The World and Everything in It: March 10, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court is deciding how to handle a discrimination case and one possible outcome is to handle it as a discrimination case.

WANG: I think, what this case is all about, and those are the four words on the side of this building: equal justice under law.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat. We’ll talk about the promised government spending detox and the U.S. as the bitcoin superpower of the world. David Bahnsen is standing by.

And later, the WORLD History Book. Today the anniversary of a deadly shooting of an abortionist.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 10th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Israel ceasefire talks » Ongoing negotiations between U.S. officials and Hamas have been “productive.” That’s the word from  Adam Boehler, the Trump administration envoy for hostages.

He expressed optimism that a deal could come together “within weeks.”

Boehler said, first and foremost, he’s focused on bringing home all remaining hostages still held by the terror group.

BOEHLER: How can I get our hostages out as soon as possible? I feel every single day when they’re not out.

And amid the unprecedented direct talks between the U.S. and the terror group, Boehler also explained what lasting peace would have to look like.

BOEHLER:  A truce where they would be disarmed, where they would not be part of the political policy and a truce where we would ensure, uh, that they are in a place where they can't hurt Israel.

Iran rejects nuclear negotiations » Meantime,  Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini says he’s not interested in negotiating over his country’s nuclear program. He said he’s unwilling to talk as long as the U.S. continues its maximum pressure campaign on Iran, including heavy sanctions.

His statement follows President Trump’s letter to Tehran seeking a diplomatic solution to prevent the regime from developing a nuke.

President Trump is warning of military action if Tehran does not negotiate.

Ukraine » President Trump says despite a rift with Ukraine’s president that culminated in an Oval Office argument more than a week ago. The two countries likely will still sign an economic pact.

TRUMP: Yeah, I think so. I think it’ll happen.

Speaking to Fox News on Sunday the president also said he’s not happy with Europe allies. He said they continued to bankroll Russia in recent years by buying their oil while not matching U.S. aid to Ukraine.

TRUMP:  So they're paying all this money to Russia, and we're in there for $350 billion dollars.

Trump has stated his belief that Vladmir Putin  wants to negotiate an end to the war. But he also said that he’s ramping up pressure on Russia and is seriously considering imposing sanctions and tariffs until a peace deal is reached.

Top U.S. officials will hold talks with Ukrainian leaders in Saudi Arabia tomorrow.

Canadian leadership » Canada will soon have a new prime minister.

In a vote on Sunday, the governing Liberal Party chose former central banker Mark Carney. He’ll replace outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who announced his resignation in January but remained on the job until replacement was chosen and sworn in.

Carney vowed …

CARNEY: I will work day and night with one purpose, which is to build a stronger Canada for everyone.

The 59-year-old Carney is a staunch critic of President Trump. And he’ll take office amid a fight with the U.S. president over new trade tariffs.

Daylight savings » U.S. clocks just made the spring forward over the weekend … but will they ever fall back?

There is renewed talk in Washington about getting rid of the time shifts by keeping Daylight Saving permanently or eliminating it altogether.

President Trump says a lot of Americans want more daylight later in the day. But others want it lighter earlier when kids are heading to school.

TRUMP: It’s a 50/50 issue. And if something’s a 50/50 issue, it’s hard to get excited about it.

But a recent poll of more than a thousand Americans suggest the split is not quite that even. A Stetson University Survey conducted last month found that 54% want Daylight Savings permanently while 21% want to keep standard time year round.

But overall, 3 out of 4 Americans want to stop changing their clocks every six months.

In 2022, the U.S. Senate passed a bill to make Daylight Savings permanent, but it did not pass in the House.

I’m Kent Covington. 

Straight ahead: the Supreme Court considers due process and workplace discrimination. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with economist David Bahnsen. 

This is The World and Everything in It. 

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 10th day of March, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Time now for Legal Docket.

Due-process rights are a fundamental part of the U.S. Constitution and our legal system. The Fifth and Fourteenth are the two Amendments that guarantee due process. They require that the government follow established rules and treat people fairly.

