An Arresting Moment
Five years ago, I wrote of the horror that Aaron Wolf and I experienced as we spent a morning photographing the old Turner School here in Rockford. Built in 1898, the massive brick-and-stone structure was closed 80 years later by a school board attempting in vain to avoid a lawsuit over busing. Today, little effort is being made to maintain the exterior, and weeds grow up in the lawn out front and the former playground in back. Four or five days out of every week, passersby might assume that the building is still shuttered.
Would that it were. Instead, for the last quarter of a century, it has been the home of the Northern Illinois Women’s Clinic—the antiseptic-sounding name for Rockford’s only abortuary.
It has another name, too. The building’s current owner, Wayne Webster, dubbed it “Fort Turner,” but its walls offer no protection—certainly not to the children whose lives end there, but neither to the mothers who may spend the rest of their lives in regret over having sacrificed their daughters on the altar of “women’s rights,” nor to the fathers who pay for the ritual murder of their sons.
And if the antics of Wayne Webster over the years—dressing up like the devil to harass pro-lifers praying the rosary on the sidewalk outside the clinic; trying to drown out their prayers by shouting obscenities over loudspeakers he has mounted on the exterior walls; hanging rubber chickens (including one mounted on a crucifix) and obscene signs and pictures in the windows—are any indication, the walls of Fort Turner (where Webster also lives) have not protected him from spiritual attack. But then demons, like vampires, are always looking for an invitation to enter in, and they may well have taken up residence inside Fort Turner when the first abortion was performed there a quarter-century ago.
As if providing a location for an average of 35 murders each week is not enough, over the years Webster has hung signs in the windows of Fort Turner mocking the Christian beliefs of the pro-lifers: “Jesus loves these braindead a—holes,” “These Bible-thumpers suffer from lack-o-nookie,” “God bless these horny old sweat-hogs,” “NIWC 50,000, JC 50” (that is, by the time the abortuary reached 50,000 children killed, Jesus Christ had saved only 50). But Webster’s latest outrage crossed from mockery into blasphemy, when, in late summer, he hung up a sign with the inscription “Even Jesus Hates You,” under an image of Christ extending the middle finger of His right hand.
The Rockford Pro-Life Initiative, a coalition of pro-life activists founded in 2008 to “eliminate abortion in the Rockford area through Christian, non-confrontational means,” including “Prayer, Fasting, Education and Personal Sacrifice,” asked Rockford police to enforce city ordinances against the offensive use of property by ordering Webster to remove the image. When a police sergeant refused, saying that the sign was not offensive, a veteran pro-life activist, Kevin Rilott, received permission to address the Rockford City Council. Pro-lifers showed up at the meeting with small devotional pictures of Christ, and Rilott implored the council to take action—to no avail.
The Rockford ordinances state that it is illegal to “disturb or destroy the peace of the neighborhood in which such building or premises are situated.” While it is by no means certain that a court would agree that Webster’s blasphemous sign violates the ordinances, many of his other actions—especially the blasting of rock music and the shouting of obscenities over the loudspeakers mounted on the outside of Fort Turner—clearly do. Yet there is no record of Webster or the clinic being issued a citation.
A few weeks after Webster hung the “Even Jesus Hates You” sign, Rilott was praying outside of Fort Turner, in the same spot where he has stood for a decade. Webster’s security guard asked him to move, and when Rilott refused, he called in the police. An officer on the scene asked Rilott to pick up a large painting of Christ that he had propped up next to him; when Rilott refused, the officer called in the same police sergeant who had refused to take action on Webster’s sign. After ordering the pro-life protesters to turn off their video cameras, the sergeant confiscated the painting on the grounds that it was “unattended” and threw it in the back of his squad car.
So, pictures of Our Lord giving the finger to faithful Christians are acceptable; “unattended” paintings of Christ are not. (As video footage of the incident shows, Rilott was never more than two or three feet away from the painting at any time.)
When pro-lifers use graphic images of aborted children in their protests, the media views such actions as provocation (which, in some cases, such as that of the recently murdered James Pouillon, it may well be). But you will look in vain for equivalent treatment of Webster’s blasphemy (or similar actions at abortuaries around the country).
Pro-lifers’ use of graphic images, I have argued, is counterproductive at best; but while they do not show us the truth, they at least portray reality. Webster’s sign does neither—though it may give us a glimpse into the depths of his soul and of the sleepless nights he spends guarding the gates of Hell.
Entries(RSS)
A great piece.
