Tag archives: Kermit Gosnell

How will the Senate respond to tragedy?

by Jamie Dangers

June 16, 2015

Is there anything more heart wrenching than an unmarked grave filled with the remains of almost 50 tragically ended lives that no one came to mourn? One man was responsible for all of the deaths represented by this particular grave. None of the victims had any chance of survival against his schemes – if they survived the first attempt, he had a sure fall back plan. This man was eventually caught, tried, and convicted. The rest of his life will be spent paying for theirs.

Two years ago, the remains of babies aborted in Dr. Gosnell’s “house of horrors” were buried in this grave. But while Dr. Gosnell is behind bars, never again to hurt another baby, there are countless other babies being killed daily by excruciatingly painful abortions.

Is it possible that any good could come out of such tragedy, this long nightmare with life and death consequences?

Stories like this reawaken our innate craving for justice in the world. Where were those who could have defended these victims? Why did he get away with it for so long? Why did no one listen when there were rumors of brutality and callousness?

For so many questions, we will never find answers. But there is a question that must be answered, a question that we must participate in answering.

What will we do with this knowledge?

After being graciously given the location of the grave, Reverend Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition led a group to the Laurel Hill Cemetery in Pennsylvania last week to mourn these lost lives, and to make a statement to the world that their lives are worth remembering. A temporary grave marker was erected with this prayer inscribed on it:

May God welcome the souls of these children killed by Kermit Gosnell, and the souls of all children, killed by abortion, into the joy of Heaven.

The day after Rev. Mahoney’s graveside service for these babies, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced S. 1553, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in the Senate. The bill prohibits late abortion on babies after 20 weeks post-fertilization on the scientific basis that at this age they can feel intense pain. The identical bill was just passed by the House of Representatives on the second anniversary of the conviction of Dr. Gosnell.

Dr. Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder of 3 babies, as he snipped their spinal cords just after they had been born. Ironically, he aborted countless others at the same age as those three, but because they were just inside their mother’s body, he was not charged with first-degree murder for their deaths. But they felt the same pain as those killed just outside. They were just as alive, and were left just as dead.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would prevent these sorts of deaths from occurring routinely in abortion clinics and hospitals all over the country. This bill needs to pass the Senate.

Maybe this horrific story can be redeemed. Maybe people will see the humanity of these unborn, pain-capable children. And maybe we can change the law to protect them.

Protecting Women from Virginia’s Gosnell

by Arina Grossu

June 12, 2014

When the public found out about the atrocities going on in abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors,” there was widespread disbelief. Pro-abortion activists claimed he was the exception to the rule and that most abortionists were not like Gosnell. But other abortionists just like Gosnell are still wreaking havoc on women and are a danger to society.

Steven Brigham, for example, is another Kermit Gosnell. Recently, newly elected Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe requested a review of abortion facility health and safety standards by the Commissioner of Health. These measures have been put in place to protect the health and safety of women. My comments to the VA Board of Health concerning Gov. McAuliffe’s plan to rescind the new abortion facility safety rules can be found here.

Steven Brigham is an unscrupulous abortionist who has had his license suspended in six states, faced countless lawsuits, been caught operating without a medical license, and personally injured and killed multiple women by his dangerous abortion practices. He currently starts late abortions in Virginia, then transports women across state lines to his facility in Maryland to finish the abortions.

His unethical practices are a menace. The Family Foundation in Virginia exposed his unethical conduct in this video. Even NARAL has called Brigham’s actions “egregious and unscrupulous”.

If Gov. McAuliffe succeeds in revoking Virginia’s regulation of abortion facilities, public health risks to vulnerable women will increase substantially. Among them: there will be no oversight of abortionists like Brigham.

Let’s urge Gov. McAuliffe to stand with women and keep the health and safety measures in place.

Try to Discourage Her From Seeing the Baby”

by Robert Morrison

May 14, 2013

Pro-abortion groups are reacting to the Gosnell verdict with predictable spin. It’s all the fault of those anti-choice people, they say. If more women had greater access to free abortion, things like Gosnell’s abattoir would never have happened, they claim.

Brenda Pratt Shafer is a nurse who once worked in a facility that does late-term abortions. In 1996, she testified under oath before Congress about what a day is like in one of those well-appointed, well-lighted, clean, approved centers, the kind that are being offered to Americans today as the answer to Kermit Gosnell’s filthy house of horrors.

