Mainstream media finally shamed into reporting Kermit Gosnell story

Next assignment – blame the GOP for not providing enough funding to keep this from happening.

Yes, that’s satire.  But seriously, is there anyone out there who really believes that this won’t happen?  It’s just how the mainstream media works.

Unless you rely solely on the mainstream media or low information news outlets (The Daily Show, TMZ) for your “news,” you are no doubt aware of the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell.  He is currently on trial in Philadelphia, charged with 7 counts of first degree murder stemming from allegations that hundreds of late term illegal abortions were performed in his squalid clinic, which can only be described as an abattoir for the unborn.

Photo of the media reserved seating at the Kermit Gosnell trial, Tweeted April 11th by Bucks County Courier Times columnist J.D. Mullane

Photo of the media reserved seating at the Kermit Gosnell trial, Tweeted April 11th by Bucks County Courier Times columnist J.D. Mullane

Yet there has been a virtual blackout of the Gosnell trial in the national news media.  Philadelphia TV stations and newspapers have covered the trial, but the story has been completely off the radar of major mainstream news media outlets.

Until now, that is.

For most of this week, there has been an intense social media campaign about the Gosnell trial, culminating yesterday with a barrage of over 25,000 Tweets tagged with Gosnell’s name.  The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher tweeted – “Maybe the media would jump on the Kermit Gosnell story if Sarah Palin tweeted about him and misspelled his name.”  And from Iowahawk’s David Burge – “What Romney did with a scissors in 1965: 20 acres of front page. What Gosnell did with a scissors: crickets.”

Kirsten Powers first broke the mainstream media silence on Thursday with her powerful USA Today op-ed, “Philadelphia abortion clinic horror: we’ve forgotten what belongs on Page One“.

Ms. Powers’ confession then prompted The Atlantic’s Connor Friedersdorf to pen this lengthy article: “Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Trial Should be a Major News Story.”  If you’re looking for details about the horrors of Gosnell’s clinic, this piece is chock-full of them.

And yesterday, Terry Moran from ABC News tweeted, “Kermit Gosnell is probably the most successful serial killer in the history of the world.”

So what will the mainstream media do?  As Friedersdorf notes in his story, there are numerous details about the Gosnell case that literally beg for a major investigation.  Why did various state agencies know about Gosnell’s clinic for nearly two decades, yet do nothing?  How could Gosnell’s clinic take in nearly two million dollars a year, yet make Cuban hospitals look luxurious?  Why were white women allegedly led to a clean, quiet area of the clinic for their procedures?  Did other clinics repeatedly refer women to Gosnell’s clinic because they knew he would perform illegal late term abortions with no questions asked?  And most importantly, how many more filthy abortion mills like Gosnell’s clinic are out there?

Certainly there will be a lot of “we accept responsibility, but not the blame” naval-gazing.  The Washington Post has already admitted, “In retrospect, we should have sent a reporter sooner.”

But I think the real issue here involves the almost sacramental status of abortion among committed leftists.  There is literally nothing more sacred to liberals than guaranteeing that as many abortions are performed as possible.  The Gosnell trial is a sobering reminder of what can happen when the media decides that protecting the practice of abortion is more important than the lives and safety of newborns and poor women.

Dr. Gosnell’s case bears a striking similarity to allegations brought against Dr. Patrick Chavis, who was tragically murdered in 2002.  Dr. Chavis was worshiped by affirmative action supporters because he was one of the minority students admitted to The University of California, Davis medical school during the famous Bakke incident that led to the landmark 1978 US Supreme Court ruling that race quotas for university admission were unconstitutional.

During the 1990’s, Chavis was cited for numerous ethics violations and use of improper procedures during the practice of medicine.  His primary practice was a clinic that specialized in abortions, located in one of Compton’s poorest neighborhoods.  For this reason, along with the fact that Chavis always counter-sued, alleging any racism any time complaints were filed against him, he was essentially left alone by authorities – until one of his patients died due to his incompetence.  Her death opened up a formal investigation into Chavis and his off-site shade tree liposuction clinic (for which he was never properly trained or licensed) and led to the revocation of his medical license in 1998.  Yet despite the suffering of his patients, Chavis was never criminally charged for any of his wrongdoings.

At the heart of both the Gosnell and Chavis stories is the myth that abortion is a safe  and ethical procedure practiced by competent, caring doctors in clean, modern clinics.  Indeed we are told by the keepers of the culture that Roe v. Wade guarantees this, because it eliminated “back-alley coat hanger abortions.”  Threaten the status of Roe v. Wade, and the first thing you hear from hysterical liberals is OH MY GOD!!  BACK ALLEY ABORTIONS!!!!!!

Yet Gosnell and Chavis both operated bona fide “back alley” clinics, filled with unsterilized equipment, bloody linens, filthy rooms, and unqualified personnel.

Another sacred leftist myth involves late-term and partial birth abortions, which abortion advocates insist are extremely rare and only performed when absolutely medically necessary.  Yet the Gosnell case clearly shows that his clinic performed perhaps thousands of these procedures, with at least dozens — documented by eyewitness testimony — that involved killing still living, viable premature babies as long as 20 minutes after their birth.

