Paul Hill Convicted Anti Abortion Pro Life Christian Murderer
It might have come down to a simple question mark.
On July 29, 1994 anti-abortion advocate Paul Hill killed Doctor John Britton and his body guard, James Barrett, as they pulled into the parking lot of the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Florida. Hill just calmly walked up to the pick-up truck, took out a shotgun and, aware that the Doctor was wearing a bullet proof vest, shot him in the face. Hill was quickly arrested, tried and convicted. He died by lethal injection on Sept 3, 2003.
Several months before the murders, I was at the White House when President Bill Clinton signed into law the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. That law prohibited the “use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with …any person who is obtaining reproductive health services or providing…such services.” That law also included language confirming that anti-abortion protestors could exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of prosecution. Of course, how one defined the right to protest was subject to interpretation.
Bill Clinton Abortion Rights Advocate
Once the law became effective, pro-choice groups started lobbying the Department of Justice to use it against protestors who were considered particularly dangerous. Paul Hill, because he believed that it was “justifiable homicide” to kill an abortion doctor, was very high on the list.
A long-time presence at the Ladies Center, Hill was known for carrying with him a very large sign that read: “EXECUTE MURDERERS ABORTIONISTS ACCESSORIES?” The sign caught the attention of many in the media, it intimidated patients and it terrified the clinic staff. When the National Coalition of Abortion Providers held a memorial service for Doctor David Gunn at the site of his murder in March, 1994, Paul Hill was quietly walking back and forth with that very sign.
Pro Lifer Murder Threat Today!
Pro-choice groups were very concerned about Hill (as were some anti-abortion advocates), but the lawyers at the DOJ were not sure what they could do about him. In June, 1994 I had a conversation with one of their attorneys and he said that he had not crossed the Free Speech line because he was not saying out loud “I am going to kill a doctor.” Instead, he was “merely” expressing his views on the issue, i.e., saying that he thought it was “justified” to kill an abortion doctor. When I raised the issue of the sign, the attorney directed me to the question mark at the end of the sentence. I had never noticed it. Paul Hill was “merely” posing the question.
Department of Justice
Was Paul Hill really that smart? Did he understand how far he could push the First Amendment? We’ll never know. We do know, however, that Hill was being watched very carefully by the authorities but that sign – and his very ugly speech – was not actionable.
I often wonder what the authorities might have done if there was no question mark on his sign.
I wonder if a case could have been made under the FACE law?
I wonder if the lives of two people could have been saved?
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
April 15, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Wow, look at this pro lifer threatening murder just today!
Amazing how many of them there are!
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 10:26 am
This is rather serious. I am glad that you have reported this to the FBI. It amazes me how people can talk about murdering for the “pro-life” cause
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 7:32 am
Incredible how money Pro Lifers are actually not Pro Life.
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 11:21 am
originally, the label pro-life was a political one to define someone who opposes abortion.
my own opinion is that there is a big difference between being anti-abortion and being pro-life in the true sense of what such a wonderful label should be.
i know many choicers whose corporal acts of mercy make them more pro-life than many of my anti compatriots are.
i have begun to use the term pro-life more sparingly and to describe efforts made by people rather than simply apply it to someone who is an anti.
LikeLike
April 15, 2012 at 3:35 pm
The question mark comes after accessories, not Abortionists.
This is obviously a threat to Abortion doctors.
The agents that did not go after this guy were just dumb in their interpretation.
This is proven by what this terrorist then did. This is not a Monday Morning critique. It is a no brainer interpretation of an obvious Breech of Free Speech boundaries that should have been dealt with.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 5:21 am
I can tell you one thing…we had a CPD officer that I felt was rather hard to get along with and often gave me the impression that he thought the protesters were just “blowing off steam” and were basically “harmless” here in SC! Then when the infamous “hit list” came about and every one was talking about it…our “infamous protester that was just blowing off steam”….well she got his name put on there because he “pissed her off” some how!
Let me tell you he was furious…his name was on it and mine was NOT!! I secretly laughed when he brought my attention to it…he some how viewed them very differently after that!!
My point is…the statement is there and whether is has a !?!?!? The statement speaks for itself…those 2 wonderful people might still be with us today!!!!
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 10:28 am
Interpreting the first amendment is a very tricky process. If we go to far in restricting free speech, it could ultimately come around and bite us in the butt. I know when I was protesting against the Vietnam War, I was a strong proponent os a very open first amendment….
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 4:07 pm
The Logical Fallacy of the Slippery Slope proposition is very dangerous.
Every issue of importance can be dismissed by the Fallacy of the Slippery Slope. It must Not be used to do the obvious correct action.
There is here an obvious foundry of “Free Speech” that was crossed.
And again, by definition, we see the consequences.
I agree, if we are going to get so granular to talk syntactics . . . there is NO question mark after Abortionists.
This terrorist should have been apprehended, and allowed due process, and the people he assassinated would likely be alive today.
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 11:39 am
The whole sentence is a question….
LikeLike
April 15, 2012 at 3:43 pm
I agree, by definition Paul Hill was not merely posing the question. He was announcing to the world his intentions, and as usual more people were murdered.
The Christian Conservatives that support this, need to be brought to justice by due process before they Committ acts of terrorism.
Look, if the president can do a drone strike and roast a guy to death half a world away because he is making threatening statements (I do not necessarily disagree with that presidential order) Without Due Process, then we should be able to place these homeland terrorists through the justice system and let them experience their right to due process for their crimes.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 10:30 am
We know, in retrospect, what Paul Hill was going to do but the problem was the sign did not take a definite position. It was as if a lawyer wrote it.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 4:10 pm
From the testimonials of people that had concerns about this terrorist, it sounds like there was reasonable prospective concern, only to be proved retrospectively.