The abortionist in Nurse Shafer’s story did not want his patient to see what he had done to her unborn child. “Try to discourage her from seeing the baby,” he said.

The what? Didn’t he let his mask slip here? Isn’t he supposed to maintain the fiction that it is just a fetus? A mass of cells? A clump of tissue? Or is it alright to call it a baby after the unborn child’s dead body has been removed from the womb and thrown in a cold metal pan?

The late ABC News Anchor Peter Jennings once reminded us of how you are supposed to talk about such stories. In one of his evening broadcasts, Jenningsdescribed a new advance in pre-natal surgery. Through ultra-sound, it was determined that an unborn child had a condition known as hydrocephaly, water on the brain. Mr. Jennings said the fetus was surgically removed from the mother’s womb. A shunt was placed in the skull of the unborn child, relieving the pressure on that child’s developing brain. The unborn child was replaced in its mother’s womb. And the woman carried the fetus to term.

Fetus—Unborn child—Fetus, it all depends on where this baby is at the specific moment we are talking about him. In the following testimony, Nurse Brenda Shafer takes us inside a late-term abortion center, just like one of those facilities operated and approved by Planned Barrenhood and blessed by President Obama.

Nurse Shafer’s sworn testimony:

This one particular lady didn’t want the abortion. She had this Downs Syndrome baby, she was unmarried, her boyfriend didn’t want the baby, and her parents didn’t want the baby. She cried the whole three days she was in there. So we did her first to get her over with. We brought her in, prepped her, started an I.V. of Valium to calm her down. We did not use a general anesthesia and knock her out. …We brought the ultrasound machine in and hooked it up to her stomach.
  

I could see the baby…

I could see the baby. I could see the heartbeat. And the doctor wanted me to stand right beside him, because he wanted me to see everything there was about partial-birth abortion. So I stood there. He went in, guided by ultrasound. He took a pair of forceps and went in and turned the baby because it wasn’t in this position at the time. He found a foot and he pulled the baby’s foot down through the birth canal, bringing it down and grabbed another foot, and literally started pulling the baby out, breech position, feet first. And he kept pulling it down, and I’m seeing this baby come pulled out of the mommy, his butt, his chest, and then, he delivered both these arms. And the lady’s in stirrups, just like you have a baby or just like you’re having an ob/gyn examination. And the baby, the only thing that was supporting the baby was the doctor was holding it in with his two fingers, holding the neck so the head was just inside the mommy.

And the baby was kicking his feet, hanging there, moving his little fingers and his little arms. I couldn’t believe — I don’t know what I thought killed it in three days, but he was moving and I kept watching that baby move. And I kept thinking to myself, this isn’t happening and I thought I was going to pass out. And I kept telling myself, I’m a professional, I can handle this, you know, this is right, this is supposed to be, and I supposed to handle this, I’m a nurse. He then took a pair of scissors and jammed them into the back of the baby’s head. And the baby jerked out, like a startle reflex, like a baby does if you throw him up a little bit and he jumps. And then the baby was real rigid. The doctor then opened up the scissors to make a hole. He took a high powered suction machine with a catheter and stuck it in that hole and suctioned the baby’s brains out. And the baby went completely limp.

I’ve seen that in my mind a thousand or more times…

And I have seen that in my mind a thousand or more times, of that baby, watching the life just drain out of it. And like I said before, I’ve seen babies die in my hands, I had people die in my hands. But it wasn’t anything like seeing that vision of watching this abortion. And I almost threw up all over the floor. I was literally just breathing and saying, “Don’t throw up, don’t throw up, you’re gonna be embarrassed if you do this.” So I tried not to.

He pulled the head out, he cut the umbilical cord and threw it in a pan, and delivered the placenta and threw it in the same pan, he covered it up and took it out. Well, this mommy wanted to see her baby. And the doctor told us ahead of time, he said, “Try to discourage her from seeing the baby.” He doesn’t like that. But she had the right to see it. So they cleaned it up and we cleaned her up, and we walked her out of the operating room, and took her to a room and handed her the baby.

The mother held her dead baby in her arms…

…She held that baby in her arms and she screamed and prayed to God…to forgive her, and for that baby to forgive her, and she held it and rocked it, and told him that she loved him. And I looked in that baby’s face, and he had the most angelic perfect face I’ve ever seen, and I just kept thinking, he’s an angel now, he’s in heaven. And I couldn’t take it. In all the years I’ve been a nurse, [for the first time] I lost it. And I pardoned myself and excused myself and I ran to the bathroom and I cried and prayed.

