After the death of abortionist George Tiller, pro-life groups across the nation sent their condolences.  However, after the attempted murder of pro-lifer James Cantfield in Chico, CA, it appears that abortion supporters do not regret the incident.  “Pro-choice” organizations remain completely silent.  Pro-abortion individuals apparently cannot say enough.

The first comment on Chico’s Enterprise Record’s online article reads, “the tragedy is that he wasn't successfl [sic] in running over the dirtbag.”  Another continues, “its [sic] good to hear about anti-choice folks having to keep on their toes for a change.” Still another commenter writes, “It would sure be great timing for me to be called to jury duty when Mr. Haver's case comes up. Mr. Canfield is way out of line with his poster.”  When the San Francisco Chronicle published the AP story, comments included, “Cantfield should be charged under the RICO statute and be labeled a domestic terrorist,” and “Better luck next time Mr. Haver.”

Pro-lifer James Cantfield has a right to free speech on the public sidewalk in front of the abortion clinic, just as anyone else does. Considering that Mr. Cantfield was simply showing pictures of what abortionist George Tiller did day after day, how can anyone be angered? Tiller was portrayed as a hero for women; why not show his “heroic” actions? Every person who considers themselves “pro-choice” should be denouncing this action, not expressing dismay that murder was not accomplished.  The fact that there has been no condemnation points to an acceptance of violence, just because one disagrees.

It seems that the anger is directed towards Mr. Cantfield solely for holding a picture of a baby victimized by abortion.  Feminist Naomi Wolf, though pro-choice, has made some very insightful comments about the subject of signage in the past:

“How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted by them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view of women is unworthy of feminism. Free women must be strong women, too: and strong women, presumably do not seek to cloak their most important decisions in euphemism. “