Scott,
This is an excellent portrait of the times in which we live. You are an excellent craftsman of the written word. The duplicity you describe is not only present in the issue of law but in so many others areas of our culture as well. Imagine future generations reading about the various art exhibits allowed and sponsored by our National Endowment for the Arts compared to those ignored or precluded "under our Constitution"; or the occassional occupation of our National Shrines by perverts dressed mockingly as Nuns or demoniacs;or the seperate and unequal tenure tracks in our Universities of "Higher Learning" for progressive destroyers as opposed to traditionalist builders; or the pride of place given to decadence and despair in almost every sphere of our ever expanding freedoms. It may be that our children's children will discover the reality of the supernatural through this kind of demonic occupation as opposed to any revealed experience. I do not say the current climate is a fight of good verses evil, or sinners against saints, such talk is miserable and leads to more misery, but the ordinary soil in which love and mercy have always grown does seem to become more and more depleted or poisoned with each passing year.
Why so much hatred by Mr. Webster?
As the Jewish leaders hated Judas Iscariat for not being true to what he held himself out to be (an apostle), and to the principles of living the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, when he betrayed His innocent blood; and as Jewish leaders in their hearts placed upon Judas Iscariat their own guilt for the murder of the Lord Jesus Christ and hated Judas Iscariat for what they did to Jesus Christ, so abortionists hate prolifers for not being true to what the prolifers hold themselves out to be (prolife), and for being traitors to the principles of the gospel of life that you may never kill an innocent human life, when prolifers make the exception to allow abortions in the cases of rape or incest. In their hearts the abortionists place the guilt of their murder of unborn children on the prolifers and hate the prolifers for the abortionists' murders of unborn children, because the prolifers are traitors to the unborn children conceived by incest or rape.
If prolifers would be true to their principle that you may never kill an innocent human life, and never allow an abortion in any case, the hatred of the abortionists towards the prolifers and the punishment that the abortionists mete out to the prolifers for being traitors to the unborn children, may transform into an attraction by the abortionists to the example set by the prolifers of being true to their principles, and an attraction by the abortionists to the presence of the Holy Spirit amongst the prolifers who allow no exception to the principle that you may never kill an innocent human life.
The message "You may never kill innocent human life. No exception." should be included amongst the prolife signs in front of abortion clinics.
"the Northern Illinois Women’s Clinic—the antiseptic-sounding name for Rockford’s only abortuary."
Why do they use euphemisms (like "women's health center") when naming their facilites? Why not just use objective language like abortion clinic or pregancy termination center to describe it?
I'm sure they'd claim it's because they'd draw the attention of the "crazies" but the "crazies" know where they are and what they do there.
I think it's because they know that what they're doing there is wrong.
Thank you Mr. Richert for reporting the truth! God bless.
Thank you for your wonderful article exposing the truth about the Rockford abortuary and the evil from within. Many fine articles have been written recently on the madness that exists at 1400 Broadway in Rockford, for which we in the pro-life movement are grateful. I must say,however, it was a moment of great joy when we read the above article from such a renowned and prestigious magazine as The Chronicles.
Thank you Mr. Richert for your article. #2 robert - This is the
climate of 20th and 21st times of our troubles and tribulations.
Joseph at #3 - Thanks also to you as I mostly saw the son of perdition
as a betrayer but did not consider the way you saw him. Judas
despaired there was no great army.
Webster's time is coming. And the little tin horn Nazi cops involved should all be fired.
I am just into my '60's. In recent years I have changed my choice of words. I decided that I -and others like me- were being too nice when discussing or dealing with this issue. I can't change others but can change myself.
I decided that I was allowing the 'Pro-Choice' faction to set the agenda and control the choice of verbage used. Especially the latter.
I no longer use the term 'Pro-Choice' (except for the above entry so one can track my flow). I now use the term 'Pro-Death'. It is more accurate than 'Pro-Choice' and more telling. There is no glaze over the issue.
Begin to use 'Pro-Death' when refering to anti-life opponents, entities and such. Over time it will sink in. The issue is only between life and death. It is not a three way issue, only a two way issue.
Police only protect the influential. All others get to become customers of the courts, and they will pay. This is modern American justice.
@9: I would use "pro-abortion and "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-death" and "pro-life," as I am not in favour of allowing murderers to live. I support capital punishment.
It can't be the money that possesses the Websters of this country to act the way they do. It's got to be something truly evil going beyond their performing abortions or supporting the pro-choice movement. Years ago I was with a peaceful protest group outside an abortion mill in Bridgeport, CT, and while we were legally walking in a loop on the sidewalk praying the Rosary, two women popped out the front door with video cameras and started filming each one of us up close. Later in the week, one of my children took an anonymous, vicious call threatening my family, but the caller hung up before I could take the line. How'd they get my phone number? That's what still baffles me.