Today’s Lady News: Abortion Protester Killed In Michigan

Posted by: Jessica Wakeman Filed in: news
5:45PM, Friday September 11th 2009

Comments (24)

Anti-choice activist, James Pouillon, 63, was shot and killed while protesting abortion across from Owosso High School in Oswosso, Michigan. Police have a 33-year-old male suspect in custody who allegedly also shot and killed the owner of a local gravel company. [Detroit Free Press]—It’s premature to assume Pouillon’s murder is related to being an anti-abortion activist. Yet, after the murder of physician Dr. George Tiller, who performed late-term abortions, this summer, that’s the first place the mind goes.

Police say there is no evidence to link Philip Garrido, the man who kidnapped Jaycee Lee Dugard, raped her and held her captive for 18 years, with eight unsolved prostitute murders in California. [NY Daily News]

Kenya and Zambia have banned a brand of “leaky” condoms called Hot, which are manufactured in the U.K. According to the BBC, the Kenyan government gives out over 160 million condoms each year and they feared rumors of the “leaky” condoms would hinder the fight against the spread of HIV. [BBC]

About 700 schools in Belgium (in an area which is mostly Catholic) are banning female students from wearing Muslim headscarves. [News.com.au]

A male student in Afghanistan who was sentenced to death for downloading an article about women’s rights was secretly pardoned by Afghan President Hamad Karzai and removed from the country. The student, who worked as a newspaper journalist, had been convicted of “distributing blasphemous material.” [Feminist Daily News]

The new TV show, Glee, about a high school glee club, pokes fun at the school’s pro-abstinence Celibacy Club in a recent episode! [Feministing]

The activist group ACORN fired two employees who were caught on a hidden camera offering tax advice to a man and woman in Baltimore who posed as a pimp and prostitute. The prostitute was advised to fill out her tax forms saying she is an “adult entertainer”; it is unclear how the pimp was advised to explain his occupation. [NY Daily News]

Gertrude Baines, the oldest person in the world at 115, passed away this morning in Los Angeles. Baines, who was born when Grover Cleveland was president and whose father is believed to have been a slave, outlived all of her relatives. [L.A. Times]

You might like:

Heidi Montag Pics - Plastic Doll or Real Girl? (TMZ)

Tags: feminism, abortion, anti-choice, james pouillon

Comments (24)

comments

Alexa
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 05:46 pm: [report]

The reports indicate that the man’s protesting against abortion had nothing to do with his murder. The guy who killed him had some kind of grudge against him.

Having said that, why was this #&@$% protesting abortion outside a high school of all places?

_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 05:53 pm: [report]

@Alexa: Could be, but the linked article states:

Colbry said the grievances were not known in detail, but that the killing of Mr. Puillon was related to the latter’s anti-abortion protest.

roastchicken
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:35 pm: [report]

@ Alexa: Just a theory, but they could be protesting there to prevent any pregnant teens from having an abortion.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 07:45 am: [report]

@Alexa In subsequent news reports, I’ve seen that’s true — still, anti-choice groups like Operation Rescue have been sending out press releases where they insinuate this protester was killed BECAUSE he was against abortion. Obviously, that’s problematic.

Alexa
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 07:47 am: [report]

Actually, my original post was based on the NBC News last night. Everything else I’ve seen, as the others have posted, including CNN this morning, says he killed the guy because he didn’t like the graphic images being used across from the HS.

effing hickster
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 07:48 am: [report]

I’d rather be protesting the cafeteria food.

Lurvely
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 08:08 am: [report]

I encourage everyone to watch the ACORN video on youtube. It is a bit disturbing, extremely disappointing, and a little bit funny.

majicksand
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 01:49 pm: [report]

When did we start referring to pro-lifers as anti-choice? I’m a pround pro-choicer myself, but isn’t “anti-choice” a little childish? I know their camp has been known to call us anti-life or pro-abortion, but retaliating with anti-choice feels like lowering myself to the nanny-nanny-boo-boo level of a second grader. I’d prefer to keep my dignity while they make themselves look foolish and make it harder to get people to take them seriously.

brandyalexander
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 01:57 pm: [report]

@majick: Well said. I don’t enjoy being called anti-life, especially when I am against the death penalty, most wars, and am vegan. Its tempting, but let’s not call pro-lifers anti-choice, its mimicking their tactics and confusing the conversation.
I think this is a good time for all pro-choice people to loudly condemn this violence just like we did when Dr. Tiller was murdered. Although I know the circumstances are a little different- it sounds like the killer may have killed him for more personal reasons, since he killed another person who was not an abortion protester- education and dialogue are the ways to react to an opposing position, never violence.

