Abortion has always been a controversial topic of discussion. Often associated with the term abortion is the organization called Planned Parenthood. This is because Planned Parenthood is one of the largest organizations in the United States that performs abortions. During 1977, a Planned Parenthood site was set on fire in the state of Minnesota. This specific incident led to many more extreme acts of violence against Planned Parenthood facilities. Though Planned Parenthood was designed to be a safe place to receive care, the violent attacks against the organization since the legalization of abortion have changed collective memory in the United States. The arson attack in 1977 sparked continued acts of aggression causing collective memory regarding abortions to be associated with violence.
Planned Parenthood is a place that everyone has heard of at least once. It is supposed to be a safe building where women can go to receive help and advice on pregnancy and contraception. It is also a place mostly known for providing safe abortions to pregnant women that choose to have them. There are many different reasons why a woman may choose to have an abortion, all of which are acceptable. Prior to the establishment of Planned Parenthood was a company “founded in New York by Margaret Sanger in 1916” as the first birth control clinic [5]. Of course this was at a time when abortion was illegal. Because of this, the company started out by focusing solely on women’s reproductive rights. Unfortunately, the company was shut down after only being open for nine days by police within the area [5]. This was due to the fact that they used birth control within the name of their company. Before 1948, birth control was something that was not yet in regular use throughout society. Sanger continued to fight for its use and decided to reopen the company under a different name. She called it Planned Parenthood in 1948 [4]. The name was changed at this time in order to remove the words birth control [4]. After the court case Roe V. Wade made abortion legal in the United States, and the company started to perform abortions as well.
The size of Planned Parenthood, and their founder’s involvement throughout the women’s rights movements, has caused it to be the first place many people go to protest. The case of Roe V. Wade was a pivotal point for women’s reproductive rights. Before this, abortions were deemed illegal and women could either not have them, or participate in unhealthy or deadly acts. While this case was good for many individuals, it created controversy throughout the country. Many individuals were against the idea of abortion and decided to make their opinions known. In 1977, just three years after Roe V. Wade, a Planned Parenthood in Minnesota was set on fire, causing more than sixty thousand dollars in damages [1]. This specific facility had historically been the focus of many different forms of vandalism, such as graffiti being painted across the outside walls, even before they started performing abortions. The violence only increased with the Roe V. Wade verdict. This was most likely due to the location of the building. The Planned Parenthood site was in a “Highland Park neighborhood” that contained a group of residents calling themselves Citizens for Concerned Action [1]. With this site being the only one within the state of Minnisota to perform abortions, the citizens and participants of the organization were ardently opposed to it being there. The individual who performed the arsonry was named Joseph Charles Stockett. Throughout his trial, State V. Stockett, it was found out that the defendant “felt that the Planned Parenthood Association was responsible for causing his former wife to have an abortion and for encouraging women to use IUD contraceptives which he felt were dangerous” [6]. Despite this, it was said by the head of the site that operations would be “administratively open” the next day [6]. While the damage overall was costly, it did not cause a change. However, this did not stop more crimes from occurring against Planned Parenthood buildings. According to CNN, between the years of 1973 and 2003, “there have been more than 200 bombings and arson attacks at facilities that offer abortion services” [2]. In addition, there has been documentation of “more than 16,000 reported cases of hate mail or harassing phone calls, over 1,500 acts of vandalism and 400 death threats” [2]. An image is provided below of a crime committed against a Planned Parenthood building that demonstrates the overall violence that occurs [7].
