The story of Philadelphia's Dr. Kermit Gosnel, the abortion butcher, has got a lot of people upset. Even me, as a "squishily pro-choice" guy who really doesn't get excited about the whole issue. But what has me worked up is the way the pro-choice side is getting astonishingly defensive about the whole thing.
First up, the pro-choice crowd is attempting to distance itself and its cause from this doctor, by proclaiming that it was more about poverty than Roe v. Wade or this is not a case about abortion.
Bullshit.
The women who sought out Dr. Gosnell for one reason, and one reason only: they wanted their fetus destroyed. That is the very definition of abortion. That his techniques didn't meet the pro-life's recently discovered list of acceptable procedures were utterly irrlevant to him or the women; they were only concerned with the end results.
But the real point here is this: Dr. Gosnell's charnel house was not some aberration. No, it was the entirely-predictable and nigh-inevitable consequence of the tactics and rhetoric and philosophy as they have played it for decades.
Ever since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, every single time a measure was proposed that would limit or curtail or restrict or regulate put any kind of conditions on abortion, the pro-choice side said the same thing: this was an assault (often "stealth" or "open," depending on the mood of the side at the point) on Roe v. Wade, an attack on the rights of women, and would lead inevitably to back-alley abortions and the relegation of women to the status of chattel.
Every restriction. Every regulation. Every limitation. All of them fought fiercely by the pro-choice side, because nothing could ever interfere with a woman's right to choose.
Such as, say, regular inspections of abortion clinics to make sure they met the standards of any other medical practice that performed invasive surgical procedures.
When Pennsylvania had a pro-life governor, those clinics were inspected the same way any other medical facility was. Only when a pro-choice governor came in did they cease, in the name of not "suppressing" or limiting or restricting women's access to abortion.
The pro-choice made a conscious decision in Pennsylvania: they could have maintained the inspections of the clinics, putting the safety of the patients ahead of the principle of "maximizing access to abortions." They could have kept the previous policy of "maximizing access to safe abortions," but they decided "safe" (in the context of the health of the woman involved) was too high a standard.
So the women went to Dr. Gosnell for abortions, which were readily accessible. And many of them suffered for it, and some even died.
So what if they were wounded, maimed, or even killed? At least they had their abortions.
But it really isn't that big a deal, really. Gosnell's victims weren't that important. They were poor, they were black or Hispanic or both. They really aren't important. By getting rid of their unwanted fetus (and, occasionally, them as well), we was doing society a favor. He was taking out the trash.
When you demand that there be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, when you insist that any attempt to regulate or control or impose any kind of standards are completely unacceptable, and fight attempts to enforce those few that do manage to get into the law, then you have no business being surprised when some alleged doctor performs such butchery as Dr. Gosnell did.
The most horrifying thing about the Gosnell case is not that it happened. Nor that it went on so long without being uncovered.
No, the most horrifying thing is that the circumstances that allowed it to develop and continue for so long exist all across the country. In every major city, the very same climate exists: poor people wanting abortions, and public officials utterly uninterested in challenging the pro-choice side's demands for no restrictions, no limitations, no regulations whatsoever on those who provide those abortions.
Like it or not, the pro-choice lobby owns Dr. Gosnell and his charnel house. They encouraged him, they sheltered him, they funded him, they enabled him. He couldn't have done all he did, for as long as he did, without their support.
And instead of trying to distance themselves from their creation, perhaps they should start looking among their other "heroes" for more such butchers.
First up, the pro-choice crowd is attempting to distance itself and its cause from this doctor, by proclaiming that it was more about poverty than Roe v. Wade or this is not a case about abortion.
Bullshit.
The women who sought out Dr. Gosnell for one reason, and one reason only: they wanted their fetus destroyed. That is the very definition of abortion. That his techniques didn't meet the pro-life's recently discovered list of acceptable procedures were utterly irrlevant to him or the women; they were only concerned with the end results.
But the real point here is this: Dr. Gosnell's charnel house was not some aberration. No, it was the entirely-predictable and nigh-inevitable consequence of the tactics and rhetoric and philosophy as they have played it for decades.
Ever since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, every single time a measure was proposed that would limit or curtail or restrict or regulate put any kind of conditions on abortion, the pro-choice side said the same thing: this was an assault (often "stealth" or "open," depending on the mood of the side at the point) on Roe v. Wade, an attack on the rights of women, and would lead inevitably to back-alley abortions and the relegation of women to the status of chattel.