Alexa
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 03:34 pm: [report]

@majicksand Anti-choice is exactly the right word for them. If it were up to them, women wouldn’t have a choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. By definition, that is “anti-choice.”

And, in reality, pro-life generally isn’t even used appropriately to describe them, since more often that not, they’re all for wars, capital punishment, and all that. Perhaps “Pro-fetal-life” might work. In the end, though, they are, without equivocation, against women having a choice, so I’ll stick with “anti-choice.”

And @brandyalexander, most of the feminist blogs I read have roundly condemned the killing.

brandyalexander
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 03:53 pm: [report]

@Alexa: That’s good, I’m not saying they haven’t. I’m just saying that its really important that we do.
I think maybe we could just call pro-lifers “anti-abortion?”

Alexa
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 03:56 pm: [report]

Why? Anti-abortion is accurate, but it is also their mission to deny women the right to have any choice in the matter through legislative mandate, emotional terrorism, and a variety of other tactics, which to me extends beyond simply being “against abortion.”

majicksand
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 03:57 pm: [report]

@Alexa: I’ve always thought it was weird that the pro-lifers are mostly the same people that are fighting for less gun control, more wars, and the death penalty. I understand your sentiment and your anger, I just can’t see name calling as a solution.

Honestly, I don’t see how any of my friends are any more “African-American” than I am “Irish-English-Dutch-American” being as all of our ancestors have been in this country for centuries, but if that’s how they choose to be addressed I won’t argue.

In as much as I agree with your logic, the end run is that we all dilute the point of the debate and lose sight of what is at stake when we poke each other with sticks.

Alexa
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]

@majicksand How, exactly, is calling someone what they are “name calling?” That doesn’t make any sense. As I explained above, they specifically seek to deny women the right to any choice in the matter of being pregnant. I think calling them “pro-life” is a sign of trying to be politically correct about it.

majicksand
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 04:12 pm: [report]

@Alexa: To me it’s more a matter of staying focused on the important topic. I don’t really care if they want to be called “The Holy Angels of Almighty God”. Anything that diverts our attention from the goal of safety and choice for women without the interference of someone else’s opinion or morality is fundamentally bad as far as I’m concerned. I say let them have whatever title makes them happy, and let them waste their time poking us with sticks instesd of furthering their agenda. In the end, we look reasonable while they look foolish, and we’ve made our point.

allib
wrote on September 12 2009 @ 06:55 pm: [report]

I absolutely agree that “anti-choice” is the better label for them over “pro-life.”

Riley
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 07:21 am: [report]

@Majicksand and Brandyalexander - I agree that it referring to it as anti-choice is pretty childish. Just kind of proves that you can’t argue a subject intelligently when name-calling is brought in to play.

Alexa
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 08:34 am: [report]

Explain to me again how referring to them using an accurate nomenclature is “name calling.”

Riley
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 08:41 am: [report]

@Alexa - Would you consider “pro-death, anti-life, pro-murder, etc.” accurate nomenclature? One could justify that just as well as you have justified your position. Of course, they might be able to do it will less blanket statements and wide accusations.

Purposefully referring to a group as something other than their declared name with negative words/descriptions; how is that not name-calling again?

effing hickster
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 08:44 am: [report]

@magicksand: I think Westboro Baptist Church already lays claim to The Holy Angels of Almighty God.

Alexa
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 08:49 am: [report]

No, because none of those are anywhere near accurate characterizations of the pro-choice position. “Pro-choice” means you’re in favor of the individual woman making the choice, not someone else. The mere fact that those claiming to be pro-life are against that choice makes them “anti-choice” by definition. Many people are are pro-choice for others would, themselves, choose to carry a pregnancy. So calling them “pro-death” or anything like that would be inaccurate. I’d figure that was painfully obvious; it not exactly rocket science.

The term “anti-choice” isn’t inherently negative like a pejorative term would be, so I fail to see how it would be “name calling”(which requires the use of a pejorative).

Why would someone who’s “pro-life” even be concerned about being called anti-choice? Why is it considered name calling by people like you? Because it represents the real agenda behind what they seek - to control other people; to remove the individual’s choice. Period.

Riley
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 08:58 am: [report]

@Alexa - People like me? Assumptions are fun.

majicksand
wrote on September 14 2009 @ 09:33 am: [report]

@Alexa: Whether I like or agree with the pro-life perspective or even agree that ‘pro-life’ is an acurate representation of said perspective, that is what they have chosen to be labeled. Choosing to refer to them by any other title is name-calling. In this instance it is petty and undignified, in my opinion, because the intent is to annoy, irritate, and demean. It is, in fact, a pejorative.