Regardless of what you believe about the ethics of in utero abortion, this gruesome fact should be cause for widespread outrage among anyone capable of empathy.  Not to mention the fact that poor women of color were the primary victims of Gosnell’s carelessness and incompetence.  Women’s rights and civil rights advocates should be furious.  And the national media should be leading their daily news coverage with this story.

But they weren’t.  The fact that they had to be shamed into finally reporting the story should make us question whether today’s news organizations are only interested in reporting the suffering of children and minorities if it helps to establish the leftist/progressive narrative.  The Gosnell case certainly doesn’t, and obviously there were deliberate decisions made to spike the story.

Jonah Goldberg writes,

I think the mainstream media stayed away from this story as much as it did because it had already locked into the position that partial-birth abortion is a right-wing bogeyman. If they covered the outrages that the feminists are understandably furious about, they would also have to mention somewhere in the reporting the fact that a whole bunch of actual babies were being cut up. The feminists don’t think that’s a problem. They just just want to make sure it’s done under more equitable and sanitary conditions. But the mainstream media understands that it is a problem — for them.

It’s a “problem” because most Americans have a conscience.  And as Commentary Magazine’s Seth Mandel notes, a mainstream press that would deliberately suppress the Kermit Gosnell story out of fear of exposing the truth about abortions, at the expense of the health and safety of the women who suffered at his blood-soaked hands, “should most certainly stop lecturing the rest of us on compassion, on pity, on social obligation, and on morality.”

UPDATE: An reader writes, “The legacy media won’t cover the Kermit Gosnell case because they understand it could be utilized by anti-abortion activists in the way anti-Second Amendment activists utilized the Sandy Hook murders.”  Amen.

This post has been slightly edited for clarity since it was first published.

Batgirl Comic Character Comes Out as Transgender
The Chicago Way… Again.
  • GarandFan

    In other news today, the mother of one of the victims of the Sandy Hook murders was allowed to give The Chosen One’s weekly radio address.

    There was no comment from the HUNDREDS of victims of Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

    Evidently “if it will save only ONE life” does not apply in certain cases.

    • jim_m

      Of course. When people die in furtherance of a left wing cause it is merely “suboptimal”. That applies equally whether it is 4 people in Benghazi or millions in the Ukraine or Cambodia.

      • herddog505

        Very true.

        I think we’re going to see a lot more p*ss-weak excuses for Gosnell if / when this story ever breaks:

        — “It’s because of reich-wing anti-choice terrorist threats that better doctors don’t assist in women asserting their holy Right to Choose.” [Gosnell was brave!]

        — “If only nasty ol’ reichwing christer mysogynists would stop blocking proper funding, there would be money for better facilities and proper inspections.” [PA and Philly didn’t ignore what Gosnell did; they just – dang it! – didn’t have the money to keep track of him. Plus, if there was PROPER funding, he could have hired more help to keep his clinic running properly. Poor man: having to struggle along with what little money he could get. He was so generous!]

        — “These were poor, ignorant women, oppressed by a patriarchal white culture that keeps them in poverty. Why, a child for them, struggling along in minimum wage jobs, was practically a death sentence. They NEEDED somewhere to turn, someone to liberate them from the punishment of a child.” [Gosnell was a saintly benefactor]

        I mean, really: we’ve got the AP telling us that the vicious ghouls who helped Gosnell were in such desperate economic straights that it was the only job they could get (how could we be so cruel to deny these people a living wage???). Upthread, Bruce is citing a book review that tells us that scholarly work shows that laws against abortion are all about keeping women in their place.

        Unbelievable. No… I take that back: when it comes to lefties, ANYTHING is believable about them.

  • 914

    To expose Kermit means the leftists have to acknowledge his ghoulish deeds. Much like a 3am sleep in during the Benghazi failure. The truth of what they willingly support is hard to swallow..

  • jim_m

    “The legacy media won’t cover the Kermit Gosnell case because they understand it could be utilized by anti-abortion activists in the way anti-Second Amendment activists utilized the Sandy Hook murders.” – a comment sent to Instapundit

    This is exactly correct. Bruce on the other thread steadfastly argues hat the vast majority of abortion clinics are not like this. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support his claim because the left does not allow anyone to inspect these places or for any oversight at all to take place.

    Now that this is starting to crack the media we will get endless assurances that there is no larger problem and no, there is no need for any sort of regulation or oversight on these abattoirs.

    The bottom line is that whereas we have plenty of evidence that gun owners are not going around murdering people, because the left allows no transparency in the abortion business we do not know that there are not many, many more Kermit Gosnells.

    • Brucehenry

      Where do I steadfastly maintain what?

      • jim_m

        In the Nanny state thread You claim the Gosnell only represents Gosnell, and to Herddog you claimed that there was no evidence that such atrocities had ever taken place anywhere else. When both Herddog and I replied with links showing otherwise you ignored them.

        Saying that there is no evidence that there are any other clinics like Gosnells is essentially the same as saying the vast majority are not like him. In fact your formulation was stronger than I gave you credit. You actually claimed that there were none.

