Sometimes, however, the judgment that comparable integrity moves activists on both sides seems confounded by the facts. When Michael Griffin, an anti-abortion activist, allegedly shot and killed Dr. David Gunn, an abortion provider, at a clinic in Pensacola, Florida, on March 17, 1993, one could only wonder what acts of violence might be next on the activists' agenda, and what kind of moral or religious integrity could endorse killing to achieve its ends. Nevertheless, Michael Griffin, according to news reports, vowed to provide his own legal defense and to make the Bible its primary source. However much one might be baffled by Michael Griffin, the man himself apparently felt morally comfortable with his action. Furthermore, public statements offered by those commenting on behalf of Operation Rescue and Rescue America, while regretting Griffin's action, did not neglect to mention the millions of babies abortion providers like Gunn kill every year in America. They did not say Griffin was justified in killing Gunn, but they obviously thought Griffin's action was no worse morally than Gunn's regular abortion of living fetuses. Was Griffin morally justified in killing David Gunn? Was Gunn even more disreputable than Griffin because he regularly and without compunction dispatched living fetuses (what antiabortion advocates call innocent babies)? Was Gunn so blind, morally speaking, that killing him was the only responsible recourse? Or, was Griffin's idea of moral and religious integrity just badly misguided? . .