…I saw two more that day, about 25 weeks. But I was in shock. I stood there and I knew what was happening but I didn’t want to be there. I was walking on a beach in Hawaii somewhere, trying to get myself out of that room. …The other ones were perfectly healthy mothers with perfectly healthy babies. One was a 40 year old woman who had a 19 year old son and she was getting a divorce so she didn’t want the baby. The other was a teenage mom who hid the pregnancy from her parents…

The abortion technique described by Nurse Shafer in the above passages was outlawed by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003 and signed by President George W. Bush. That law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 on a 5-4 vote.

That law was strongly supported by Family Research Council and the vast majority of Americans. Now, the law relies for its enforcement on the administration of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. The president is required by the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” We will see if there are any prosecutions under that law.

When he spoke to Planned Parenthood recently, President Obama did not see the baby. Or any of the 334,000 unborn children these traffickers tell us they killed in 2011. They went unmentioned and unseen in his lavish praise for the group.

Even now—especially now—the abortion forces and their liberal cohorts are trying to discourage all Americans from seeing the baby. What the Gosnell verdict does is to lift the bloody curtain and let us see.

Gosnell Grand Jury Report

by Chris Gacek

April 19, 2013

While reading James Taranto’s excellent pieces (April 15 & April 18) on the Kermit Gosnell murder trial, I noticed a reference to a grand jury report in this case.  If you are interested in the case, the January 2011 grand jury report is easily available for download.  The document is about 280 pages in length.  Sohrab Ahmari’s interview of Dr. Leon Cass on Gosnell should be available here.  Thanks to the Wall Street Journal.

Legal Abortion—”Safety” was never the ultimate goal

by Anna Higgins

April 19, 2013

A couple weeks ago, I published a blog post discussing the reality of back-alley abortions 40 years after the legalization of abortion. The fact that abortion “clinics” are allowed to operate virtually unregulated in most states (either as a result of a lack of regulations or lack of enforcement) puts the health and lives of Americans in danger. In light of their demands that abortion be legalized for safety reasons, it is the ultimate form of hypocrisy that abortion advocates refuse to support regulations that would make facilities safer for women.

The Gosnell trial highlights one such horrific instance of a supposed “medical” facility allowed to operate unencumbered by regulation or inspection from 1993 until 2010 when a Federal drug raid revealed far more than prescription drug misuse. Planned Parenthood and others claim this is an isolated incident and that abortion facilities are safe for women. Absent the ability or will to inspect and maintain records on these facilities, how do they know enough to make any statement on the safety of abortion clinics? The fact is that there have been many instances of abortion facilities being reported for unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

Just last week, the Planned Parenthood in Wilmington, Delawarewas forced to close its doors when two of its employees reported the facility for violating health and safety standards. As LifeNews.com reported, “Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich and Joyce Vasikonis told WPVI-TV of a ‘meat-market style of assembly-line abortions where the abortionist refused to wear gloves, surgical instruments were reused without being cleaned, and bloody drainage remained on abortion tables between procedures, exposing women to blood-borne diseases.’ ‘It was just unsafe. I can’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was,’ said Mitchell-Werbrich.”

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, James Taranto notes that, “Safety is one of the most potent defenses of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that imposed a national policy of abortion on demand.” Yet, abortion clinics remain vastly unregulated and unsafe. In Pennsylvania, Gosnell was allowed to operate his “house of horrors” with impunity thanks to irresponsible and unjustifiable policies put in place by former Governor Tom Ridge. As Taranto noted, the grand jury report in the Gosnell case revealed that “Ridge administration officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased.’” This refusal by government officials to protect their own citizens is inexcusable and should be properly investigated. Imposing health and safety restrictions on any medical procedure hardly poses a “barrier” to medical care.

Taranto goes on to call the argument that Roe v. Wade made abortion safe for women, a “cruel hoax.” It is at the very least a hoax. At the heart of the issue, however, is that the Roe v. Wade “safety” argument served simply an excuse to perpetrate mass killing of “unwanted” or “undesirable” children merely for the sake of selfish convenience. It is time to admit how unsafe abortion really is, to confront the inherent wrongness of Roe, and stop all procedures intended to kill children.

Gosnell, the New York Times, and Moral Squalor

by Rob Schwarzwalder

April 19, 2013

Abortion champion Andrew Rosenthal, who happens to be editorial page editor of what historically has been the nation’s flagship daily, The New York Times, has written a peevish, “how dare you question the Great Oz”-type op-ed defending his paper’s insubstantial coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial.

