New Stanek WND column, “With Roeder trial, abortion dodges another bullet”
UPDATE, 3:27p: Pastor Mark sent me a link to the following video. It is a clip of the courtroom scene on January 28. It shows how Scott Roeder was stifled from talking about the very reason he murdered George Tiller – abortion.
The entire point of my WND column today is no matter what Roeder’s crime, he was entitled to due process under the law, and he did not get it. He was not allowed to discuss what drove him to murder Tiller.
In this clip Judge Wilbert admonishes Roeder to stop talking about abortion. Incredibly Wilbert says, “Mr. Roeder, I’m going to tell you right now you cannot discuss specifics of medical procedures. That’s outside the scope of what’s relevant material, and you certainly don’t have the medical background to testify to those….”
Outside the “scope of what’s relevant”? Roeder should have been allowed to state his understanding. It’s what made him do what he did. It would have aided his defense of voluntary manslaughter, which the judge also stopped.
UPDATE, 9:34a: Dr. Monica Miller of “The moral principles of the use of force.” With that as her backdrop, Dr. Miller concluded the following about the Roeder case, per a January 29 email…
1) According to principles articulated in my paper, Roeder’s killing of abortionist George Tiller was an illicit use of force, even though his motive was licit.
2) Roeder is not morally guilty of murder. Murder is the morally unjustified taking of innocent human life. Roeder is not guilty of that. He is guilty of an unjustified use of force against an unjust aggressor and so the judge in Roeder’s case should have permitted the jury to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter, and he did not.
3) The Roeder trial was not a fair trial as long as the victims of abortion were dismissed as non-persons and Tiller’s killing of the innocent was never a consideration. And unfortunately since, legally speaking, no injury is cause to the unborn in abortion, Roeder’s defense was, from the start, restricted, unfair and unbalanced.
[HT: friend Kneale]
The actual translation of Exodus 20:13 from the Hebrew is, “Thou shalt not murder,” indicating a premeditated, uncivil act.
The Bible considers murder the ultimate violation of the sanctity of human life, requiring the ultimate punishment. So Exodus 21:14 makes perfect sense to state, “If anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately,” that person shall be “put to death.”
I would have had no problem with late-term abortionist George Tiller being sentenced to death by a jury of his peers for committing thousands of murders of preborn children. In recent days both President Obama and his spokesman, Robert Gibbs, have endorsed the execution of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. KSM’s actions were no more heinous than GT’s.
But I did have a problem with Scott Roeder murdering Tiller. It was a premeditated, uncivil act.
A pocket of pro-lifers think killing abortionists is just because it stops them from murdering preborn babies when unjust laws or public officials won’t. If one believes in the full humanity of the preborn, they say, use of force is as justified to save their lives as it would be to save a classroom of kindergartners from being murdered.
Scott Roeder was obviously a member of that camp.
Roeder’s defense team wanted to show that Roeder “reasonably believe[d]… deadly force [was] necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to… a third person,” according to KS law, the “third person[s]” being preborn children….
Continue reading my column today, “With Roeder trial, abortion dodges another bullet,” at WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wow, Roeder’s emails sound like a lot of my posts. I agree with his views except for taking the law into his own hands. I don’t remember the reference but I recall Jesus correcting the zealots of His day who wanted to lead a revolt against the local government. He came to see His Spiritual Kingdom established. That is the realm in which we war and do battle.
Abortion may have dodged a bullet in this trial but I hope the Tebow ad sparks an adamant decree from the Pro-life majority that the killing stops now.
We need a breakthrough.
Superlative!
I totally agree, Ed.
Great column, Jill. Certainly no one else will be talking about the legal goings-on of Roeder’s trial and whether it was right or fair.
Of course what Roeder did was wrong. Of course what Tiller did for years and years was wrong. Murder begets murder and only true justice can stop it.
Thanks for fighting the good fight, Jill.
Thanks, Jennifer… :)
Jill Stanek said, “The actual translation of Exodus 20:13 from the Hebrew is, ‘Thou shalt not murder,’ indicating a premeditated, uncivil act.”
What does the word uncivil here mean? I would have thought that the right word was civil. We’re not talking about military matters (warfare) but civil matters (crime). Can someone please explain for me?
I just read your ed on WND and respectfully disagree.