        • Brucehenry


          My line about Gosnell was in response to your claim that “the left” WANTED Gosnell to butcher babies, or some such nonsense.

          Without rereading, I remember asking Herd if he had examples anywhere near as egregious as Gosnell’s case. He replied with several. While disturbing, none of them touched the horror of the Gosnell case.

          Again, without re-reading, I don’t think I ever claimed there “were none,” nor did I ever say that such atrocities had “never taken place anywhere else.” I’ll eat my words if you supply a quote.

          EDITED TO ADD: I just now re-read all my comments. NOT ONCE did I say anything on that thread that could be construed as “There were none” or that “such atrocities had never taken place anywhere else.” You MADE THAT SHIT UP, Jim, or, more likely, imagined them in that fever-swamp of paranoia, fear, and hatred you call a “mind.”

        • Brucehenry


          My line about Gosnell was in response to your claim that “the left” WANTED Gosnell to butcher babies, or some such nonsense.

          Without rereading, I remember asking Herd if he had examples anywhere near as egregious as Gosnell’s case. He replied with several. While disturbing, none of them touched the horror of the Gosnell case.

          Again, without re-reading, I don’t think I ever claimed there “were none,” nor did I ever say that such atrocities had “never taken place anywhere else.” I’ll eat my words if you supply a quote.

          EDITED TO ADD: I just now re-read all my comments. NOT ONCE did I say anything on that thread that could be construed as “There were none” or that “such atrocities had never taken place anywhere else.” You MADE THAT SHIT UP, Jim, or, more likely, imagined them in that fever-swamp of paranoia, fear, and hatred you call a “mind.”

          • jim_m

            Yes, if the atrocity does not reach the level of the worst ever then it simply isn’t important to you. You complain if people compare your ideology to Stalin or the Nazis but then you shrug off as meaningless any other comparisons.

            Granted, you asked for examples of anything else that approached Gosnell’s extremes. But it ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that there is a repetition of people dieing, live babies being murdered and planned parenthood and dem politicians supporting infanticide to make the point that abortion is meant to murder children and prey upon the people it alleges to serve. You will continue to deny that these extremes warrant any sort of supervision.

          • Brucehenry

            In an attempt to be charitable I’ll ascribe your putting words into my mouth to mental illness and not being, you know, a “fucking liar.”

            Can you supply a quote where I said that these extremes DON’T warrant supervision?

            Again with the appeals to emotion, Jim. To adopt an argument of the gunfondlers I’ll point out that people are killed by guns all the time but, since we have the Second Amendment, we have to be very careful how we restrict gun rights. Emotion-charged events like Columbine and Newtown happen but we don’t take away the rights of the law-abiding because of them. Similarly, since we have abortion rights (again, how you feel about Roe is irrelevant; it’s the law), we have to be careful when emotion-charged horrors like the Gosnell case come up.

            That’s all I’m saying. Not defending Gosnell or those like him (AS I SAID ON THE OTHER THREAD) or claiming that horrible cases like his have never occurred before (DESPITE YOUR CLAIM THAT I DID, I DIDN’T). Not saying that cases like his should be ignored or their importance minimized. In short, you have been arguing with an imaginary Bruce who is saying things I didn’t say. No wonder you’re outraged.

          • jim_m

            I have to pass a background check to purchase a gun. Nothing prevents me from getting an abortion (OK, other than being a man and not needing one, but I digress) nor is there anything which prevents me from performing one. Most states require a class in order to get a CCW license. You don’t need any certification to be an abortionist, yes most are at least nurses and many are doctors but there is no regulation since the left believes that regulation would restrict people’s rights.

            Funny about that. The left believes that regulation would restrict people’s rights to abortion, but they do not believe that regulation will restrict our right to bear arms. Something tells me that they are correct when they are worried about restricting rights they are concerned about and they are lying when they are talking about rights they really do want restricted..

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, I accept your apology for lying about my comments.

          • jim_m

            It’s the same as every one of yours.

          • Brucehenry

            Also, more made up “facts.”

            “You don’t need any certification to be an abortionist.” Where does that rule exist, Jim?

            Answer: your imagination.

          • jim_m

            I will stand corrected. In 44 states it is required that a physician (of any specialty) perform the abortion with AZ, NH, OR, VT, WV and KS being the exceptions. DC requires them to be performed under the supervision of a physician, which means that virtually anyone can do them as long as you have a physician available to sign off on it.

          • Brucehenry

            Very gracious.

          • jim_m

            Thanks, But honestly, I’m still a jerk.

          • Brucehenry


  • LiberalNightmare

    Is this where we start the “conversation” about abortion rights? Maybe FLOTUS could tell us how one of the aborted fetuses reminds her of her own children?

    Its for the kids right?

  • herddog505

    Can you imagine the “right to choose” would survive if the major news outlets showed the photos and details from the grand jury report as often as they told us that Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut?

    Ann Althouse writes:

    I agree that’s the way those who support abortion rights should cover it [by being the first to decry Gosnell as an aberration, and that what he did represents a gross failure by the all-wise, all-knowing, all-caring State – hd505]. But why did they not jump at the opportunity to display so vividly that health care services to the poor (or to women) are not what they should be and no one cares?

