Kermit Gosnell’s Case Was Not about Abortion?

The trial has been over for a few days, and yesterday the jury in Philadelphia convicted abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on three counts of first degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter. Due to the multiple first degree murder convictions, lawyers are considering seeking the death penalty.

For some time, there was an outcry over how little attention the national media was giving this case. The details of the case were awful, and I am not going to reprint the details here (save one subtle reference later in the article), except to remind us that this man was allowing babies to be born, and then was killing them. The media, at first, claimed these sickening details as the reason the case was not being discussed. In due time, though, they could not keep from talking about the Gosnell case.

Time magazine, however, wants its readership to know that one of the “takeaways” from the case is this: “This was not a case about the morality of legal, late-term abortion.” The authors of this article go on to give this reasoning:

Gosnell’s trial was about illegal abortion and homicide. The methods Gosnell used to end the lives of the babies cited in the case against him—including snipping their necks with scissors after they were outside the womb—are medically indefensible by any measure, in any case. Prochoice advocates did not defend Gosnell or argue that the gruesome practices in his clinic were part of the sad, but real, world of legal abortion in the U.S. On the contrary, many abortion rights activists long ago called for Gosnell to be convicted of murder.

Not too surprisingly, this was the very first “takeaway” in the article. Is it any wonder why?

Those who would write these words are very sharp. They are trying to point out the awful way in which Gosnell murdered these babies. Notice, again, that the authors willingly use the word “babies,” since these were live births.

But are we really supposed to buy their pro-abortion statement that there is no connection between what Kermit Gosnell was doing and late-term abortion? Really?

Let’s see…

There is no connection since these babies were “just fetuses” a few seconds earlier?

There is no connection since some of these same instruments could be placed inside the mother to abort the child?

There is no connection in the few inches the baby traveled to be born?

There is no connection when the mother is most likely still in the room, or at least still in the building?

There is no connection since the same doctor is performing legal abortions in one room and these illegal acts in another?

There is no connection since the umbilical cord is cut instead of the spinal cord?

Really Time? You think we are that ignorant?

Kermit Gosnell’s case was a rarity, I have no doubt. But to make the claim that it had nothing to do with abortion is nothing short of irresponsible journalism and editorializing.

Why?

Because if it had nothing to do with abortion, Time magazine, why did you bring it up?

QUESTION: What are your reactions to the Kermit Gosnell case and how it was handled in the media? Share your thoughts in the comments.

——————————-

Photo credit: Keith Burtis on Creative Commons

To receive our blog posts via rss, click here. To subscribe via email, click here.

To sign up for our free monthly enewsletter, click here.

Click the banner to visit our publishing website