Anyway, I thought I would make today's blog a bit of a history lesson. And, if anyone out there is reading this and can give me more information on this figure I am about to describe, I would appreciate it.
Dr. WJ Bryan Henrie (1905-1972) from Grove, Oklahoma was a old-fashioned country doctor, who also happened to perform abortions. Here is what Lader writes:
"The farmers, and their wives in cotton print dresses, came to Henrie's clinic from picturesque villages like Bluejacket. In 23 years of practice, Henrie delivered 1,250 babies. 'More often, he drove to the south end of the country to see the sick in the wee hours of the night,' a former patient noted. 'He returned money to patients that were poor and asked them to go buy some clothes instead of paying him.'
'Doc Henrie never sent a bill to nobody,' a neighbor added.
After describing his character, Lader then turns to describing his political sensibilities:
"Henrie represented the rural, populist tradition. Henrie, in fact, was named after William Jennings Bryan; and his broadsides and pamphlets on abortion and women's rights, which he handset and printed on a creaky, out-of-whack press in his basement, were like the words of biblical prophets alone in the desert vastness. His writings quoted frequently from the Bible. He believed in human perfectability, even in the White House, sending each pamphlet to President Nixon, as well as the local county attorney who once prosecuted him."
Now we turn to Henrie's arrest and jail sentence. He was arrested in 1962 and spent two years in jail.
"Sitting down to dinner with the jailer whose grandchild he had delievered two weeks before, Henrie did not even appeal his conviction. Serenely, he accepted the consequences of a bad law . . ."
I like that last sentence. Henrie was more Socrates than Martin Luther King Jr. Anyway, Lader describes his prison sentence and its effect on his career.
"Even in prison, he began to release a barrage of statements, attacking abortion law. 'I believe that abortion is a woman's right and decision and no one else's,' he told a reporter of the Daily Oklahoman in 1963. 'I never felt abortion was wrong. I still think the law was wrong.'"
And, now I turn to the part of the story I am most interested in:
"Rather than hide in the anonymity of a distant city after his release in 1964, Henrie returned to Grove and devoted himself to his campaign. No longer able to practice medicine and forced to sell his clinic at a loss, he claimed that debts and legal fees had wiped out his assets of $200,000, and he had to live on his Social Security and his wife's salary of $500 a month as a nurse. Now he began a unique saga--the first physician to wander the country, traveling by bus for days at a time to save money, in his patient search to find an audience.
At Tulsa's All Souls Unitarian Church, where the minister announced, 'the time has come to look into our hypocrisy,' Henrie told a meeting of two hundred that 'in the progress of civilization, there comes a time when someone must stand bigger than the law.' He pointed out that Grove and surrounding areas had a remarkably low rate of juvenile deliquency and crime, possibly due to the birth of only wanted children. 'I delivered wonderful babies when they were wanted, and prevented pregnancies with contraception and abortion when they were not wanted.'"
Henrie's reasoning--that helping women terminate unwanted or unintended pregnancies lowered the crime rate--is, in fact, the same argument that Levitt and Dubner make in Freakonomics. I realize that a committed anti-abortionist will not be persuaded by Henrie's claim and in fact, will be repulsed. But, the point is worth thinking about. If you force women to give birth to babies that they do not want, then you are bringing into existence a child (or children) who may become incredibly dangerous, violent and/or abusive.
An interesting history lesson all told, and I don't mean to nitpick, but you've brought up an issue close to my heart.
ReplyDeleteI'm puzzled by the distinction between Socrates and King here. It sounds like they were both exactly like your boy WJ. Both King and Socrates accepted the punishments for breaking what were bad laws. That was one of the fundamental strategies of the Civil Rights Movement. They broke the laws they believed to be unjust but accepted the punishments for breaking them because they recognized the legitimacy of the state. More strategically, packing the jails was a great way to overwhelm the system, but there was also a lot of ideology at work, doing exactly as you say....accepting the punishment for breaking a bad law.
I--
ReplyDeleteI agree with your nitpick. I started thinking he was more Crito-esque and then realized he was Birmingham-esque too. I think it might be interesting to pin down the core differences between Socrates and MLK jr. I think the latter appealed to a higher law to break the current laws, whereas Socrates did not. What do you think?
That WOULD be a fun thing to sort out...to what extent those higher laws drove his (King's) reasons for breaking the current laws (my Moses paper) and to what extent Socrates was appealing to a higher law (implicitly), that of reason and perhaps his daimon (which isn't a law, but he followed it nonetheless).
ReplyDeleteOne interesting difference is that MKL and WJ both saw themselves as breaking bad laws and suffering the consequences. Socrates didn't think the laws themselves were bad, just that he'd been wrongly accused. In the apology, he mostly criticizes Meletus's reasoning regarding the charges. This distinction might be fruitful to our discussion. Somehow.
But my brain is limited at the moment. Rorscharch leaves for Kansas City in about an hour. I must go say "Goodbye" (with a capital "G") and all that.