But an inmate on death row claims he’s not being treated fairly, and that the state of Texas is to blame.

CBS4 NEWS: We turn now to the story of convicted killer Ruben Gutierrez. The 47 year old is scheduled to be executed tomorrow night for the 1998 murder of Escolastica Harrison.

Audio from CBS4 News, Rio Grande Valley.

Gutierrez stands accused of capital murder in the case of that elderly woman robbed and fatally stabbed in her home.

CBS4 NEWS: Now tomorrow is the sixth execution date that has been set for Gutierrez, but a key legal question still hangs in the balance, meaning that there's a chance that the lethal injection won't happen as planned.

EICHER: And indeed, it did not. Gutierrez appealed and the Supreme Court took the case.

What it will answer is whether Gutierrez can sue Texas for denying DNA testing and whether it even matters as far as his execution is concerned.

REICHARD: Let’s review a few more facts.

Escolastica Harrison ran a trailer park … and because she didn’t trust banks … she kept huge sums of cash in her home to run her business. When she was robbed … she had nearly $600,000 on the premises.

EICHER: After she was fatally stabbed, prosecutors convicted Gutierrez under a legal doctrine known as the “law of parties.” That just means he could receive the death penalty even if he didn’t commit the crime by his own hand … but was a major participant. That’s key.

REICHARD: Gutierrez asked to test certain evidence collected at the scene—evidence that had never been tested … for example, a blood-stained shirt that belonged to the victim’s nephew, who lived with her. But Texas repeatedly denied his request, arguing that the testing wouldn’t make any difference. In other words, no matter what the DNA tests might show, it wouldn’t change his conviction.

EICHER: During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas asked the lawyer for Gutierrez exactly what he hoped testing would prove:

JUSTICE THOMAS: What do you ultimately intend to show with the DNA?...

FISHER: That Mr. Gutierrez is death ineligible. We may not win that.

THOMAS: Because? He’s death ineligible because?

FISHER: Because he was not a major participant in the crime and did not actually kill, attempt to kill, or anticipate a life would be taken.

So what does that mean in practical terms? By making the argument his client was not a major participant … his strategy is to use crime-scene evidence to put as much distance as possible between Gutierrez and the killing.

REICHARD: But Texas says it’s followed the law exactly right. The state points out that post-conviction DNA tests aren’t mandatory, especially if they won’t affect the verdict. And here, Texas argues the other evidence against Gutierrez is strong enough to uphold the conviction—DNA testing or not. Texas Deputy Solicitor General William Cole.

COLE: ….here, there are several independent state law grounds that the prosecutor has relied on to deny access to the evidence, and those grounds are unaffected by the district court's narrow declaratory judgment here.

EICHER: Justice Sonia Sotomayor clarified the question presented in this exchange with Fisher, lawyer for Gutierrez.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So I thought this case was only about standing because the court before didn't get to the due process arguments, did it?

FISHER: I completely agree this case is here about standing.

REICHARD: Texas also argues there’s a second problem: even if Gutierrez wins on standing, his lawsuit would still fail. The reason? Because prosecutors might simply refuse to comply with a DNA testing order.

EICHER: And that would make the court’s order essentially meaningless … or to use the legal term of art, not “redressable.”

But Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn’t buy that idea:

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: I don't see how we can say something's not redressable just because the prosecutor is going to say I'm not going to comply with a court order. You know, if President Nixon said, “I’m not going to come turn over the tapes no matter what,” you wouldn’t say, “Oh, I guess we don’t have standing to hear the executive privilege case.”

REICHARD: Justice Sotomayor brought attention back to the evidence itself. She pointed out there’s untested evidence that might indicate other suspects—specifically, two other men in the victim’s home on the day of the crime:

SOTOMAYOR: There were, I think, scrapings under the fingernails of the victim.

FISHER: Yes.

SOTOMAYOR: There was a hair that was entwined in her finger or somewhere on ---on her body.

