Please visit the new home of Majikthise at

« Another Pro-Choice Welder | Main | Swiss journos acquitted for publishing torture fax »

April 27, 2007

Domestic terror plot foiled in Austin

Terrorists left an IED at an abortion clinic in Austin:

AUSTIN — A package left at a women's clinic that performs abortions contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death, investigators said today.

"It was in fact an explosive device," said David Carter, assistant chief of the Austin Police Department. "It was configured in such a way to cause serious bodily injury or death."

The package was found Wednesday in a parking lot outside the Austin Women's Health Center, south of downtown Austin.

Nearby Interstate 35 was briefly closed, and a nearby apartment complex was evacuated while a bomb squad detonated the device. [AP]

Amanda has some background on one crazy anti-abortion subculture in Austin.

[HT: zuzu]


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Domestic terror plot foiled in Austin:


i have noticed that the past few years (of conservative control) seemed to placate the radicalized elements of the anti-abortion movement. it's been a while since the last news reports of an attack at a clinic.

it would be my guess, with bush losing control, a congress shifted to the left and political promises abandoned, that this sort of thuggery and intimidation will only increase in future years.

this is appalling and scary, but given the mass-stupidity & hard-feelings involved on the part of the christian right, clinics will need to be fortified immediately. i view this as a clarion call...and also feel there is more direct control over groups that pull these sorts of stunts than government and police investigators will give credit for.

you always hear this sort of statement: 'this was a rogue incident, and not directed from the leadership'

i believe the people at the top of the anti-abortion movement need to be held responsible for this sort of intimidation. if parents can be held responsible in a court of law for their truant children, they by golly the pro-life movement should be held responsible for the actions of their self-professed members.

Agreed. I would go even further, revenantive. The so-called "leadership" has fostered a hostile attitude for years and has taken a position of "benign neglect" with respect to law enforcement. Rouge elements have approving overseers.

It's nice to see how this foiled domestic terror plot by religious extremists is featured as a top story on all the major news sites.

Oh wait. It's not.

After the travesty of justice that is the ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion, I wondered whether this would pacify the crazy homicidal right-to-lifers or if it would rile them up. I think we have our answer. I fear that we will see more of this as the Bush administration draws to a close. Emboldened by Bush's policies, a related decline in prosecution for their lesser efforts (i.e. blocking access to clinics), Terry Schiavo and a conservative Supreme Court, their violent behavior may well increase before this perceived window of opportunity closes.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. These crazy homicidal right-to-lifers don't care how many people are killed as long as they can prevent women from exercising their reproductive rights. If they can somehow force the repeal of Roe v. Wade so much the better.


i have noticed that the past few years (of conservative control) seemed to placate the radicalized elements of the anti-abortion movement. it's been a while since the last news reports of an attack at a clinic.

Well, part of the point of this is that there weren't any significant news reports about this bomb. Just as there haven't been many news reports of bombs, anthrax threats, etc., etc. at abortion clinics. It's not that they're not happening, it's that they're not being reported. And they're certainly not being called out as terrorist acts.


For insurance purposes at least, a terrorist act is defined as one committed by a foreign agent to influence domestic agenda. I agree that home-grown terrorism is no different in kind, but I wonder if the above definition reflects a broader consensus which includes the media, or if the disassociation of "terrorist" from a Christian or American identity is more unconscious?

That may or may not be how 'terrorism' is defined for insurance purposes but it's not how it's defined in US law. There there is no mention of foreign agents or influencing the domestic US agenda. If you take the definition of terrorism found in the INA, for example, (I pretty, but not completely, sure that it's the same as found in other federal laws) there is no need for the terrorist to be foreign or to be attempting to influence political activity.

The comments to this entry are closed.