Selective Guilt by Association

Christine Flowers:

We may not have liked what Tiller did, but we absolutely didn't want to see him dead. Roeder was not one of us. He was a psychopath, a man whose demented mind led him to commit a crime that is, essentially, the antithesis of what the pro-life movement represents.

But that's not the way it's being played on the editorial pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and our sister paper here in Philadelphia. Somehow, Tiller's blood is on the hands of all of us who ever wore a rose in our lapel, protested in front of an abortion clinic, criticized Roe v. Wade or sent money to crisis pregnancy centers.

WHICH IS really interesting because those same opinion pages loudly lamented any demonization of Muslim-Americans after 9/11. They were appalled that a whole group of people could be blamed for the criminal acts of 19 men. They took great pains to call Islam a religion of peace and distinguish it from the violence of extremists.

And they condemned guilt-by-association.

(...)

But when it comes to the pro-life movement, there isn't the same attention to detail.

Sure, they threw us a bone and acknowledged that Operation Rescue denounced "vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place." But the consensus was that if pro-lifers had just used nicer language when describing Tiller, he'd still be alive today. Guess there's no difference to them whether we're holding rosaries, or guns.