Every restriction. Every regulation. Every limitation. All of them fought fiercely by the pro-choice side, because nothing could ever interfere with a woman's right to choose.
Such as, say, regular inspections of abortion clinics to make sure they met the standards of any other medical practice that performed invasive surgical procedures.
When Pennsylvania had a pro-life governor, those clinics were inspected the same way any other medical facility was. Only when a pro-choice governor came in did they cease, in the name of not "suppressing" or limiting or restricting women's access to abortion.
The pro-choice made a conscious decision in Pennsylvania: they could have maintained the inspections of the clinics, putting the safety of the patients ahead of the principle of "maximizing access to abortions." They could have kept the previous policy of "maximizing access to safe abortions," but they decided "safe" (in the context of the health of the woman involved) was too high a standard.
So the women went to Dr. Gosnell for abortions, which were readily accessible. And many of them suffered for it, and some even died.
So what if they were wounded, maimed, or even killed? At least they had their abortions.
But it really isn't that big a deal, really. Gosnell's victims weren't that important. They were poor, they were black or Hispanic or both. They really aren't important. By getting rid of their unwanted fetus (and, occasionally, them as well), we was doing society a favor. He was taking out the trash.
When you demand that there be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, when you insist that any attempt to regulate or control or impose any kind of standards are completely unacceptable, and fight attempts to enforce those few that do manage to get into the law, then you have no business being surprised when some alleged doctor performs such butchery as Dr. Gosnell did.
The most horrifying thing about the Gosnell case is not that it happened. Nor that it went on so long without being uncovered.
No, the most horrifying thing is that the circumstances that allowed it to develop and continue for so long exist all across the country. In every major city, the very same climate exists: poor people wanting abortions, and public officials utterly uninterested in challenging the pro-choice side's demands for no restrictions, no limitations, no regulations whatsoever on those who provide those abortions.
Like it or not, the pro-choice lobby owns Dr. Gosnell and his charnel house. They encouraged him, they sheltered him, they funded him, they enabled him. He couldn't have done all he did, for as long as he did, without their support.
And instead of trying to distance themselves from their creation, perhaps they should start looking among their other "heroes" for more such butchers.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Abortion
Comments (12)
You call yourself a "a "squ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Bluegrass Pundit | January 23, 2011 8:24 AM | Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
You call yourself a "a "squishily pro-choice" guy who really doesn't get excited about the whole issue." In your post you talk about how dangerous the clinic was to women but fail to mention fetuses babies were born alive and killed with scissors. If true, that would be murder even in the most liberal abortion state. Can you get excited about that?
1. Posted by Bluegrass Pundit | January 23, 2011 8:24 AM |
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 08:24
2. Posted by Justrand | January 23, 2011 9:06 AM | Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
Jay, while I was never a "squishily pro-choice guy", I was someone who believed that abortion should be a choice in a fairly wide range of situations (rape, incest, etc), and resonably "elective" up until about the 4th month of pregancy.
I WAS that person. I have not been that person for several years now.
I still believe that rape and incest if PROVEN, and proven QUICKLY are a reason..."quickly" being the key word. But "elective" abortions should be essentially eliminated...and completely ILLEGAL after 3 months unless the fetus is shown to be completley un-viable. And if the mother's life is truly endangered by continuing the pregnancy after 3 months then let modern science at least try to keep the baby alive outside her womb.
End this holocaust!
2. Posted by Justrand | January 23, 2011 9:06 AM |
Score: 6 (10 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 09:06
3. Posted by Michael Laprarie | January 23, 2011 9:23 AM | Score: 9 (13 votes cast)
There's an interesting irony here. Liberals jump up and down about regulations for business, environment, etc., arguing that individuals can't be trusted to do the right thing and must be supervised by the government. Yet they have created an environment surrounding abortion where any attempt to regulate is fiercely resisted with arguments about "freedom" and "choice." And look what happened.
3. Posted by Michael Laprarie | January 23, 2011 9:23 AM |
Score: 9 (13 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 09:23
4. Posted by Michael Laprarie | January 23, 2011 9:26 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
I think the next time a liberal accuses me (as a conservative) of wanting "eliminate all regulations" I'll remind them of this incident, and ask how well that approach is working for them, vis-a-vis abortion.