It is well known that Planned Parenthood has been the hub for many attacks by people trying to display their disagreement with abortion. The specific act of vandalism, arson, in Minnesota in 1977 is thought to be a starting point for further attacks. The act of Stockett changed the mindset of many people across the nation. This caused a shift within collective memory. Collective memory is defined by Oxford Dictionary as “the memory of a group of people”. In this instance, many people were already against the idea of abortion, but none had acted as violently as Stockett. The memory of that tragic incident at Planned Parenthood seems to have encouraged many others to perform similar acts of violence. This can be shown by the increased amount of arsonry and bombings that occurred after the incident in 1977. With continuing acts of violence occurring, collective memory about abortions changed. Abortions were associated with Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood became associated with violence. This, in turn, caused abortions to be associated with violence. The current overall collective memory of abortions today more than likely played a role in the recent decision of the supreme court to overturn Roe v. Wade [7].
Megan McClain
Works Cited
[1] “Abortion Clinic Damaged by Fire.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Feb. 1977, https://www.nytimes.com/1977/02/25/archives/abortion-clinic-damaged-by-fire.html.
[2] Hutcherson, Kimberly. “A Brief History of Anti-Abortion Violence.” CNN, Cable News Network, 1 Dec. 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/30/us/anti-abortion-violence/index.html.
[3]“Oxford Languages and Google – English.” Oxford Languages, https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/.
[4] Perry, Mike. “The History of Planned Parenthood: EWTN.” EWTN Global Catholic Television Network, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/history-of-planned-parenthood-12139.
[5] Planned Parenthood & Birth Control History: Collections – Gale. https://www.gale.com/primary-sources/womens-studies/collections/planned-parenthood-and-birth-control-history.
[6] “State v. Stockett.” Justia Law, https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1977/278-or-637-6.html.
[7] Team, FOX 5 Digital, et al. “Planned Parenthood Vandalized with Red Paint.” FOX 5 San Diego, FOX 5 San Diego, 3 Apr. 2018, https://fox5sandiego.com/news/planned-parenthood-vandalized-with-red-paint/.
It is rather interesting how Planned Parenthood has become so heavily associated with only abortions that their many other services have become neglected. I wonder how future generations will remember Planned Parenthood. I also wonder if there are any preventative measures to protect the organization. I don’t believe in cops policing the premises, so I am curious as what other alternatives could be presented.
I found this article extremely shocking when it mentioned the statistics on just how many bombings, arsen attacks, hate calls and death threats have been made at planned parenthood facilities. I was aware that these facilities were constantly harrassed but not to this measure and degree. It makes me wonder when I think about all the times I have seen protesters outside of Planned Parenthood facilities and wondered how much of a difference they actually make. But I think I failed to look at the overall picture and this domino effect that has led to mass amounts of threats and actions towards the facilities nationwide.
I also think it is interesting how the company initially started out as only providing birth control access until it began providing abortion. I assume this was when items like contraceptives were considered “obscene” and hard to access. This was a very interesting article.
Between planned parenthood and the proverbial coat hanger, the symbolic sites of memory present in abortion debates have proven to be far and wide in size and usability for controversy. Planned parenthood being the nature that it is, physical and accessible, creates opportunity for both sides to create memorable acts of protest.
When it comes to attacks on clinics, it’s fascinating how angry sentiments towards the clinic evolved into action, which then transformed the infrastructure of protesting and generated new laws and abatement of harrassment.
It’s interesting that no serious effort has been put forward by the government to protect its own property from arson and vandalism. I also think that focusing on the objects of the violence of each political faction in the U.S. is important – we discussed the vandalism of confederate monuments by left-leaning actors across the U.S. in recent years, but conservative attacks on abortion centers have been common for so long that they have become banal.
I agree with Britney, it’s interesting to see that the collective memory of Planned Parenthood has shifted into being known for explicitly abortions, despite their myriad of services. It’s also shocking to see that a man wanted so badly for women to not have rights to their own bodies, that he endangered lives by committing arson. Because, I thought the justifications people make for being “pro-life” was all about protecting lives? This is a good example of how people can be so caught up in their own pride that they end up accidentally exposing their true beliefs, while trying to hide behind popularized ones. In this case, Joseph Sockett exposed that he didn’t truly care about “protecting innocent lives,” but rather he didn’t want women to have bodily autonomy.