    They didn’t want to risk that. There’s a deep fear — true shame — about this other matter that I’m talking about.

    DO lefties feel shame about this horror? DO they look at what Gosnell did and, even if it’s a tiny voice deep down that they try not to hear, realize that they FOUGHT for this?

    Somehow, I doubt it. Indeed, I think that there will be some lefties who will rush to defend Gosnell (we’ve already seen examples of trying – incredibly – to blame the GOP). They’ve got no other choice, for to condemn what he did condemns one of their most sacred and fiercely-defended beliefs. What the hell did they THINK went on in these baby killing offices? What did they THINK “partial birth abortion” was?

    I say that, from a lefty perspective, the only thing that Gosnell did “wrong” was be untidy and accidentally kill a couple of patients. Otherwise, he did exactly what he was supposed to do: he killed babies. None of them survived.

    C’mon, lefties: can I have a “Hallelujah!” from you? Hundreds – perhaps thousands – of women were spared the “punishment” of a baby, thanks to Kermit Gosnell, benefactor of women and sacred icon of a Woman’s Right to Choose.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Sadly, if msnbc cancelled lockup and ran this story 10 times a day, the right to choose would be unaffected.

      You have to understand that the left is not moved by the tactics that they employ against us. They are slaves to the goal.

    • Brucehenry

      Read this book review in the Atlantic for another perspective:

      • herddog505

        Yes, another perspective on cutting the heads off of screaming babies.

        Thanks; next time I want the opinion of a professor of “history, medicine, and women’s studies” on the lovely history of infanticide and the immoral crusade against it, I’ll watch “The Killing Fields”, drop some bad LSD and write it myself. Take this idiocy for example:

        What was the point, then, of making abortion a crime? Reagan argues that its main effect was to expose and humiliate women caught in raids on abortion clinics or brought to the hospital with abortion complications, and thereby send a message to all women about the possible consequences of flouting official gender norms.

        Oh, OF COURSE. It had nothing to do with attempting to stop infanticide: it was all about the efforts of a nasty ol’ patriarchical society to keep women in their place. Why, I feel guilty about all that I’ve written about dear Dr. Gosnell: he was only trying, in his own way, to LIBERATE women from oppression.

        Tell you what: next time you want to try to convince me or anybody else with even the slightest hint of a conscience or soul that there’s any side to this other than bloody murder, why don’t you link to some archive issues of Der Sturmer; the nazis were also good at rationalizing this sort of horror, and I doubt that anybody could tell the difference.

        Please stop trying to rationalize and excuse what Gosnell did.

        • Brucehenry

          Yes yes I get that it was written from a liberal perspective and had things in it you would disagree with. But there was information in the review about the history of abortion in this country that I, for one, wasn’t aware of.

          Like for instance the fact that maternal mortality rates declined dramatically after it was legalized. And the fact that abortion itself wasn’t illegal until late in the 19th century (before “quickening,” that is, meaning until fetal movement could be felt by the mother — roughly the first trimester). And the fact that the AMA played a part in making it illegal, partly to protect its own professional turf. And that, since unlike today, the typical abortion patient in the 19th century was white and middle class, the motivation to ban it may have been partly due to nativism and anti-Catholicism. And that even though abortion was illegal, middle- and upper-class white women and girls could obtain them from trusted family doctors, while poor women had to seek back-alley alternatives.

          And I was unaware of the contention that Roe was not some kind of avant-garde judicial activism but instead something that had been coming for some time.

          BTW, I challenge you to honestly find something I’ve written that excuses or rationalizes Gosnell. All I’ve attempted to do here is point out that you are using the Gosnell case to appeal to emotion re: abortion rights in the same way anti-gun folks have used Newtown to appeal to emotion re: gun rights.

          I trust you won’t, Jim-like, try to twist something I’ve said to create the impression I’ve said something I clearly didn’t mean, or to stretch the interpretation to some bizarre degree.

          • Vagabond661

            So you are saying we can’t use emotional appeal?

          • Brucehenry

            I’m saying you guys mock appeals to emotion in the case of guns and use them in the case of abortion, is all.

          • Vagabond661

            Mock is not the word I would use. I think the point with gun control is that we don’t let emotion rule over logic. That’s how we end up with bad laws.

            In the case of Kermie, using emotion to see what a monster this wasted piece of human flesh is certainly ok with me. We are not using this to enact new legislation. We are shining a light on how hypocritical the press is in what they cover wall to wall. A sip of water from a water bottle gets a media frenzy for a week. Kill a bunch of babies, not so much.

            Again it strikes me how an illegal born in this country has more rights at birth than a baby born alive due to a botched abortion.

          • Jwb10001

            And your side wants to restrict the hell out of guns (an actual civil right) and allow total unrestricted access to abortion (not an actual civil right). I’m ok with women having abortions under a couple of conditions, first if the women is under 18 years old she gets her parents involved or turns them in as sex offenders, second the woman pays for it or pays the insurance burden to cover it. I realize the next argument is going to be irresponsible people that continue to have kids they can’t support, I suppose we have to keep rewarding this idiotic behavior….

