Jump to content

Dr. Tiller Murdered Again


SilentLoner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last Friday I was watching T.V when I happened to read the description for the latest Law & Order episode, which was a "ripped from the headlines" storyline clearly alluding to Dr. George Tiller, about an abortion doctor shot and killed in church.

 

I'm not really a fan of that Law & Order series (I prefer SVU and occasionally Criminal Intent), I find the cast of this Law & Order irritating but I decided to tune in, thinking it would be some interesting dialouge. I was wrong. Very wrong.

To say I was outraged at what was said and implied would be an understatement. It was embarassingly one sided, false facts were presented and blatant anti-choice views were spouted repeatedly. As has been mentioned in some online forums, it was practiclly a pro life wet dream. Borderline and exaggerated scenarios were used to imply the Dr. was responsible for his own murder.

And in all irony the episode title was "Dignity."

 

I would keep going but I think this blog sums it up better than I ever could:

 

Dr. Tiller Murdered Again by NBC's Law and Order

 

By Charlotte Taft

 

October 26, 2009 - 7:00am

 

When the Independent Abortion providers who make up the Abortion Care Network learned that an episode of NBC’s Law and Order was going to be based on the May 31, 2009 assassination of Dr. George Tiller ( a founding member of our organization), many of us were upset. We felt that no matter how his murder was ‘ripped from the headlines’ it was much too soon and too raw to turn it into a piece of popular culture.

 

Now that we have seen it we are furious and deeply offended.

 

For many of us George Tiller was mentor, teacher, friend---he was known in our circles as ‘St. George’ because he embodied principles of goodness, kindness, respect, and faith--the best in us. He was a man of extraordinary principles and extraordinary generosity. In a field in which courage and dedication in the face of hatred, violence, and terror are almost expected, George stood out. He had been firebombed more than once, mercilessly harassed by legal officials who over and over came up with nothing, and survived a previous assassination attempt in which he was shot. He continued to do his work because women needed him.

 

So we are more than a little protective of Dr. Tiller’s reputation and honor. NBC concocted a dreadful hybrid that bears no resemblance to this truly amazing doctor. And they concocted a story that bears no resemblance to the true complexity of the issues involved in abortion, let alone late abortion.

 

NBC cannot hide behind the words, “The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event," when they begin their story by having a doctor murdered in his church. Their disclaimer should have read, “This story purports to be balanced but we are about to insinuate that a doctor who was assassinated was, himself, guilty of homicide, and thus to blame for his own murder.” This is particularly egregious because Dr. George Tiller was the repeated victim of politically motivated investigation and was found innocent of any wrongdoing related to his medical practice. This “fiction” casts doubt on his integrity, and gives the impression that abortion is homicide, and we are furious.

 

No one knows the complexity of abortion more than abortion providers. Independent Abortion providers provide 80% of abortions in this country---and an even higher percent of late abortions. We sit with women and hold their hands and listen to their stories and support them as they make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families---imperfect decisions in imperfect situations.

 

This Law and Order episode was called “Dignity”. It treated us to the heart wrenching testimony of a woman whose values told her that the best way to honor herself and the doomed life she was carrying late in pregnancy was to bring the pregnancy to term and be there as her baby died. What was left out was the equally compelling, equally real, equally heart wrenching testimony of real women whose values told them that the best way to honor themselves and the doomed life they carried late in pregnancy was to end that life in the care of a compassionate physician and staff---a physician and staff who understand more than the writers of law and Order ever could what it means to want a baby and then lovingly let it go.

 

The point of choice is that the woman herself gets to define what a death with dignity means to her. She and her family get to honor their own beliefs and values.

 

There is no balance here. We are shown the character of a woman D.A. who used to believe in Roe v. Wade, but was thrown into confusion by hearing of someone else’s experience. If we know anything it is that one person’s opinion or experience doesn’t tell us much about what we would do in that actual situation. A pro-choice perspective makes room for each woman to come to her own truth. Any other perspective forces someone to compromise their own integrity.

 

The Abortion Care Network brings the experience and voice of Independent Abortion Providers and the women we serve into the national conversation. This kind of truly fictitious television reveals just how needed that voice is.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/10/26/dr-tiller-murdered-again-nbcs-law-and-order

 

Anyone else see this ep? Opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what you get for watching Law & Order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what you get for watching Law & Order.

 

Tell me about it. But even if I hadn't seen it I'd have heard about it, had to look it up and still been angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last Friday I was watching T.V when I happened to read the description for the latest Law & Order episode, which was a "ripped from the headlines" storyline clearly alluding to Dr. George Tiller, about an abortion doctor shot and killed in church.

 

I'm not really a fan of that Law & Order series (I prefer SVU and occasionally Criminal Intent), I find the cast of this Law & Order irritating but I decided to tune in, thinking it would be some interesting dialogue. I was wrong. Very wrong.

To say I was outraged at what was said and implied would be an understatement. It was embarrassingly one sided, false facts were presented and blatant anti-choice views were spouted repeatedly. As has been mentioned in some online forums, it was practically a pro life wet dream. Borderline and exaggerated scenarios were used to imply the Dr. was responsible for his own murder.

And in all irony the episode title was "Dignity."

 

[...]

 

Anyone else see this ep? Opinions?

 

I'm a fan of Law & Order & SVU, but not normally CI. This episode wasn't normal for the show, but I did like it. Among the things I liked:

1) the way one of the detectives phrased his argument: (something like) "If you think we should force 11 year-olds to have their rapist's baby, then you and I have got nothing to talk about." (Although one wonders why an 11 year old would have waited until the third trimester to seek an abortion?????? confusing..)

2) I actually heard something new from one of the ADAs, the part where he compares the medical context of the Roe v. Wade decision to the present and suggests that, based on that, "maybe it needs another look."