If I had been on the jury I would have voted not guilty based on my belief in the concept of “jury nullification.”
I had never heard of JN until I read a book by Albert J Nock titled “The Disadvantages of Being Educated” and parts of another book by Lysander Spooner.
Both of these men are fascinating and should be made more widely known in our history.
I almost think of Scott Roeder as I do Clint Eastwood in “Gran Torino.” He made a huge sacrifice.
Hi Jill,
While we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum in general and the abortion issue in particular, I do enjoy your column. I have also enjoyed some of the email exchanges we’ve had regarding past columns.
I was a little dismayed by your most recent column. You say that you “have a problem” with Roeder’s actions. Have a problem? The man is a cold-blooded killer. You may argue that what his victim was doing was murder but that has no relevance to this case. While you didn’t actually defend Roeder’s actions you do sound somewhat sympathetic.
I think it does the anti-abortion argument a disservice to show sympathy to a person like Roeder. That said, you certainly don’t go to the extent of Ann Coulter who has practically defended the actions of people who have killed abortion providers.
I will continue to read your columns and most likely will disagree with most of what you say :)
All the best.
Hi Eric,
Thanks very much for taking the time to comment.
The point of my column was YES, the reason Roeder murdered Tiller was indeed relevant to his case and his voluntary manslaughter defense. That’s what the voluntary manslaughter defense is all about, “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justify deadly force.”
If Judge Wilbert were that confident in the legal system, he would have allowed the jury to decide whether such a defense held merit, rather than taking that decision away from them after toying with it.
I appreciate that you read my work, Eric, even if we disagree.
Excellent analysis, Jill. Completely agree.
This war will not be won by taking the law into our own hands, nor by hoping our legislators will collectively grow a conscience and a backbone. It must, however, be won by convincing the American people of the evil, wrongful, immoral nature of abortion. Only then will enough pressure be brought to bear on decision-makers to eradicate the unjustified murder of human babies.
This article suggests that the presiding judge prejudiced his decision based on his own views on abortion which are proabably pro-choice. Perhaps an appeal can be made to a higher court based on that pre-supposition. I don’t know, I am not a lawyer.
Having said all that, what Mr. Roeder did was wrong as he basically took the law into his own hands.
Had the government declared “war” on all abortionists then I think Mr. Tiller’s execution would have been justified if Mr. Roeder then been drafted or enlisted into the organization deemed appropriate to carry out it’s war plan. Lacking that declaration, Mr. Roeder should have sought other methods to stop Tiller, like portesting, etc., to seek change. After all, Mr. Tiller would have eventually had to meet the Supreme Judge anyway.
I thought it ironic to see Mr. Tiller’s wife crying at Mr. Roeder’s guilty verdict. Who do you think cried when the guilty verdict was pronounced on each one of the precious souls that were murdered at the hands of Tiller? I suggest it was God Himself.
Ken S., you sound reverential towards Roeder. Are you out of your mind!?! The man is a murderer. I don’t care if he might have felt he was doing God’s work. A bunch of people who thought the same thing slammed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I hope he rots in prison.
Eric P.,
what would you do if a man was going around killing born babies? Whould you let him kill the babies or would you kill the man?
Jasper, If I caught him in the act I would stop him in any way possible otherwise I would report him to the authorities and let them handle it. While you might find Dr. Tiller’s actions reprehensible, he broke no law. Roeder deserves his punishment!
The defense should have taken the approach of stating that Scott Roeder did not take a life – then proceed to use the Roe vs Wade argument as the basis for the defense – indicating that George Tiller was not alive – therefore no death had occurred.
Yes – this is the very logic that is at the basis of abortion. That should have been piled on the table in spades.
If the judge refused to allow that defense then proceed to claim a mistrial. Repeatedly.
To dismiss abortion from the trial is to basically deny motive. I say there’s a solid basis for appeal this up to the Supremes.
Abortion and all that encompasses its protection is manifested insanity. Scott Roeder is only one sign of a far deeper problem in the American psyche.
Based on that latest update, I think Roeder should seek an appeal. Key evidence and witnesses were withheld and the main focus of his motive (that abortion is killing) wasn’t even touched on. I think because they were so concerned about not setting a precedent against abortion, Roeder’s trial was unjust.