          • jim_m

            Actually I was using the the Gosnell case to point out the hypocrisy of the left for using the emotional appeal for gun control and failing to make an identical appeal for abortion regulation. In fact every person I have seen making this argument has been doing that. I suppose it is too nuanced for the intelligentsia of the left to figure that out.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe YOU have, but Herd here has been making naked appeals to emotion to argue that abortion is always infanticide and to imply — no, STATE, as a matter of fact — that all abortion providers are no better than Gosnell.

            And, I might add, that anyone who sees things even slightly differently has not “the slightest hint of a conscience or soul.”

          • jim_m

            The problem is that because there is no oversight you have no data to refute him.

            When in Chicago you had the largest multi hospital health care system in the region, Advocate, actively engaging in infanticide and actively trying to cover it up, there is a really good argument that all abortion providers are acting illegally and against the best interests of their patients.

            Of course you have no data to say otherwise because without inspection reporting there simply is none.

            There really is a good reason to believe that the majority of abortion providers are shady, whereas there is very good reason to believe that the vast majority of gun owners are actually better than the average citizen. Available data suggests that gun owners (particularly the ones the left considers the most dangerous, CCW holders) commit crimes at a rate far below the average. SHow me where abortionists in their abattoirs have fewer complications than the rest of physicians.

          • Brucehenry

            So conservatives want MORE government control of how doctors practice? We can call it Conservacare?

            No, seriously, I get your point.

          • jim_m

            Do you? I somehow doubt it. The difference is that the left wants to regulate the law abiding because the left wants to restrict rights. Conservatives want regulation to control what appears to be an out of control abortion industry that appears to function almost entirely outside the law.

            And the best you can do is say that there is no proof that they are not all as bad as Gosnell. You can’t even provide any statistical proof of that. Sorry if that makes you an apologist in my book.

          • Brucehenry

            If you want to propose legislation that you think would prevent future Gosnells while preserving Roe I for one would listen.

          • jim_m

            You cannot prevent people from breaking the law. Murder still happens

          • Brucehenry

            OK, but we still punish murderers. If you want to propose legislation that would PUNISH future Gosnells I’m listening.

          • jim_m

            The point is that you cannot mandate behavior by passing laws. The left loves to pass laws mandating what we eat and what we drink etc.

            In this case simple regulations demanding that these abattoirs be regulated and inspected like other outpatient surgical units. But the left will fight that. There is no oversight which the left finds acceptable.

          • herddog505

            How about YOU do that? Since (I assume) you want to keep this revolting practice “safe, rare and legal”, what do YOU propose? How would YOU stop more Gosnell’s without – somehow – infringing on a woman’s sacred, holy right to choose?

            By the way, what exactly is YOUR problem with what Gosnell did? I assume that it’s not the snipping babies’ spines with scissors. Or should he have used a scalpel? A hammer? Meat cleaver?

            As I’ve written up thread and elsewhere, the pro-infanticide crowd calls requiring the abortionist to be an OBGYN with hospital admitting privileges to be an unacceptable burden.

            So, what SHOULD we do?

          • Brucehenry

            You edited your comment after I replied to it again.

          • jim_m

            I don’t think I touched that one

            [edit] in fact no. I am pretty sure I did not.

          • Brucehenry

            Hmmmph. I thought it was just the first sentence. Maybe it was just at the bottom of my screen. I’m a bonehead, I guess.

          • jim_m

            No, I know for certain that I included the Advocate issue in my initial post.

          • Brucehenry

            OK, I was mistaken. Sorry.

          • jim_m

            It’s OK. No big deal.

          • herddog505

            Again, look at the pictures.

            Anybody who can do so and then AT BEST claim, “Oh, this is a one-off” and AT WORST claim, “The Republicans made us do it!” has not a hint of a conscience or a soul.

          • herddog505

            Then let me ask you point-blank: DO you excuse or rationalize Gosnell? If so, then how? Isn’t what he did (the deaths of two women) THE ENTIRE POINT? How can anybody who supports abortion honestly have a problem with what he was doing?

            Further, I don’t see opposing murder – and look at the pictures and tell me that it ISN’T murder – to be an “appeal to emotion”. What happened here was sick, but it was also the natural result of years of lefty agitation for “the right to choose”.

            I’ve presented quotes from the report to the grand jury that demonstrate that officials and other doctors knew for years what he was doing… and they did nothing about it BECAUSE THEY WERE EITHER PRO-ABORTION OR ELSE DIDN’T WANT TO TAKE FLAK FROM THE PRO-ABORTION CROWD (and damn them for their cowardice).

            I’ve presented cases of several other baby killing offices, from Delaware to California, that have been found to have the same filthy conditions and lack of qualified staff and / or emergency ambulance calls because (presumably) the “safe, rare” procedure went badly wrong. How many are there that we DON’T know about because MiniTru takes the same attitude towards them as it has toward Gosnell? You’ve even provided an article that shows how the baby killer crowd calls requiring the abortionist to be an OBGYN and be able to admit patients to a hospital in case on an emergency to be an unacceptable burden.

