Anti-Religious Violence

Anti-Religious Violence in the Wake of the Dobbs Decision

Rick Plasterer on September 15, 2022

The weeks and months since the issuing of the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, overturning Roe vs. Wade, have seen considerable violence against religious pro-life organizations, both against crisis pregnancy centers themselves, and against Catholic churches.

This problem, the inadequate media and law enforcement response, and a recent Religious Freedom Institute report on it were discussed by Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review Institute on September 8. She interviewed Nathaniel Hurd, Director of the North America Action Team at RFI regarding the report, “Religious Pro-Life Americans under Attack: a Threat Assessment of Post-Dobbs America,” which was released by the RFI this month. She also spoke with Dr. Grazie Christie, who volunteers at crisis pregnancy centers in southern Florida.

Surge of Attacks on Pro-Life Organizations

Lopez began by remarking on the charitable nature of pregnancy resource centers. She quoted RFI President Tom Farr to say that they are “places that actually help women, these are the places that we should bipartisanly support. But instead, we have senators calling to close them down, or governors investigating them.”

Hurd said that the RFI report focuses on attacks against both pro-life centers and “pro-life education and advocacy groups.” “A surge” of attacks against pro-life organizations began after the leak of the Dobbs opinion early in May. The attacks have occurred in “26 states, plus the District of Columbia.” Many of these organizations, Hurd said, “are intentionally religious.” Even non-religious pro-life organizations may be staffed by people “who are there out of a deep religious conviction.” He also said that “these attacks really are an outgrowth of violent criminal attacks on Catholic sites, primarily Catholic churches, going back to late May of 2020.” Thus, the violence following the George Floyd killing seems to have turned against churches. Catholic sites have seen 174 attacks in over 38 states and the District of Columbia since then. These attacks included arson, desecration of statues; “literally hundreds of crimes.” The response of the Justice Department, the FBI, and “certainly the national media, has mostly been silence.”

Lopez asked Hurd about anti-life attacks before the leak of the Dobbs decision. Hurd said in response that RFI worked with former FBI and counterterrorism experts to make the study “rigorous.” A key change in the environment, as noted above, was the riots of the summer of 2020. While there were attacks before 2020, the “spasm” of attacks began then. He also said that despite hostile propaganda, crisis pregnancy centers are involved in very mundane tasks, such as providing diapers for babies, helping “women connect to social services, providing emotional support,” or more dramatically, providing shelter when women with crisis pregnancies are homeless. Lopez added, having been involved with crisis pregnancy centers herself, she knows that workers at centers where she worked sign a pledge “not to mislead,” and they are doing the “real work” of helping women whose lives are in crisis. They are not political centers, although many workers there undoubtedly “vote pro-life.” But she said that concern for the lives of children is a matter deeper than politics.

Blaming Victims of Violence for Their Message

Typical of attacks by the Left is the claim to victimhood by perpetrators of aggression. Hurd observed that in the text of a New York law pertaining to pregnancy centers, it is claimed that information about crisis pregnancies that does not include abortion as a legitimate option is “coercive.” But pregnancy centers are “very transparent” about their beliefs and services. Pregnant women are not being deceived about the kind of organization they have engaged. This writer would also add that obviously forced speech is coercive. In effect the law is trying to make an idea – that abortion is murder – illegal, a government action incompatible with a free society.

Christie added that women they engage in testing and counseling sometimes do go on to have abortions, and “there’s no attempt to bar the door.” Abortion facilities are often heavily advertised and also funded by the government. The pregnancy centers simply assist women and their families and friends who want to choose the life of the child over abortion. The pregnancy resource centers she works with in south Florida are modest in appearance, yet one was vandalized and received a death threat at the Memorial Day holiday. She said that her job at the centers is as a radiologist, and she and other workers there are passionate that every human life should have the chance to be born.

Hurd said that the coercion involved with pregnancy centers is by the government, which is trying to compel them to either perform abortions themselves or refer clients for abortions. Also, the violence directed against the centers by private actors “is a form of coercion.” The aim is to make the centers perform abortions, refer abortions, or close. Similarly, Lopez said that social pressure today on teenage girls is likely to be pressure to have an abortion. Today this may be just as true of a girl’s family as it is of the child’s father, school counselors, and peers.