FISHER: Correct….

SOTOMAYOR: If the evidence were to show that the other two were present, then that would give some support to your client's claim or would support your client's claim that he wasn't the one who entered the apartment to do the killing?

FISHER: Yes, Your Honor.

REICHARD: If Gutierrez wins, Texas would have to rethink its DNA testing rules in death-penalty cases—and that would potentially affect other states as well. If Texas wins, then states could keep denying DNA testing so long as other procedures are strictly followed.

Now, on to our final case:

JUSTICE ROBERTS: We will hear argument this morning in Case Number 23-1039, Ames versus the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

EICHER: This one’s about discrimination in the workplace, but perhaps not the kind you typically hear about.

Here, the plaintiff is Marlean Ames. She says she faced discrimination at work because she’s heterosexual. Here she is, talking with CBS News:

MARLEAN AMES: It was humiliating, going to work every day. This is for everyone in the United States. Everyone should have a fair shake at their own battles.

REICHARD: Since 2004 … Ames had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She had strong performance reviews and received promotions consistently—until 2019. She applied for a Bureau Chief position but instead found herself demoted to secretary, with a substantial pay cut.

EICHER: And this happened right after she received recognition for her 30 years of service.

Her old job went to a homosexual male and the Bureau Chief job went to a lesbian who hadn’t even applied.

REICHARD: So Ames sued. She argued she’d been discriminated against because she’s a non-homosexual—a “straight woman,” according to the legal filings.

But the lower court dismissed her case, ruling that because Ames is heterosexual—that makes her a member of what’s considered a “majority group.” And because of that, she had a heavier burden of proof.

EICHER: To succeed, she had to demonstrate “background circumstances” showing that her employer was the rare kind of workplace that discriminates against a majority. And according to the lower courts, she hadn’t done that.

But Ames’ lawyer Michael Wang says that whole approach is wrongheaded:

MICHAEL WANG: …it’s not because this Court has said that Title VII aims to eradicate all discrimination in the workplace. But the background circumstances rule doesn't do that. It doesn't eradicate discrimination; it instructs courts to practice it by sorting individuals into majority and minority groups based on their race, their sex, or their protected characteristic, and applying a categorical evidentiary presumption not in favor of but against the non-moving party based solely on their being in a majority group, however you define it.

REICHARD: Chief Justice John Roberts tested that idea with a hypothetical involving ethnicity instead of sexual orientation:

ROBERTS: What if you have a situation where, say, 60 employees in the company, say, you know, a half dozen African Americans, an African American is --applies for a job, there's an opening, he doesn't get it, it remains open for, you know, a couple of months? Does that satisfy the prima facie case if he said it was because of discrimination?

WANG: Assuming that they are qualified and --

ROBERTS: Yeah, yeah. Yeah.

WANG: Yes.

ROBERTS: Okay.

EICHER: Then Roberts flipped the scenario around:

ROBERTS: Now let's say it's the same thing, but the applicant is white, exactly the same facts, and she says: …-I lost the job because of discrimination on the basis of race. Does that …state a prima facie case?

WANG: I think it states a prima facie case, but I think it goes in --perhaps, Your Honor, it goes to the idea of getting employers to come forward with an explanation and then providing sort of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason, which I don't think is a high burden at all.

REICHARD: Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser took a different tack. He argued that Ames’s lawsuit failed for a simpler reason: she didn’t present enough evidence.

GAISER: ….she could not establish that anybody was motivated by sexual orientation or even knew her sexual orientation… She didn't provide evidence that, to quote Furnco, "if otherwise unexplained, raises an inference of discrimination."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed him on that point:

JUSTICE BARRETT: So, if we said someone like Ms. Ames, who is a member --it doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight; she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title VII if she sued as someone who was gay and argued that they were discriminated against under Title VII? Same?