            Trying to claim that Gosnell was some sort of one-off, or that what he did was the fault of we pro-life people (!), is like some goddamn nazi living outside Belsen or Auschwitz trying to claim, “Ach, I didn’t know” or “This is all Zionist lies.”

          • Brucehenry

            No, and I think you’ve got some nerve to ask me so. I’ve written nothing here that excuses or rationalizes what Gosnell has done. Nor have I claimed he’s a “one-off,” although you have about as much evidence that he’s not as that he is.

            Yes you’ve cited several examples of unsanitary conditions and unsafe and unsound practices around the country. I don’t deny or refute them, nor do I condone the practices reported. Now that they’ve come to light, let them be corrected. You’ve mentioned maybe a dozen and a half of the what, hundreds? of abortion clinics in the US.

            I don’t minimize the horror, but let’s face it, most people do a halfass job at whatever they do. Are prisons SUPPOSED to be a place where weaker convicts are raped and brutalized by the stronger, while guards, paid by the authorities, KNOW DAMN WELL what’s going on and DO NOTHING? Are women SUPPOSED to be raped and otherwise disrespected in the military, while their superiors, who often KNOW DAMN WELL what’s going on, DO NOTHING?

            When was the last time you read an expose about rape in prison? Or rape in the military? Or have we become so inured to these horrors they are ignored, or, in the case of prison rape, fodder for “jokes”?

            In the Mississippi case, my point was that the state is imposing requirements that the OBGYN have hospital privileges while the hospitals are refusing arbitrarily to grant those privileges, because they are AGAINST ABORTION OR ELSE DIDN’T WANT TO TAKE FLAK FROM THE ANTI-ABORTION CROWD (and damn them for their cowardice.) So the women in Mississippi who might need these services, and to the rights they have according to Roe, are denied them.

            Using rhetoric like you have used in this thread isn’t helpful. I’ve never been an advocate of abortion past the first trimester except in extreme cases, and I support bans on late-term or so-called “partial-birth” abortions, as do most Americans. But, again, I think it’s dishonest and disgusting for “pro-lifers” to use this Gosnell case to whip up emotion, just as you think anti-gun folks whipping up emotion over Newtown is dishonest and disgusting.

          • herddog505

            The difference in the incidents you mention is that they are not done continuously for years with the full knowledge of the authorities: they are rightly considered to be crimes. Further, borrowing a page from your book, I challenge you to (A) find actual cases where this happened, and (B) even if you can, I’ll say that it isn’t THAT widespread.

            I say that, had he not decided to dabble with illegally dealing drugs, Gosnell would still be in business. Two women killed and heaven knows how many babies, but none of that was bad enough to get the authorities to act.

            But since you’ve stated that you aren’t cool with what Gosnell did, may I ask exactly what about him offends your sensibilities? Is it that he didn’t wash his instruments? That he might have had unqualified people assisting in his holy work? What DOES bother you?

            And, given what we know about him, the willful blindness of the authorities, and the cases of unsanitary conditions and ambulance calls I’ve cited (and they didn’t take me long to find) don’t you think that it’s reasonable to assume that there are other Gosnells out there, operating in safety under the shield of “a woman’s right to choose”? Are you interested in finding and stopping them… or does not touching Roe trump that?

            While we’re on the subject of making abortion widespread and completely unfettered, what do you make of the recent court ruling that young girls may be given the “morning after pill”? Here’s one of the chief abortion ghouls on CNN:

            Last week, a federal judge issued a decision lifting the age and point-of-sale restrictions on emergency contraception, citing solid scientific and medical research showing that it is safe and effective in preventing unintended pregnancy.

            This is great news for all women because these restrictions created confusion and barriers, and when unprotected sex has occurred, time is a crucial factor. Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy for up to five days after intercourse, but the sooner it’s used the more effective it is.


            O’ course, this “great news” is that girls can walk into a pharmacy and buy an abortion in a box without their parents knowing a thing about it. Here’s an alternative view:

            Another area of concern is that we do not know the prolonged effects of long-term use and potential overdose of the morning-after pill. Plan B is the commercial name for Levonorgestrel, a highly potent drug with potentially dangerous affects including, infections, blood clotting, and liver damage. Additionally, the maximum safe dose for Levonorgestrel has not even been determined by a scientific study. What is the sense in taking a doctor’s input out of the equation? I could not even start a new Yoga class without being told to first consult a physician, and yet we are going to dispense Plan B pills like they are Pez?

            Even Secretary Sebelius agrees. She rejected the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) request to make the morning-after pill easily accessible to young girls. She correctly stated, “It is common knowledge that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age. … I don’t believe enough data were presented to support the application to make Plan B One-Step available over the counter for all girls of reproductive age.”


            The morning after pill has been linked to a number of deaths. Yet, thanks to a judge upholding a woman’s holy right to choose, we’re going to let little girls buy it like candy. Welcome to lefty world, where an abortionist can kill two women and untold numbers of babies but only get in trouble when he deals oxycontin, and where little girls can have an abortion without telling her parents, but has to get their permission to hear Rick Santorum speak.