The judicial system hasn’t worked for 50 million pre-born Americans. It has not just turned its back on them in utterly irresponsible neglect, it has actively worked against them.
Meanwhile, pro-aborts are rarely censured let alone arrested for inciting and/or perpetrating violence upon peaceful anti-abortion protesters. The more that pro-life advocacy is slammed down in courts, or on sidewalks, or yes, killed under the blind eye of “choice”-agenda’d judges — like Terri Schiavo’s long Hitler — the less faith folks can have in the system of law. After the trial (circus) of the century, it’s already a wonder that not most everyone is a maverick/crusader, but for sure, money talks, criminals walk –as former Gov. Sebelius well knows.
If she’d done her job and also insisted the court do theirs, Tiller would be alive. He’d be without a license, and thus, maybe there wouldn’t have been a Roeder-moment at all. The accountability buck goes further than either Tiller or Roeder. And as we’ve seen, there’s another completely remorseless Tiller brewing (and thousands like him exist right under our noses), and we can be sure there’s another Roeder brewing –unless and until the courts widely and consistently take at least our land’s laws seriously once again.
The court has had plenty of time, opportunity and willing slaves of pro-life to control the abomination that kills only fewer women than their children. If people take justice into their own hands, politicians as well as legislators are also to blame, and that should not escape our saying so anymore. That’s what Roeder gave us: food for thought. Uneasy food.
People don’t line up every week and/or go to DC every year to protest sex-change clinics –we do have better things to do and/or other ways to speak to that; and one needs no escort into a real clinic for a pap smear. That is true women’s healthcare. Abortion kills someone. We all should take that as personally as did Roeder, because that little someone has no voice. We cannot act on it as Roeder did — murder is murder with or without man’s law or the military’s sanction. But 1.5m folks per year torn apart with no defense — and no defense allowed! — must be looked at with both eyes. Soon.
What a mess is human nature.
Criminal abortionists kill their fellow human beings but they should not because all killing of human beings in the absence of biological necessity is a crime.
George Tiller killed tens of thousands of helpless children but should not have because those killings were terrible crimes. He even illegally killed kids but was protected by corrupt politicians like former Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
Scott Roeder killed George Tiller thinking it was justified, but he should not have, since Tiller was not a direct and immediate threat to others.
The judge jerked Roeder around and allowed him to be convicted but he should have allowed him a fair trial with a proper defense.
The abortionists were horrified at the thought of a fair trial for Roeder but should not have been because, how can the abortionists be horrified by anything, after all the horrors they have inflicted on humanity?
Supporters of unborn human rights were quick to condemn Roeder unconditionally, but they should not have because his actions, while unjustified, were taken to save the lives of helpless human beings, NONE of whom are being protected by the pro-life movement or the government. Supporters of basic human rights should have said that you CAN use force as a last resort, but only then, and that this was not such a case, but Roeder should receive a lesser sentence than life in prison since he killed someone who had destroyed 60,000 human beings unjustly and the federal and state governments had done and would do nothing to stop him.
The major unborn human rights organizations should have used this as a golden opportunity to expose the crimes of Tiller, but instead put most of their energy and effort, preposterously, into condemning Roeder, whose crime was far less than those of Tiller. Once again, the so-called unborn human rights movement has failed the unborn.
The reason the unborn human rights movement has always failed is because our movement is afraid. We are afraid to call killing unborn children a crime and afraid to say you can use force as an absolute last resort to save unborn human beings (even though we are not pacifists and support the same use of force to save the lives of born human beings). We are afraid to call for the prosecution of mothers and fathers who kill their unborn children, even though they are responsible for their actions and any rational effort to stop abortion crime must involve stopping parents from committing this act.
The problem is we are like the abortionists, more than we care to admit. We, like they, do not really think unborn children are legitimate human beings. Do you think we would tolerate this violence as we do, if it were infants or old people being killed?
“Once again, success. The other side has encased abortion in a protective, bulletproof container, where no one or nothing can touch it.”-Jill Stanek on the Roeder trial proceedings
Be strong in the faith, Brethren; God provides the seal on that container and knows how “to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (2Pe 2:9).
While the babies are being delivered into the presence of Jesus (Mat 24:19 describes how all mothers of babies and toddlers will suffer such losses prior to the tribulation).
Pray. Fast. Watch.
