It has been three years since a drug raid on an abortion clinic in Philadelphia uncovered a house of horrors disguised as an abortion clinic.
Since then, we have heard very little from the mainstream media about Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the 72-year-old “doctor” who is accused of mass murder in his so-called abortion clinic.
Gosnell, who ran an abortion clinic in Philadelphia from 1979 to 2010, was arrested a year after a 2010 drug raid and charged with killing a patient and seven babies. His trial began in March and finally wrapped up Monday. Jury deliberations began Tuesday and, as this was written, were still underway.
Apparently, according to officials, Gosnell’s clinic was a filthy, foul-smelling “house of horrors” overlooked by regulators.
Officials said Gosnell would induce labor, deliver the viable, living babies, and then kill those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cords.
To say that Gosnell’s clinic was a failure of the regulatory system is an understatement. In the 31 years he ran his clinic, state regulators only inspected it five times despite 46 lawsuits filed.
His arrest and trial have all the trappings that usually result in a media feeding frenzy.
Yet, mainstream media outlets have been extraordinarily stingy in their coverage. A quick LexisNexis search for New York Times coverage found his name appeared only 15 times, and that included blogs and the coverage the paper gave to the lack of coverage while promising that it would increase its own coverage in the future.
This lack of coverage can be found from all the major news outlets, especially television.
This should not surprise me in this day and age when national media coverage is often dictated by the political views of publishers, editors and journalists and that view is largely from the left.
Because of that, this story does not fit in with the rosy abortion narrative leftists embrace.
Of course, most everyone claims they are appalled by Gosnell’s clinic.
That is hard to believe. After all, is it not hypocritical to support killing babies by one procedure and be appalled by another?
Why is cutting the spinal cord of a baby any different than dismembering the same baby in the uterus and then sucking it out in pieces? Or, for that matter, partially delivering the baby before stabbing it to death?
Why is killing a baby in utero legal, but a similar act a few minutes later and 10 inches away considered homicide?
The pro-abortion crowd is filled with people who like to rationalize their position — and mask the horrors of abortion — with intellectual claptrap about protecting the rights of the mother to “choose.”
That argument is simply wrong. Killing a baby is not a personal choice. One can’t possibly respect civil rights without respecting the rights of the unborn child.
Government has one legitimate responsibility and that is to protect the rights of its citizens. That duty is most important when it comes to those least able to protect their own rights, such as the elderly, the infirm, children, and, yes, the unborn.
Beyond that, people have not only a legal responsibility to protect their children, but a moral duty as well.
Yes, the right of a woman to her body is an important one and I defend that right. Individuals, not the state, are the proper owners of the body. That is why things such as suicide, prostitution and drug use should be protected rights.
However, your rights end where the rights of another begin. A woman’s right to her body ends when it interferes with a child’s right to live.
Women have a choice. It’s called birth control or abstinence. Like many things in life, once you make a bad decision, you are stuck with the consequences. If you decide to have unprotected sex and become pregnant, that is simply the cost of your poor choice.
Hopefully, the lack of media coverage is an indication that the left recognizes that while Gosnell’s actions were reprehensible so are the similar horrors of the estimated 1.2 million babies killed by U.S. abortionists every year. But I doubt it.