A gunman opened fire Friday at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killing two civilians and a police officer and injuring nine others.

After surrendering to the police, witnesses heard the suspect saying “no more baby parts.”

The comment appeared to be a reference to a series of videos released earlier this year by The Center for Medical Progress (CMP), an anti-abortion group. The group asserted that the heavily-edited videos showed undercover footage of Planned Parenthood officials “price haggling for baby parts” with members of CMP posing as potential buyers of aborted fetal tissue.

The release of the videos re-ignited interest in the drawn-out abortion debate among politicians and the American public; reinvigorated calls from Republicans for Congress to cut funding to Planned Parenthood; and prompted many on the right to speak out vehemently and forcefully against abortion.

In a fiery response to a debate question about abortion, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina claimed one of the videos showed “a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking, while someone says, ‘We have to keep it alive to harvest its brain,’” an assertion later debunked as being “mostly false” by fact-checking organization Politifact.

Political rhetoric really does influence peoples’ attitudes and perspectives on issues. As sociologist B.J. Gallagher wrote in a blog for The Huffington Post, “Words shape our perception of the world; words trigger emotions; words wound; words have consequences…If we want less violence in our country, we must stop committing violence with our words.”

That isn’t to say that extreme rhetoric necessarily equates to actual violent acts. But to say extreme political rhetoric does not affect some people’s views and the intensity and conviction with which they are held is to underestimate the power rhetoric can have in the hands of agenda-setters and other powerful authority figures.

Following the shooting, many abortion rights advocates spoke out against the rhetoric used by the CMP and other anti-abortion groups. In a Facebook post directed to CMP founder David Daleiden, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America Ilyse Hogue wrote, “You don’t get to create fake videos and accuse abortion providers of ‘barbaric atrocities against humanity’ one day and act shocked when someone shoots to kill in those same facilities the next.”

This isn’t the first time a connection has been made between extreme political rhetoric and extreme acts of violence.

In 2011, a shooting occurred at a constituent meeting in Tucson, Arizona, killing six people and severely injuring U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Many pointed to the heated political landscape at the time as a possible contributing factor to the attack. Some pointed specifically to rhetoric used by Sarah Palin, including a graphic on her campaign website which depicted crosshairs over targeted Congressional seats on a midterm election map, one of which was placed on Giffords’ district.

In addition, Giffords’ opponent in the previous election held a campaign event six months before the shooting offering voters the chance to shoot an assault rifle with him. The event description on his website read “Get on Target for Victory in November (and) help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office.”

Again, this isn’t to abdicate the gunman of any responsibility or to suggest that those who employ extreme political rhetoric do so with the intention of causing violence. But the apparent reality is that this kind of rhetoric can and does play a role in motivating extreme actions, or at the very least contributes to an emotionally-charged political atmosphere that can provide sick individuals with an authoritative basis for radical or dangerous views and actions.

While I would never argue in favor of censoring even the most extreme political speech, those who employ it need to acknowledge the impact their rhetoric can have and take responsibility for its consequences.

Russell Behrmann is a senior communication major from Bellevue. He can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of The Office of Student Media.