« Bobby Jindal And Mike Huckabee Make First Steps Into Iowa | Main | Your Basic Homemade 1966 Batcycle Copy »

Bill O'Reilly Responsible for Dr. George Tiller's Murder?

That's the opinion of some, and I agree. The right wing politics of hate has consequences, and people like Bill O'Reilly know the consequences of their words and they choose those words for specific reasons -- to incite hatred among Americans against their fellow Americans.

The New York Times is reporting:

Dr. George R. Tiller had many critics, but arguably the one with the highest profile was Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News Channel host. Mr. O'Reilly, a vocal opponent of abortion, often called him "Tiller the baby killer" for performing late-term abortions and said repeatedly that he had "blood on his hands."

Within hours of the shooting that left Dr. Tiller dead on Sunday, Mr. O'Reilly found himself under attack from liberal journalists and bloggers who accused him of inciting violence. By early Monday, some Web sites were asking, as a newsletter from the Air America radio network did, "Is Bill O'Reilly to Blame for Murder Of Kansas Doctor?"

Mr. O'Reilly responded to the critics on his program on Monday night, saying that "clear-thinking Americans should condemn" the killing. He defended his remarks about Dr. Tiller, declaring that "every single thing we said about Tiller was true, and my analysis was based on those facts."

Finger-pointing is nothing new, but the nature of the accusations thrown at Mr. O'Reilly show the swiftness and vociferousness with which the blame game is now played.

Within nine hours of Dr. Tiller's death, Salon magazine had catalogued references to him on 29 episodes of "The O'Reilly Factor" from 2005 to 2009. In one, Mr. O'Reilly talks about him and the lawmakers who supported his "business of destruction," saying, "I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day."

Bloggers quickly found new examples of Mr. O'Reilly's condemnation of Dr. Tiller. A commenter on Daily Kos noted that Mr. O'Reilly once sent a producer to ambush the doctor at his home in Kansas. After the producer told him that some people called him a "baby killer," the doctor tried to leave his house and called 911. The camera crew ended the confrontation.

On Monday, Media Matters for America, a left-wing group that catalogs what it calls "conservative hate speech," published a 2006 clip from Mr. O'Reilly's radio show in which he said, "If I could get my hands on Tiller," followed quickly by: "Well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech."

Ultimately, someone else got their hands on Dr. Tiller.

The politics of hate and the culture war waged by the right wing hate mobs are unique to Fox News. Yesterday, Wizbang author Shawn Mallow cited the extreme position of some on the right when he wrote:

"Some on the right will look at this as poetic justice. The murder of Tiller was a just irony. A fitting end for a man who has murdered thousands of helpless children."

His article inspired some interesting comments from anti-abortion extremists on the right who 'live close to home,' on our neighboring conservative blog Wizbang -- further illustrating that the politics of hate are fostered and encouraged in the right wing blogosphere.

Commenter Clancy seemed to justify Tiller's murder when he wrote:

All-in-all - I will be supremely disappointed if the killer's lawyer doesn't try to defend him by arguing that this was merely another late term abortion. (3rd trimester, 271st trimester - what's the difference?)

Dr. Tiller performed abortions under the law, and murder is unlawful, but Clancy can't see the difference?

Commenter 914 wrote:

This is all so tragic.. What a horrible way to go.. Being shot has got to be way worse than having Your brains sucked into a waste bin.

and later wrote:

By the way, what good does any moral authority do? The murders have gone on unabated for years with no slow down. even an uptick in the packaging and wholesale slaughter of innocence.

if it takes the eradication of an enabler to further clarify the genocidal infanticide? then I for one whole heartedly dispatch any moral authority. which I never claimed or wished to have anyway.

Commenter Justrand wrote:

Tiller ran his Murder, Inc. without ethical guidelines of any kind. He should NOT have been murdered. He should NOT have murdered!

914 again:

Someone who kills to defend others lives is not a muderer Sabba.

Zelsdorf Raghsaft III wrote:

I wonder what the chance are Dr. Tiller would have been sought out and killed had he not been the slayer of the unborn? Had Tiller not been who he was, he would still be alive.