About his piece is the air of a young child, his hand stuck firmly in the cookie jar, who rather than regretting his error is infuriated at being caught.

Unable to bring himself to describe the crimes “Dr.” Gosnell committed – such things as snipping the necks of crying babies – instead, Rosenthal reduces these little persons to “viable fetuses.” How very medical, distant, pristine, and deadly.

Mr. Rosenthal indicts Gosnell for his “appalling crimes” (what makes them appalling, Mr. Rosenthal? You regard Dr. George Tiller, who did the same things as Gosnell only in unsoiled conditions, as a hero) and links to a piece about them. However, he cannot bring himself to describe these crimes. To do so would demand intellectual integrity and moral courage, since it would involve an acknowledgement of the humanness of the unborn baby – a bridge the stolid advocates of unrestricted access to abortion on demand cannot cross. The insistent recreation of moral reality means holding one’s ground, even if it is crumbling beneath his feet.

In the 1930s, Lady Astor confronted Stalin on his unimaginable enterprise of mass murder, asking him, “When are you going to stop killing people?” He responded, “When it is no longer necessary.” Read Mr. Rosenthal’s article and ask if this same spirit does not seem latent in every line. Abortion is, for him and those on his side, not the loss of a life or the scarring of a woman’s body. It is a post-modern rite, a baptism not of water or the Spirit but of death, an act of defiance and self-exaltation which does not represent purging from sin but the calcification of the soul.

Mr. Rosenthal’s concern is not for the unborn and born children slaughtered like chubby pigs by Gosnell and his minions, or the women whose lives were lost and health misshapen because of grotesque treatment they received. Rather, Mr. Rosenthal’s major complaint is the unsanitary conditions of Gosnell’s clinic.

It is nice to see Mr. Rosenthal’s mellifluous outrage over Gosnell’s inattention to the germ theory. I’m sure the good editor keeps Purell on his desk and sanitary wipes in his car.

With audacity so great it stifles the cry of honesty, Mr. Rosenthal goes on to write, “Last I checked, there’s no rule that a newspaper, or that paper’s editorial page, has to run one piece about a bad clinic for every piece celebrating a good one.”

Fair point. But I wonder why the Times, as it did with the trial of Tiller murderer George Roeder, did not cover such things as jury selection or pronounce endlessly on the assorted issues involved in the Gosnell case.

Finally, here is Rosenthal’s peroration:

Dr. Tiller was performing safe and legal abortions when he was gunned down in the foyer of his own church. The reopening of his clinic, which will not perform late-term abortions, is an act of courage on the part of Julie Burkhart, a former colleague of Dr. Tiller, and others. She is already receiving death threats from people who believe that murder is an acceptable way of protesting legal, constitutionally protected abortions. Through this sort of intimidation and through legitimate political action, anti-abortion forces have been alarmingly successful in restricting women’s access to reproductive health services, including birth control, cancer screening and other services. That is the real issue.

Making “this sort of intimidation” (which is roundly condemned by the pro-life movement and always has been) equivalent to “legitimate political action” is so inflatedly unctuous the reader is reminded of a passage in Wodehouse in which Jeeves is chided for burning Bertie Wooster’s toast. It’s sort of like saying, “cyanide and aspirin are both drugs,” technically accurate but essentially, and gravely, misleading.

The real issue” is access to birth control, not the murder of children? As others have written, no one asks, “Is your fetus a boy or a girl? Have you given the fetus a name? Is the collection of blood and tissue and DNA growing in your womb your first?”

The term is baby. The issue is murder. The culprit is Kermit Gosnell, and not because he didn’t use clean forceps.

Calling an unborn child a “fetus” makes him or her no less human. Indignation over cleanliness (is it truly next to Godliness, Mr. Rosenthal?) and predation as one’s fundamental response to moral horror is like the man who was offended he couldn’t wear a hat to his hanging. It rather misses the point.

I am as troubled by Mr. Rosenthal’s stentorian resistance to calling murder “murder” as I am by the absolutist position he takes on abortion itself. When a public opinion-leader can stare at transparent evil and pronounce it benign, does “civilization” itself have any continued meaning?