          • Brucehenry

            You can be relied upon to post a reply so long it’s unwieldy to respond to it, but here goes:

            Really? Prison rape is not a problem that has been going on for years with the full knowledge, even the acquiescence and sometimes the participation, of the guard staffs? And have I or anyone said that what Gosnell is accused of shouldn’t “rightly be considered” a crime? And just because you announce your intention to argue dishonestly doesn’t mean I have done so.

            I have said elsewhere in this thread my opinions on abortion: there should be few restrictions in the first trimester (before “quickening,” reflecting pretty much the consensus throughout recorded history as I understand it), it should be performed rarely, and only for medical reasons in the second, and almost never in the third. This, to my understanding, is pretty much how most Americans feel about it.

            What Gosnell allegedly did is a horror and a crime, and if there’s a hell, he will burn there, as will, in my opinion, those charged with oversight of his “clinic.” Since we don’t know if there IS a hell, the full weight of the law should come down on him and any others convicted of complicity in his crimes.

            Regarding the Morning After pill, I’ll have to get back to you. As a father of daughters I’ve always worried one of them would become pregnant, and I would help and support them to make the correct decision if that were to occur. That being said, I think the ruling to allow access to minors is to help victims of incest or to protect those girls whose parents might harm them if they found out their daughters were sexually active. I could be wrong on the reasoning, but I would certainly consider that were I the judge in this case.

            I would like to say I don’t appreciate the accusatory tone you have been using throughout this thread. I have given you no reason to imply that I am “cool” with anything Gosnell is accused of. I have simply pointed out that other, less holier-than-thou Americans than yourself have an opinion different than yours, myself included.

          • herddog505

            WHY is what he did a horror and a crime? Again: the babies died. Isn’t that the entire point? Honestly, what did you think goes on in abortion “clinics”?

            As for the abortion-in-a-box pill, I don’t think that the judge was particularly interested in incest or threats to the daughter if the parents found out. Rather, he waxed very self-righteous about “science” as he explained that the current policy was driven by “politics” (yeah, THAT never happens), as if his decision to let young girls have unfettered access to powerful drugs without parental notification was a coldly logical, unemotional, unpolitical ruling on his part. As Katie Pavlich points out, a young girl can’t buy a Big Gulp in NYC or take aspirin at school without a permission slip, but she CAN have an over-the-counter abortion, no questions asked.

            But let’s say that the thirteen year-old girl in question is the victim of rape or incest. Do we want to encourage her – even make it possible – for her just to step down to the CVS and make it all go away? Or would we rather encourage her to go to the police to see the SOB who did it arrested and a doctor to ensure that she hasn’t been dosed up with HIV?

            I suggest that the AIAB pill makes rape / incest MORE likely: the goon who violated the girl (or her pimp) can go get the pill over the counter, shove it down her throat and voila! Ready to go for round two. Who needs a condom? Who needs to even go find a Kermit Gosnell to take care of any problems that might show up a few months later? THANKS, JUDGE KORMAN!

  • Commander_Chico

    The usual butthurt about “story not being covered” except it is being covered.

    But I agree that it will never be covered adequately and this is for several reasons.

    There is political reason not to cover it, it embarrasses abortion supporters, but the political reason is connected to other social and economic reasons.

    It is a gruesome story. Americans can’t confront grisly truths. You haven’t seen 1/1000 of the reality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – the killing and maiming of children, innocents and troops. I am talking about pictures or at least graphic descriptions of what those wars have done to people. The government even prosecuted and was able to suppress a website ( on which grisly war photographs were posted – one of the only successful obscenity prosecutions I’ve heard of. So just as the realities of war are suppressed, so are the realities of abortion mills. Perhaps both in the service of power.

    Media is about advertising. Advertising is about viewers and demographics. High income women are among the most sought after demographics. Women in general drive household purchases. A lot of woman have had abortions and this will evoke unpleasant memories or guilt in them. Other women will be upset and angry. All of these women will flip the channel when the story comes on. This is bad for advertisers.

    This story is essentially about the ghetto, and few Americans care about the ghetto. Those that do might even be aware of the Freakonomics claim that abortion led to the drop in crime rates since the 1970s and see this as a result of people leading disorganized and impoverished lives. You also could see this as a kind of genocide against the “underclass” in the service of those with money and power. Those questions will not be asked in the MSM.

    Idiots that think that “the left” central commissariat is issuing orders to media ignore the complex reality.

    • herddog505

      Sure. It’s being covered so well that people actually IN MiniTru say that it isn’t.

      But what do they know?

      • Commander_Chico

        Yah and I explained why it will never be covered well. Same reason as most things – money.