GAISER: I think that she should have the same burden and that the best reading of --of what the Sixth Circuit said --

BARRETT: Well, no, no, no. I'm just asking you what you think of the statute. So that is what you think of the statute. And same for someone who brings a race discrimination, someone who brings --you know, a woman or a man who brings a sex discrimination suit on the basis of --discrimination against the basis of sex, all of those, you agree that the courts should apply the exact same burden, treat them the exact same way?

GAISER: We --we agree with that --

BARRETT: Okay.

Justice Sotomayor highlighted troubling aspects of the state’s case:

SOTOMAYOR: Because Judge Kethledge basically said you have a situation here where she alleged she was a member of the majority group, she was a 20-year employee, great reviews, and then all of a sudden she's not hired, and someone's hired who's gay, doesn't have her level of college experience, and didn't even want the job. Something's suspicious about that. It certainly can give rise to an inference of discrimination.

EICHER: Justice Elena Kagan summed up the dilemma this way:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The question presented is whether a majority-group plaintiff has to show something more than a minority-group plaintiff, here, whether a straight person has to show more than a gay person. Everybody over here says no. You say no too. That was the question that we took the case to decide. ….Why shouldn't we approach the case in that way?

EICHER: Indeed, both sides ended up agreeing. That means the justices might finally remove this “background circumstances” standard altogether, treating all discrimination cases—as discrimination cases.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the simplest possible resolution in this exchange with lawyer Wang:

KAVANAUGH:  So --so all you want for this case is a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it's because you're gay or because you're straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same whichever way that goes?

WANG: That --that's right, Your Honor. And I --

KAVANAUGH: That's all we need to say, right?

Wang summed it all up with an appeal to the Court’s own promise chiseled into its marble façade, directly above the main entrance:

WANG: I think, what this case is all about, and those are the four words on the side of this building: equal justice under law… . Now I know that sometimes we don't fulfill that promise. I understand that. But, at the heart of this case, at bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under law. Not more justice, not more justice, but certainly not less and certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion. We're simply asking for equal justice under law. That’s what Title VII says and I think that’s consistent with what this Court has held.

REICHARD: If Ames prevails—and it seems likely she will—her case will return to the lower courts. And the outcome there could shape how judges across the country approach workplace discrimination lawsuits, especially in the context of any remaining diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

EICHER: Two opinions to report from last week: in Bufkin v. Collins, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Veterans Administration in a dispute on how it assesses disability claims. Veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton argued that courts should independently reevaluate evidence. But the majority said no—courts can only step in if the VA clearly made a mistake.

REICHARD: And a 6-3 decision in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA. The justices struck down what are called “end-result” permitting requirements from the EPA. They said the agency now has to set clearer and enforceable pollution limits under the Clean Water Act. The case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group. He is here now. David, good morning.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Good morning, Nick, good to be with you.

EICHER: All right, I know you prefer not to look to a single month of jobs numbers … that a three-month moving average is the better figure. It’s funny, though, that the 151-thousand jobs added in February … according to the figure we got on Friday … that that number is exactly the average of the last three months. But the reason I bring this one up in isolation is because of the administration spin on the report, pointing to the loss of government jobs … about 10-thousand jobs lost … as a positive step. Do you think that’s misplaced? What do you think this report tells us about the actual health of the labor market?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I mean I think it was a pretty boring jobs report. Ten thousand isn’t very many. When they talk about “oh, well, good, we’re getting rid of some of these government jobs,” I mean, first of all, there’s going to be a lot more than 10,000 that will have to go in the end. But whatever the number is, they can’t assume that all of them are going to be replaced in the private sector. I’m not sure that the right approach is to be supporting any job loss.

It’s more getting the right size of government and that’s different. I think that you hire to what it is your need is. So there’s sort of a reversal of the conversation.

The expected number was 160,000 total. It came in at one fifty, so it was just a little bit light. And then to the extent that the government jobs went down and the administration wants to celebrate that, we have to remember that 25% of job growth last year was in the governmental governmental adjacent sector, so a lot of these things are smoothing out from excesses of last year.