4. Posted by Michael Laprarie | January 23, 2011 9:26 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 09:26
5. Posted by MjM | January 23, 2011 10:16 AM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Role play:
The next time you happen across a mother with a baby, see yourself taking that baby, holding it face down with it's tiny chest in just one of your hands. Then see yourself grabbing a pair of shiny stainless steel surgical scissors. Watch yourself as you stab the pointed blade into the back of child's neck. Now begin working the scissors until you've cut through the child's spinal cord. Feel the child as it goes limp in your hand. Feel the child die.
See it. Visualize it. And then tell me what you have just done is just alrighty tighty and dandy.
If you can do that, you have no soul, you have no heart, you have no humanity. You are Kermit Gosnell.
I have no doubt the killing fields will continue to fill with the blood of innocents; Gosnell is charged with seven murders. To the State, the hundreds he murdered in-womb don't count.
5. Posted by MjM | January 23, 2011 10:16 AM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 10:16
6. Posted by Lonzo | January 23, 2011 10:55 AM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Jay, have you or any other Wizbang writer seen information in any reports concerning where Dr. Gosnell's funding came from to run his "operation"? I think it is important to know. Always, follow the money.
6. Posted by Lonzo | January 23, 2011 10:55 AM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 10:55
7. Posted by ChiefMinion | January 23, 2011 11:10 AM | Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
#3, you beat me to one of my points. Well said. A leftist is just another name for a hypocrite.
I used to be fairly open minded on abortion as well. While I always thought it was morally wrong, I had a tough time imposing my morals on the mother carrying the child. No more. While I will generally go along with exceptions noted in post #2, that's about it.
The abortionistas fall into one or more of a few classes as I see it.
The irresponsible. Sorry, that doesn't wash anymore. Birth control is just way too cheap and easy. Heaven forbid that the coddled and pampered on the left have to think something through before doing it. Give the kid up for adoption for Pete's sake.
The eugenics crowd. There really is a holocaust being perpetrated on America's black population. It is just disgusting that "black leaders" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) have all their voters rounded up for the politicians perpetuating this holocaust.
The criminally insane. Gosnel is a poster child for this class. You don't kill healthy delivered babies without being insane, period. The left is perfectly happy to have butchers like Gosnel slinking around. It is only when they are dragged into the sunlight that they get uncomfortable. All the partial birth advocates are in here.
None of these classes make a valid argument for abortion. They need to be called out on it. Make them defend the practice to expose them as the nut cases they are. The lefties that want abortion anytime, all the time, own this butcher. Every chance I get, I bind them together with stout chain. They have shoved this culture of death down America's throat. It's time to answer for it.
7. Posted by ChiefMinion | January 23, 2011 11:10 AM |
Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 11:10
8. Posted by John F Not Kerry | January 23, 2011 3:59 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Abortion has become one of the most common surgical procedures in America since Roe vs. Wade. Safe, legal, and RARE my ass.
8. Posted by John F Not Kerry | January 23, 2011 3:59 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 15:59
9. Posted by hermie | January 23, 2011 5:39 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
As Lonzo said, follow the money.
Planned Parenthood and other members of the abortion industry get millions of dollars from state, local and federal agencies for 'family planning' programs. Plus they are condidered 'non-profit' entities, even though they make plenty of profits. Any attempt to hamper their profits, such as parental notification or partial-birth legislation are attacked mercilessly, and of course they are aided by their fellow liberals and the MSM.
9. Posted by hermie | January 23, 2011 5:39 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 17:39
10. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | January 23, 2011 7:37 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I agree. The left is doing everything in their power to turn us into the Netherlands -- and damn us to the nether-regions.
"That his techniques didn't meet the pro-life's recently discovered list of acceptable procedures..."
? What does this mean? Is it a misstatement?
10. Posted by Jeff Blogworthy | January 23, 2011 7:37 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 23, 2011 19:37
11. Posted by Heartbroken | January 24, 2011 8:58 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
How is it that in a 'civilized' America the US Congress had to recently enact a law which denies doctors the legal right to murder babies born alive?
America is so 'civilized' that in 2008 she CHOSE to elect the first President who advocated against 'protecting the lives of babies born alive'.
We deserve all the wrath we have earned.
11. Posted by Heartbroken | January 24, 2011 8:58 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 24, 2011 08:58
12. Posted by MF | January 24, 2011 8:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I wonder if they have statistics on how many Dr went to this extreme. I would think it is rare.
The seven are against the law.
Taking the emotion and the beliefs out of this issue which is not simply
The laws were passed to protect the mother and once born the child
12. Posted by MF | January 24, 2011 8:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 24, 2011 20:42