3) the part where the show put down the guy on the stand who was basically advocating eugenics. That was satisfying.

 

What kind of false facts were presented? Something statistical, maybe? I don't remember.

 

And I guess I'm confused about it being 'one sided.' The guy's lawyer had to present the case, so the focus will be on his argument. (for ppl who didn't see the show: the argument was that the murder was justified because he was saving the life of a soon-to-be-aborted child.) There was an even split between the detective, the ADAs, McCoy was ineffable but I always see him as 'progressive' (in TV-land, anyway. not really.), but the judge was 'progressive' in the other direction. That's pretty even to me. Yes, ADA Rubirosa changed her mind toward the end; 1 person, partially swayed(its not as if she didn't want the conviction; she just started to question what she was raised to believe! BRAVO.) by a compelling 'anecdote,' does not make the show one sided.

 

I know you feel strongly about the real life murder. It didn't affect me any more than the other murders I read about, and we are not on the same page on the abortion issue. Lately I've been more ambivalent about abortion, so I don't think my conclusions on the subject significantly affected my take on the episode, but I could be wrong. :]

 

p.s. Even if I'm compleeetely wrong about the one sided thing, Olivia MORE than makes up for one Law & Order episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what you get for watching Law & Order.

 

Tell me about it. But even if I hadn't seen it I'd have heard about it, had to look it up and still been angry.

 

 

My wife watches that show all the time- it's a steaming pile of crap. And the worst part about it is that with our cable company, it's on two or three different channels at any given time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know you feel strongly about the real life murder. It didn't affect me any more than the other murders I read about, and we are not on the same page on the abortion issue. Lately I've been more ambivalent about abortion, so I don't think my conclusions on the subject significantly affected my take on the episode, but I could be wrong. :]

 

p.s. Even if I'm compleeetely wrong about the one sided thing, Olivia MORE than makes up for one Law & Order episode.

I didn't see the episode and I'm ambivalent about abortion, but anyone that would state that the doctor deserved to be killed should be depicted with foam at the mouth.

 

The most common cause for late term abortions is intrauterine fetal demise. The "babies" are already dead. It isn't done electively as a means of contraception. To suggest that the killer was saving the life of an infant that was about to be brutally executed is inappropriate.

 

It doesn't have to be one-sided to be unfair or just wrong factually or morally. "Balanced" when there is no justification for Dr. Tiller's murder is grotesque, immoral and despicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm a fan of Law & Order & SVU, but not normally CI. This episode wasn't normal for the show, but I did like it. Among the things I liked:

1) the way one of the detectives phrased his argument: (something like) "If you think we should force 11 year-olds to have their rapist's baby, then you and I have got nothing to talk about." (Although one wonders why an 11 year old would have waited until the third trimester to seek an abortion?????? confusing..)

 

The first half of the episode was the only reasonable part with the banter between the two detectives. Unfortunately that was it.

 

From cases I've heard about firsthand a lot of young pregnant abuse/rape vicitms don't realize they're pregnant, especially if the abuse is not caught.

 

2) I actually heard something new from one of the ADAs, the part where he compares the medical context of the Roe v. Wade decision to the present and suggests that, based on that, "maybe it needs another look."

 

How so? What parts should be looked at? Explain please.

 

I actually found that part offensive. The way they phrased it it made it sound as though Roe v Wade was a mandate to get an abortion.

 

3) the part where the show put down the guy on the stand who was basically advocating eugenics. That was satisfying.

 

I don't see how he was advocating eugenics. Apperently calling someone a "fool" makes you a fanatic nowadays.

 

What kind of false facts were presented? Something statistical, maybe? I don't remember.

 

One was the "most americans are pro life" statement - which was based on 1000 random phone calls across the country. Pardon me for not buying it.

 

The latter part of the show had no serious debate or intelligent valid points to both sides. It was nothing but emotionally charged debate illustarted by extreme hypothetical examples.

 

p.s. Even if I'm compleeetely wrong about the one sided thing, Olivia MORE than makes up for one Law & Order episode.

As long as were on the subject, what'd you think of last week's ep?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) I actually heard something new from one of the ADAs, the part where he compares the medical context of the Roe v. Wade decision to the present and suggests that, based on that, "maybe it needs another look."

 

How so? What parts should be looked at? Explain please.

 

I actually found that part offensive. The way they phrased it it made it sound as though Roe v Wade was a mandate to get an abortion.

I'm not sure about the phrasing, but the point I liked was that abortion policy is in tension with our knowledge of our reproductive processes. The ADA was suggesting that our understanding then is sufficiently different from our present understanding to warrant 'another look' at the decision.

 

I don't see how he was advocating eugenics. Apparently calling someone a "fool" makes you a fanatic nowadays.

I got the strong impression that he was trying to promote a standard for who should live and die. He was using the kid's disease as a justification for the abortion, citing 'dignity.'

 

What kind of false facts were presented? Something statistical, maybe? I don't remember.

 

One was the "most Americans are pro life" statement - which was based on 1000 random phone calls across the country. Pardon me for not buying it.

 

The latter part of the show had no serious debate or intelligent valid points to both sides. It was nothing but emotionally charged debate illustrated by extreme hypothetical examples.

That is just what you should expect from a jury trial, isn't it?

 

p.s. Even if I'm compleeetely wrong about the one sided thing, Olivia MORE than makes up for one Law & Order episode.

As long as were on the subject, what'd you think of last week's ep?

That was the one about the "Our Special Love" people? Good episode. They've visited the topic before, but here they took it one step further by comparing the OSL arguments to the ones used in the civil and gay rights movements. They could have done it better, but its at least a good topic starter, getting people to note what the difference is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.