Crime

 

First pro-lifers are blamed for Colorado Springs murders, now hints that yesterday’s violence in San Bernardino may have a connection to local Planned Parenthood clinic

By Dave Andrusko

The purple dot is where the shooting took place. The red dot is Planned Parenthood.

Like many of you, my wife and I sat transfixed last night, hour after hour, as we watched non-stop coverage of the brutal massacre that had killed 14 people and wounded 21 others at the Inland Regional Center, a facility in San Bernardino, California, that provides social services for many clients including those with disabilities.

Hats off to a number of sites, including the Daily Caller, for documenting what, I suppose, was inevitable: an hare-brained attempt to somehow connect these brutal murders with the proximity of a Planned Parenthood clinic and (by the most dubious of extension) to pro-lifers.
As Blake Neff notes, the Planned Parenthood clinic is roughly a mile away “with a river, golf course, and dozens of buildings in the way.” Hard to talk yourself into believing that clinic was the real target, or another target, unless you desperately want to.

Aside from the fact that last night it took hours and hours even to identify the husband and wife team that was killed in a shootout with police, no one had a clue what their motive was or who they might be connected to, if anyone.
Here are some of the key paragraphs from Neff’s story:

CNN, for instance, quickly speculated on the air that Planned Parenthood might be the target, even after acknowledging the shooting didn’t happen there.’

“San Bernardino’s Planned Parenthood is about one mile south of the 1300 block of South Waterman,” mentions Marketwatch, for no clear reason.

Raw Story similarly makes a throwaway mention to Planned Parenthood’s proximity.

RT’s write-up mentions in its first paragraph the shooting’s location is “around the corner” from a Planned Parenthood.

Alan Colmes, a former Fox News contributor and host of the Alan Colmes Show on radio, saw fit to make an entire blog post about the Planned Parenthood’s proximity to the shooting, even though he explicitly notes the shooting didn’t happen there.

Dozens of random Twitter users and minor news sources ran with the narrative, suggesting the shooting could be a copycat attack despite the lack of any real evidence:

So consider, for lack of a better word, the logic. It starts from awful and grows worse.
It’s perfectly okay for many media outlets and countless editorial writers to breezily (or heatedly) link the crazed killer who murdered three people and wounded nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic to pro-lifers/the Pro-Life Movement/pro-life Republican presidential candidates, based on four words in an interview Robert Dear gave to police.

So, if that rush to judgment is okay–indeed, is to be congratulated–why not an absolutely unsubstantiated linkage between Syed Rizwan Farook’s and Tashfeen Mali’s murderous assault and the nearness of a Planned Parenthood clinic?

We’ve already written about this , so I won’t belabor the point. There is nothing more important to the Abortion Industry–even more important than the billions of federal and state dollars that pour into their coffers–than muzzling our Movement. Nothing.
You’ve heard or read the super-heated language criticizing pro-lifers for (get this) “inflammatory” language. But that’s just a ruse, or, better put, a means to an end.
Ramesh Ponnuru put it perfectly .(Officer Garrett Swasey is a pro-life Christian whom Robert Dear killed at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado):

Pro-life rhetoric isn’t the real issue for pro-choicers anyway. The bedrock pro-life view — which, if you haven’t figured it out already, I share — is that abortion is the unjust killing of living human beings. Any expression of that view, any political action taken to advance it, is going to offend many pro-choicers, and could lead some people to violent acts. Pro-choicers who want pro-lifers to stop saying that abortion kills unborn children aren’t objecting to the pro-life movement’s rhetoric; they’re objecting to its existence.

And they’re trying to score political points by associating the vast majority of pro-lifers with a tiny violent fringe. What should, but will not, give them pause is the example of the man who died trying to defend the victims in Colorado. Few people — pro-life, pro-choice or in between — are as courageous as Officer Garrett Swasey. But if you want an example of pro-life principles in action during this crime, look at him and not his killer.

Source: NRLC News