Kermit Gosnell, Abortionist

by Robert Morrison

April 17, 2013

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the narrow Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007. She thought partial-birth abortions should continue and be regarded as a constitutionally-protected species of freedom of choice. Her fiery dissent describes intact dilation and extraction (D&E), her preferred name for partial-birth abortion, and contrasts that with routine D&E, in which the child in the womb is dismembered and brought out in parts—parts that look not unlike the victims of an improvised explosive device set off on a quiet street.

I remember especially the distinguished jurist’s complaint in her dissent about the federal law that refers to those who do these partial-birth abortions as “abortion doctors.” Madam Justice Ginsburg bristles at that phrase.

Throughout, the opinion [in Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007] refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctor.” Ante, at 14, 24, 25, 31, 33. A fetus is described as an “unborn child,” and as a “baby,” ante, at 3, 8;

I bristle at it, too. And this may be the only thing in this world where I agree with Justice Ginsburg. I also believe they should not be called abortion doctors. But that’s because I refer to those who do these acts as abortionists.

I have spent almost my entire life around hospitals. My mother was a most efficient telephone operator whose job required her to transmit verbal messages to doctors and nurses with speed and accuracy. As a young boy, I marveled at the way she could say “Dr. Talbot, our otolaryngologist…” What is that, I asked her? An ear, nose, and throat specialist.

Later, I married a medical administrator in the Navy. Medical specialties were her specialty, too: Internist, psychiatrist, neurologist, dermatologist, ophthalmologist, and cardiologist. We knew all the “ists” there were, or thought so.

So why, Justice Ginsburg, would you object if we call Kermit Gosnell an abortionist? What we are hearing in a Philadelphia courtroom about his so-called practice? Did he do anything else except abortions?

You believe there is nothing morally wrong with abortions. You have never expressed the slightest qualm about a single one of the 55,000,000 abortions done in Americasince Roe v. Wade in 1973. How can calling the person who does these acts and only these acts an abortionist possibly be “pejorative” in your eyes?

It seems you cannot bear even to hear other Americans express their revulsion at tearing unborn children limb-from-limb.

Justice Ginsburg’s angry dissent is a prime example of what the pro-abortion editors of California Medicine meant when they wrote their famous editorial prior to Roe.

Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.

Killing continues to be socially abhorrent, unless those socially impeccable folks want to call it “choice.” We have an entire political party, once my party that wins Olympic gold medals for semantic gymnastics by separating the idea of killing from the idea of abortion. They will wax indignant and accuse you of waging a “war on women” if you try to pass protective legislation. They rage against the Virginia regulations that say you ought to be able to get a gurney through their dark and narrow passageways of your abortion facility in case of an emergency. In case a woman has been so unfortunate as to submit herself to a practitioner like Kermit Gosnell.

Think of Gosnell’s slaughterhouse when you hear those semantic gymnasts howling about laws and regulations that protect mothers and their unborn children.

Abortion is nothing but the taking of a human life, an innocent human life. It is unjust. It is the very essence of injustice. Lincoln mildly said to the sophisticates of his day that if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. We all agree with that, now. But we say to the socially impeccables of our time that if abortion is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.

The tragedy of America today is that we have four and maybe five justices sitting on our Supreme Court who have no idea what justice is.

Bringing Abortion into the Light

by Family Research Council

February 4, 2011

Today at Time’s Healthand blog Bonnie Rochman profoundly misses the mark on the crux of the PA Abortion Clinic Tragedy in her article “Philly Abortion Horrors: What Matters is How and Not When an Abortion is Done, Says Expert“. In short, Rochman diagnoses the real problem in the Gosnell story as a matter of “bad technique.”

Let’s be clear about what Rochman is describing as an issue of technique: Gosnell delivered born-alive babies and then proceeded to slit their necks, thereby severing the spinal chord, or, in at least one case, simply slitting the throat of the newly born baby.

As awful as this “technique” sounds, the truth is that because abortion is a procedure that takes something healthy (i.e., a living baby) and very deeply inside a woman out in an unnatural way, its is ALWAYS invasive and difficult. This is in part why so many women suffer post traumatic syndrome following an abortion.

Consider the most popular abortion procedures: a D & C vacuums out baby parts with an instrument 29 times as powerful as a household vacuum. A D & E involves the doctor tearing parts of the baby and pulling them out of the woman with forceps. The abortion pill, RU486, starves a developing baby of protein it needs to survive its first ten weeks of development.

The truth is that all abortion is “bad technique” because it is violent and deeply invasive and unnatural. The Philadelphia story simply brings the dark reality of abortion into the light.

Archives