O'Reilly and others have inspired a small but vocal minority of Americans to characterize Tiller with terms like "slayer of the unborn," and "murderer" and characterized Dr. Tiller's work as "genocidal infanticide."

Tiller operated within the law, but the right wing hate mobs favor their Christian tenets and beliefs, as proselytized by Bill O'Reilly and others among the conservative media, and choose those beliefs as a higher authority, using those same Christian beliefs to justify the murder of a law-abiding American citizen.

How is that different from an Islamic extremist who justifies their own unlawful, murderous, terrorist ways as being the work of their own 'higher authority?'

In my view... it isn't any different at all.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (10 votes cast)

Comments (35)


Sounds reasonable. I will now use the same logic and hold you responsible for the actions of Carlos Bledsoe, a.k.a. Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad.

ed davis:

The consequences of words. You are on to something there, Lee.

Lee Ward:

The bible is comprised of words, as are the laws of our land. In times where the words seem to be diametrically opposed, which should take precedence?

Some seem to think the bible should be followed even if doing so breaks the law.

ed davis:

Speaking for myself, that is an easy one for me, Lee. The law of the land is trump:

Matthew 22:20-22

20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

It seems that abortion is in the same kind of boat. Americans are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Vice President Biden says we are Americans at conception.

Killing someone who does abortions is no way (like Paul said in ather essay) to take the high ground!

The thing that bugs me is that all of these hard core right to lifers forget that every unborn Amercan that is aborted does die in Grace. Whether brutal or painful or not, they never have to struggle in this life (and what a struglle it could be, given that no one seems to want them to live anyway) and inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Period. No F on a test. No spanking. Never worried about SARS or swine flu. Never robbed, etc etc.

The protestors only seem to manage to make women feel even WORSE about the horrible decision they make.

I'd prefer adoption, but I ain't in line to take one or two! Like I copied above, render unto Caesar...


"The thing that bugs me is that all of these hard core right to lifers forget that every unborn Amercan that is aborted does die in Grace."

-Ed Davis

Better check your religious teachings again Ed. The Roman Catholic church, for one, teaches that the aborted would go into limbo, never reaching Heaven or Hell, something less then "dieing in Grace".

As for trying to hang this on O'Reilly? You know, I should read Lee Ward more often, he is good for a lot of laughs. No content, just laughs.

ed davis:

Hey there Mycroft.

I refused to be confirmed Catholic because (among numerous other reasons) they wanted me to call another human being Father.

MT 23:9

9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

So, being the obtuse punk I am, I ain't even thinking about checking my "religious teachings" just because some catholics disagree with me. Catholicism? Religion. Check. It is a religion in that it is another set of precepts that teach that man can make himself right with God.

Christianity is not a religion. Christianity is the only spiritual pursuit I can find that teaches that when someone follows its precepts, that is God's way of making man right with Himself.

The point of the sentence you quoted is that babies aborted in America are Americans. It demostrates that abortion allows the "rights" of one group of Americans to take precedence over another's. It is age discrimination more than anything. Simply because the older group has all the weapons. The younger group can't do anything about it.

Vice President Biden agrees life begins at conception. Do you see him murdering doctors that perform abortions? Nope. I don't see him standing in line to adopt, either. I don't trust him to defend Americans. I don't trust President Obama either. 'Cuz they are both failing miserably at defending the weakest Americans of all. The unborn Americans.

Mac Lorry:

[off-topic rant removed]


"Christianity is not a religion."
-Ed Davis

And that statement right there proves that you do not understand.




How come the libbies, always quick to say everyone has a right to speak and be heard, are always so quick to threaten banishment?

They just hate to her dissent thus, do all they can to stifle it, aka Fairness Doctrine.

ed davis:

Oh. Okay. Point me to a "Christianity" church, Mycroft.

Words do influence people. Therefore, repeating the same words over and over has an even greater influence on people. Or, perhaps we can save companies a fortune world wide by telling them their advertising dollars are a waste.

If you don't agree with Lee on the premise that O'Reilly may have a quark's worth of influence over some nut job pulling a trigger, you can't argue that Obama and the defeatist lefties didn't have an impact on our economy, the war in Iraq, hell even the war in Vietnam with all of the crap they've been screaming for years. Funny how now they admit that words are powerful and that we need to "talk up" the economy to encourage the private sector (and China! Ha!) into investing again. And that people with megaphones should be careful in regards to what they say. Good grief, Obama's entire campaign was about how horrible America is. Little wonder how that is the agreed upon axiom today and that by changing our collective attitude, we can actually start to make things better. Some time later... Amazing! It was the Liberal policies that were slammed through the legislative branch by Obama that "healed" our country! Can't let a good crises go to waste, right?

Mutha, Kerry and more are guilty of the same kind of guilt O'Reilly is and them some. They took oaths. O'Reilly didn't. Throw Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in there while we're at it.

Mac Lorry:

There are two extreme positions on when human life begins. At conception on one end and the other extreme is after the child is fully out of the womb and has taken it's first breath on its own. The first extreme position depends on Christian teachings, the second extreme position depends on a belief in magic. In all other cases in modern medicine a human life exists where there's significant brain activity that's either obvious or measurable by instruments. That scientifically defensible standard should be applied to the unborn, which means they are humans under the law some weeks before birth.

Only through the political process will the nation be able to move away from this and other polarizing issues. Courts decide issues based on arguments made before them as to how some issue applies to existing law. People may strongly disagree with those arguments, yet have no reasonable and lawful means by which to seek change. The political process, particularly state wide referendums, allow issues to be debated and then people vote. Each person votes their beliefs, which may or may not be based on defensible arguments, but it's their right to vote as they wish. When society's views change, the law changes through this process.

The supreme court should revisit the issue and apply current scientifically defensible standards to when an abortion is allowed. Beyond that point the court should put the issue back in the political process.

Just as the rights guaranteed by the 1ST and 2ND amendments are subject to "reasonable" restrictions applied through the political process, so too should the right to an abortion. In last night's interview on Fox, Dick Cheney said he's fine with gay marriage if it's instituted through the political process. That powerfully demonstrates the wisdom of letting the people decide issues through the political process even if the choice is limited to restrictions rather than being absolute.

So, who's to blame for George Tiller's murder? The Supreme Court of the United States for not allowing the political process to apply "reasonable" restrictions to abortion. That failure put George Tiller in a position where he was taking lives that only those who believe in magic don't see as human babies. The result was foreseeable and avoidable. How is it the supposed nine wisest among us are so blind?


To equate Christianity's belief in the sanctity of life and equating to it Tiller's death and comparing it to Islamic terrorism is so incredibly irresponsible journalism and inflammatory that, frankly, I hope your writing is forever censured and never seen on any reputable site again! Your writing is moronic and idiotic!

Lee Ward:

I don't see the difference between the murder in the name of religious extremism practiced by Scott Roeder and the religious extremism practiced by the 9/11 terrorists.

Murder is murder - and "murder in the name of my god" is same whether practiced as an Islamic extremist or a Christian extremist.

Mac Lorry:

The view that an unborn with significant brain activity is not a human being is scientifically indefensible. Thus, killing such a human being is homicide of some type. It might be justifiable homicide in the case where the mother's life is at risk or there are other mitigating factors. In view of current scientific understanding the court ruling that allows third trimester babies to be killed must be considered a death warrant for an entire class of people. The death warrant makes killing them legal, but it doesn't make it right unless you believe in magic.


Actually, Lee, I see alot of differences between Roeder and the 9/11 terrorists. Approximately 30-40 percent of the Muslim popluation supports attacks against civilians. There are nowhere near that percentage of Chirstians that support the action of Roeder. Even the quotes you pull from wizbang don't support your position with the exception of "914". Justrand actually says the opposite of your premise, Clancy offers hypotheticals and Zelsdorf Raghsaft III points out the obvious.

In the effort of point to the "right-wing" for this criminal act, many on the left are actively avoiding bringing up the point that Roeder suffered from a schizophrenic mental disorder. To reconcile Roeder's atrocity to the muslim terrorists who commit the 9/11 atrocity, you have to equate 40 percent of the muslim community that supports that act with a small number of individuals who support Roeder.

