Why are the major media outlets not covering this story about Kermit Gosnell, a West Philadelphia abortionist that is on trial for the murder of seven babies? Watch this 20 minute documentary and find out:
The murder trial of West Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell began on Monday. He is being charged with the murder of seven babies by stabbing them in the back of their necks and “snipping” their spinal cords. A pregnant woman also died as a result of Gosnell’s actions.
CBS Philadelphia reports that Former Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society employ, Adrienne Moton testified that, although untrained, she was administering anesthesia, and even that she had snipped the spinal cords of “a good ten” babies. She stated that she did not know why that was the practice, but had seen Gosnell do it numerous times.
A 281-page Grand Jury report states:
The premises were dirty and unsanitary. Gosnell routinely relied on unlicensed and untrained staff to treat patients, conduct medical tests, and administer medications without supervision. Even more alarmingly, Gosnell instructed unlicensed workers to sedate patients with dangerous drugs in his absence… In addition, he regularly performed abortions beyond the 24-week limit prescribed by law. As a result, viable babies were born. Gosnell killed them by plunging scissors into their spinal cords. He taught his staff to do the same.
This raises a very important question. Where was the Pennsylvania Department of Health in all of this? Well, on page 12 of the report, the Grand Jury states that in 1993, “for political reasons”, the PA Dept of Health had “abruptly decided” to “stop inspecting abortion clinics at all.” The cause of this change? RINO Governor Tom Ridge, replaced pro-life Democrat Governor Bob Casey, and the new administration concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
In her opening arguments, prosecutor Joanne Pescatore, told the jury that Dr. Gosnell killed the seven babies in operations that would have caused the infants pain. She also argued that Gosnell falsified records to avoid violation of the Pennsylvania law that limits abortions to 24 weeks.
Gosnell’s defense attorney denies the “viability” claim of the prosecution, stating that only two of them were actually viable, and both of those were killed prior to exiting the birth canal and therefore born dead.
The Grand Jury report describes details of what took place during the abortions of the seven babies. Baby A, the biggest of the seven, was estimated to be “at least 32 weeks, if not more, in gestational age” by the neonatologist witness in the Grand Jury trial.
According to Kareema Cross, the clinic employ that was present at the deliver of Baby A, Gosnell joked, “This baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.”
Cross and Moton took pictures of Baby A because, as Cross explained, “it was big and it was wrong and we knew it. We knew something was wrong.” This was one of the pictures:
She also stated that, “it was a shock to us because I never seen a baby that big that he had done. So it was — I knew something was wrong because everything, like you can see everything, the hair, eyes, everything. And I never seen for any other procedure that he did, I never seen any like that.”
Another employee testifying in the Grand Jury trial recalled Gosnell severing the neck of a baby after being born while Gosnell was out of the clinic. Ashley Baldwin said she saw the baby move and heard it cry. When Gosnell arrived “he snipped the neck, and said there is nothing to worry about, and he suctioned it.”
Another baby had been moving for approximately twenty minutes before an employee slit its neck. The Grand Jury reports reads:
Gosnell had delivered that baby and put it on a counter while he suctioned the placenta from the mother. Williams (another employee) called Cross over to look at the baby because it was breathing and moving its arms when Williams pulled on them. After playing with the baby, Williams slit its neck.
When asked why Williams had killed the baby, Cross answered, “Because the baby, I guess, because the baby was moving and breathing. And she see Dr. Gosnell do it so many times, I guess she felt, you know, she can do it. It’s okay.
The things that took place at this West Philadelphia clinic are disgusting example of the horrors of abortion. But abortion is not just disgusting at 32 or 24 weeks, it is disgusting and any level of development. These examples are easier to see because the babies are bigger. But the same disgusting things happen in chemical abortions that happen in the first trimester.
The inhumane practice of abortion needs to be eliminated at all levels. Abortion laws, like those that exist in Pennsylvania, that do any less that that allow these horrors to continue and grant legal justification for doing so. The only solution to this disgusting problem is the complete abolition of abortion through personhood legislation that would properly identify babies in the womb as persons.