Unfortunately, the retrospective approach leaves people dead that cannot be resurrected.
The actions of due process allow a better latitude in fair approach to free speech in my humble opinion.
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 11:41 am
Unfortunately, Evan, we have to give deference to allowing more speech than less. At least that is my opinion. Yes, in retrospect, this turned out terribly. But there is a bigger issue dealing with constitutional freedomes involved here.
LikeLike
April 15, 2012 at 3:54 pm
If someone yelled Fire in a crowded theater, but with the tone of a question, a very subtle difference in regard to the havoc that would be caused, would anyone consider that OK?
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 10:31 am
I think, Andrea, your comments, even if posed as a question, would be actionable because by just yelling and the ensuing panic, you put people in danger.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 4:11 pm
QED, regarding the statements above about the terrorists and their impending murders.
LikeLike
April 15, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Paul Hill was being a “hero.” Unable to focus on the needs of real humans, he let his allegorical battle with his own death overpower his ability to keep in contact with reality. I wonder how he feels about his widow having sex with another guy.
Word is that Satan has thanked him personally for providing him with so many more of the type of Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer and Joshua Komisarovsky– children who never had the nurture needed to grow up well.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 10:32 am
I wonder, Charles, if he even cared about his wife (and kids). When I last talked to him and I asked him about his family, he said “they would be taken care of.” It would be interesting to try to track her down.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 4:13 pm
That is a great idea for a journalist . . . what did happen?
Were they taken care?
By whom, and why?
One might open an incredible story here.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 8:38 pm
According to newspaper accounts, Karen was a CPA. She put Hill through theological school. Well, with a bit of internet trawling, I found a Karen Hill CPA in Arizona. Wonder if there is a connection?
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 11:42 am
Hmmm, maybe I’ll check this out! Thanks, Kate…
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Karen D. Hill, CPA
Phone: (602) 866-2472
Phoenix:
13231 N. 35th Avenue
Suite A10-A
Phoenix, AZ 85029
Fax: (866) 716-4904
E-mail: karen@karencpa.com
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Karen D. Hill, CPA
Phone: (602) 866-2472
Phoenix:
13231 N. 35th Avenue
Suite A10-A
Phoenix, AZ 85029
Fax: (866) 716-4904
E-mail: karen@karencpa.com
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 4:13 am
Pat Richard’s post on the April 15 abortion.ws blog is thought-provoking as usual. The sign Paul Hill used to hold before he executed the serial killer and the killer’s helper asked if serial killers should themselves be killed. Pat implies that if the sign had not asked a question but just made a statement,
Paul would have been put in prison and those two lives would have been saved. I agree.
The next step then is that when the authorities agree, the question mark will not matter. The question itself will be cause enough for incarceration.
And the step after that will be to make it even more difficult for us prolifers to function. We will get to the point where we will not even be allowed to say “abortion is murder.” Someone, the authorities will say, will eventually believe us, and the authorities will be right.
This is what those prolifers who attacked Paul, and they are legion, overlook. Deep down they do not really believe abortion is murder. Otherwise, they would never attack someone who acts as if it’s murder.
They do not really believe that Paul that day saved the lives of fifteen young people. They can’t see past his termination of two old boys.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 10:36 am
But John, you know as well as anyone that Paul did not “save” any babies that day. Indeed, within hours of the shooting I was on the phone with a clinic in Mobile to see if they would be able to take the “extra” patients that would be coming their way. Killing a doctor who performs abortions does not stop the woman from wanting to terminate her pregnancy.
Also, if someone introduced legislation saying the comment “abortion is murder” was against the law, I would join you in fighting it.
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 4:16 pm
What Pat has stated is true.
Dunkle you must be illiterate.
You already know this. Why are you writing misrepresentations of the truth?
LikeLike
April 16, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Dunkle doesn’t know truth. He only knows the dogmatic drek inside his atherosclerotic brain.
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am
Does the FBI take this reports of treats serious? Because i find interesting that people were killed in the past…
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 11:44 am
I believe they do take them seriously. But they have only so many resources and they must be careful about the laws.
LikeLike
April 17, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Agreed. But can u think if this lunatics decide to really kill… I get that they have to be careful with the law, but the LAW is supposed to protect us from the crazies, am i right? Because otherwise we are vulnerable to the sick minds of lunatics. just saying…
LikeLike
April 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm
As we know, laws do not always protect us. People murder, rob, rape, embezzle, etc. all the time. Unless there is an absolute credible threat to a person, the law cannot do anything about it. That’s because they have to balance the rights of the other person as well. We cannot just start arresting people because they say something ugly or something that is a little scary. Believe me, if there was a way for the feds to arrest Paul Hill, they would have done it….
LikeLike
April 21, 2012 at 11:32 am
the right to free speech is a cherished one in societies in which it exists.
it is one that i strongly support even when i disagree with the person’s views.
however, i believe that with rights comes responsibilities.
it is wrong to say things that would incite violence towards others and be unwilling to accept the consequences that occur when someone is harmed by the things said.
i have always felt that bill o’reilly holds moral accountability for the murder of dr tiller because of the way that he used his voice and the airwaves to dehumanize him by calling him “tiller the babykiller”.
when people like him or the WBC screaming “god hates fags” and are not held accountable for the harm that their words encourage loonies to inflict upon clinic staff or gay people, they have made a mockery of the right to free speech.
maybe hill was being watched, but obviously not close enough.
EACE was designed to protect the rights of both the choicer and anti-abortion camps.
if enforced properly, it would do just that.
LikeLike