Planned Parenthood Attack: Exploiting Terrorism for Political Gain

Following the attacks on November 27th that left three dead and at least 11 wounded, local police identified the perpetrator as 57-year-old Robert Lewis Dear Jr. The shooting took place at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, which instantly changes the circumstances. It quickly raises the possibility that the motive may have been a planned and targeted attack with anti-abortion motives, confirmed by the fact that Dear said “no more baby parts” in an interview with investigators after the shooting. Despite this, it was only a matter of time before the tragedy entered the political stage.

The comment “no more baby parts” refers to a provocative Planned Parenthood video which was leaked months ago, alleging the sale of fetal tissue material. Since the release of the leaked video, it has been found that this heavily edited video actually explains that the reference was actually to donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research in an effort to “serve their patients.” Despite this, the idea of making money worried individuals that there may be an underlying monetary motivation behind the selling of fetal tissue to researchers; however, as it turns out, the cost of $30-100 is about the standard price scientific researchers pay for tissue material of this sort, a price that barely breaks even with the cost of providing the tissue samples, never mind actually turning a profit.

The last thing the GOP wants is to have people think that the belief of anti-abortion rhetoric and these doctored videos is what inspired and motivated the terrorist act. If anything, they are going to want to distance themselves from these allegations. The first tactic employed was claiming that the shooting began outside Chase Bank and that the shooter just happened to take cover in the Planned Parenthood clinic after authorities showed up, then leading to Fox News reporting that this attack was then probably a “bank robbery gone wrong,” despite the fact that the entire incident occurred at the Planned Parenthood clinic, according to police.

Ted Cruz became the first GOP candidate to speak about the incident, aware of the potential backlash this sort of uncovering may have on people’s perceptions of the anti-abortion movement. In a desperate effort to distance himself and anti-abortion views from the shooting, Cruz decided to instead describe the shooter as a “transgendered [sic] leftist activist.” This idea comes out of a finding that Dear is registered as a female, according to his voter registration. This implies one of two plausible situations. Either it is that Dear identifies as a woman or that there was a typo in the voter registration, given that there has been no other evidence speaking to Dear’s gender identity. Regardless, upon learning this, Cruz attributed Dear’s potential identification to “leftist activism,” which is inherently smuggling in the idea that anyone who identifies as trans must necessarily then also not only be a leftist, but must be promoting an agenda of leftism activism simply by existing as a trans individual. Again, it is entirely possible that this was nothing more than a typo, but even if we were to entertain the idea of Dear being a trans woman, that still would not warrant the false assumption that Dear then would necessarily be a leftist activist.

This move does two important things: First, it wrongly associates Dear with the left despite being considered by The New York Times as being “generally conservative.” Second, it adds to the long history of transphobic attacks from the 2016 GOP presidential candidates.

The line of logic used in foreign terrorism rhetoric by the GOP is then cast aside when the issue pertains to homegrown, domestic white terrorism. If we are to claim that a belief in Islamic extremism may motivate terrorists, why then are we to dismiss even the possibility that a belief in anti-abortion Christian rhetoric may also contribute to violence in society? If we are genuinely pursuing the truth, we ought to be honest about discussing the motives that inspire violence, even if they may be inconvenient or uncomfortable to confront. Ignoring this form of terrorism does two things. It furthers the idea that terrorism only exists when done by certain minority groups and not by white Americans, simply because the idea of it makes people uneasy. Yet despite the paranoia of foreign attacks threatening national security, for each person killed by Muslim extremism in the U.S. since 9/11, there have been 4,300 killings from other threats, with the FBI even releasing a warning to reproductive health care facilities, stating “it is likely criminal or suspicious incidents will continue to be directed against reproductive health care providers, their staff and facilities.”

The same reasons that outcry the possibility of danger being associated with incoming refugees, despite a lack of evidence that any actual incidents of refugee terrorism in relation to ISIS, then are tossed aside when it is pointed out that these homegrown terrorists promoting Christian extremism with anti-abortion rhetoric have actually wrecked havoc and introduced terror into our society. This double standard is the epitome of political convenience, crafty rhetoric to imply untrue associations, and a general disregard for the truth.

This article was written by Amar Ojha, founder and writer at dusk magazine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: