http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/kansas-abortion-doctor-shot
WICHITA, Kansas -- Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas doctor whose clinic received national attention for performing late-term abortions, was shot to death as he entered his Wichita church on Sunday.
"Members of the congregation who were inside the sanctuary at the time of the shooting were being kept inside the church by police," the Wichita Eagle reported, "and those arriving were being ushered into the parking lot."
Media reports said the suspected killer fled the scene in a blue Taurus. Police described him as a white male in his 50s or 60s.
Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion, making him a favored target of anti-abortion protesters. He testified that he and his family have suffered years of harassment and threats. His clinic was the site of the 1991 "Summer of Mercy" protests marked by mass demonstrations and arrests. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and an abortion opponent shot him in both arms in 1993.
Tiller's clinic also provided group and individual counseling, as well as chaplain and funeral services for people who were grieving.
The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, which runs a "Tiller Watch" feature on its website, released a statement condemning the shooting. "We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ."
Tiller remained prominent in the news in recent years, in part because of an investigation begun by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, an abortion opponent.
Prosecutors had alleged that Tiller had gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury in March acquitted him of all 19 misdemeanor counts against him.
Abortion opponents also questioned then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' ties to Tiller before the Senate confirmed her this year as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary. Tiller donated thousands of dollars to Sebelius over the years.
***UPDATE***
At an afternoon news conference, Wichita Police confirmed that a suspect, a 51-year-old man, had been arrested for the murder of Dr. George Tiller
Martick Jewellery
Cold blooded murder, the man should never see daylight again unless through the bars of a cell.
1I agree with you Grandpa. Tiller's practice of performing late term abortions was disgusting, but he didn't deserve to die like this. Especially in his church.
2Well if you have to die like that, can you think of a better place, Trixie?
3
Grandpa
4Now for me, my choice would be to be shot by a jealous husband at the age 0f 80....and for it to be with cause.....and his wife 35 years old..
5This man has certainly expired his nine lives. He's been shot before not to mention other attacks on his clinic.
6hypno,you can be lucky a 1,000 times, you only need to be unlucky once.
7Tiller's murder is heartbreaking and sad but, not surprising. When you demonize individuals, it gives people like Scott Roeder a reason to go after them. Bill O'Reilly compared him to Nazis.
""No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller's business of destruction. I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just -- you know ... Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?"
Operation Resue, Bill O'Reilly, and those like them are the ones with blood on their hands.
8My comment was flagged so I'll repeat it.
He was Dr. Tiller not just the "abortion doctor". His death is heartbreaking and sad but, not surprising. Groups like Operation Rescue and individuals like Bill O'Reilly create the climate for this bydemonizing people. O'Reilly compared Dr. Tiller to N@zis.
He also made this statement:
"No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller's business of destruction. I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just -- you know ... Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller/index.html
No Bill, you're the one with blood on your hands.
9There is only one person that has blood on his hands, and that is the one that pulled the trigger. If the likes of a Bill O'Reilly could actually inflame a persons THAT MUCH, that a person commits a murder, I contend that the murderer is already so unstable that nothing would prevent that person from eventually killing one day.
10I agree with Grandpa. Lili, O'Reilly is not responsible for Dr. Tiller's death. There are many people on all sides of the political spectrum that speak out strongly against the actions of others. Many people on this site have called for (or condoned the possibility of) the lynching of George W. Bush. I doubt you'd say they had blood on their hands if some lunatic actually murdered our former President. It's only natural to want somebody to blame, but like G-pa said, that person should be the man who pulled the trigger.
11Mich the people on this site do not have the platform O'Reilly has.
12Does the platform change the call? Or is it just the influence you're concerned with? Are the people on this site calling for murder and it doesn't matter because they have a smaller audience? Logic fail.
13I mean, if somebody from this tiny site listened to them and murdered Bush, wouldn't they still have blood on their hands by your logic?
14I don't anyone who has called for the murder of Bush or anyone else for that matter on this site. I doubt Sugar would post it.
15Lili, I'm not going to name names, but you can PM me if you want me to tell you who called for Bush to be hanged or blown up.
16Lili, you have to remember, that to some people all comments are equal in order to support their notion that Everybody Does It.
17no great loss.
18Are you saying then that they don't have a right to speak out against something they feel is wrong? It's ironic, then, that while you're making that statement, you're speaking out against something you feel is wrong; namely, talk show hosts speaking out against late-term abortion doctors (people they believe are doing something that is wrong).
Am I talking in circles?
19No Steph, some people just beleive there should be one set of standards for ALL. Not one set for those I agree with and one set for those I don't, which seems to be your opinion.
20Very sad. Just because he was an abortion doctor, doesn't mean he deserved to be gunned down in front of his church. I'm not saying what the doctor did is right or wrong, but murdering the people we have issues with isn't the way to solve anything either. We'd just all shoot ourselves until no one was left, you know?
21"No Steph, some people just beleive there should be one set of standards for ALL. Not one set for those I agree with and one set for those I don't, which seems to be your opinion."
22As opposed to someone who opposes abortion as taking a life but insists on having the right to carry a weapon in a national park, in case they get scared and need to shoot someone and possibly take their life.
Well considering that you are equating a fetus with a criminal, I really don't think there is any way to discuss this based on such a lack of logic.
23wow, topped yourself on that one.
24No, a fetus with your fear that you're being threatened - you're not actually equal to a judge and jury to determine whether the person who scares you is a criminal or not, you just want the right to make that CHOICE.
25You never cease to amaze me. Always standing up for the rights of criminals, never for the rights of innocents.
Attempting to commit a crime is a crime in many instances. If someone tries to kill me, that is attempted murder, that is a crime. That person is a criminal. There is no choice. That is a fact. They are a criminal. There is no crime in trying to be born.
26You would be appointing yourself judge and jury and passing sentence - you would be deciding that your desire in that situation overrides the other person's right to live.
27You DO have different situational standards, not one set for all.
Again, you make no distinction between an innocent life and a criminal.
There is can be no argument without a basis of rational thought.
28Criminal is a legal term for a human being's behavior.
29You use that to pretty up the fact that you would be shooting and possibly killing a human being - you would be determining that someone else did not have the right to live because they scared you.
You have different standards.
I don't understand how morally you DON'T have different standards for an innocent, nonthreatening life and a life that is threatening and trying to commit a crime and/or murder, rape or inflict physical harm.
Its glaring that the two are not equal or the same.
You use the term "scare" to downplay the criminal act and make the criminal look better, as if the criminal could "accidentally" kill someone, rape someone, rob someone, or whatever crime. It seems you have a gross misunderstanding of the way an attack is carried out and how a normal, responsible gunowner would react. That is your own problem that you could remedy by doing some research. You choose not to and thats your choice.
You can continue to do acrobatics to try to make me appear to be a hypocrite but being hypocritical requires an apples to apples comparison, which every rational person would agree that an innocent baby and a person trying to rob/murder/beat/rape you is not apples to apples. Its pretty clear that as we continue this your own lack of rational thought and ignorance is what is becoming most apparent. I think for your own benefit it would be best to abandon this.
30"You use the term "scare" to downplay the criminal act and make the criminal look better, as if the criminal could "accidentally" kill someone, rape someone, rob someone, or whatever crime. It seems you have a gross misunderstanding of the way an attack is carried out and how a normal, responsible gunowner would react."
You use "feel threatened" regularly to explain why you should be allowed to carry a gun at all times. You're using Criminal now to justify it. You wouldn't know whether the person shot is or intended to be a criminal until after the gun is fired. The notion that normal, responsible gunowners would act in a special way that would guarantee that no mistakes were made is utter nonsense - police officers make mistakes and overreact, most most gunowners don't get anywhere near their training.
You have a double standard - when it comes to killing and when it comes to personal insults.
31steph, Haus won this arguement quit while youre behind.
32"As opposed to someone who opposes abortion as taking a life but insists on having the right to carry a weapon in a national park, in case they get scared and need to shoot someone and possibly take their life."
Steph, to put opposing abortion in the same category of the right to carry a weapon in a national park, goes well beyond your usual sophistry, and now runs into the bizarre/ coo coo realm. It is unbelievable, your sense of proportion is warped beyond understanding.
33And once again, you show us all how to disagree without being personal.
34When your comments go beyond your usual sophistry, a pointed comment is needed.
35Of course Daddy.
36Steph you get personal all the time, cut the act.
37Such as?
38oh you want examples, sorry I dont have time for that, much like you I just hit and run.
39How did I know that was going to be your response?
40How did I know that was going to be your response?
41because we are all one big happy family!
42Killer is a whack-job and why do we always gang up on steph? I try to be impartial and I don't think steph says anything worse than anyone else.
43who is ganging up? and tell me you read every post to make the assumption that she doesnt say anything worse?
44Cleaning a dirty mirror can often lead to finding a window into ones soul...or at least helping to get a clearer view of the truth.
45Hold kjeft
46"Are you saying then that they don't have a right to speak out against something they feel is wrong? It's ironic, then, that while you're making that statement, you're speaking out against something you feel is wrong; namely, talk show hosts speaking out against late-term abortion doctors (people they believe are doing something that is wrong)."
They can speak out on anything they disagree with. My problem with Operation Rescue and O'Reilly are not that they are opposed to abortion. I have a problem with the language they use. They demonize any one aginst them. They make them the evil enemy, while they paint themselves as rightous.
47"Steph, to put opposing abortion in the same category of the right to carry a weapon in a national park, goes well beyond your usual sophistry, and now runs into the bizarre/ coo coo realm. It is unbelievable, your sense of proportion is warped beyond understanding."
Could you be any more patronizing? How old do you claim to be? A man of your years should be able to disagree with someone without being rude and condescending.
48When someone puts a person LEGALY carrying a concealed weapon in a National Park, in states that recognize tht legal right through a permit process on the same MORAL plain as abortion, you darn well can expect me to call you on that. I stand behind every word I said. Everyone has a right to express his or her views, and I will defend that right with every fiber in my body. However when an adult makes a fatuous assertion that is patently nonsensical, and expects me to then take that comment seriously, or to make it part of a debate, I draw the line. It is at best a "red herring" to obfiscate the debate
49"As opposed to someone who opposes abortion as taking a life but insists on having the right to carry a weapon in a national park, in case they get scared and need to shoot someone and possibly take their life."
50Taken in context, no, it's not a red herring to obfiscate the debate. When someone claims they have superior standards, but in fact IS willing to commit what they condemn as a crime against life under other circumstances, the comparison is valid. You're insisting it isn't because you don't want to acknowledge the contradiction.
Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.