I don't see where you have accomplished that.


That next to last paragraph was missing a bit:

"In the effort of point to the "right-wing" for this criminal act, many on the left are actively avoiding bringing up the point that Roeder suffered from a schizophrenic mental disorder. To reconcile Roeder's atrocity to the muslim terrorists who commit the 9/11 atrocity, you have to equate 40 percent of the muslim community that supports that act with a small number of individuals who support Roeder. You also have to postulate that the mental disorder of Roeder also infects 40 percent of the muslim world."

Lee Ward:

"Thus, killing such a human being is homicide of some type."

There you go, making up laws of your own. "Homicide" is defined by the legal system, not some printed antiquity that you happen to worship and consider above the law.

There are ways to change the law. Elect officials who will represent your views in Congress. Murdering doctors who operate within the law is not the answer.

Pushing your religion onto me and others isn't the answer -- it's not even the question. The Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, and freedom of religion. Don't like it? Get your ass out of our country and go start your own.

Characterizing legal abortions as "homicide" is exactly the problem. The murder of Dr. Tiller is the result.

Obama is enough of a centrist to try to find a middle ground, but the hypocrites who call themselves 'pro-life' while advocating the murder of law-abiding Americans are not interested in a seat at the table, and that's okay with me. I don't believe that negotiating with terrorists is ever the answer.

Obama will try to find that middle ground, and a way to reduce the number of abortions, thereby achieving partial success for the pro-life movement...

... but these terrorists don't want that. They aren't 'pro-life,' they're 'pro-christian' -- and they won't be happy until every American practices the same religion as them.

"Pro-life" is a lie. It's being proven more than ever now.

Lee Ward:

"To reconcile Roeder's atrocity to the muslim terrorists who commit the 9/11 atrocity, you have to equate 40 percent of the muslim community that supports that act with a small number of individuals who support Roeder."

Breaking the law is breaking the law, and terrorist acts are terrorist acts.

Who supports the terrorists is irrelevant, as is the mental health of terrorists.

The acts of terrorism which resulted in murder are remarkably similar, and were motivated by the respective religious beliefs of the 9/11 terrorists and Roeder.


I have a simple question: As the Republic Party is against abortion, and the Democratic Party is for abortion, which party is the most likely not to support decent health care for the baby after it is born?

Look at the votes on SCRIP. Who was for it and who was against it? I'm not saying anyone is correct, but looking at the votes and comments made, make up your own mind. But don't let any facts stand in your way when you post comments, either for or against.

Mac Lorry:


You're not reading what I'm writing. I'm not pushing my religion on you or anyone in this debate. I'm applying the same scientific standard to the unborn that's used to determine when a person in a coma is "legally" alive. Apart from a scientifically defensible standard the current law depends on a belief in magic. Pushing a belief in magic on others is no different then pushing a belief in religion on others.

Lee Ward:

The law doesn't see abortion as 'homicide' -- but your belief system says it is. Stating abortion is 'homicide' is pushing your religious views on others.

Mac Lorry:

James Gill born at 21 weeks and 5 days gestation is now 21 years old. Obviously,
nothing magic happens inside the womb that converts a 26 week-old fetus into
a human being if a preterm baby like James Gill can survive and grow into a
helthy young man.

Why are you pushing your magic views on others.


Stating that abortion is homicide is an opinion. One that Mac Lorry would like others to hold, enough so that the law would be changed to reflect that. Unfortunately, "electing officials who represent our views in Congress" is not the solution, because Roe v Wade took that option away from the people. You know that, Lee. Even you're not that dumb. What we need are Supreme Court justices who have the guts to realize that Roe was a huge mistake, and overturn it. Then and only then can the PEOPLE decide the issue, the way it should have been done in the first place.

BTW, you won't find the phrase "Separation of church and state in the Constitution". But you knew that, too.

Mac Lorry:


This is what I actually said: "The view that an unborn with significant brain activity is not a human being is scientifically indefensible. Thus, killing such a human being is homicide of some type."

