Ross Douthat, in his current editorial in the New York Times, repeats the usual conservative shibboleth that Roe v Wade should be overturned, and that further restrictions on abortion should be in place. He then ends with the following remarkable sentence:
The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases — and a political debate, God willing, unmarred by crimes like George Tiller’s murder.
Apparently "if you do what we want then our terrorists will stop killing people" is no longer an argument restricted to people hiding in a bunker somewhere on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. No, these days that's a perfectly acceptable position for a New York Times columnist. What were his editors thinking?
If you think I'm taking him out of context, read the original article again. That final clause comes entirely out of the blue, unsupported by anything in the article itself. It's nonsensical except as a threat.
Is there really any distinction anymore between the American conservative movement and a political wing of a terrorist organization like, say, Sinn Féin circa 1979? Now that they feel entirely comfortable adding implicit threats to their opinion pieces?