It is interesting that Planned Parenthood was once called Birth Control Clinic, but changed in 1948. Despite providing the same services, the name change was done for whatever reason. I think it is because people associate names with certain feelings they hold. Birth control may have been a more divisive name depending on who the individual was, but planned parenthood sounds much less polarizing. I understand the Roe decision had something to do with it, but defintiely an interesting distinction.
It’s always interesting to read about incidents such as these for a handful of reasons. To me, it doesn’t make sense for someone to burn down an establishment purely because their views don’t align with their own. It seems as if this act would only generate more hate towards “pro-life” individuals and even convert “pro-life” supporters to a “pro-choice” perspective because they don’t want to be associated with a movement that promotes arson, vandalism, etc. At the end of the day, people who commit crimes such as these only work against their own movement and don’t make any legitimate progress toward their cause. It’s all silly and immature in my opinion.
This article was very informative. I had limited knowledge of Planned Parenthood coming into the reading, but this expanded my understanding of the organization greatly. I was unaware of the arson event in 1977, and it was striking to find out that it was not an isolated event. The way that individuals associate planned parenthood so strongly with abortion that people forget that they offer many other services shows the immense power of collective memory. Do you believe that the memory of the arson event is viewed in as polarized of a manner as the issue of abortion itself is viewed?
I think this is a very interesting article as it relates to the collective memory of Roe. I don’t believe I have ever passed the Planned Parenthood in my town without seeing protestors in front of the building. I did not know the extent of the violence that has been perpetrated against these clinics. I resonate with the remarks made by other commentators in relation to ignoring the other life-saving services that are provided by Planned Parenthood. I think in recent years with the rise of social media and the increasing divisiveness and polarization of this topic the collective memory around Planned Parenthood has shifted. People see it as the end-all-be-all for abortions and to me seems to have become a central talking point for politicians and pundits. I think your inclusion of history provides a lot of context for where we find ourselves today.
One thing that I was wondering about while reading this was how was this not considered domestic terrorism? If the same thing happened at a general health clinic, hospital, or Drs. Office of some sort, I think this would serve as a much more remembered by the general public and we probably would have learned about it at some point during our academic careers. People are at their most vulnerable, seeking medical care, and then someone sets it on fire. I also knew that it is a hot spot for protests, but I was surprised at how many and how violent a lot of these protests were.
As someone who just very recently learned that Planned Parenthoods offer more than just abortions, I feel sorry for the disillusioned and uneducated. I come from a small town with no Planned Parenthoods and a severe lack of resources. Among those resources are education. Due to this lack of education many young people don’t have any reason or desire to learn about such facility. In fact, thinking back, nearly every conversation I ever heard in my high school in which someone was supporting planned parenthoods, counter arguments were always rife with the words “abortion factory.” I must admit that inadvertently I began associating planned parenthoods as nothing more than places where women go to have “hush-hush” procedures done but I’m glad I am no longer among the confused. 🙂
While perusing your article, I found myself contemplating why the attacks on Planned Parenthood clinics weren’t classified as domestic terrorism. Had the same atrocities taken place at a general health clinic, hospital, or doctor’s office, I am convinced that the public would have a stronger recollection of it, and it would have been included in our academic coursework. It is an especially vulnerable situation when individuals are seeking medical attention and then become targets of violence. Additionally, I was taken aback by the frequency and severity of the protests that occur outside these clinics.
Your article was intriguing because it relates to the collective memory of Roe and Planned Parenthood. As a person who has frequently witnessed protestors outside the Planned Parenthood clinic in my area, I was unaware of the extent of the violence directed at these clinics. It is disappointing to see the life-saving services provided by Planned Parenthood often go unrecognized. In recent times, social media and political polarization have shifted the collective memory surrounding Planned Parenthood, reducing it to a mere talking point for politicians and pundits. Your historical context provides valuable insight into how we reached this juncture.