The word that comes to mind is ‘disconnect’.
1. There is a ‘disconnect’ between the ‘law’ of the land and reality.
2. The ‘disconnect’ between most pro-life people and reality is even more troubling.
We become ever more creative in avoiding our own culpability and cowardice in addressing the reality that human being are being murdered every day in our commmunities across this nation.
Though the butchery is done behind closed doors we know where, when and who the butchers are or we choose not to know.
When a ‘Scott Roeder’ acts in a manner that is perfectly consistent with his acknowledgement of the ‘reality’, then we who share his conclusion that elective abortion is murder, scurry for cover not wanting to be associated with him or his act.
One could make an agument, that unlike us, Scott Roeder placed a higher value on the lives of the children, who had been and who would be murdered by George Tiller, than he did on his own, and by so doing layed down his own life for strangers and fulfilled the golden rule to do for others what you would want them to do for you.
Scott Roeder did not plead insanity. He acknowledged his act and made his case unabashedly and unashamedly.
I have no problem with Scott Roeder pleading ‘not quilty’.
To do otherwise would be to diminish the lives of the ones he has saved because to plead guilty would be to say George Tiller’ victims were not worthy of having their day in court because they were less human than Tiller.
That the ‘dead babies r us’ crowd would lable Roeder a terrorist and a nut does not surprise me in the least. I would be shocked if they didn’t.
That pro-life people, like myself, joined in the self serving slander in an attempt to maintain their ‘respectability’ explains why the carnage has continued unabated for more than 30 years.
Scott Roeder please forgive me for referring to as a ‘murderer’ and by so doing placing you in the same category as George Tiller.
I doubt that any of Tiller’s victims would view that way.
yor bro ken
Jill,
I appreciate your insight and your labors.
yor bro ken
SomeFacts, It would help if you read my piece before commenting, beginning with getting the attempted defense correct, VOLUNTARY manslaughter.
Ken, thanks… :)
Jill,
Very good accounting of the so-called trial of Roeder. It appeared that Judge Wilbert was tracking correctly until he swerved off course and didn’t want the case to be solely an abortion issue driven case. So he took the easy way out and denied Roeder any chance of a voluntary manslaughter trial.
Hopefully, Roeder can get a good appeals lawyer to argue that the case was tried incorrectly and that vital information that went to motive was denied.
I have never killed an abortionist, but I have been charged with 2nd class misdemeanor for interferring with their business.
The trial went exactly the same way as Roeders with the judge making the same rulings and a bunch of good christian citizen jurors getting the same instructions from the judge and obediently adhering to both the instructions to the jury and the letter of the law.
I guess GOD wanted to see what they would do on their own cause they dutifully returned a guilty verdict almost as quick as the Roeder jury.
I went to lunch with several of them and they were uniform in their rationale behind their verdict.
Even though they knew generally what the adverstised 2nd trimester abortionist Baird Bardarson did they were caught like deer in the spotlight over the ‘letter of the law’.
They said, “You should not have violated the law.”
In their defense none of them were aware of the doctrine of jury nullification.
Though I’m not sure they possessed the moral clarity to come to the conclusion that what the baby killer was doing was more of an injustice than what we were accused of doing and exonerating us.
The irony is the one perspective pro-life juror who possessed all the facts, particularly those facts not allowed into evidence, disqualified herself by acknowledging to the prosecutor that she believed abortion was murder and that she was aware of the events surrounding the case from news stories.
Clue to all good citizens, particularly good christian citizens.
Just because you are aware of the crime does not mean you cannot be objective.
Do not ‘offer’ information.
Do not lie, but do not answer questions the attorneys do NOT ask during voir dire.
Be as gentle as lambs and as shrewd as a serpent.
yor bro ken
What is the greater injustice?
Wrongfully convicting an innocent man
or
wrongfully acquitting a guilty man?
How does a law abiding citizen stop a man who is operating within the bounds of the law and killing innocent people with impunity?
This is not a rhetorical question.
You do not have to answer to me.
You have to answer to yourself?
yor bro ken
yor bro ken
Yes, I agree that the column is excellent. The updates also help a lot. Before reading the column, I had only woefully concluded that Mr. Roeder was guilty. I hadn’t considered the extent of his guilt, and this column helps a lot. He didn’t receive a fair trial.
