Over the weekend, CNN contributor Erick Erickson's blog Red State posted inflammatory remarks on the anniversary of the passage of Roe v. Wade, suggesting that "mass bloodshed" may be necessary if the decision is not overturned:
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.
First, I'd like to point out that I did not, contrary to the claims, write the post. However, I do stand by it.
Second, the accusation of the left is that both I and this site are calling for armed rebellion due to the persistent legal killing of children in this country. They are both lying and ignorant of history.
Today, the National Organization of Women (NOW) released a statement condemning Erickson's blog's comments and saying that "a mainstream media outlet like CNN has no business employing a radical propagandist like Erickson":
Let's count the ways in which this quote is scary: First of all, doctors, clinic workers, volunteer escorts, security guards and others have already been killed and injured in the name of protecting the "sanctity of human life." If there's an audience that doesn't need any riling up with allusions to violence, it's anti-abortion rights extremists.
And how about the careful phrasing that claims bloodshed won't be necessary, "but only if..."? The caveat that follows sounds quite difficult to measure. So, if those "committed to justice do not waiver or compromise" (what constitutes a waiver?) and they "send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials" (what qualifies as a clear signal? how many representatives must be signaled?), only then is there no need for "mass bloodshed." Who is going to be measuring whether these conditions are met or not? Is there a time certain for the conditions to be met? If they aren't met, what form will the bloodshed take? Who will be the targets of the bloodshed, and will they be warned that it's about to commence? If this series of questions comes off sounding sarcastic or facetious, it's not meant to be. This is dead serious.
Erickson reportedly will offer analysis during CNN's State of the Union coverage. Imagine a liberal in charge of a website that suggests the terms under which "mass bloodshed" should or should not take place in the U.S. being given a prominent and regular position on a mainstream cable news network. Not likely. Why is it ok for a member of the radical right to be given such a platform? It's not.