Intimidation reigns after Tiller’s death

Intimidation is an effective tactic. If one side of a debate can force the opposition to abandon their beliefs, or to shrink from defending them, the first side is a step closer to victory. Since George Tiller’s death, intimidation has become the pro-abortion community’s preferred strategy.

Ellen Goodman, a pro-choice columnist for the Boston Globe, blamed Tiller’s death directly on the entire pro-life movement. Every person who calls abortion-on-demand what it is—the murder of an innocent child—is, in her eyes, responsible for lighting the shooter’s fuse.

No pro-lifer wants to be associated with a murderer. Ellen Goodman and her ilk understand this perfectly and they’re using it to their advantage. They know that they can gain an upper hand if they can silence our voice by linking our cause with Tiller’s death. We can’t allow that to happen.

Our opposition to George Tiller’s murder is no reason for us to defend or excuse what he did with his life. When we denounce his murder and disavow responsibility for it we are entirely consistent with our pro-life message. However, abortion supporters (such as Goodman) must condemn Tiller’s death while defending the deaths Tiller caused. Our position is consistent, rational and defensible. Theirs is not.

The pro-abortion use of Tiller’s death is a test we must pass. We cannot be intimidated. We cannot abandon our principles in the face of false accusations. We cannot be silenced and we cannot shrink from defending innocent life. Ours is the righteous cause.