I would like to know what the word UNCIVIL means in this context. The only reason, for example, that there are civil engineers is that the very first engineers were military engineers. A quick search by Google of the Web did not seem to help me find the meaning of UNCIVIL here.
The judge at the trial has a record of misconduct (why am I not surprised? Who wants to wager if this man’s ever procured an abortion for a mistress/girlfriend/etc.?):
accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-143371077/judge-reprimanded-conduct-district.html
Eric P. wrote:
Jasper, If I caught him in the act I would stop him in any way possible otherwise I would report him to the authorities and let them handle it. While you might find Dr. Tiller’s actions reprehensible, he broke no law. Roeder deserves his punishment!
Half a moment, here.
The fact that Tiller “broke no law” is irrelevant to this case, since any legal system which allows the direct and willed murder of an unborn child is an immoral system. Laws are not perfect, nor should they pretend to be.
That being said: Roeder *did* deserve some punishment, yes–though Jill’s point (if I understand it correctly) was that the legal system didn’t work properly, even by its own limited lights, in this case… due to the refusal of the judge and the prosecuting attorney to allow Roeder the chance to present all pertinent information. They simply and unilaterally “declared” such testimony to be “irrelevant/non-pertinent”, and moved on… which is intellectually dishonest, at best.
If the purpose of a court of law is to establish a case, based on the best possible data, to reach the fairest possible verdict (which doesn’t seem to happen as regularly as it should), then it should try its best to do so, and not simply “play make-believe” by promoting a subjective (abortion-tolerant) agenda.
SomeFacts wrote:
Ummm, Jill, the reason Roeder didn’t get to use the “Involuntary Manslaughter” defense has nothing to do with whether or not Dr. Tiller’s abortions were legal or illegal.
Then Jill wrote:
SomeFacts, It would help if you read my piece before commenting, beginning with getting the attempted defense correct, VOLUNTARY manslaughter.
…which was followed by “ExtremelyProLife” writing this:
Jill, You’re right, **I** should have written VOLUNTARY manslaughter. (emphasis added)
Er… may I assume that “SomeFacts” and “ExtremelyProLife” are the same person?
I’m simply a lowly contributor, to be sure… but could I make a humble plea that you pick a moniker and stick with it? Multiple aliases–especially in a single thread–are really confusing.
Scott Roeder please forgive me for referring to as a ‘murderer’ and by so doing placing you in the same category as George Tiller.
Posted by: kbhvac at February 3, 2010 4:15 PM
Let me make sure I understand you, Ken. You seem to be saying Roeder was justified in what he did. You approve?
EPL wrote:
Maybe someone can explain this to me–I see a lot of folks condemning Scott Roeder. But he killed a murderer adn saved a lot of babies! So on what grounds can you condemn him?
We condemn his actions (not him) on the grounds that we aren’t moral relativists who believe that good ends can somehow justify evil means. Translation: we can never choose to do evil, even if good might result. To say otherwise is to suggest that God designed the universe so badly that we need to *sin* in order to do His Will. That simply doesn’t do.
Hi EPL.
“Maybe someone can explain this to me–I see a lot of folks condemning Scott Roeder. But he killed a murderer adn saved a lot of babies! So on what grounds can you condemn him? He’s more pro-life than any of you pacifist pansies.”
The reason is because we do not hold to a utilitarian worldview; in other words, we do not believe that the ends justify the means, as you are suggesting. One can never do an intrinsically evil (murdering) even if it will bring about a good means (saving the lives of the innocent. So no, Roeder is not more pro-life than those of us who are not utilitarians.
EPL, the civil government has the power to kill. It is a temporal instrument of God’s justice, however ineffective, unfair, and opposed to God it might be (as was Nero in Paul’s time). The apostle Paul calls it God’s minister in Romans 13 and says that it has the power of the sword (the authority to kill). We should obey it in all things unless it requires us personally to disobey God (we should obey God rather than men).
The civil code for the theocracy of Israel in the Old Testament does not apply to the nation of the U.S. in the New Testament. There is no avenger of blood, and even if there were, Mr. Roeder is not related by blood to the babies whose lives he was trying to save. Rather, the apostle Paul reminds Christians that God says, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Immediately after this reminder, Paul explains that the civil government is the instrument of God’s vengeance.