Failure to Cover Violent Attacks

Lopez asked Hurd why the news media is not reporting attacks on pregnancy centers, since the number of attacks is “shocking.” Hurd said when classical liberal freedoms prevailed in the past, an attack on a religious institution of any variety would be condemned by people across the board, with action taken at the state, local, or federal levels. Now a double standard is applied to the disadvantage of pro-life Americans as far as investigations and publicity are concerned. He said that it is tragic that today there may be an inadequate response to crime against pro-life organizations. Lopez added that “attacks on churches are a calling card for tyranny … particularly if you ignore it or are not shocked by it.”

Hurd added that “at the heart of religious freedom is people being able to pursue their religious convictions, to live their faith out, free of coercion, free of violence, free of intimidation.” Since many of these centers and their workers act from religious conviction, the attacks on pregnancy resource centers are not only attacks on these institutions but “on religious freedom itself.”

Lopez observed that many people do not see any threat to religious freedom in America (perhaps because houses of worship are functioning). But even if the danger to religious freedom is not immediately seen by others, it can be urged that America is a “pluralistic society … we need to be able to live together.”

In discussing the RFI report, Hurd said that, as a matter of religious freedom, pro-life Americans should not be excluded from the public square, as they are if crisis pregnancy centers serving the public are closed.  But in addition to the protection which should be enjoyed from law enforcement, he also said that it is important that religious communities themselves, whether churches or other organizations, should be “better prepared … and know how to respond” when an attack occurs.

The Scientific Basis for the Pro-Life Message

Lopez said that in speaking about pro-life issues, the appeal need not be exclusively religious, but can easily be based on science. She asked Christie how she became involved speaking in defense of unborn children. Christie said that besides her four natural children, she also adopted a child from China, who was abandoned by her parents and ended up in a Chinese orphanage. Seemingly there was no one who wanted the child there. She said that every child who is killed by abortion “is a terrible missed opportunity of humanity.”

She added that the claim made by pro-abortion advocates, that giving birth is fourteen times more dangerous than having an abortion – which was repeated by the dissenting opinion in the Dobbs case – is false. She said that maternal and infant mortality are being improperly construed to reach this conclusion. But it is used to say that crisis pregnancy centers are dangerous. This writer would add that however the relative safety of abortion is assessed, pregnancy is a natural condition, not an illness, and does not justify killing another human for the sake of the relatively minor risk to the mother. In any case, personal convenience (the real justification of elective abortions) is no justification for killing an innocent human being. “It’s really a moral attack on our freedom of conscience,” Christie said.

While the great majority of persons in the pro-life movement are religious, there are pro-life atheists and agnostics. Hurd said that he was once an atheist, and later an agnostic. As an agnostic, he became pro-life, and then became Christian. The decisive consideration for him was seriously considering when life begins. His strong concern for justice then led him to be pro-life. He observed as well that even children, such as his own son, understand that a child exists before birth in its mother’s body.

Lopez asked Christie if pro-lifers sometimes fail to make “a convincing secular argument” against abortion. Christie said she thinks “it’s a tendency that we have, and that we have to fight against.” It is important to respond to the general public with secular arguments for the right of unborn children to live. “Every basic humanistic ethic” will show that unborn children should not be killed, she said. Either every life matters, or none do. It is at conception that a new human organism comes into existence; assuming humanity only at a subsequent point is necessarily arbitrary. Additionally, abortion “is bad for women.” It basically leaves women open to sexual exploitation by men, with women bearing the responsibility of getting rid of unwanted children.

Coercion Facing Women and Pro-Life Organizations

Hurd added that government coercion and violence against pro-life organizations “comes down to a question of freedom. Are individuals, are communities, are organizations free to make the arguments they want to make?” The coercion which is coming from both the government and violent groups who attack religious institutions is aimed at getting people to just “set aside their religious convictions.” People should have the right to make these moral arguments, whether they have a religious or secular basis.