There’s a lot of nuance in it. I’m more focused, as you know, on the weekly jobless claims. We’re going to get a third week this coming week to give me an average based on that first number that had come in a couple of weeks ago that was noticeably higher.

Do I think we’re potentially in early signs of a little bit of weakness in labor market? I do, but it’s a little premature to make the conclusion, although there is certainly a little, you know, preliminary evidence of it.

EICHER: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spoke to the Economic Club of New York and then sat for an interview with C-N-B-C the day after. Bessent described the economy as needing a “detox” from government spending, implying short-term pain for long-term gain. Here’s that clip from C-N-B-C Squawk Box.

BESSENT: The market and the economy have just become hooked. We’ve become addicted to this government spending, and there's going to be a detox period. We’ll see whether there’s pain, what we are trying to do—I talked about it at the economic club of New York yesterday—there’s going to be a natural adjustment as we move away from public spending to private spending.

Do you see this messaging as honest economic analysis or more of political spin—and how realistic is this detoxification strategy?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I think that my interpretation of that was this: If you are going to do tariffs for protectionism and other private sector interference that hurts the economy, it would be good to try to tee up in advance that you want to blame it on reducing the size of government. So, I thought that there was a little preemptive spin potentially there.

I don’t think markets necessarily fell for that, obviously. However, there is a sense in which it’s true that there would always be a detox to have to come off of a dependence on governmental transfer payments. And I think that Secretary Bessent is a very savvy person.

But he can’t blame this entirely on the transfer payments that were at play here when the majority of them started in the latter portion of President Trump’s first term out of COVID. When we talk about the economy being dependent on governmental spending, I don’t think anyone believes that growth, real economic growth, and productivity is coming from these various projects we’re trying to cut out of government right now. If we were to cut them, it’s gonna hurt the economy for a little bit, but then we go through detox and then we’re better off.

The things that we have to sort of wean off of are various transfer payments that started out of the COVID moment, and there hasn’t been a continuation of some of them yet.

Secretary Bessent has such a strong command of financial markets, but he has a very, very difficult job, Nick, because he has to appease his boss, he has to appease markets, and he has to try to drive a policy solution to a number of different things—some of which I’m very convinced he’s working on and has a rather intelligent plan behind it. But the messaging along the way is very difficult to take seriously because they have to navigate all these things at once.

EICHER: David, on markets … all the major indexes fell in a range from 1.5% to 2.3% on the week … the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq falling for the third week in a row.

What we’d seen to this point is the markets veering back and forth based on where the president was on tariffs … falling on tariff announcements but then rebounding whenever tariffs were canceled or walked back. Karate Kid-style, kind of wax-on, wax-off.

But they didn’t swing this time around. What changed this week, and do you think this suggests anything about investors’ deeper economic concerns?

BAHNSEN: So on one hand, there is the tariff issues themselves—which are wax on, wax off, you know, being told different things all the time. This was to me, noteworthy this last week that for the first time you had yet another reversal of big tariff threats that they walked back again, only this time markets didn’t rally from the walk back they continued to sell off.

My argument here was that markets are now not responding to, “will there be or not be tariffs?” It’s very clear whatever tariffs we do get are going to be riddled with exceptions, carve outs, exemptions, favors, and all of this type of stuff—a lot of the reasons that, as you know, I’m so opposed to the policy.

But what the markets are responding to in my opinion is what regardless of what happens and regardless of what doesn’t happen, it is going to end up impacting real economic growth. So, what I tried to do in Dividend Café is show how the bond market is showing this, that essentially bond yields have dropped a lot, but inflation expectations have not been much of a driver. So a lot of the tariff defenders are saying, “look, inflation exportations haven’t gone up with the threat of tariffs.” In fact, bond yields are coming down, and my point is, yes, they’re entirely going down because real growth expectations have dropped by half of a percentage point per year for the next 10 years.