It is the duty of the American civil government, whether at the level of the state or at the level of the entire federation of states, to protect the lives of its citizens. True justice means that the abortionists must be punished. When the social conscience is sufficiently developed, capital punishment for repeat abortionists like Mr. Tiller (obviously not just dealing with ectopic pregnancies) will be appropriate. It is the principle of justice: the punishment should fit the crime. In the case of premeditated murder, the murderer forfeits his own life. In Genesis 9 God requires capital punishment because of the sanctity of human life.
EPL,
You are still looking at this question from a utilitarian point of view. Ends in and of themselves are not the only thing we consider when judging the morality of an action. We also must consider the means and the circumstances.
So I think your argument either needs to be made from a non-utilitarian point of view or you should present an argument in favor of holding to a utilitarian worldview. I see absolutely no reason why we should consider ends only and consider the means as irrelevant.
And no, it was not good that Tiller was killed.
And no, it was not good that Tiller was killed.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 4, 2010 7:43 PM
A voice of morality and reason. Thanks Bobby.
If American law would have prohibited abortion on pain of capital punishment, and the general populace would have been aware of the fact, and Mr. Tiller would have continued to kill babies anyway–then Mr. Tiller’s death by lethal injection from the American government after a fair trial would have been good in the sense that justice was served and God was glorified.
However, not even God wishes anyone to die. “I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.” (Ezek. 18:32)
Does Hal wish to listen to the voice of morality and reason?
…although, if the punishment was to more closely fit the crime–in the circumstances given in my comment above–then Mr. Tiller would be drawn and quartered. Just trying to be reasonable.
Hal,
Tiller was an immoral lunatic. It is good that he has been stopped.
Hal wrote, in reply to Bobby:
[Bobby]
And no, it was not good that Tiller was killed.
[Hal]
A voice of morality and reason. Thanks Bobby.
I think there may be a case of mistaken definitions, here. It’s never “good” per se when someone dies, but incidental good can come of it; when Ted Kennedy died, for example, his personal pro-abortion activities were ended–which is good. His death, as such, was bad (especially given the probable dangerous state of his soul).
Do I think that Mr. Roeder acted rightly? No… not in this case. Understandably, but not rightly. No one may choose to do evil, even if probable good may result… and murder is undeniably evil. But let’s keep definitions clear, here: the lack of unborn child deaths at Tiller’s hands is a very good thing, despite the evil which precipitated it; we can rejoice in that good, while still condemning the evil act (and forbidding anyone else–including ourselves–from copying it).
It’s surprising we even need to debate whether Roeder’s murder of Dr. Tiller was good or evil.
guess that’s how you guys feel about the abortion debate.
No, Hal, what’s surprising is that we even need to debate whether Mr. Tiller’s murder of tens of thousands of people was good or evil. Mr. Roeder’s murder should not be isolated from Mr. Tiller’s many murders. Because it was, Mr. Roeder did not receive a fair trial. That was the point of Jill’s post, I think, and I hope that I now understand it.
Wow! Well said! I must tell you what my 91- year- old mother said. Keep in mind that my mom has dementia-she is much more confused now than last May, and she is in a nursing home, but when I told her Tiller had been killed, she got very quiet and she said, “Jesus looked down from heaven and he saw all the babies being killed, and He said, ‘that’s enough!’
Thank you for what you do.
If you want to see this lovely lady, go to the link and see her singing “Jesus Loves Me.” Life is precious at both ends and the middle!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxph2LZQBk8
Thank you, Jill, for taking the position that Roeder was not given a fair trial and for getting the word out through your blog. I went to Wichita with Randall Terry and several co-workers and so was able to attend much of the trial. We went to speak to the media there about the babies Tiller killed and to make the case that Roeder wasn’t being given a fair trial — for the reasons you stated and because of bias in the jury selection process. It’s great to find agreement out there, and to have support in getting the message out!
Links to press releases and news articles below:
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8209412876.html
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7566412845.html
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/82757212.html
http://videos.kansas.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=9757845
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1710884.html
http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/1154856.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/26/us/AP-US-Abortion-Shooting-Trial.html
http://blogs.kansas.com/courts/2010/01/27/the-signs-show-up-at-the-courthouse-for-roeder-trial/
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1708116.html