Far-too-infrequent ObsidianWinger Sebastian has some good questions about the rhetoric surrounding the George Tiller murder. In the spirit of this post of hilzoy’s, however, it seems to me that an even better approach might be to ask whether, in the face of a series of violent attacks against the homes, property, and persons of UCLA scientists using non-human animals for their research, the proper political response would be to:
(a) Repeal all restrictions requiring humane treatment of non-human animals. The Congress should not get into the specifics of what procedures can be used when. If it must, it should broaden the set of cases in which non-human animals can be harmed or killed to include not only cases in which human health is at stake, but cases in which people get a kick out of it, or in which there’s money to be made through the research.
(b) Require training in animal research techniques for a Ph.D. in the natural sciences.
(c) Require that any research center provide any researcher or corporate donor with appropriate resources to perform research on non-human animals, and that those research costs be fully reimbursable by the federal government. If they have no one on staff who can perform the research, they should get someone. See (b) above.
Because, you know, one way to stop terrorism is by enforcing our laws. We should absolutely do that. But another is to make it clear that terrorism doesn’t work. We should do that too. And the best way I can think of is to change our present situation, in which far too few scientists perform research on non-human animals. We can keep whatever strictures we want on research on human subjects while also ensuring that no one person has to take on him- or herself the risks that militant animal rights activists want to subject them to.
Or am I somehow misunderstanding the logic of hilzoy’s position?
kenB 
John, you reference two comparable kinds of violence, that then proceed to reference completely incomparable kinds of remedies.
a) Hilzoy says dilation and extraction (IDX) should not be outlawed because it may be the safest method to protect the mother’s health and life. How is your remedy, repeal ALL restriction requiring humane treatment of animals, comparable?
b) Hilzoy says if you are going to be an Ob/Gyn, someone who specializes in womens reproductive health, you need to be trained in late-term abortion techniques, Why? Because sometimes the fetus dies, and sometimes the mother’s life is at risk. She does not say that a specialist in women’s reproductive health MUST provide abortions. Clearly, her implication is that if the mother’s life is at risk and an emergency is underway, even specialists who oppose abortion must be able to act to save the mother. Your comparison refers to non-specialists with no obvious connection to life-saving techniques or services.
c) Hilzoy again speaks to hospitals providing women’s reproductive health services and the requirement that they be able to act to save a woman’s life. She suggests that religious objections would except if the fetus is dead. You suggest research that in not and won’t be emergency in nature is comparable to that of doctor faced with the death of the woman if he or she doesn’t act.
These are entirely unobjectionable changes to current law, ones that put the life of the mother on parity with the life of the fetus while respecting the idea of viability. I understand you do not accept viability as the standard by which abortion should be judged, but it is the law as it is written.
There are many institutions that do animal research. There is now, what, one doctor in the entire nation who will perform therapeutic late term abortions? This is a question of women’s health, John, and your post is extremely cavalier.
Jake