It's fascinating to me how many of these abortion clinic bombers are MEN.

What will be more interesting is seeing how much time he actually serves.

Notice how none of the news reports referred to it as terrorism?

While 99.9% of anti-choicers oppose violence, clinic bombings would actually be a lot more common if it wasn't seen as "PR liability."

Awesome that they nabbed him.

It is shitty that they didn't notify the clinic.

Diane - I didn't notice it before, but now that you mention it I sure do. Why do you think news outlets (excluding FOX - that's too obvious) don't label it terrorism? Is it just them trying to avoid pissing off a scary (financially and physically) special interest group?

Animal rights actvity is often not refferred to as terrorism either, more pro-testing groups have pointed this out recently....

Also I thought it was interesting that a month ago a man ho sent pictures of cut up fetuses to an NHS doctor who carried out abortions was then refused treatment on the NHS for a hip replacement. The decision was controversial - but not enough so that it made big news in the UK.

Also I thought it was interesting that a month ago a man ho sent pictures of cut up fetuses to an NHS doctor who carried out abortions was then refused treatment on the NHS for a hip replacement.

That's an extremely misleading way of putting it. He was refused non-emergency treatment at the hospital where he harassed and threatened staff. He is still eligible for treatment at any other NHS hospital. Most likely his treatment won't even be delayed, just completed at a hospital where he hasn't frightened and disgusted the staff, which is better for him anyway: unless the NHS is hiring saints exclusively he's likely to get better treatment from doctors who aren't angry with or frightened of him.

If I have written about this in a misleading way it is through misleading reporting of the story..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4750647.stm

chemfem: From the story you linked:

"The hospital said Atkinson had been banned from treatment for anything other than life-threatening conditions."

The hospital banned him, not the NHS. He'll get treated, probably more efficiently than an uninsured American would have, by another NHS hospital. And if he has a life-threatening illness, he'll be treated by the nearest hospital, even if it is the one he harassed.

Incidently, on the comment
Animal rights actvity is often not refferred to as terrorism either

Have you never heard the term "ecoterrorism"?

The Department of Homeland Security has certainly referred to animal rights activists as terrorists.

I had an agruement just last month on a thread, I think it was over at Echidne, with someone who insisted that there was no such thing and the term was made up by neocons for a nonexistant problem, that the examples I cited were made up (they were not), then that they were too old to count.

Then again there are anamil rights activists, and then there is ELF. I don't put most of the humane society or PETA on the same plane by any streatch of the imagination.

Dianne:

"The hospital said Atkinson had been banned from treatment for anything other than life-threatening conditions."

The hospital has said he was banned, not the hospital had banned him. How is the average reader supposed to deduce from the above sentance that the ban was only restricted to the hospital? The sentance reads that the hospital spokesperson says that he is banned from many treatments - nothing more! Like I said before, it is misleading.

If you type define:ecoterrorism into google you get two hits the most detailed of which is this.

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism.

I've never thought of animal rights as an environmental issue. It is not something (whether you believe it right or wrong) that effects the environment because the animals used are bread, kept and killed in the lab. Even the assesment you have linked keep the two terms (eco-terrorist and animal rights extremist) seperately and doesn't refer to animal rights extremists as terrorists (attacks are reffered to as extremist attacks throughout).

I've never thought of animal rights as an environmental issue. It is not something (whether you believe it right or wrong) that effects the environment because the animals used are bred, kept and killed in the lab. Even the assessment you have linked keep the two terms (eco-terrorist and animal rights extremist) separately and doesn't refer to animal rights extremists as terrorists (attacks are referred to as extremist attacks throughout).