Busted! Right-Wing Lies About 'Pro-Abortion Terrorism And Murder' Exposed

In an attempt to discredit pro-choice activists, the ultra-conservative website WorldNetDaily (WND) recounted the story of the murder of pro-life activist Jim Pouillon on September 11, 2009, which was evidently the first and only time an activist had ever been murdered while protesting abortion.[1]

WND describes Pouillon as “a volunteer with Operation Save America who relied on an oxygen tank to breathe,” alleging that he “was peacefully holding a sign featuring a graphic picture of an abortion victim.” According to WND, “the goal of his particular brand of activism: force people to visualize and understand the reality of abortion, and to help stop it.” [2]

WND continues the story writing that

Local resident Harlan James Drake, however, had other plans. Apparently he was disturbed by the images of abortion victims, police said later.

So, on 9/11, Drake loaded his gun, and from his vehicle, shot Pouillon, killing him. It was about 7:20 a.m.

The pro-abortion killer promptly fled the scene and killed another man. [3]

WND concludes their recitation of the story of the murder of Pouillon writing that “instead of endlessly fretting about the threat of pro-abortion terrorism and murder – as generally happens in the exceedingly rare instances when abortionists are targeted – much of the press responded to Pouillon’s murder by seeking to smear the late activist’s reputation.”[3]

A lot to take in, right? Well here’s the thing. When you begin looking at the real facts surrounding the murder of Pouillon and the so-called targeting of pro-life protesters a completely different story emerges.

WND calls Pouillon’s murderer, Drake, a “pro-abortion killer” yet Drake also killed a second person that day, Michael Fuoss, a local businessman, who was not connected to the anti-abortion movement.

According to the New York Times, a Center for Reproductive Rights spokesperson said at the time that the shooting did not seem to be tied to the abortion debate and that Drake was not a pro-choice activist.

A spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, Laura MacCleery, said her group, which supports a woman’s right to abortion, was stunned by the “senseless killings.” But Ms. MacCleery said Friday’s shooting did not seem to her to be tied to the abortion debate since the suspect was also charged in the killing of the second man, Mike Fuoss, 61, the owner of a local gravel company, who did not appear to be involved in the abortion issue.

New York Times also reported that “prosecutors said that the suspect had singled out Mr. Pouillon because of the visible style of his regular protests at the school.” Sarah Edwards, the chief assistant prosecutor, noted “There was some displeasure with how open he was,” adding that Pouillon was known for “displaying disturbing pictures of fetuses.”

Harlan Drake testifying

NBC25 reported on Drake’s testimony on the witness stand, noting that “Drake described in detail his thought processes throughout the whole ordeal.”

The day before the murder, Drake says he had lunch with his family and stated that his mother was upset by Pouillon’s signs and said he was protesting at Owosso High School.

He says his mother was upset by Jim Pouillon’s pro-life signs and said he was protesting at Owosso High School that day.

Drake recounted, “Kind of under my breath I said ‘I’ll take care of that tomorrow.'”

As NBC25 reports, Drake described his thought processes prior to shooting Pouillon. “I did not believe that he should be showing the sign to children, especially at a high school where young girls of impressionable age would see that and either be disgusted or scared.” Drake also stated that his nieces had seen Pouillon’s signs and had nightmares.

Drake went on to testify that the night before the murder he packed several guns and bullets into a gym bag, explaining that “At that evening, my thought was that they would be the best choice if i was going to shoot him the next day.”

While driving to the school, Drake testified “The only thought I had was that they didn’t have to see that sign again. I was hoping that he wouldn’t be there that morning.”

In a follow-up question, Drake’s attorney asked him why he had hoped Pouillon wouldn’t be there and he responded: “So that I wouldn’t have to shoot him.”

WND concluded their slanted recitation of Pouillon’s murder by noting that “while Pouillon was hailed as a ‘martyr’ by many pro-life leaders, the national press barely noticed the murder. Some media outlets even tried to smear him – starting on the day he was murdered.”

As with their recounting of the murder, WND’s claims about the media have no foundation in truth either. The so-called smear tactics have nothing to do with pro-choice activism as WND would have its readers believe. Rather it was concerning the response of Pouillon’s estranged son, James M. Pouillon, a podiatrist in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who criticized his father in an online post, verified as his by the Flint Journal.

It was this post, that was quickly circulated by the media at the time. In the post, Pouillon attributed his father’s activism to a “pathological hatred of women” not to any concern about abortion. According to the younger Pouillon, “He did this to stalk, harass, terrorize, scream at, threaten, frighten, and verbally abuse women… He was at the high school because my niece was there, and female family members were always his favorite targets.” He concluded writing that “Owosso is now rid of a madman.”