That's not the same as saying "that abortion is homicide" nor is it an unfounded opinion. It's a statement based on scientific fact. Roe v Wade is scientifically obsolete, which is why people who want to update it are now in the majority .

Lee Ward:

What is and isn't homicide is defined by law, not science or religion - and the legislature creates laws.

You want to change the law you get your legislators to do it for you -- you don't cite science or religion then murder those who still follow the law. That's terrorism.

Mac Lorry:

The Christan view is that human life begins at conception.

The scientific view is that human life begins when there's significant brain activity, which is at about 26 weeks gestation.

The magic view is that human life begins when the baby is fully out of the womb and draws it's first breath.

Saying that abortion at of after 26 weeks of gestation is a homicide is the scientific view even of the law hasn't caught up yet. If you want a rational debate you have to drop your belief in magic.

Lee Ward:

A rational debate of what qualifies as 'homicide' that ignores the current law isn't possible.

Stating that abortion is 'homicide' is a lie. Homicide is a legal definition.

You can declare the law is wrong and seek to change it, but calling abortion doctors 'murderers' is a lie also.

Practice your religion, and use our system to change the laws if you so desire. Engaging in domestic terrorism is just plain wrong.

Lee Ward:

You're posting repeatedly, restating the same arguments, Mac. How about chilling on this subject for a while.

Mac Lorry:


Why are you defending an obsolete law that allows the killing of humans as defined by science? Would you defend slaver just because it was the law despite scientific evidence that people of all races are the same? How is it you call yourself a progressive when you act like a conservative?

Are you sorry yet that you suspended the ban?

Lee Ward:

Getting there, Mac. Don't make me ask you again.


Lee, I'm not disagreeing with you that it was a terrorist act.

I'm disagreeing with painting 40 percent of the muslim world as sufferring from a mental disorder or that a comparable percent of Christians likewise suffer from a mental disorder.

Fact: most people do not hear voices in their head - not even the religiously inclined. It's like saying Charles Manson was representative of a large class of people.

Roeder was an outlier, a single data point. Yes, there are other outliers but not 40 percent of the christian population. In the muslim theocratic states, the terrorist act was celebrated. Roeder was condemned by almost every mainstream orgainzation.

Lee Ward:

The muslims who believe in jihads against Christians are not mentally ill, and neither are the Christians who believe abortion is wrong.

I'm disagreeing with painting 40 percent of the muslim world as sufferring from a mental disorder or that a comparable percent of Christians likewise suffer from a mental disorder.

That's not my twisted construct.

I've stated Roeder acted on his religious beliefs, as did the 9/11 terrorists. They are, in that sense, the same.


But a critical fact is that Roeder was a mentally disturbed schizophrenic, Lee.

To compare him to Muslims or to mianstream christians as a representative sample of both those groups is to attribute the motivations of a criminally insane individual with large pluralities of major religions.

I think it's a reach and that the available evidence does not support that conclusion.

Off-topic for a second - I noticed that both you and Paul answer on your posts where that rarely happens on Wizbang. I appreciate the oportunity to get back on here but wonder if the effort to defend posts led to a higher (perceived) rate of banning here than there as there might be a greater commitment to a given point of view.

Just a thought watching the latest interchanges between you and Mac Lorry.

Audie Murphy:

It was legal to kill Jews, homosexuals and anyone else deemed less then human in Germany not too long ago; did that justify mass murder of defenseless people? Many Nazi's died for those sins, did that make those that killed the Nazi's murderers? If anyone out there took the law into thier own hands and hunted down these death camp operators (and they did), does that make everyone who spoke out against the Nazi carnage guilty of those murders as well?
It was legal to kill and enslave Africans in the United States not too long ago, if a slave or even a free man stood up to them and killed an abusive slave owner, did that make them guilty of murder? Did that make everyone who spoke out against slavery guilty as well?
This is a nation of laws, but our very foundation is based on freedom of speech and the responsibilty of the people to stand against injustice; even if it is currently legal. People keep saying abortion is legal so it's different; so is ORielly and anyone elses freedom of speech. Be consistant.


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.