Why Would an Abortionist Be Assassinated Now?

According to the usual rhetoric, that terrorism is a response to despair (you can see an example here, with more consistency than a leftist would have), it seems a bit odd that an abortionist has been assassinated in an era when public opinion, in contrast to most of the rest of “social conservatism,” is moving right, when the number of abortions is declining slowly, and when the number of abortionists is declining quickly. On the contrary, out here in the real world terrorism is a response to perceived weakness on the part of the enemy. (The 911 attack was planned by people encouraged by the retreat from Somalia.) In particular, I'm sure the assassin figured that it would take only a few more bullets to end late-term abortion in America.

On the other hand, it is a very bad tactic. The swing in public opinion was probably in response to the decline in the rest of social conservatism. A decade or two ago, it was plausible that pro-life victories would bring back censorship or segregation. Now it it's less plausible. The recent assassination may change that by reminding people that the pro-life movement includes loonies.

In other words, if you're a would-be pro-life killer and you're reading these words, just be patient. Gandhi succeeded in establishing a democracy. The terrorists haven't. As Gandhi put it:

First, they ignore you. Then, they ridicule you. Then, they fight you. Then, you win.

That cliche is on our side now.

The double bind

Right now most pro-choicers are in “pro-lifers are murderous hypocrites” mode. Once it is clear the assassin has little support in the pro-life movement, we can expect a turn-about and the herd of independent minds will go into “pro-lifers are insincere phonies” mode (typical example here). We must be prepared.