So that’s what I think markets are responding to is the possibility, after inflation, of a much lower growth expectation than at the point of the inauguration. So, we had a good move up and expectations from the election to the inauguration since then, it’s given all of that back and then some. I think that’s partially a little bit of concern about where we’re going with tax policy, tax cuts, tax extensions. I think markets are a little uncertain about that process and then certainly the looming issues around tariffs.

EICHER: Friday was the Bitcoin summit at the White House … featuring leading cryptocurrency and tech enthusiasts … and chaired by the White House crypto-czar David Sacks. The president was there and he had this to say.

TRUMP: Last year, I promised to make America the Bitcoin superpower of the world and the crypto capital of the planet and we’re taking historic action to deliver on that promise, as you know, around the table. Yesterday I signed an executive order officially creating our strategic Bitcoin reserve, and this will be a virtual Fort Knox for digital gold to be housed within the United States Treasury. That's a big thing, Scott [Bessent]. The federal government is already among the largest holders of Bitcoin, as you know.

By the way, the reference to Scott … was to the Treasury Secretary we heard just a minute ago … Scott Bessent. But David, what should we take from the administration’s moves on Bitcoin, and do you see it as a shift?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, it’s interesting. Bitcoin was at 86,000 a few days after the election, and as we’re sitting here talking, it’s 86,000 now. But I strongly suspect by the time people are listening, it could be a lot higher, a lot lower because it has just exploded in volatility.

It all shows the folly of believing that regulation around the exchanges is supposed to affect the underlying price. And that was the big takeaway from that summit last week.

It’s a very sociological investment and that’s fine. It just isn’t a economic investment. And so, you know, sometimes the sociology behind it is going to drive a price higher and hopefully people do what you’re supposed to do in that situation.

Many times it drives it lower, but every single thing I’ve said for the last decade about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, I think continues to play out exactly as described and I stand by it.

I was utterly amused by David Sacks—billionaire venture capitalist, heavy crypto enthusiast, member of Trump’s AI and cryptocurrency advisory council—make the comment that crypto should not be relying upon government to be buying it. Yet, you hear all the times from Bitcoin people, “well, they’re going to make a big strategic reserve and that’s going to push the price up.”

All I’ve heard for the last few years is it’s supposed to be an anti-governmental investment, and now I’m being told that its government is going to add to the value. So I have a hard time keeping it straight and that was some of the mixed messaging at the summit that you’re referring to from a few days ago.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David writes at dividendcafe.com and regularly for WORLD Opinions. David, thanks! Have a great week!

Thanks so much, great to be with you.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, March 10th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the WORLD History Book. Today, an anti-abortion activist triggers more violence. WORLD’s Emma Perley brings us the story.

EMMA PERLEY: Today marks a dark anniversary … the 32nd anniversary of a murder.

MAZIE HIRONO: Today is Abortion Provider Appreciation Day. This day was established to honor Dr. David Gunn, who was killed on March 10, 1993, outside his abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida, by a white supremacist, anti-abortion extremist.

It was just last year that legislators introduced that resolution to memorialize the murder of abortionist David Gunn. The pro-life activist Michael Griffin shot him in the back three times. Here’s Griffin speaking with 60 Minutes Australia in 2010:

MICHAEL GRIFFIN: The only people who should be in fear and terror are abortion doctors. They’re going to have a reckoning one day with God.

So what happened on the morning of March 10th, 1993? Pro-life protesters gather around Gunn’s abortion center. They hold signs that say, “David Gunn kills babies.”

When Gunn arrives at 10am, he parks, gets out of his car, and heads toward the back door. He’d had polio as a child, and so walks with a limp.

Michael Griffin wears a gray suit … a witness says it looks like he’s going to church. Earlier that same week, Griffin had asked his church congregation to pray that God might save Gunn’s soul.

Now, Griffin waits for him behind the abortion center in the parking lot, holding a snub nosed revolver.

As soon as Griffin sees Gunn, he chases the doctor as he limps toward the building—toward safety. Griffin yells, “Don’t kill any more babies!” … pulls out his revolver, and shoots Gunn in the back at point blank range.

