It does not mean that it is equally obvious to all – even to a doctor who should know better.

The demonization occurs by pro-choice people as well.  One of the more popular chants by pro-choice people outside of abortion clinics was “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, born-again bigots – go away.” There is a strong sense among some pro-choice people that to oppose abortion is to be anti-women. A belief that the concern of pro-lifer’s is not really the protection of the unborn, but the subjugation of women - this despite the fact that the largest by-far women’s organization in the United States, Concerned Women for America, is pro-life.

 I believe that there are two significant events that have contributed to our current climate.

The first was the founding of Operation Rescue in 1986. Prior to this, leadership in the pro-life movement had been provided primarily by Roman Catholics (and some Lutherans) who had a broader, well reasoned sense of ethics. Early leaders like John Cavanaugh O’ Keefe (and Richard John Neuhaus) came from both the civil rights and anti-war movements. With the arrival of Randall Terry and the predominantly evangelical protestant leaders of Operation Rescue, the movement shifted. There was a less developed sense of ethics. The place of abortion within a wider social justice perspective was replaced by abortion as a stand-alone issue. The goal was to stop abortion by any means necessary. Some even went as far to say that a moral evil (killing an abortionist) could be used to bring about a moral good (stopping abortion), a position that was abhorrent to the classically developed ethics of the early pro-life leaders. It is the difference between a functionalist, modern-American evangelical Christianity that is concerned primarily with results, and a classical catholic Christianity that is concerned primarily with faithfulness. When abortion is viewed as a moral war to be won at all costs rather than an ethical issue it is not surprising that the rhetorical extremes have only grown since that time.

 The second action, which I believe has led directly to the current climate where violence is seen as a solution to the violence of abortion was the passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) bill in 1994. This bill placed non-violent civil disobedience on the same level as violent activity (A federal rime!). The rise in the number of actual violent attacks on clinics and abortion providers bears out that this quashing of non-violent protest has moved some on the fringes of the pro-life movement into more violent activity. When abortion is seen as a war and not an ethical issue, you pragmatically count the cost about the effectiveness of your actions. George Tiller’s assassin, in that regard, was effective.

Where do we go from here? I wish I had an answer. I do believe that any solution must start with repentance. Not the call to repentance of others, like George Tiller, but the call to repentance of myself - for the ways in which I have contributed to this poisoned climate. Only then, when we begin to see the God-loved humanity of “our opponents” in the same way that we see the humanity of the unborn, can we truly consider ourselves pro-life.

EDIT: To help clear up confusion I have removed the word "former" from the title. I am indeed very much still pro-life. I remain as convinced of its moral and philosophical rightness as ever. I am no longer, however, an "activist pro-lifer" in the sense most common to the usage of that term.