Lopez pointed out the social coercion involved in abortion. She said that many women today do feel pressure to have an abortion, because all family and friends are urging that. But although secular arguments for life should be made, religious arguments against abortion are important as well, since God’s forgiveness can be a consolation to post-abortive women. She pointed out that pregnancy resource centers also help women with post-abortion healing. Christie responded that in southeast Florida, there is a strong “keep you baby culture” with Hispanic immigrants. Women and girls in the pregnancy centers where she works “want to keep their children.” Fathers and family members who might be pressing for abortion in much of American society are more likely among Hispanic immigrants to favor keeping the child. Pregnancy centers give them “a way forward.” Lopez again pointed out that many centers are very modest in appearance. This helps with anonymity. It also conveys that the organization is non-political.

Hurd said that he is concerned that a “culture of impunity” is developing. It is important that perpetrators of violence against pro-life religious organizations be arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated and condemned. Additionally, the news media must be pressed to report on violence against pro-life religious organizations. The media should be pressed “to ask themselves if this was any other group that was being attacked … would you be covering it?” 63 pro-life organizations and 174 Catholic churches have been attacked in recent months. The answer, Hurd believes, is yes, if other groups had been attacked, the violence would be covered.   He added that when violence against religious organizations goes unreported and unpunished, violence only increases.

In conclusion, Christie said that people should support the crisis pregnancy centers in their area because “we do tremendous work.” People should speak out in support of them when they are attacked. People do need the centers. Hurd said that attacks on the centers are “ugly, they’re violent,” but the response “has to be charity.” People should not “respond in kind” to the attacks. Pro-life pregnancy centers should “prepare for the possibility” of attacks, and “condemn” them, but not perpetrate violence in response. He did emphasize that any religious organization holding pro-life views is at risk of attack. Lopez added that those who learn of the problem should impress on others the magnitude of the problem, as this is not generally recognized.

The minimization or ignoring of attacks on pro-life institutions or pro-life religious organizations, is, as Lopez pointed out, another sign of the movement to an illiberal society. The more the violence occurs without penalty, the worse it will become. Crisis pregnancy centers are not obstructing anyone from obtaining an abortion, but simply provide an alternative. As with the attempt to ban “conversion therapy” (i.e., counseling against homosexuality and transgenderism), even voluntary engagement with traditional morality is to be prohibited. Not because it is “unscientific,” but because it violates a philosophical commitment to moral autonomy, which is now taking over the educational, medical, and academic institutions of the nation. It is the message conveyed by the pro-life centers, that abortion is wrong and unnecessary, that violent groups are trying to suppress. Here, as on similar issues, there may be no choice but to take the penalty for obeying God and contradicting the (in practice, impossible) moral autonomy that is so fiercely advocated today. Whatever the result will be, it is our duty to be faithful and stand for truth. And only in that way, can society be moved to life and freedom.

  1. Comment by Loren J Golden on September 15, 2022 at 3:38 pm

    Section headings would be helpful, Rick.

  2. Comment by Rick Plasterer on September 15, 2022 at 5:52 pm

    I hope the headings help. Thank you again for your suggestion – Rick

  3. Comment by David on September 16, 2022 at 8:42 am

    For years, abortion centers were bombed and providers murdered—all in the name of God, of course. “Pregnancy centers” have not always been “transparent” and sought to lure women seeking abortions with deceptive advertising. Some states found it necessary to pass laws requiring them to clearly state that they did not provide abortions. The forcing of what are essentially religious beliefs on people is not going to be popular.

  4. Comment by Robert Hughes on September 19, 2022 at 7:07 pm

    An unborn child is a distinct human being. It has its own DNA. It is not part of someone else’s body. Adults are required to wear safety constraints, young children and infants are required to ride in back seats in special protective restraint systems. For the unborn, God designed and implemented a near perfect protective restraint and nourishment system. If systems for the born are required by law, why not for the unborn? This is not religion, it is scientific and legal fact. Let the minions of Moloch wail. I am sick of them.

  5. Comment by George on September 20, 2022 at 7:45 am

    Yeah David, I’m with you. Why show concern for millions of babies being slaughtered when we can mourn the loss of a couple of late term abortionists. You really do know how to set your priorities right. Maybe they should build a monument in the middle of Wichita
    with the good doctor George Tiller on top. We could use more like him. Right, David?
    I’m sure you agree. That is one life we should all celebrate.