Below is the content of that post, as reported by MLive, followed by a lengthy comment posted by James M. Pouillon.

It will be impossible for some to believe, but my dad really didn’t care about abortion.

He did this to stalk, harass, terrorize, scream at, threaten, frighten, and verbally abuse women. He had a pathologic hatred of women: his mom, my mom, everyone.

After my mom finally left him and he lost his favorite punching bag the violence and abuse that was always contained within our 4 walls was unleased on the people of Owosso.

My dad used the pro-life movement and 1st Amendments foundations to defend him, support him, and enable him. He fooled them all.

He was at the high school because my niece was there, and female family members were always his favorite targets.

Again, my dad didn’t care about abortion. He wanted to hurt people, upset people. He enjoyed making people suffer.

His goal was to be shot on a sidewalk. His goal was to make someone so angry, to make them feel so terrorized, to make them feel the only way they could make him stop was to kill him.

His pro-life stance was the most perfect crime I personally know of. He hid behind the 1st Amendment and was allowed to stalk, terrorize, harass, be obscene, etc. These things are crimes. Offending people isn’t a crime, and having different political views isn’t a crime, but he committed several crimes over the last 20 years and got away with it.

Yes I really am his oldest son. Owosso is now rid of a mad man.

Comment:

drpouillon Sep 17, 2009

It was with no great pleasure that I threw my family’s dirty laundry on the internet for the world to see.

My dad was shot at around 7:30am, and the afternoon Owosso paper ran a story quoting people saying my dad didn’t believe in violence, and my family was outraged. The pro-life movement (I openly admit I’m pro-life) wanted to make him a martyr and I think they should find someone else.

To just try to put some closure to it, as I have had 4 days to read people’s reactions and comments back toward me.

1. My family went to the press for years trying to get them to run a story on the “real Jim”. They said no way, no how were they putting anything in print accusing a man of domestic violence and describing verbal and physical abuse if the sources for the story were not in the room when it happened. My family has for years asked me to go to the press but I said let the past stay in the past. If someone thought my dad was stalking them or terrorizing them, let them charge him in court and let the court decide what speech is protected and what speech is not. It’s happened before. So, I was a witness the press would quote, so the burden was on me. It was my understanding that some other family members spoke to the FJ reporter to verify my statements, but they were not quoted. This seems consistent with their “if you’re not a witness there is no story” stance.

2. My family has been through enough already. I don’t think my family needs to be speaking to reporters, being called names on internet blogs, having tv stations call them, ect. I came forward so the negative attention that would arise would be directed at me. Let my dad’s friends attack me. Let people who told my dad that the voices in his head were the Holy Spirit attack me. My dad’s capacity for violence and abuse left me with an ability to deal with it, so whatever the near future brings, it won’t hurt too much.

3. I don’t have anger issues to deal with. My writing was supposed to reflect my family’s anger. They expect me to speak for my mom. I had a very normal childhood, and could tell anyone all kinds of stories of good times I had with my dad. He wasn’t a monster 24 hours a day. I was very close to him as a kid. What oldest son wasn’t close to their dad. My parents kept the abuse unknown to the kids until about the time I entered junior high, in 1982. From 1984 to 1986 things became quite crazy.

4. I have purposely left religion out of this. My dad was very heavily involved in Alcoholics Anonymous, and for years his friends in AA were his support group. After the last fight and the marriage ended my dad was really hurting. My dad did not get psychiatric care or counseling. Someone, I do not know who, directed him to a small “church” in Owosso (we were Catholic), probably with the best of intentions, as there are millions of people who believe that God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit can heal. My dad’s new church was really into the Holy Spirit. My dad announced he was cured of alcoholism, quit going to AA, and spent all of his time with his new church. My dad took me to AA meeting so I knew what went on there, but I wouldn’t step foot into the new church. I wanted nothing to do with people who seemed to be telling my dad that the “ends justified the means” and he picked up his abortion sign and took his anger at my mom out on the women of Owosso. AA told my dad that he wasn’t a bad person: alcoholism was a disease and it couldn’t be helped. His new church went past telling him he wasn’t a bad person, they went so far as to tell him that if he behaved a certain way, he could be a “good” person. Well, you saw how he behaved, and his church has been patting him on the back for 20 years, telling him how “good” he is.

FOOTNOTES:

1. I looked all over the internet and could not find a single other instance of a pro-life activist who was killed while protesting against abortion. Indeed, I couldn’t find another instance of a pro-life activist who had been killed under any circumstance, but it is possible it has happened.

2. As an aside, I find myself amused at the admission that protesters like Pouillon are using “force” by exposing the public to images of abortion victims.

3. Emphasis added.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Busted! Right-Wing Lies About ‘Pro-Abortion Terrorism And Murder’ Exposed