Paul Hill is no martyr

Miami Herald: Amid the noisy hoopla about martyrdom that surrounds the pending execution of anti-abortion extremist Paul Hill, there are these stark facts: Hill committed premeditated, cold-blooded murder and brags about it. He isn't insane. He got a fair trial. And there are no unresolved legal issues or extenuating circumstances that would warrant delay.
Given these facts, Florida law mandates that Hill be executed -- and that is what Gov. Jeb Bush says will happen Sept. 3. The governor's decision is the right choice. A state-sanctioned execution is never an easy decision. In this case, it is the only rational option for a civilized society. Hill evinces no remorse. Indeed, he says that he would kill again if given the opportunity.
On July 29, 1994, he waited outside a Pensacola abortion clinic until Dr. John Britton arrived with his bodyguard, James Barrett, and Barrett's wife, June. Hill shot all three with a 12-gauge shotgun, killing Britton and Barrett. This is what this case is about, nothing more.
Forget the celebrity "martyr" status that Hill curries among antiabortion extremists. Hill is but another pathological murderer on Death Row. What's curious is that there seem to be parallel crusades regarding his fate that contradict each other's purpose. One wants him executed, while the other appears orchestrated to keep him alive.
Poster child
The crusade that Hill leads welcomes his execution because it would be the first death sentence carried out against someone convicted of murdering a doctor who performed abortions. Hill wants to become the poster child of fringe antiabortionists who advocate violence and believe his execution will incite more bloodshed in the antiabortion campaign.
The objective of the other crusade must be to keep Hill alive, for it is based upon threats of retribution and more abortion-targeted violence if Hill is executed. As of Thursday, four Florida officials had received anonymous death-threat letters containing live bullets. The threats echo material published in a newsletter, The Abortion Abolitionist. For all its braying menace, the newsletter enjoys free-speech protection under the First Amendment. Not so the death threats to public officials. The state should vigorously pursue the authors of those threats and introduce them to the bite of the law.