Yesterday, the good people over at Abolish Human Abortion posted a video on their YouTube channel from their recent experience at the Walk for Life in San Francisco, CA:
(Caution: Contains Fowl Language)
In the video, there is a woman that is very disgusted at the Pro-Life group because they are showing pictures of what she initially refers to as “bloody fetuses” and states that doing so is “irresponsible”. The speaker responds by asking her if showing the images is such an irresponsible thing to do, how irresponsible is it for the abortionists to kill the babies. She states that her concern is for the children that might be passing by and then she proceeds to tell the Abolitionists to “get the F*&% out!” Apparently she’s not too concerned about them hearing expletive language as they pass by, but I digress.
As the scene progresses, she accuses the group of not being very Christ-like and claims that Jesus would not show pictures of “dead babies” to make his point. No longer are the subject of the pictures she was so disgusted by merely fetuses, but babies. She also readily admits that the babies are dead, implying that they were at one point alive.
Granted, the woman from San Francisco may not have realized what she was really saying, but in an article at salon.com last week, Mary Elizabeth Williams states, “I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice.”
Yeah, I couldn’t believe it either. In fact, you might want to go back and read it again.
Williams makes a case that sounds like it came out of a Randy Alcorn or Scott Klusendorf book that defends the pro-life position:
I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born. When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?
It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina. That distinction may apply neatly legally, but philosophically, surely we can do better.
I have to say, I couldn’t agree more! In fact, I’ve said very similar things in discussions with pro-aborts on Twitter and Facebook. She does a great job of defending the life-at-conception position. And yet she still believes that it is okay to terminate those human lives and kill babies. She even goes so far as to assert that doing so is the greater moral good because “all life is not equal.”
She claims that:
…a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
This article makes me feel bi-polar. I want to clap in approval at one paragraph and slap her in disgust the next. Williams is absolutely right when highlighting the logically fallacious philosophy behind the pro-choice position. But she could not be more wrong when justifying the murder of innocent human beings by putting “the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time”. How can she so clearly deconstruct the illogical positions of the pro-choice side, and yet not see her own failing logic?
Williams summarizes her position of justifying the murder of innocents by stating that the fetus is “a life worth sacrificing.”
I wonder upon what standard Ms. Williams would base her conclusion. How does one decide whose lives are more valuable in any given circumstance? If a single mother has already birthed a child, but can no longer afford to feed both her and the baby, is that baby a life worth sacrificing? How about a mom that decides that she wants to pursue a career or a college education and her toddler is getting in the way of her life goals. Is that toddler a life worth sacrificing? Where does this logic end? How do we determine the value of one life against another?
Have this culture become so selfish and pagan that people can boldly admit that they know they are killing human lives and are okay with it? The answer: yes.
Yesterday was the 2nd inauguration of President Barack H. Obama. I listened to it on the radio and watched a few parts that were of particular interest. One of the most interesting parts of the inauguration for me was the President’s speech.
The theme of Obama’s speech was that of a journey. A journey that he referred to as, “never-ending”. A journey that began with the founding of these United States and continues today. And, in playing on his most recent campaign slogan, a journey that we must move forward.
The President made mention of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet his ideology completely contradicts those unalienable rights. With his words, he exalts the founding principles of this country as good, but his actions seem to imply that he actually views them as evil.
Life or Death?
Obama claims that “We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity.” Really, Mr. President? What about the baby in the womb of the woman at the abortion clinic? Where is that citizen’s basic measure of security and dignity? One of the least secure places in this country for a child today is in the womb of its mother. Where is the dignity for the child that dies at the hands of an abortionist or that is burned to death by a chemical abortion? Mr. President, if it is so good for us to provide security and dignity to every American, why do you enable the evil of abortion to continue?
While he does not believe in protecting the rights of the unborn, Obama did assert his firm belief in protecting the environment, vowing to “respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” Is this really a country that values the environment more than the lives of the innocent unborn? How is killing 1.5 millions children every year not the most betraying action we could take on our future generation? Mr. President, if you really think it is so good to protect the planet for our children, abolish the evil of abortion now!
