Will Trial of George Tiller's Killer Increase Violence?

The Kansas of the 1870s was one in which guns ruled as the likes of Jesse James and the Dalton Gang roamed the streets packing heat and using it when they felt like it. The good citizens of Wichita are no doubt glad those days are now just part of the lore of the Wild West. Or are they?

Sedgwick County District Court Judge Warren Wilbert is the Kansas jurist presiding over the trial of Scott Roeder, who has admitted to shooting Dr. George Tiller, owner one of the few late-term abortion clinics in the country. Roeder has openly stated that his opposition to abortion is the reason he gunned down Dr. Tiller in cold blood while Tiller and his family were in church. An act of domestic terrorism, pure and simple. But under our system of justice even terrorists are allowed to put on a defense, so Judge Wilbert has declined to forbid Roeder's lawyers from presenting a voluntary manslaughter defense, using Roeder's views on abortion as mitigating evidence.

Kansas defines voluntary manslaughter as the "unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force" during an intentional killing. A conviction on that charge could bring a prison sentence closer to five years, instead of a first-degree life term. That would be a travesty, but there's even more at stake in the judge's ruling than how many years Roeder will spend behind bars.

Judge Wilbert no doubt believes he is being prudent and constitutionally cautious. I worry that if the defense is allowed to proceed in this way it will risk bringing back those thrilling days of yesteryear when arguments -- political and otherwise -- were settled at the end of a gun barrel.

As the President of the National Organization for Women in Wichita in the 1980s, I went toe to toe with the anti‑abortion extremists outside Tiller's clinic every Saturday morning while trying to get female patients safely through the doors. And as the main pro‑choice spokesperson in the state's largest media market, I got plenty of threats -‑ enough to watch my back every time I walked out of my house at night. Since then I've been involved in a number of other high-profile struggles to preserve women's rights, and some of those have sparked stalking and terrifyingly graphic death threats. But I always assumed the law, with its promise of severe punishment or even the death penalty for some crimes, was on my side.

Until now.

Roeder claims he was justified in murdering Dr. Tiller because he believed the slaying would save unborn children. It doesn't matter if he's successful in that claim or not. Merely by allowing the voluntary manslaughter argument, I fear that the judge has given a green light to every nut case with a cause.

The majority of women and men in this country are pro-choice. Few people are against sane efforts like more birth control to make abortion less prevalent. Abortion is not pleasant. I've never spoken with a woman who wouldn't have preferred not to have one. But providers, clinics, women who have abortions, people who fund research and advocacy, and those who write and speak favorably about the right to the procedure all support keeping it safe, legal, and available to preserve women's lives. What's to stop abortion protesters now from gunning down any of these people if they can get off with a light sentence and forever be seen as martyrs? Isn't that what all terrorists wish for?

This trial is worth watching, and not just for those on either side of the abortion wars. If Judge Wilbert's effort at bending over backwards to be fair ends up helping Scott Roeder walk the streets one day, it's reasonable to assume that this trial could have chilling effects far beyond this issue. Are there people out there with enough hostility -- and ready access to firearms -- who might shoot gays (or clergymen who marry them) on the grounds that they, too, are a threat to society? What about bankers -- think there isn't anyone mad enough at Wall Street to murder some broker in front of his family?

We cannot allow extremists like Roeder and an over-technical judges to drive our society toward a state of anarchy, in which civilians have no protection against the risk of bodily harm or even death at the hands of those who "unreasonably but honestly" are allowed to claim premeditated murder is justified. This is the 21^st century, not the days of Dodge City.