No, it Wasn't a Hate Crime

I meant to post something about this over the weekend, but didn't--my apologies.

Anti-abortionists here got all worked up over the weekend, protesting the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Local media went to great lengths to publicize both a march, and a display of crosses on the LSU Parade Grounds. By way of balance, one television station found exactly one student who took a pro-choice position.

IIRC, the other television station that runs a local newscast claimed they asked for a comment from Planned Parenthood, but none was forthcoming.

The display of crosses was vandalized Saturday night/Sunday morning. Anti-abortionists are saying this is a hate crime.

No, it isn't. It's vandalism. Hate crime is the deliberate targeting of individuals based on, for instance, their race, or their sex. An example of hate crime would be assaulting or killing someone because they're ethnic background is Semitic. And I think a good argument could be made that denying a woman's inherent right to control her own body is also a hate crime.

For the record, I consider the anti-abortionists' display yawn-inducing--but hey, they're entitled to make their statement. I also think the folks who vandalized the display showed poor judgement: they would have done better to organize their own display or demonstration.

Roe v. Wade hasn't forced a single woman to undergo an abortion. The ruling was complicated, but not all that complicated. It basically said that a woman, if she so chooses, can terminate a pregnancy up to the point where a fetus is potentially viable outside of her womb. In other words, a woman IS a human being, and IS entitled to basic rights, including the right to control her own body. There is NOTHING in the ruling that requires a woman to abort a child. It does allow a woman to exercise her right to choice--and to do so in a manner that is medically safe.

What's wrong with that?