        • herddog505

          So, let me see if I’ve got this right:

          — The disappearance of a blonde coed in Aruba is nightly – nay, hourly – news for weeks;

          — The misbehavior of a handful of soldiers in Abu Ghraib is nightly – nay, hourly – news for weeks;

          — The manhunt for a crazed ex-LAPD officer is nightly – nay, hourly – news for weeks (until he’s caught and killed);

          — Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut is nightly – nay, hourly – news for weeks;

          — The horrific killing a grammar school children by a lunatic with a stolen rifle is nightly – nay, hourly – news for weeks, and Barry even has one of the grieving mothers deliver his weekly address (I’m guessing that this ISN’T due simply to him having a tee time that he just HAD to make), but;

          — An abortionist who killed two women and hundreds of babies is barely worth a mention?

          Give me a break. You know damned well why it’s not being covered much (if at all), and it has f*ck-all to do with advertising dollars. As I wrote elsewhere in response to one of Brucehenry‘s posts, please stop trying to excuse what happened… or your fellow lefties’ (non)response to it.

          Or are you really that cool with it all?

  • Pingback: Latest Liposuction News | Cellulite()

  • Brian Williams

    “What’s so bad about Kermit Gosnell?”

    • herddog505

      This should be excerpted, so I take the liberty here:

      In his medical textbook Abortion Practice, abortion doctor Warren Hern further describes this procedure:

      The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because the fetal tissues become much more cohesive and difficult to dismember. This problem is accentuated by the fact that the fetal pelvis may be as much as 5cm in width. The calvaria [head] is no longer the principal problem; it can be collapsed. Other structures, such as the pelvis, present more difficulty…A long curved Mayo scissors may be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus.

      Dr. Haskell also emphasized the difficulty of this procedure during an interview in Cincinnati Medicine:

      D&E’s, the procedure typically used for later abortions, have always been somewhat problematic because of the toughness and development of the fetal tissues.…I just kept doing D&E’s because that was what I was comfortable with, up until 24 weeks. But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation.

      Is this really better than what Gosnell did? How is an agonizing, 45-minute-long dismemberment better than a quick snip?

      If you really believe that late-term abortion is a victory for women, and if you really believe that laws which ban late-term abortions are a violation of reproductive rights, then you should like Dr. Gosnell. Maybe his clinic was a little too dirty, but aside from these janitorial concerns, he was a hero for freedom and choice. [emphasis mine – hd505

      Exactly. What Gosnell did is the entire point of an abortion: the babies died.

      I’m starting to suspect that those lefties who mildly object to him and his practices are upset (to the extent that they are upset at all) NOT because of what he did, but simply because he got caught.

      [EDIT] Maybe the baby killing industry WILL tighten up. You know: better sanitation. Better “record keeping” (all the infants died of heart failure). Better, more efficient chemical means to end the baby’s life. Special ovens to dispose to of the bodies…

      [EDIT 2] How did I miss this one:

      Author Maryclaire Dale begins her piece with that very sentiment, saying, “They say they were just doing what the boss trained them to do.”

      A commenter from the post by WTH nails it:

      Gotterdammerung141 – “I was just following orders as I engaged in this act of murder in the name of eugenics”.

      Where have I heard that one before?

  • Denis Keohane

    Satire? Kidding you not, over at Kos in the comments the pro-life crowd is being balmed for Gosnell, because they demonstrated at the ‘good’ abortion mills, forcing women to seek out Gosnell! Scroll down to comment labeled ‘shows the hypocrisy of pro life movement’:

  • KenWD

    An ideological press can become desensitized to moral issues. In this case, their uncompromising belief in abortion on demand allows them to turn their head to murder. This is America’s holocaust. Many well educated people in Germany looked the other
    way at the governments treatment of the Jews. Are we doing the same?

    • jim_m

      This is different. The Nazis persecuted the Jews out of bigotry and hate. The left doesn’t hate children per se. In fact the left needs children as props to promote their statist agenda. So despite the fact that they do consider children as “punishments” the left does not hate them.

      No, this is a case where the left desires their lifestyle more than children and since the unborn have no voice to protest the left finds it easy to dehumanize them. So it is easier to murder these children as a matter of convenience in order to sustain their lifestyle. Children are not hated, they are inconvenient and a punishment which takes away your fabulous lifestyle.

  • jim_m

    Here you go Bruce. You asked for evidence that Gosnell was not the exception and even John Fund can stumble his way into that bit of truth.

    two former nurses at Planned Parenthood of Delaware told WPVI-TV in Philadelphia this month that conditions at the clinic there are dangerous. Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich, one of the former nurses, said: “It was just unsafe. I couldn’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was.” “They could be at risk of getting hepatitis, even AIDS,” added the other nurse, Joyce Vasikonis. Channel 6 reported that both nurses were stunned “by what they called a meat-market style of assembly-line abortions.” It noted that in Delaware, abortion clinics are not subject to routine inspections: “Planned Parenthood is essentially in charge of inspecting itself.”

    I especially liked this quote from the article

    Seth Williams, a liberal Democrat and one of the prosecutors in the case, maintains that abortion clinics are held to lower standards than other businesses are. In 2011, he asked, “How is it that we have more oversight in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of women’s hair salons than we do over abortion clinics?”

    No oversight allowed by the far left because people might find out what is really going on.

  • Vagabond661

    Is it true that Holder’s wife is co-owner of the facility that Gosnell worked at? Or just internet noise?