Obama then added a classic non-sequitur. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.” But who is the real science denier? The medical and biological case against abortion is clear. Every new human life begins at conception. None can avoid the devastating impact of raging forceps and crippling saline abortions. Glossing over homicide and calling it “choice” and therefore good does not make it any less evil.
Obama even went so far as to invoke God as the one that commanded us to care for and preserve our planet. What about the innocent unborn? Does God not command us to care for them? Is mother nature more important than the unborn child? If God’s commands are so good, let’s follow all of them, shall we?
As he continued on his “journey” theme he declared that “our journey is not complete until all our children, rom the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.” What about the unwanted children of unplanned pregnancies. Do we care about them? Will we cherish them? With abortion, the ultimate harm is their ultimate end. Mr. President, you seek to deny the basic right of self-defense by voicing your concern for children, and you call that good, but you continue to deny the basic right of life to the defenseless, and those that would extend charity and security to the unborn, you call evil.
Until the words of this president line up with his actions, he is merely “call[ing] evil good, and good evil . . . put[ting] darkness for light, and light for darkness . . .” (Isaiah 5:20), and to that, God says, “Woe!” Or, as another translation puts it, you are “as good as dead” (New English Translation).
Remember dead baby jokes? Well, unfortunately, this is no joke.
Q: What’s more disgusting than a dead baby?
A: The mom that kills the baby and the judge and the “law” that lets her walk.
That’s right, no joke. This really happened. According to CBC news:
The Wetaskiwin, Alberta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.
Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard…
Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.
In her ruling, the “honourable” (now that is a joke!) Joanne B. Veit stated:
The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support.
So, if the “onerous demands” of child rearing are too much to handle, move to Canada where the legal system has apparently provided an opt-out by legalizing post-fetal, 4th-trimester abortion. Yes, that’s right! You too can rid yourself of that unwanted pregnancy even after your pregnancy is over!
And why stop at the 4th-trimester?! I hear the terrible-twos provide quite the “onerous demands.” And what about the “onerous demands” of a special needs child? Not to mention those onerously demanding teenagers! Furthermore, what about the “mother without support” that also has to take care of an elderly relatives with an incurable illness? Surely the “onerous demands” of these situations justify and legitimize a post-fetal abortion.
Veit also stated: “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”
That may seem absurd, but Judge Veit’s statement actually lines up with Canadian laws on infanticide. According to the Criminal Code of Canada a woman who kills her child can claim mental illness and be charged with “infanticide” which has a maximum sentence of five years. Infanticide is defined as:
A female person commits infanticide when by a willful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.
Two previous juries had found Effert guilty of murder in the 2nd degree, but an appeals court reduced the conviction to infanticide and Judge Veit suspended the suspension.
This two-and-two-make-five kind of logic is actually quite consistent with the current thinking among pro-abortion baby killers. In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer argued that babies “are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons” (emphasis mine). That is exactly what “Roe” said in 1973 regarding the unborn baby, they are not persons. Singer is just following the logic of Roe v. Wade to its ultimate end. Singer went on to say that “the life of a newborn is of less value that they life of a pig, or a dog, or a chimpanzee.” And if you think Peter Singer is someone of little consequence, think again. He currently holds an honored chair inethics at Princeton University. No joke!
Singer is not alone in his position. Michael Tooley and Jeffery Reiman, also “ethical” philosophers, have stated similar positions. Tooley posits that human infants do not qualify for personhood status and Reiman believes that infants do not “possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them.”
Many of your run-of-the-(baby killing)-mill pro-aborts believe that a baby in the womb is nothing more than a parasite that is draining the life from the mother…er…host, which is a direct infringement upon the host’s “right to life.” Extending that reasoning out to its logical conclusion and a new born baby also infringes upon that “right.” They will also argue that an unborn child cannot live outside of the womb and is therefore not a viable human being. Based on that most toddlers are fair game for abortion.
What’s quite funny about all of this is that Effert will spend some time behind bars. Up to 16 days for throwing the body of the dead baby over the a fence into a neighbor’s yard. That’s right, the neglectful treatment of the body of the dead baby is a more serious crime than is the actually killing of said baby.
Are you laughing? Yeah…me neither.