No one calls the police to help Gunn—not even the pro-life protesters. When officers arrive, they had simply been told to stop the protest. Then Griffin steps forward and says… “I just shot someone.”

The murder of David Gunn is the culmination of increasing unrest at abortion centers.

NEWSCAST: [Protesters singing “Glory Glory Hallelujah” / talking in microphones]

In the late ‘80s, an organization called Operation Rescue held sit-ins across the country to stop abortion providers—and those seeking abortions—from entering buildings. Audio from a protester speaking with a local radio station.

NEWSCAST: We’re petitioning God. We’re petitioning God to change the hearts of the people of this country and the man that runs this place …

Then in 1991, Operation Rescue led the Summer of Mercy, where pro-life activists gathered at abortion center entrances in Wichita, Kansas. They linked arms to block the doors. Police often intervened—sometimes violently. Audio from CBN News.

CBN NEWS: Another act of aggression occurred at the clinic. This time a policeman warned these adamantly determined demonstrators to close their eyes or move from the recess doorway just seconds before spraying them with mace.

POLICEMAN: Get outta the way. Get outta the way. I’m not gonna tell you again. You’ve got a chance to leave.

More than 2,600 people were eventually arrested.

But in 1993, Griffin, for the first time, escalates the pro-life movement to murder. Why? Griffin says God had told him to resort to violence … but … at his trial he claims pro-life leaders had manipulated him into murdering Gunn.

On March 4th, 1994, Griffin is sentenced to life in prison … he shows no remorse.

Griffin, on 60 Minutes Australia again.

GRIFFIN: God clearly condemns the killing of a child. That’s murder. Abortion is murder.

REPORTER: So how would you describe what you did? If not murder?

GRIFFIN: Saving 12 children.

Pro-life organizations have mixed reactions to the killing. Operation Rescue says Gunn’s death was unfortunate, but ultimately saved babies … and many pro-life activists sign the Defensive Action Statement, which called the murder justified.

But the United States Catholic Conference condemns the violence, calling it “a mockery of the pro-life cause.”

The murder is a major setback for pro-life activists … as Pro-abortion supporters jump on the tragedy.

BILL CLINTON: Enacting this bill to provide freedom of access to clinics has been a priority because protecting the freedoms of our citizens is surely chief among the responsibilities of the President of the United States.

A little more than a year after the murder, former President Bill Clinton signs the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, into law … making it a federal crime for protesters to blockade abortion facilities or threaten providers. Gunn’s son, David Gunn Jr., is a vocal advocate for the law.

Even so, Griffin’s actions inspire copycats—like Rachelle Shannon, who shoots an abortionist in both arms … and Paul Hill, who guns down an abortionist and his bodyguard in 1994.

Hill is the first person to be sentenced to death for killing an abortion doctor. He speaks with an interviewer in prison right before his execution in 2003.

INTERVIEWER: Why did you do it?

PAUL HILL: Perhaps the most fundamental reason is the sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not murder,” also requires the means necessary to defend innocent people and that’s what I did.

Hill says he hopes to inspire others.

And he does.

In 1994, 22 year-old John Salvi walks into an abortion center and opens fire, killing two and wounding five others. He is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

While violence continues well into the 2000s, it also creates new targets: crisis pregnancy centers. Since the passage of the FACE Act, attacks on these organizations have also increased. And officials such as Jim Jordan have accused the federal government of turning a blind eye.

REP. JIM JORDAN: If you’re a pro-life activist, and you’re praying outside an abortion clinic guess what happens to you? FBI kicks in your door, arrests you, puts you in handcuff.

Since 2022, more than 100 crisis pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations have been vandalized or set on fire … many more than once.

The FBI and local police have arrested only six people in connection with the attacks.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Perley.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: support is growing in Montana for assisted suicide. What’s behind the shift? That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says God instructed Aaron and his sons to bless the Israelite with these words: “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.” —Numbers 6:24-26

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.