  6. Comment by David on September 20, 2022 at 9:13 am

    A fetus is not the same as a born person. This is the mainstream view in Judaism that is based on scripture. The Christain writings are mostly silent on this. More than a third of human conceptions perish within the first few weeks for having the wrong number of chromosomes. What does this say about the creator and his concern for the “unborn”? Do not forget that the Methodists and Southern Baptists favored abortion rights even before Roe. There are lots of religious people who would disagree with you.

  7. Comment by George on September 20, 2022 at 10:05 am

    “Lots of religious people”, huh? Weren’t the Pharisees religious people, David?
    Being religious will not save you.
    And since you know so much about life and who is and who isn’t, please tell me the exact day , hour, and minute that human life begins. Yeah, I know. You can’t. You are so very smart and you want everyone who reads your remarks to know it. You were once a fetus yourself. When did your life begin? Looking back, at what moment would you have enjoyed
    the cold stainless steel forceps start ripping you apart?
    In response, I’m sure you can quote something you read. That’s what you usually do.
    How about reading the New Testament for a change.

  8. Comment by David on September 20, 2022 at 11:30 am

    Considering that Jesus believed in life after death unlike Jewish traditionalists, the Sadducees or “priests and scribes” (who found no basis for this in scripture), and attended their synagogues, Jesus was clearly a Pharisee. Early Christians soon found themselves in competition with Pharisaic Judaism and found it necessary to bad mouth them in their scriptures. Both belief systems are actually paganized forms of Judaism. At one point the majority of Methodists and Southern Baptists supported abortion rights and this is a matter of fact—read the earlier versions of the Methodist Book of Discipline.

  9. Comment by George on September 20, 2022 at 9:26 pm

    Stay on subject, David. When does human life begin ? What day? What hour ? What min?
    When did you become a human being? When ? What does your religion tell you?
    Tell me. You know so much. You read hundreds of books. You quote many other learned people. You must know. Your the smartest man in the room. When does life begin ?
    Don’t be shy, David. You always have an answer. Never a question. I’m listening!

  10. Comment by David on September 21, 2022 at 7:25 am

    Life is a continuum going back to the first cell. Any attempt to designate a time when an individual life began is arbitrary. Personhood is another matter. Biblical sources mention what is translated in English as “soul” and “spirit”, both related to words for breathing. Adam is said to have become alive when he breathes air. Therefore, one can argue that personhood begins at birth when air is breathed. Some early Christian writers considered “quickening” or detectable movement in the womb as the start of life. Legally, personhood has traditionally begun at birth. Loss of a fetus caused by violence was considered a property crime in the scripture, not murder.

  11. Comment by George on September 21, 2022 at 8:12 am

    David, you have danced all around my question. No facts. Just the utterances of the faceless and nameless “early Christian writers”. You throw in Old Testament terms of legality, personhood, and property crime. What do you believe, David? When do you believe human life begins? I’m not trying to trick you. I’m just asking for you to stand up and tell us at what point are we killing a human being. This is about abortion. Let’s stay on subject. I would like to hear what you believe. Not someone else’s thoughts. You have never been shy about adding your two cents. Don’t be now,

  12. Comment by David on September 21, 2022 at 12:31 pm

    Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both cited a point after conception, generally the point of quickening, as the moment at which the life in the womb becomes human, meaning ensouled with a rational human soul.

    Personhood begins at birth and not before. That is why we have birth certificates and not conception certificates.

  13. Comment by George on September 21, 2022 at 1:13 pm

    I could care less about Augustine and Mr. Thomas Aquinas. Both their ignorance of medical science would fill volumes. I asked you about when human life begins, not about secular government birth certificates. God’s laws rank far above those of ever changing government laws. I gather by your last paragraph that had at anytime before you passed through the birth canal, you had been torn to shreds and dropped into a stainless steel dish, that would have been fine as you now see it. Thank you for answering my question.
    I would disagree but at least YOU finally answered the question that I posed.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.